THE
BOOK OF THE
STATES
2010 EDITION VOLUME 42
The Council of State Governments Lexington, Kentucky Headquarters: (859) 244-8000 Fax: (859) 244-8001 Internet: www.csg.org
Sharing capitol ideas. Headquarters: David Adkins, Executive Director/CEO 2760 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578-1910 Phone: (859) 244-8000 Internet: www.csg.org
Southern: Colleen Cousineau, Director P.O. Box 98129 Atlanta, GA 30359 Phone: (404) 633-1866 Internet: www.slcatlanta.org
Eastern: Wendell M. Hannaford, Director 100 Wall Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 482-2320 Internet: www.csgeast.org
Western: Kent Briggs, Director 1107 9th Street, Suite 730 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 553-4423 Internet: www.csgwest.org
Midwestern: Michael H. McCabe, Director 701 E. 22nd Street, Suite 110 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 925-1922 Internet: www.csgmidwest.org
Washington, D.C.: Christopher Whatley, Director 444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 624-5460 Internet: www.csg.org
Copyright 2010 The Council of State Governments 2760 Research Park Drive • P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, Kentucky 40578-1910 Manufactured in the United States of America Publication Sales Department 1(800) 800-1910
Paperback Price: $99.00 ISBN # 978-0-87292-767-4
Hard Cover Price: $125.00 ISBN # 978-0-87292-766-7
All rights reserved. Inquiries for use of any material should be directed to: The Council of State Governments P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, Kentucky 40578-1910 (859) 244-8000
Foreword Imagine a time before Google, Wikipedia, the Internet, e-mail or personal computers. Imagine a time when there was no fax machine, photocopier, cell phone or inkjet printer. Imagine a time before Medicare, Medicaid or the Interstate Highway System. Imagine a time before there were 50 states. The year was 1935, 75 years ago, and by publishing the first edition of The Book of the States, The Council of State Governments debuted what would become the premier compilation of information about the states and territories. Since that original volume, much has changed, and yet much of what prompted the leaders at CSG to begin to publish the book remains the same. Since our founding in 1933, The Council of State Governments has always had at its core a simple but compelling mission—to connect, inform and empower state leaders with the goal of providing them with the tools to build strong states. The most eloquent expression of the liberty and freedom that is the American birthright is our tradition of self-government. State leaders come from all walks of life. They are vested by the voters, their constituents, with an obligation to craft the laws by which each state charts its destiny. The pursuit of this obligation requires a sacrifice on the part of the state leaders and their families. My experience tells me that most state leaders pursue their service with selflessness and a great sense of responsibility. They are servant leaders. State leaders govern where Americans live, meaning they confront the issues that truly impact the day to day lives of the citizens they serve. They themselves have to live with the laws they propose and enact. One of the great strengths of this tradition of citizen service is that many diverse views are represented among those chosen to govern any state. At The Council of State Governments, we believe that when state leaders connect with one another good things happen. That is why we work so hard to provide a variety of meaningful nonpartisan, civil spaces in which state leaders can discuss their priorities and challenges. Such forums give leaders the chance to share their expertise, their experience and their successes, and the chance to learn from the failures of others. Leaders support each other, encourage each other and expand their own understanding of the issues facing the states. We also believe knowledge is power. Too much of modern politics is clouded by the “post fact” age we live in. The “truth” often becomes whatever someone is willing to say it is. But serious leaders know facts matter. Now more than ever state leaders are hungry for the kind of evidence-based, datadriven solutions that only solid knowledge and information can help them achieve. We believe that state leaders through their passion, commitment, experience and perspective can convert knowledge to wisdom and marshal that wisdom for the benefit of their state and those they serve. The Book of the States is America’s leading resource for information about state government. Its longevity makes it an invaluable resource for researchers tracking trends over time. It has proved to be a useful resource for those attempting to determine how decisions of a state impacted outcomes within that state. These conclusions can often only be reached by comparing one state’s performance against the other states. Libraries around the country count on The Book of the States to provide their users with up-to-date, accurate information on how the states are evolving to meet the needs of today’s citizens. iii
As a user of The Book of the States, your input would be greatly appreciated. Let us know how you have used this book; what you found particularly useful and what you would like to see included in future editions. We want to make sure this publication continues to meet the needs of its users and remains a relevant resource for state leaders. CSG also publishes a treasure trove of information on our Web site, a place where you will find CSG’s new online interactive policy database and clearinghouse, called the Knowledge Center, and I would encourage you to check out the resources available at www.csg.org. The publication of The Book of the States reflects CSG’s ongoing commitment to inform state leaders and to allow them to apply that knowledge in ways that empower them to make a difference. We are honored to work with them in their pursuit of building stronger states. Since the first edition of The Book of the States, the population of the U.S. has grown from 125 million to more than 306 million. The problems confronting state leaders and the scope of state government have expanded dramatically. The need for such a resource has never been greater, and at CSG our commitment is to continue to find ways to collect and convey information in ways that allow solutions to be found— empowering state leaders to continue their pursuit of our system of self-government. This edition of The Book of the States is dedicated to the outstanding staff members of The Council of State Governments, and their trusted partners in the states, whose devotion to the task of compiling and publishing this compelling compendium of information makes The Book of the States America’s leading resource on state-specific information. Special thanks goes to Audrey Wall and the CSG Communications Team for their tireless work in making the 75th Anniversary Edition one that carries on the CSG tradition of making a difference for those that make a difference. May 2010
iv
David Adkins Executive Director/CEO The Council of State Governments
The Council of State Governments is the premier multibranch organization forecasting policy trends for the community of states, commonwealths and territories on a national and regional basis. CSG alerts state elected and appointed officials to emerging social, economic and political trends; offers innovative state policy responses to rapidly changing conditions; and advocates multistate problemsolving to maximize resources and competitiveness. CSG promotes excellence in decision-making and leadership skills and champions state sovereignty.
Staff Acknowledgements The staff wishes to thank the authors who shared their expertise and insights, the hundreds of individuals in the states who responded to surveys conducted by The Council of State Governments, national organizations of state officials, federal agencies and think tank organizations who made their most recent data and information available for this volume.
The Book of the States 2010 Managing Editor........ Audrey S. Wall Associate Editor......... Heather M. Perkins Graphic Designers...... Lisa K. Eads Chris Pryor Jessica Hughes Rebecca Field
Other CSG Staff Contributors....... Jennifer M. Burnett Kasey D. Cooke Nathan Dickerson Wanda Fowler Carol Kaulig
Copy Editors............... Mary Branham Mikel Chavers Jennifer Ginn
v
CONTENTS
Table of Contents FOREWORD...........................................................................................................................................iii Chapter One
STATE CONSTITUTIONS............................................................................................................................1 ARTICLE
State Constitutional Developments in 2009 John Dinan.......................................................................................................................................3 Table A State Constitutional Changes By Method of Initiation: 2004–05, 2006–07 and 2008–09......................................................................................5 Table B Substantive Changes in State Constitutions: Proposed and Adopted: 2004–05, 2006–07 and 2008–09......................................................................................6 Table C State Constitutional Changes By Legislative and Initiative Proposal: 2009...........7 TABLES
State Constitutions 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
General Information on State Constitutions (As of January 1, 2010)...................11 Constitutional Amendment Procedure: By the Legislature (Constitutional Provisions).........................................................................................13 Constitutional Amendment Procedure: By Initiative (Constitutional Provisions).........................................................................................15 Procedures for Calling Constitutional Conventions................................................16
Chapter Two
FEDERALISM AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.............................................................................19 ARTICLES
State-Federal Relations: Cooperative Coercion John Kincaid...................................................................................................................................21
State-Local Relations Trends Joseph F. Zimmerman...................................................................................................................31
The State of State Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations: Do They Continue to Have a Role in the U.S. Federal System? Richard Cole..................................................................................................................................36 Figure A Percent of Time Devoted to Activities............................................................................39 Table A The State ACIRs...........................................................................................................37 Table B Organization and Structure Characteristics..............................................................38 Table C Staffing and Financial Characteristics........................................................................38 Table D Setting and Utilization of Work Agenda...................................................................39 Table E Extent of Engagement in Various Activities.............................................................40 Table F Factors Contributing to Agency Success, Advice for Success, and Steps to Avoid.......................................................................................................41 TABLES
Federal Aid 2.1 2.2 2.3
Summary of State Intergovernmental Expenditures: 1944–2008...........................45 State Intergovernmental Expenditures, By State: 1999–2008.................................47 State Intergovernmental Expenditures, By Function and By State: 2008.............49
The Council of State Governments vii
CONTENTS 2.4 2.5
State Intergovernmental Expenditures, By Type of Receiving Government and By State: 2008........................................................................................................50 State Intergovernmental Revenue from Federal and Local Governments: 2008................................................................................................................................51
Federal and State Finances 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18
Summary of Federal Government Expenditure, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008............................................................................................................53 Federal Government Expenditure for Direct Payments for Individuals for Retirement and Disability, for Selected Programs, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008.................................................................................54 Federal Government Expenditure for Direct Payments Other than for Retirement and Disability, for Selected Programs, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008.................................................................................56 Federal Government Expenditure for Grants, By Agency, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008..........................................................................58 Federal Government Expenditure for Procurement Contracts, By Agency, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008..........................................................62 Federal Government Expenditure for Salaries and Wages, By Agency, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008..........................................................67 Federal Government Direct Loan Programs—Volume of Assistance Provided By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008.........................................72 Federal Government Guaranteed Loan Programs—Volume of Coverage Provided by State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008 .........................................74 Federal Government Insurance Programs—Volume of Coverage Provided By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008 .........................................................76 Per Capita Amounts of Federal Government Expenditure, By Major Object Category, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008...........78 Percent Distribution of Federal Government Expenditure, By Major Object Category, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008...........79 Federal Government Expenditure for Defense Department and all Other Agencies, By State and Outlying Area: Fiscal Year 2008.............................80 State Rankings For Per Capita Amounts of Federal Government Expenditure: Fiscal Year 2008...............................................81
Chapter Three
STATE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH..................................................................................................................83 ARTICLES
75 Years of Institutional Change in the State Legislatures Karl T. Kurtz...................................................................................................................................85 Table A State Legislative Membership and District Populations, 1933 and 2009...............86 Table B Length of Legislative Terms of Office........................................................................87 Table C Legislative Compensation Comparison.....................................................................87 Table D Number of Standing Committees...............................................................................89
2009 Legislative Elections Tim Storey......................................................................................................................................91 Figure A State Legislative Party Control, 2010..............................................................……...92 Figure B State Government Control, 2010.....................................................................……...93 Figure C Projected U.S. House Reapportionment, 2010..........................................................94
viii The Book of the States 2010
CONTENTS TABLES
State Legislatures 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3A 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27
Names of State Legislative Bodies and Convening Places......................................96 Legislative Sessions: Legal Provisions.......................................................................97 The Legislators: Numbers, Terms, and Party Affiliations: 2010.............................101 The Legislators: Numbers, Terms, and Party Affiliations By Region: 2010..........103 Membership Turnover in the Legislatures: 2009.....................................................104 The Legislators: Qualifications for Election............................................................105 Senate Leadership Positions: Methods of Selection...............................................107 House/Assembly Leadership Positions: Methods of Selection.............................109 Method of Setting Legislative Compensation........................................................111 Legislative Compensation and Living Expense Allowances During Sessions....113 Legislative Compensation: Other Payments and Benefits....................................117 Additional Compensation for Senate Leaders ......................................................123 Additional Compensation for House/Assembly Leaders.....................................126 State Legislative Retirement Benefits.....................................................................129 Bill Pre-Filing, Reference and Carryover................................................................135 Time Limits on Bill Introduction..............................................................................137 Enacting Legislation: Veto, Veto Override and Effective Date............................140 Legislative Appropriations Process: Budget Documents and Bills......................143 Fiscal Notes: Content and Distribution...................................................................145 Bill and Resolution Introductions and Enactments: 2009 Regular Sessions.......147 Bill and Resolution Introductions and Enactments: 2009 Special Sessions........149 Staff for Individual Legislators.................................................................................151 Staff for Legislative Standing Committees..............................................................153 Standing Committees: Appointment and Number.................................................155 Rules Adoption and Standing Committees: Procedure.........................................157 Legislative Review of Administrative Regulations: Structures and Procedures........................................................................................163 Legislative Review of Administrative Rules/Regulations: Powers......................167 Summary of Sunset Legislation................................................................................170
Chapter Four
STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH..................................................................................................................175 ARTICLES
The State of the States: Governors Focus on Performance in Time of Deficits Katherine Willoughby.................................................................................................................177 Table A Issues Expressed by Governors State of the State Addresses, 2007–2010...........180 Table B Federal Prosecutions of Public Corruption: Proportion of Total Officials Prosecuted, By Prosecution Status...........................................................................182
Gubernatorial Elections, Campaign Costs and Powers Thad Beyle....................................................................................................................................185 Figure A Gubernatorial Elections Expenditures . .................................................................191 Table A Gubernatorial Elections: 1970–2009........................................................................186 Table B Total Costs of Gubernatorial Elections: 1977–2008...............................................189 Table C Cost of Gubernatorial Campaigns, Most Recent Elections, 2005–2008...............190 Table D Women Governors in the States...............................................................................192 Table E Impeachments and Removals of Governors...........................................................194 Table F New Governors Elected Each 4-Year Period, 1970–2009.....................................195
The Council of State Governments ix
CONTENTS TABLES
Governors 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
The Governors, 2010..................................................................................................196 The Governors: Qualifications for Office................................................................198 The Governors: Compensation, Staff, Travel and Residence................................199 The Governors: Powers..............................................................................................201 Gubernatorial Executive Orders: Authorization, Provisions, Procedures...........203 State Cabinet Systems................................................................................................205 The Governors: Provisions and Procedures for Transition....................................207
Executive Branch 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11
Impeachment Provisions in the States.....................................................................209 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions for Number of Consecutive Terms of Elected State Officials.........................................................211 Selected State Administrative Officials: Methods of Selection.............................213 Selected State Administrative Officials: Annual Salaries By Region..................219
ARTICLE
Office of Lieutenant Governor: Unheralded but Critical Leadership Julia Hurst....................................................................................................................................225 TABLES
Lieutenant Governors 4.12 4.13 4.14
Lieutenant Governors, 2010......................................................................................229 Lieutenant Governors: Qualifications and Terms...................................................231 Lieutenant Governors: Powers and Duties.............................................................232
ARTICLE
Will States Fall in Line for 2010? Coordinating on the Timing and Order of the Presidential Nominating Calendar Kay Stimson ................................................................................................................................234 TABLES
Secretaries of State 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18
The Secretaries of State, 2010...................................................................................238 Secretaries of State: Qualifications for Office.........................................................240 Secretaries of State: Election and Registration Duties..........................................241 Secretaries of State: Custodial, Publication and Legislative Duties.....................243
ARTICLE
Cybercrime, Consumer Protection and Tobacco Settlement are Top Issues for State Attorneys General in 2010 The National Association of Attorneys General.....................................................................245 TABLES
Attorneys General 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22
The Attorneys General, 2010....................................................................................249 Attorneys General: Qualifications for Office..........................................................251 Attorneys General: Prosecutorial and Advisory Duties........................................252 Attorneys General: Consumer Protection Activities, Subpoena Powers and Antitrust Duties..................................................................................................254
x  The Book of the States 2010
CONTENTS 4.23
Attorneys General: Duties to Administrative Agencies and Other Responsibilities...........................................................................................................256
ARTICLE
State Debt in a Time of Turmoil Kevin Johnson..............................................................................................................................258 Figure A Total Year-End Issuance Amount, By Sector ........................................................259 Figure B Build America Bond Issuances through November 2009......................................260 TABLES
Treasurers 4.24 4.25 4.26
Treasurers, 2010..........................................................................................................263 Treasurers: Qualifications for Office........................................................................264 Responsibilities of the Treasurer’s Office................................................................265
ARTICLE
Collaboration Ushers in a New Era of Government Accountability Glen B. Ganier III........................................................................................................................266 TABLES
Auditors and Comptrollers 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32
State Auditors, 2010....................................................................................................270 State Auditors: Scope of Agency Authority.............................................................272 State Auditors: Types of Audits.................................................................................274 State Comptrollers, 2010............................................................................................276 State Comptrollers Qualifications for Office..........................................................278 State Comptrollers: Duties and Responsibilities . .................................................279
Chapter Five
STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH.....................................................................................................................281 ARTICLEs
Facing Down a Budget Crisis, Rising Workloads, Two Judicial Elections and Living with Facebook: The State Courts in 2009 David Rottman and Jesse Rutledge..........................................................................................283
State Courts and the Budget Crisis: Rethinking Court Services Richard Y. Schauffler and Matthew Kleiman...........................................................................289
Constructive State Court Intervention: Turning Crisis into Opportunity Judith S. Kaye...............................................................................................................................295 TABLES
State Courts 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
State Courts of Last Resort.......................................................................................298 State Intermediate Appellate Courts and General Trial Courts: Number of Judges and Terms....................................................................................300 Qualifications of Judges of State Appellate Courts and General Trial Courts...302 Compensation of Judges of Appellate Courts and General Trial Courts............304 Selected Data on Court Administrative Offices.....................................................306 Selection and Retention of Appellate Court Judges..............................................307 Selection and Retention of Trial Court Judges ......................................................310 Judicial Discipline: Investigating and Adjudicating Bodies..................................315
The Council of State Governments xi
CONTENTS Chapter Six
ELECTIONS..........................................................................................................................................319 ARTICLEs
Elections Changes Mean Many Questions for States, but Few Sufficient Answers R. Doug Lewis..............................................................................................................................321
A Case Study on Direct Democracy: Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget? John G. Matsusaka.......................................................................................................................324 Table A Amount of California State Spending Appropriated by Initiatives, 2009–10.....326 Table B Initiative Constraints on Revenue Increases in California, 2009–10....................327 Appendix Estimating the Initiative’s Impact on California Spending, 2009–10...................329 TABLES
Elections 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8
State Executive Branch Officials to be Elected: 2010–2014..................................330 State Legislatures: Members to be Elected: 2010–2014.........................................332 Methods of Nominating Candidates for State Offices...........................................334 Election Dates for National and State Elections....................................................336 Polling Hours: General Elections.............................................................................339 Voter Registration Information................................................................................341 Voting Statistics for Gubernatorial Elections By Region.....................................344 Voter Turnout for Presidential Elections By Region: 2000, 2004 and 2008.........346
ARTICLE
2009 Ballot Propositions John G. Matsusaka.......................................................................................................................347 Figure A Number of Initiatives by Decade.............................................................................349 Table A State-by-State Totals for 2009...................................................................................348 Table B Complete List of Statewide Ballot Propositions in 2009.......................................350 Table C Complete List of Propositions Banning Same-Sex Marriage...............................351 TABLES
Initiative and Referendum 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17
Statewide Initiative and Referendum......................................................................352 State Initiatives: Requesting Permission to Circulate a Petition..........................354 State Initiatives: Circulating the Petition.................................................................356 State Initiatives: Preparing the Initiative to be Placed on the Ballot...................358 State Initiatives: Voting on the Initiative.................................................................360 State Referendums: Requesting Permission to Circulate a Citizen Petition......362 State Referendums: Circulating the Citizen Petition.............................................364 State Referendums: Preparing the Citizen Petition Referendum to be Placed on the Ballot...................................................................................................366 State Referendums: Voting on the Citizen Petition Referendum........................368
Recall 6.18 6.19 6.20
State Recall Provisions..............................................................................................370 State Recall Provisions: Applicability to State Officials and Petition Circulation....................................................................................................373 State Recall Provisions: Petition Review, Appeal and Election...........................375
xii The Book of the States 2010
CONTENTS Chapter Seven
STATE FINANCE...................................................................................................................................379 ARTICLEs
State Budgets in 2009 and 2010: In the Midst of Arguably the Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great Depression, States Experience Record Declines in Revenue and State Spending Brian Sigritz..................................................................................................................................381
The Stimulus at One: Economic Success and Political Failure Chris Whatley...............................................................................................................................386 Table A Green Jobs Created or Saved Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.........................................................................................388 TABLES
State Finance 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8
Fiscal 2008 State General Fund, Actual, By Region..............................................389 Fiscal 2009 State General Fund, Preliminary Actual, By Region.........................391 Fiscal 2010 State General Fund, Appropriated, By Region..................................394 Fiscal 2009 Tax Collections Compared With Projections Used in Adopting Fiscal 2009 Budgets, By Region................................................................................396 Comparison of Tax Collections in Fiscal 2008, Fiscal 2009 and Enacted Fiscal 2010, By Region................................................................................398 Total State Expenditures: Capital Inclusive, By Region........................................400 Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures By State and Region.......402 Medicaid Expenditures By State and Region.........................................................404
ARTICLE
State Budgets Remain Very Tight Even as the Recovery Begins William F. Fox...............................................................................................................................406 Figure A State Tax Collections as a Percentage of Personal Income, 1993–2009...............408 Table A Change in U.S. Employment.....................................................................................407 TABLES
Taxes 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18
State Tax Amnesty Programs—1982–2009..............................................................411 State Excise Tax Rates (As of January 1, 2010)......................................................413 Food and Drug Sales Tax Exemptions (As of January 1, 2010)............................415 State Individual Income Taxes (As of January 1, 2010).........................................416 State Personal Income Taxes: Federal Starting Points (As of January 1, 2010)....418 Range of State Corporate Income Tax Rates (As of January 1, 2010)................419 State Severance Taxes 2009.......................................................................................421 State Government Tax Revenue, By Selected Types of Tax: 2008........................426 State Government Sales and Gross Receipts Tax Revenue: 2008........................428 State Government License Tax Revenue: 2008......................................................430
Revenue and Expenditure 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 7.23 7.24
Summary of Financial Aggregates, By State: 2008.................................................432 National Totals of State Government Finances for Selected Years: 2004–2008....433 State General Revenue, By Source and State: 2008...............................................434 State Expenditure, By Character and Object and By State: 2008........................436 State General Expenditure, By Function and By State: 2008...............................438 State Debt Outstanding at End of Fiscal Year, By State: 2008.............................440
The Council of State Governments xiii
CONTENTS
Retirement 7.25 7.26 7.27
Number and Membership of State and Local Government Employee-Retirement Systems By State: Fiscal Year 2007–08.............................441 Finances of State-Administered Employee Retirement Systems, By State: Fiscal Year 2008..........................................................................................442 National Summary of State and Local Public Employee Retirement System Finances: Selected Years, 2003–2008...........................................................443
Chapter Eight
STATE MANAGEMENT, administration AND demographics............................................................445 ARTICLES
Migration Slowdown in America: Trends and Impacts William H. Frey............................................................................................................................447 Figure A Annual Domestic Migration Rate, United States, 1947–48 to 2008–09...............448 Figure B Within-County and Interstate Migration Rates, United States, 1990–91 to 2008–09.....................................................................................................449 Figure C Interstate Migration Rate by Age, United States, 2000–01 and 2008–09.............451 Figure D Interstate Migration Rate by Demographic/Economic Attributes, United States, 2000–01 to 2008–09...........................................................................452 Figure E Net Domestic Migration, Florida, Texas, and California, 2000–01 to 2007–08....456 Figure F Contribution to Net Domestic Migration by Region for Florida, Texas, and California, 2000–01 to 2007–08..........................................................................455 Figure G Net Domestic Migration, Selected Metro Areas by State/Region, 2000–01 to 2007–08.....................................................................................................460 Map A Change in Migration Level, 2006–07 to 2007–08....................................................453 Table A Reasons for Moving: Total, Within County, and Between State, 2004–05 and 2008–09..................................................................................................450 Table B Net Domestic Migration and International Migration, Large Metro Areas by Region, 2000 to 2008...........................................................454 Table C Top Five Sources and Destinations for Net Domestic Migration, Selected States, 2004–05 to 2007–08.........................................................................457 Table D Net Domestic Migration by Demographic Characteristics, Florida, Texas and California, 2004–05 and 2007–08............................................................458 Table E Metro Areas with Highest Annual Net Domestic Migration, 2003–04 to 2007–08.....................................................................................................459 Table F Net Domestic Migration and International Migration, U.S. States, 2000 to 2008.................................................................................................................461 Table G Annual Net International and Domestic Migration, Largest Immigrant Destination Metro Areas, 2000–01 to 2007–08......................462
Statewide Performance Measurement Initiatives Jennifer Burnett...........................................................................................................................465 Figure A What Questions Are We Trying to Answer?...........................................................466
Utah’s Four-Day Workweek: A Win-Win Solution Jeff C. Herring..............................................................................................................................470 TABLES
Public Employment 8.1 8.2 8.3
Summary of State Government Employment: 1953–2008....................................472 Employment and Payrolls of State and Local Governments By Function: March 2008...........................................................................................473 State and Local Government Employment By State: March 2008......................474
xiv The Book of the States 2010
CONTENTS 8.4 8.5 8.6
State and Local Government Payrolls and Average Earnings of Full-Time Employees, By State: March 2008..........................................................475 State Government Employment (Full-Time Equivalent), For Selected Functions, By State: March 2008........................................................476 State Government Payrolls for Selected Functions, By State: March 2008.........477
Chapter Nine
SELECTED STATE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS.........................................................................................479 ARTICLES
Protecting Past Investments and Developing Creative Solutions in a Troublesome Budget Environment Beverly Bell..................................................................................................................................481 Table A State Emergency Management: Agency Structure, Budget and Staffing.............483 Table B State Homeland Security Structures........................................................................485
Overcoming Adolescent Literacy Hurdles Should be a Priority, Experts Say Tim Weldon..................................................................................................................................488 Table A NAEP Comparisons—2007 Eighth Grade Reading Scores..................................489 TABLES
Education 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7
Number and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, By State or Jurisdiction: School Year 2007–08........................................................494 Total Student Membership, Student/Teacher Ratio, and Number of Staff for Public School: School Year 2007–08...................................................................496 Public School Graduation and Dropout Rates: School Year 2006–07.................498 Total Revenues, Percentage Distribution and Revenues per Pupil for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, By Source and State or Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year 2007....................................................................................500 Total Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Fiscal Year 2007..........................................................................................................501 Current Expenditures and Percentage Distribution for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, By Function and State or Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year 2007..........................................................................................................503 Current Instruction and Instruction-Related Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, By Object and State or Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year 2007......................................................................505
ARTICLE
Community Colleges Struggling with Tighter Budgets and Record-High Enrollments Jennifer Ginn................................................................................................................................507 TABLES
Higher Education 9.8 9.9 9.10
Average Undergraduate Tuition and Fees and Room and Board Rates in Institutions of Higher Education, By Control of Institution and State: 2006–2007 and 2007–2008..........................................................................................511 Degree Granting Institutions and Branches, By Type and Control of Institutions, 2007–2008..........................................................................................513 Average Salary of Full-time Faculty on 9-Month Contracts: 2006–2007.............515
The Council of State Governments xv
CONTENTS ARTICLES
Health Care Reform: Six Ways It Will Affect States Kate Tormey and Debra Miller..................................................................................................517 Figure A Selected Provisions of Federal Health Care Reform Legislation Effective in 2010..........................................................................................................................519 Figure B Timeline for Implementation of Selected Provisions of Federal Health Care Reform Legislation, 2011 and Beyond................................522 Table A Income Eligibility Level as a Percent of Federal Poverty Level..........................518 Table B High Risk Insurance Pools........................................................................................520
Expedited Partner Therapy: Innovative Health Policy Reduces Sexually Transmitted Infections and Prevents Infertility Ann V. Kelly.................................................................................................................................524 Table A Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections.......................................................530 TABLES
Healthcare 9.11 9.12
Health Insurance Coverage Status By State for All People: By Region 2008....532 Number and Percent of Children Under 19 Years of Age, At or Below 200 Percent of Poverty, By Health Insurance Coverage, State and Region: 2008..............................................................................................533
ARTICLES
Determining Environmental Limits to Streamflow Depletion across Michigan David A. Hamilton and Paul W. Seelbach................................................................................534 Figure A Example of Risk-based Water Management Zones...............................................535 Table A Cumulative Percent Reductions in Stream Index Flow Allowed per 2008 Michigan Legislation, by Ecological Stream Type and Management Zone.....................................................................................................536
Transportation Finance and the States: Stopgap Solutions and Indecision Spell an Uncertain Future Sean Slone....................................................................................................................................538 Table A State Funding Sources for Transportation...............................................................540 TABLES
Highways 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16
Revenues Used By States for Highways, By Region: 2008....................................543 State Disbursements for Highways, By Region: 2008............................................545 Public Road Length Miles By Ownership: 2008.....................................................547 Apportionment of Federal Funds Administered By the Federal Highway Administration By Region: Fiscal Year 2009............................549
Criminal Justice/Corrections 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23
Trends in State Prison Population By Region, 2000, 2007 and 2008.....................551 Number of Sentenced Prisoners Admitted and Released from State and Federal Jurisdiction, By Region: 2000, 2007 and 2008............................................552 State Prison Capacities, By Region: 2008................................................................553 Adults on Probation By Region: 2008.....................................................................554 Adults on Parole By Region: 2008...........................................................................556 Adults Leaving Parole By Type of Exit, By Region...............................................558 Capitol Punishment....................................................................................................560
xvi  The Book of the States 2010
CONTENTS Chapter Ten
STATE PAGES......................................................................................................................................563 TABLES 10.1
Official Names of States and Jurisdictions, Capitals, Zip Codes and Central Switchboards.................................................................................................565 10.2 Historical Data on the States....................................................................................566 10.3 State Statistics.............................................................................................................568 10.4 Per Capita Personal Income, Personal Income, and Population, By State and Region, 2008–2009...............................................................................570 State Pages....................................................................................................................................572
INDEX................................................................................................................................................601
The Council of State Governments xvii
Chapter One state constitutions...................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter Two federalism and intergovernmental relations....................................................................... 19 Chapter Three state legislative branch............................................................................................................ 83 Chapter Four state executive branch............................................................................................................ 175 Chapter Five state judicial branch............................................................................................................... 281 Chapter Six elections.................................................................................................................................... 319 Chapter Seven state finance............................................................................................................................. 379 Chapter Eight state management, administration and demographics...................................................... 445 Chapter Nine selected state policies and programs.................................................................................... 479 Chapter Ten state pages................................................................................................................................ 563
index.......................................................................................................................................... 601
Chapter One
STATE CONSTITUTIONS
state constitutions
State Constitutional Developments in 2009 By John Dinan Odd-numbered years typically generate relatively few state constitutional amendments, and 2009 was particularly quiet, even compared with previous odd-year elections. Voters in only five states considered 21 amendments. The most high-profile amendments were a package of California measures that were intended to address the state’s budget shortfall but were largely rejected in a May special election. Meanwhile, Ohio voters approved an amendment authorizing casino gambling and Texas voters approved an amendment restricting use of the eminent domain power. Much of the attention focused on the future—on preparing amendments for the 2010 ballot. Relatively few state constitutional amendments appeared on the ballot in 2009, as is typical of odd-numbered years. Several amendments attracted a fair amount of attention, however, particularly in California, where voters in a May special election rejected all but one amendment in a package of measures intended to address the state’s budget deficit. Other notable amendments authorized casino gambling in Ohio and restricted use of eminent domain in Texas. Much of the attention focused on qualifying constitutional amendments for the 2010 ballot, which will feature measures addressing high-profile issues such as affirmative action, gun rights and targeting federal health-care and union-organizing legislation. Attention also turned to preparing for possible constitutional conventions. Convention referendums will appear on the ballot in 2010 in Iowa, Maryland, Michigan and Montana.
Constitutional Amendment and Revision Methods Constitutional amendments appeared on the ballot in 2009 in only five states, which is far fewer than the 30 states that voted on amendments in 2008 and fewer even than the eight states that voted on amendments in 2007, the last odd-year election. A total of 21 amendments appeared on the ballot in 2009 and 17 were approved. Again, this represents a significant drop-off not only from 2008, when 111 amendments were submitted to voters and 67 were approved, but also from 2007, when 34 amendments were submitted to voters and 33 amendments were approved. It is notable that Texas alone accounted for more than half of the amendments considered (11 of 21) and approved (11 of 17) by voters in 2009.
Legislative Proposals and Constitutional Initiatives All 21 amendments on the 2009 ballot were proposed by legislatures or via the initiative process. Twenty amendments were proposed by legislatures and 16—or 80 percent—of them were approved by voters. This is generally in line with recent passage rates for legislative-proposed amendments. Only one amendment was proposed via the constitutional initiative process and it was approved. In general, fewer than half of voter-initiated amendments have been approved at the polls in recent years. Constitutional Commissions Although no amendments on the 2009 ballot were proposed by constitutional commissions, the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission was active in holding hearings and considering changes to the Utah Constitution. The Utah commission is unique in that it has an ongoing charge to propose constitutional amendments; these amendments must then be approved by the legislature before they are submitted for popular ratification. The commission also plays a role in advising legislators on proposed amendments. A key issue for the commission in 2009 was a proposed amendment stipulating the legislature, rather than the courts, has the authority to establish procedures for post-conviction relief in criminal cases. Ultimately, and due in large part to the work of the commission, it was determined that this matter could best be addressed through adoption of a state supreme court rule and passage of a legislative statute, without the need for the legislature to resort to a constitutional amendment.
The Council of State Governments 3
state constitutions
Constitutional Conventions No conventions were operating in the 50 states in 2009; however, a convention that had been meeting in the U.S. Virgin Islands since October 2007 concluded its work in May 2009. Three U.S. territories have constitutions: Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands (where voters in 2009 approved all three amendments submitted by the legislature). However, Guam and the Virgin Islands do not have territorial constitutions, and the purpose of the Virgin Islands convention (the fifth held in that territory) was to draft an inaugural constitution. On May 26, 2009, twenty of the 30 delegates to the convention approved a draft constitution. It was submitted to Gov. John DeJongh Jr., who is required to approve it before it is submitted to the U.S. President and Congress and then the voters of the territory. After receiving a legal opinion from the Virgin Islands attorney general stating the draft constitution failed to recognize the supremacy or protect certain rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, the governor on June 11, 2009, decided not to forward the draft constitution to the President and Congress, thereby bringing an end to the latest effort to draft a Virgin Islands Constitution.1 Although no state constitutional conventions have been held since 1992, when the Louisiana legislature called a convention comprised of legislators themselves, efforts were underway in several states in 2009 to build support for conventions. In Alabama, the group Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform continued to try to persuade the legislature to permit the people to vote on calling a convention to revise a constitution that is by far the longest of any state. In the 2009 legislative session, the state’s House Rules Committee eventually permitted debate on a convention referendum bill. However, convention supporters lost a key procedural vote by a 43–36 margin and decided not to press for a full vote once it appeared that the bill did not have the backing of a majority of members.2 In California, supporters of a constitutional convention worked to gather signatures for two initiative measures to be placed on the 2010 ballot that if approved, would lead to a convention. The first measure would amend the constitution to permit conventions to be called not only through legislative-referred measures (as is currently allowed) but also via the initiative process. The second measure would take advan4 The Book of the States 2010
tage of this new opportunity to call a convention through the initiative process, by calling for a convention and specifying the means of selecting delegates (many would be chosen randomly) and the topics they would be permitted to address. In February 2010, however, due to a shortage of funds, the group leading the convention effort, Repair California, suspended the campaign to qualify these measures for the 2010 ballot. Looking ahead to 2010, Iowa, Michigan, Maryland and Montana will hold referendums on whether to call conventions due to constitutional requirements that a convention question be submitted at periodic intervals in each of these states. Iowa requires that a referendum be held every 10 years. In Michigan, a referendum must be submitted every 16 years. Maryland and Montana require that referendums be held every 20 years. In 2012, another three states are scheduled to hold mandatory convention referendums— Alaska (every 10 years), New Hampshire (every 10 years), and Ohio (every 20 years)—meaning that seven of the 14 states with mandatory convention referendum requirements will hold referendums from 2010–2012. Still another mandatory convention referendum state, Oklahoma, is required to hold a vote every 20 years but has not done so since 1970. The Oklahoma legislature has in recent years considered complying with this constitutional requirement, most recently in 2009 when the senate approved a convention referendum by a 38–8 vote. However, the house failed to act, marking another year without a convention question being placed before Oklahoma voters.3 In general, voters have rejected these mandatory convention referendums; however, in the last four decades, this is the vehicle by which conventions have been called in New Hampshire (1974 and 1984), Hawaii (1978), and Rhode Island (1986). Moreover, in the last decade mandatory convention referendums have come close to passing on two other occasions: New Hampshire (2002) and Rhode Island (2004).4
Constitutional Changes Although most amendments approved in 2009 involved minor changes and did not generate much attention, a few were the subject of high-profile campaigns. This was particularly the case with a package of amendments in California designed to remedy the state’s budget imbalance and an Ohio amendment authorizing casino
state constitutions
Table A: State Constitutional Changes by Method of Initiation: 2004–05, 2006–07 and 2008–09 Number of states involved Method of initiation All methods................. Legislative proposal... Constitutional initiative................... convention............... commission..............
Total proposals
2004– 2006 – 2008– 2005 2007 2009
2004– 2005
40 38
37 36
32 31
166 127
13 . . . . . .
12 . . . . . .
10 . . . 1
39 . . . . . .
2006 – 2007
2008– 2009
200 (a)(d) 132 (e) 167 (a)(d) 98 (e) 33 . . . . . .
Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. Key: (a) Excludes Delaware, where proposals are not submitted to voters (b) Includes Delaware (c) In calculating the percentages, the amendments adopted in Delaware (where proposals are not submitted to voters) are excluded (2 amendments were adopted in 2007). (d) Excludes one Alabama amendment that was proposed by the legislature and appeared on the ballot but was determined by the
gambling. Attention also focused on efforts to qualify amendments for the 2010 ballot regarding rights issues such as affirmative action, abortion and guns; institutional issues such as judicial selection, redistricting and direct democracy; and policy questions concerning federal health care and union organizing legislation. Rights The only individual rights amendment on the 2009 ballot was a Texas measure prohibiting use of eminent domain for economic development purposes or increasing tax revenue. By approving this amendment, Texas became the ninth state to tighten its constitutional eminent domain provisions in this fashion in the aftermath of Kelo v. City of New London (2005). In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not bar use of eminent domain for economic development purposes; but it made clear that states were free to enact heightened restrictions. Additional eminent domain amendments could appear on other state ballots in coming years, including in Missouri, where efforts are under way to qualify a measure for the 2010 ballot via the initiative process. Constitutional amendments limiting affirmative action have in recent years qualified for the ballot via the initiative process and were approved in California (1996), Michigan (2006) and Nebraska (2008), but rejected at the polls in Colorado (2008). Washington voters also approved an initiated measure in 1998; but it was
30 . . . 4
Total adopted 2004– 2005 112 95 17 . . . . . .
2006 – 2007
Percentage adopted 2008– 2009
158 (b)(d) 84 (e) 147 (b)(d) 68 (e) 11 . . . . . .
13 . . . 3
2004– 2005
2006 – 2007
2008– 2009
67.5 74.8
78.0 (c) 86.8 (c)
63.6 69.4
43.6 . . . . . .
33.3 . . . . . .
43.3 ... 75.0
Governor’s office prior to the vote not to have received enough votes in the legislature to properly appear on the ballot, and thus even though the amendment was approved by voters in November 2006 and the vote totals were certified by the state canvassing board, the governor did not proclaim the results for the amendment and so it has not received an official amendment number. (e) Excludes one New Mexico amendment approved by voters in November 2008 but declared invalid by the state supreme court on single-subject grounds in December 2008.
in the form of a statutory change. No amendments of this sort appeared on the 2009 ballot. However, the Arizona legislature in 2009 approved an antiaffirmative action amendment for placement on the 2010 ballot, marking the first time that such an amendment has qualified via legislative referral rather than the initiative process. Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage and in some cases civil unions have appeared on state ballots with some frequency during the past decade. Hawaii and Alaska were the first states to adopt same-sex marriage amendments in 1998 in response to litigation that raised the possibility that state courts would require legalization of same-sex marriage. The Hawaii amendment is distinctive in that it does not prohibit same-sex marriage, but rather authorizes the legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Alaska amendment, like all of the others that followed, prohibits legalization of same-sex marriage. Nebraska (2000) and Nevada (2002) then approved amendments banning same-sex marriage, bringing to four the number of states with same-sex marriage amendments prior to issuance of a 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, which overturned the state’s restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples. In the years following this ruling, another 26 states adopted same-sex marriage amendments, including California, which in November 2008 became the first state to adopt an amendment overturning a state supreme court ruling legalThe Council of State Governments 5
state constitutions
Table B: Substantive Changes in State Constitutions: Proposed and Adopted: 2004–05, 2006–07 and 2008–09 Total proposed
Total adopted
Subject matter
2004– 2005
2006 – 2008– 2007 2009
Proposals of statewide applicability Bill of Rights.............................. Suffrage & elections.................. Legislative branch...................... Executive branch....................... Judicial branch........................... Local government...................... Finance & taxation.................... State & local debt...................... State functions........................... Amendment & revision............. General revision proposals....... Miscellaneous proposals........... Local amendments........................
138 16 14 14 5 10 4 33 7 14 1 0 20 28
172 (a) 30 (e) 7 12 1 8 (a) 1 65 10 5 1 0 32 28 (f)
123 (d) 16 11 13 5 1 3 37 6 4 0 0 27 9
Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. Key: (a) Excludes Delaware, where amendments do not require popular approval. (b) Includes Delaware. (c) In calculating the percentages, the amendments adopted in Delaware (where proposals are not submitted to voters) are excluded (d) Excludes one New Mexico amendment approved in November 2008 but declared invalid by the state supreme court in December 2008. (e) Includes amendments restricting the use of eminent domain,
izing same-sex marriage. The most important development in 2009 was a May decision of the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton upholding this California amendment against various challenges, including a contention that it constituted a revision rather than an amendment of the state constitution. Same-sex marriage supporters then filed a federal constitutional challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the case was heard beginning in January 2010. No additional same-sex marriage amendments appeared on the 2009 ballot. An April 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision in Varnum v. Brien legalizing same-sex marriage (the fourth such ruling, following decisions of the Massachusetts, California and Connecticut supreme courts) prompted same-sex marriage opponents to lobby the Iowa legislature to approve an amendment overturning that decision, but so far without success.5 At year’s end, the number of states with same-sex marriage amendments remained at 30, with the Hawaii Constitution authorizing the legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and 29 other state constitutions banning same-sex marriage. Abortion is another issue that has been the subject of state constitutional amendment pro6 The Book of the States 2010
2004– 2005 94 15 6 6 4 5 3 23 6 8 1 0 17 18
2006 – 2007
Percentage adopted 2008– 2009
134 (b)(e) 77 (d) 26 (e) 12 4 6 7 8 1 4 6 (b) 0 0 0 51 18 9 6 4 3 1 0 0 0 25 20 24 (f) 7
2004– 2005 68.1 93.8 42.9 42.8 80.0 50.0 75.0 69.7 85.7 57.1 100.0 0.0 85.0 64.3
2006 – 2007 76.7 (c) 86.7 57.1 58.3 100.0 50.0 (c) 0.0 78.5 90.0 80.0 100.0 0.0 78.1 85.7
2008– 2009 62.6 75.0 54.5 61.5 80.0 0.0 0.0 48.6 100.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 74.1 77.8
regardless of whether these protections were actually inserted in the bill of rights or in other articles. (f) Excludes one Alabama amendment that was proposed by the legislature and appeared on the ballot but was determined by the Governor’s office prior to the vote not to have received enough votes in the legislature to properly appear on the ballot, and thus even though the amendment was approved by voters in November 2006 and the vote totals were certified by the state canvassing board, the governor did not proclaim the results for the amendment and so it has not received an official amendment number.
posals in recent years but not in 2009. In the past few years, abortion opponents have pressed for votes on “personhood” amendments stipulating that fetuses are persons and entitled to all of the rights of persons from the moment of conception. To date, however, the only personhood amendment to qualify for a state ballot was in Colorado in 2008 and it was defeated by a wide margin. Efforts to qualify such amendments have continued in other states but without success, as in Nevada, where a state judge ruled in January 2010 that the language of a proposed personhood amendment was so vague that supporters could not begin circulating petitions with an eye toward qualifying it for the ballot.6 Amendments securing the right to bear arms and recognizing a right to hunt and fish have appeared on state ballots with some frequency in recent years. Although none appeared on the 2009 ballot, several have qualified for the 2010 ballot. In Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal right to bear arms clause in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller prompted the legislature to place on the ballot an amendment stipulating that the state constitutional right to bear arms is an individual rather than a collective right, just as the U.S. Supreme
state constitutions with some amendments seeking to add new direct Table C: State Constitutional Changes by Legislative democratic institutions or and Initiative Proposal: 2009 make them more accessible, other amendments seekLegislative Proposal Constitutional initiative ing to reduce reliance on Number Number Percentage Number Number Percentage State proposed adopted adopted proposed adopted adopted these institutions, and still California...................... 4 1 25.0% . . . . . . ... other amendments making Maine............................ 1 0 0.0 . . . . . . ... technical changes to existNew York...................... 2 2 100.0 . . . . . . ... Ohio............................... 2 2 100.0 1 1 100.0 ing procedures. The only Texas.............................. 11 11 100.0 . . . . . . ... amendment on the Maine Totals............................. 20 16 80.0% 1 1 100.0 ballot in 2009 (and one of only four amendments Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. defeated across the country that year) was of the Court held in Heller. Meanwhile, legislatures in final sort. It would have altered the current time Arkansas and South Carolina agreed to place on requirements for initiative and referendum petithe 2010 ballot amendments protecting the right tions by giving town clerks several extra days to to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife. Similar amend- certify signatures submitted as part of the ballot ments have been approved in a number of other qualification process. Meanwhile, several amendstates in recent decades. ments that will appear on the 2010 ballot would add new direct democratic devices or make Institutions existing devices easier to use. The Illinois legisThe only one of four amendments (and six lature placed on the ballot a gubernatorial recall ballot measures overall) on the May 2009 Cali- amendment that has long been championed by fornia ballot to be approved by voters dealt with Gov. Pat Quinn, who assumed the office after the salary increases for members of the legislature much-publicized impeachment and conviction of and certain other state officials. The California former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Oklahoma voters legislature’s purpose in submitting this package will have the opportunity to approve an amendof ballot measures was to close a budget deficit ment changing the petition signature requireestimated at $42 billion. However, in order to ments making it somewhat easier to qualify secure the requisite number of votes in the legis- initiatives and referendums for the ballot. lature for submission of these fiscal measures (to No amendments dealing with elections be discussed below), the legislature had to acqui- appeared on the 2009 ballot; however, several esce in the request of state Sen. Abel Maldonado have qualified for 2010. In anticipation of the to place on the ballot several other measures, post-2010 round of redistricting, many states including an amendment prohibiting pay raises have considered adopting redistricting commisfor legislators or certain other state officials in a sions of the sort that are already in use in some year when the state runs a deficit. Although all states. In Oklahoma, the legislature placed on the of the other California measures went down to 2010 ballot an amendment to alter the composidefeat, voters supported this amendment by a tion of the existing apportionment commission wide margin. responsible for drawing legislative districts in No amendments in 2009 dealt with the judi- the event the legislature fails to act. The Oklaciary. However, one amendment that qualified homa legislature also placed on the 2010 ballot for the 2010 ballot would change the judicial an amendment to require voters to present a selection system in Nevada. It would replace the photo ID. Interestingly, in a development replicurrent system of competitive judicial elections cated in several states on this and other issues, with a system where judges are appointed by a this Oklahoma photo-ID requirement originally merit selection committee and subjected to peri- was considered and approved in the Republicanodic retention elections in order to retain their controlled legislature as a statutory change. positions. When Democratic Gov. Brad Henry vetoed the Direct democracy has been the subject of bill, it was reintroduced and approved as a consignificant amendment activity in recent years, stitutional amendment, which requires the same The Council of State Governments  7
state constitutions simple legislative majority as a statute but does not require the governor’s signature. Finally, as part of the deal brokered in the California legislature to place a series of fiscal measures on the May 2009 ballot, the legislature agreed to place on the June 2010 ballot an amendment instituting a “top-two primary” for state and congressional elections; all candidates, regardless of party, would be placed on a single primary ballot, and the top two advance to the November election, even if they are members of the same party. Policies In a year where a severe economic downturn left most states facing significant budget shortfalls, it is no surprise that legislators and citizens proposed a number of amendments dealing with budgeting. As one way of addressing a budget shortfall, the California legislature placed on the May 2009 special-election ballot a complex package of six measures, including four amendments. The most significant amendment would have increased taxes, established a spending cap and strengthened the state rainy-day fund. A second amendment, which would only have taken effect upon the approval of the first amendment, would have required some of the added revenue from passage of the first measure to be spent on K–12 schools and community colleges. A third measure, which was in part a constitutional amendment, would have permitted the state to borrow against future lottery revenues. All of these measures were defeated. Several of the 11 amendments approved by Texas voters in 2009 dealt with taxation, as will a number of amendments that have qualified for the 2010 ballot in other states. One Texas amendment permits residence homesteads to be taxed at their value as a residence rather than according to their potential commercial value. Another Texas amendment seeks to achieve more consistency in the way localities appraise property. Still another Texas amendment makes a technical change in the way property appraisals are conducted in localities that opt to consolidate their appraisals. Looking ahead, Colorado voters in 2010 will consider a series of amendments that would restrict property taxes, motor vehicle and telecommunications fees, and state and local government debt. One of the approved Texas amendments boosted support for higher education. It creates a $500 million National Research University Fund, 8 The Book of the States 2010
whose proceeds will be used to try to boost the research profile of seven state universities and elevate them to tier-one status: UT-Dallas, UTArlington, UT-El Paso, UT-San Antonio, Texas Tech University, University of Houston and University of North Texas. Voters in 2009 approved several amendments regarding land use. In New York, the constitution’s “forever wild” provision prevents the state from transferring any Forest Preserve land, and so it is necessary to amend the constitution to make any such transfers. In an uncontroversial move, New York voters approved the transfer of a parcel of this land for the purpose of building a power line. Texas voters meanwhile approved an amendment authorizing the legislature to permit localities to issue bonds for the purpose of creating buffer spaces to limit development around military bases. Another Texas amendment guarantees public access to public beaches on the Gulf of Mexico. Amendments regarding gambling have appeared regularly on state ballots in recent years, including in Ohio, where a number of amendments authorizing casino gambling have been defeated in the past several decades. In 2009, however, Ohio voters approved an initiated amendment (the only initiated amendment on the ballot this year) authorizing casinos in four cities: Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo. Ohio voters also approved an amendment establishing a Livestock Care Standards Board to regulate the treatment of farm animals. The measure was strongly supported by the agriculture industry and seen as a way of enacting modest regulations and heading off more stringent measures favored by animal rights groups.7 State constitutional amendments occasionally have been proposed in recent years in response to congressional action or inaction, most notably in regard to illegal immigration. Although no such measures were placed on the 2009 ballot, several have qualified for the 2010 ballot, including an Arizona amendment seeking to limit the effect of pending federal health care legislation. A similar measure appeared on the Arizona ballot in 2008 and was narrowly defeated. The 2010 amendment would prevent individuals, employers or health-care providers from being compelled to participate in any health care system and also would prohibit any limit or fine on individuals making direct payments for lawful
state constitutions health care services. The actual effect of such an amendment and the degree to which it would be pre-empted by the proposed federal law, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is disputed. Nevertheless, efforts are underway by opponents of federal health care legislation to qualify similar amendments for other state ballots in 2010.8 Opponents of federal union-organizing legislation also have turned to state constitutional amendment processes to blunt its effect. The particular target is the card-check provision of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to limit use of the secret ballot in union-organizing campaigns. The Arizona and Utah legislatures approved amendments for the 2010 ballot guaranteeing an individual right to vote by secret ballot on questions concerning employee representation. Sponsors have sought to insulate these measures against federal challenge by drafting them in such a way as to provide a greater degree of protection for individual rights than is permitted at the federal level, as has been permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in other areas. Voters also considered various other policyrelated amendments in 2009, including a successful New York amendment permitting inmates to work for nonprofit institutions. Prior to passage of this amendment, the state constitution provided one exception to its ban on convict labor: work for public institutions. The 2009 amendment adds a second exception: work for nonprofit institutions.
Conclusion Several trends emerge from a review of state constitutional developments in 2009 and a preview of 2010. Regarding the pace of constitutional change, the 2009 ballot featured relatively few constitutional amendments, even in comparison with previous odd-year elections. However, there are no indications that this reflects a general decline in state constitutional amendment activity, especially judging from the significant number of amendments that have already qualified for the 2010 ballot. In Alabama alone, voters will consider 24 constitutional amendments. State constitutions are likely to attract public attention in 2010 not only on account of the significant number of amendments usually on the ballot in even-numbered years, but also as a result of convention referendums. Convention referendums will appear on the ballot in four
states—Iowa, Maryland, Michigan and Montana—due to constitutional provisions requiring periodic submission of these questions. Several conclusions also can be advanced about the state constitutional changes considered in 2009 and anticipated in 2010. First, some amendment and convention activity has been driven by the recent economic downturn and resulting state budget shortfalls. This is most evident in the package of amendments proposed and largely rejected in California in 2009. This is also one of the concerns motivating supporters of the suspended effort to call a convention in California. Second, in some cases the constitutional amendment process continues to serve as a vehicle for enacting reforms that were initially introduced as statutory changes but were blocked in the political process. As one would expect, in most states it is more difficult for legislatures to approve constitutional changes than statutes, in that the former require approval by legislative supermajorities or in successive sessions. However, in a small group of states, both statutes and constitutional amendments require approval by simple legislative majorities in a single session, with the main difference being that statutes are subject to a gubernatorial veto whereas the governor has no role in the amendment process. In these latter states, legislators who have seen their statutory changes blocked by a gubernatorial veto have occasionally reintroduced their proposals as constitutional amendments. This is the origin of several amendments on the 2010 ballot in Oklahoma, where the Republican-controlled legislature saw some statutory initiatives blocked by a Democratic governor and reacted by advancing these measures as constitutional amendments.9 Third, state constitutional amendments continue to be proposed in response to court decisions. At times, U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Bill of Rights have placed issues on the political agenda and led to the introduction of state constitutional amendments intended to provide greater protection of rights than afforded at the federal level. Eminent domain amendments, the most recent of which was approved in Texas in 2009, are a leading example. At other times, as with same-sex marriage, state court interpretations of state bills of rights have generated state constitutional amendments intended to overturn them or preempt future rulings of this sort. The Council of State Governments 9
state constitutions Finally, amendments continue to be proposed in response to federal legislation, as is most evident in measures on the 2010 ballot that would prevent individuals from being compelled to purchase health insurance and guarantee the right to a secret ballot in union organizing. The actual effect of these amendments on the enforcement of the proposed federal health care and union organizing statutes is uncertain. However, this has not dissuaded legislators and citizens from placing these types of amendments on state ballots.
Notes 1 Megan Poinski, “Governor rejects constitution draft,” Virgin Islands Daily News, June 12, 2009, (available at http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/ index.pl/article_home?id=17636737). 2 Kim Chandler, “Constitutional convention bid fails to get vote,” Birmingham News, May 7, 2009, 8B. 3 Randy Krehbiel, “Senate advances pig-hunting bill,” Tulsa World, April 17, 2009, A14. 4 John Dinan, “The Political Dynamics of Mandatory State Constitutional Convention Referendums: Lessons from the 2000s Regarding Obstacles and Pathways to their Passage,” Montana Law Review (forthcoming). 5 Ed Tibbets, “Same-sex marriage foes push for vote in Iowa,” Quad-City Times, Nov. 5, 2009. 6 Ed Vogel, “Petition ruled too vague for ’10 ballot,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jan. 9, 2010. 7 Thomas Ott, “Voters back creation of livestock board, giving vets bonuses,” Plain Dealer, Nov. 4, 2009. 8 Valerie Richardson, “Federal health care foes plot for state opt-outs,” Washington Times, Jan. 19, 2010. 9 Ron Jenkins, “New GOP Legislature wiring around governor,” Associated Press State and Local Wire (Oklahoma City), April 12, 2009.
10 The Book of the States 2010
Acknowledgements The Council of State Governments and the author would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution. Alabama.................... Alabama.................... Alaska........................ Arizona...................... Arkansas.................... Colorado.................... Florida........................ Illinois........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana................... Maryland.................... Minnesota.................. Mississippi.................. Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada....................... New Hampshire........ New Jersey................. New Mexico............... North Dakota............ Ohio............................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island............. South Carolina.......... South Dakota............ Utah............................ Washington................ Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
Mark S. Berte Nancy Ekberg Audrey Salgado Jerry McBeath Toni McClory Art English Richard B. Collins Rebecca Mae Salokar Ann Lousin Michael W. Hail Warren M. Billings Dan Friedman Mary Jane Morrison John W. Winkle III Fritz Snyder Anthony B. Schutz Eric Herzik Richard A. Hesse Robert F. Williams K. Seckler Dana Michael Harsell Steven H. Steinglass Joel Fishman Mel A. Topf Cole Blease Graham Jr. Michael Card Robert H. Rees Hugh D. Spitzer Michael R. Fine Robert B. Keiter
About the Author John Dinan is associate professor of political science at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. He is the author of The American State Constitutional Tradition and The Virginia State Constitution: A Reference Guide, as well as various articles about state constitutions.
state constitutions
Table 1.1 General information on state constitutions (As of January 1, 2010) Number of amendments State or other Number of jurisdiction constitutions* Dates of adoption
Effective date Submitted of present Estimated length to constitution   (number of words)** voters
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
Nov. 28, 1901 Jan. 3, 1959 Feb. 14, 1912 Oct. 30, 1874 July 4, 1879
6 1 1 5 2
1819, 1861, 1865, 1868, 1875, 1901 1956 1911 1836, 1861, 1864, 1868, 1874 1849, 1879
365,000 (a)(c) 13,000 45,909 (b) 59,500 (b) 54,645
1,103 41 258 193 883
Adopted 807 29 143 95 (d) 519
Colorado........................ 1 Connecticut................... 4 Delaware....................... 4 Florida........................... 6 Georgia.......................... 10
1876 Aug. 1, 1876 74,522 (b) 329 1818 (f), 1965 Dec. 30, 1965 17,256 (b) 31 1776, 1792, 1831, 1897 June 10, 1897 19,000 (e) 1839, 1861, 1865, 1868, 1886, 1968 Jan. 7, 1969 57,017 (b) 148 1777, 1789, 1798, 1861, 1865, 1868, July 1,1983 39,526 (b) 89 (g) 1877, 1945, 1976, 1982
154 30 140 115 68 (g)
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
1950 1889 1818, 1848, 1870, 1970 1816, 1851 1846, 1857
129 206 17 78 58
108 119 11 46 53 (i)
Kansas........................... 1 Kentucky....................... 4 Louisiana....................... 11 Maine............................. 1 Maryland....................... 4
1859 Jan. 29, 1861 12,296 (b) 123 1792, 1799, 1850, 1891 Sept. 28, 1891 23,911 (b) 75 1812, 1845, 1852, 1861, 1864, 1868, Jan. 1, 1975 69,773 (b) 221 1879, 1898, 1913, 1921, 1974 1819 March 15, 1820 16,276 (b) 204 1776, 1851, 1864, 1867 Oct. 5, 1867 41,622 (b) 259
93 (i) 41 154 171 (j) 223 (k)
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
1 4 1 4 4
1780 1835, 1850, 1908, 1963 1857 1817, 1832, 1869, 1890 1820, 1865, 1875, 1945
Oct. 25, 1780 Jan. 1, 1964 May 11, 1858 Nov. 1, 1890 March 30,1945
36,700 (l) 35,858 (b) 11,734 (b) 24,323 (b) 42,600 (b)
148 67 215 158 172
120 29 120 123 111
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
2 2 1 2 3
1889, 1972 1866, 1875 1864 1776, 1784 1776, 1844, 1947
July 1, 1973 Oct. 12, 1875 Oct. 31, 1864 June 2, 1784 Jan. 1, 1948
14,028 (b) 34,645 (b) 31,944 (b) 9,200 26,159 (b)
55 347 (m) 229 287 (n) 78
30 226 (m) 136 145 43
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
1 4 3 1 2
1911 1777, 1822, 1846, 1894 1776, 1868, 1970 1889 1802, 1851
Jan. 6, 1912 Jan. 1, 1895 July 1, 1971 Nov. 2, 1889 Sept. 1, 1851
27,200 51,700 16,532 (b) 19,074 (b) 56,163 (b)
288 (y) 295 42 264 282
157 (y) 220 34 149 (o) 169
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
1 1 5 3 7
1907 1857 1776, 1790, 1838, 1873, 1968 (r) 1842 (f) 1986 (s) 1776, 1778, 1790, 1861, 1865, 1868, 1895
Nov. 16, 1907 Feb. 14, 1859 1968 (r) Dec. 4, 1986 Jan. 1, 1896
74,075 (b) 54,083 (b) 27,711 (b) 10,908 (b) 32,541 (b)
344 (p) 484 (q) 36 (r) 11 (s) 682 (t)
179 (p) 243 (q) 30 (r) 10 (s) 493 (t)
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
1 3 5 (u) 1 3
1889 1796, 1835, 1870 1845, 1861, 1866, 1869, 1876 1895 1777, 1786, 1793
Nov. 2, 1889 Feb. 23, 1870 Feb. 15, 1876 Jan. 4, 1896 July 9, 1793
27,675 (b) 13,300 93,034(b) 19,366 10,286 (b)
227 61 642 (v) 163 211
214 38 467 111 53
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
6 1 2 1 1
1776, 1830, 1851, 1869, 1902, 1970 1889 1863, 1872 1848 1889
July 1, 1971 Nov. 11, 1889 April 9, 1872 May 29, 1848 July 10, 1890
21,601 (b) 34,300 (b) 26,000 15,102 (b) 29,300
51 174 121 194 125
43 101 71 145 (i) 98
American Samoa.......... No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico...................
2 1 1
1960, 1967 1977 1952
July 1, 1967 Jan. 9, 1978 July 25, 1952
6,000 11,000 9,281
1 (h) 1 4 2 2
Aug. 21, 1959 July 3, 1890 July 1, 1971 Nov. 1, 1851 Sept. 3, 1857
21,440 (b) 24,232 (b) 15,751 (b) 10,379 (b) 11,500 (b)
15 60 6
7 56 (w)(x) 6
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments  11
state constitutions
General information on state constitutions—Continued (As of January 1, 2010) Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. *The constitutions referred to in this table include those Civil War documents customarily listed by the individual states. ** Estimated word lengths are in some cases taken from the 2007 edition. (a) The Alabama constitution includes numerous local amendments that apply to only one county. An estimated 70 percent of all amendments are local. A 1982 amendment provides that after proposal by the legislature to which special procedures apply, only a local vote (with exceptions) is necessary to add them to the constitution. (b) Computer word count. (c) The total number of Alabama amendments includes one that is commonly overlooked. (d) Eight of the approved amendments have been superseded and are not printed in the current edition of the constitution. The total adopted does not include five amendments proposed and adopted since statehood. (e) Proposed amendments are not submitted to the voters in Delaware. (f) Colonial charters with some alterations served as the first constitutions in Connecticut (1638, 1662) and in Rhode Island (1663). (g) The Georgia constitution requires amendments to be of “general and uniform application throughout the state,” thus eliminating local amendments that accounted for most of the amendments before 1982. (h) As a kingdom and republic, Hawaii had five constitutions. (i) The figure includes amendments approved by the voters and later nullified by the state supreme court in Iowa (three), Kansas (one), Nevada (six) and Wisconsin (two). (j) The figure does not include one amendment approved by the voters in 1967 that is inoperative until implemented by legislation. (k) Two sets of identical amendments were on the ballot and adopted in the 1992 Maryland election. The four amendments are counted as two in the table. (l) The printed constitution includes many provisions that have been annulled. The length of effective provisions is an estimated 24,122 words (12,400 annulled in Massachusetts, and in Rhode Island before the “rewrite” of the constitution in 1986, it was 11,399 words (7,627 annulled). (m) The 1998 and 2000 Nebraska ballots allowed the voters to vote
12 The Book of the States 2010
separately on “parts” of propositions. In 1998, 10 of 18 separate propositions were adopted; in 2000, 6 of 9. (n) The constitution of 1784 was extensively revised in 1792. Figure shows proposals and adoptions since the constitution was adopted in 1784. (o) The figures do not include submission and approval of the constitution of 1889 itself and of Article XX; these are constitutional questions included in some counts of constitutional amendments and would add two to the figure in each column. (p) The figures include five amendments submitted to and approved by the voters which were, by decisions of the Oklahoma or U.S. Supreme Courts, rendered inoperative or ruled invalid, unconstitutional, or illegally submitted. (q) One Oregon amendment on the 2000 ballot was not counted as approved because canvassing was enjoined by the courts. (r) Certain sections of the constitution were revised by the limited convention of 1967-68. Amendments proposed and adopted are since 1968. (s) Following approval of the eight amendments and a “rewrite” of the Rhode Island Constitution in 1986, the constitution has been called the 1986 Constitution. Amendments since 1986 total eight proposed and eight adopted. Otherwise, the total is 106 proposals and 60 adopted. (t) In 1981 approximately two-thirds of 626 proposed and four-fifths of the adopted amendments were local. Since then the amendments have been statewide propositions. (u) The Constitution of the Republic of Texas preceded five state constitutions. (v) The number of proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution excludes three proposed by the legislature but not placed on the ballot. (w) By 1992, 49 amendments had been proposed and 47 adopted. Since then, one was proposed but rejected in 1994, all three proposals were ratified in 1996 and in 1998, of two proposals one was adopted. (x) The total excludes one amendment ruled void by a federal district court. (y) The total excludes one amendment approved by voters in November 2008 but later declared invalid on single subject grounds by the state supreme court.
state constitutions
Table 1.2 constitutional amendment procedure: by the legislature Constitutional Provisions State or other jurisdiction
Legislative vote required for Consideration by Vote required proposal (a) two sessions required for ratification
Limitation on the number of amendments submitted at one election
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
3/5 2/3 Majority Majority 2/3
No No No No No
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None None 3 None
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
2/3 (c) 2/3 3/5 2/3
No (c) Yes No No
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Not required 3/5 vote on amendment (d) Majority vote on amendment
None (b) None No referendum None None
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
(e) 2/3 3/5 Majority Majority
(e) No No Yes Yes
Majority vote on amendment (f) Majority vote on amendment (g) Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None 3 articles None None
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
2/3 3/5 2/3 2/3 (i) 3/5
No No No No No
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment (h) Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
5 4 None None None
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
Majority (j) 2/3 Majority 2/3 (k) Majority
Yes No No No No
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote in election Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None None None None
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
2/3 (i) 3/5 Majority 3/5 (l)
No No Yes No (l)
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment (f) Majority vote on amendment 2/3 vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None None None None (m)
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
Majority (n) Majority 3/5 Majority 3/5
No Yes No No No
Majority vote on amendment (n) Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None None None None
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
Majority (o) Majority (p) Majority 2/3 (q)
No No Yes (p) No Yes (q)
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment (p) Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None None None None
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
Majority (r) 2/3 2/3 (t)
No Yes (r) No No Yes
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote in election (s) Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None None None None
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
Majority 2/3 2/3 Majority 2/3
Yes No No Yes No
Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment Majority vote in election
None None None None None
American Samoa.......... No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico...................
2/3 3/4 2/3 (v)
No No No
Majority vote on amendment (u) Majority vote on amendment Majority vote on amendment
None None 3
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments  13
state constitutions
constitutional amendment procedure: by the legislature—Continued Constitutional Provisions Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. Key: (a) In all states not otherwise noted, the figure shown in the column refers to the proportion of elected members in each house required for approval of proposed constitutional amendments. (b) Legislature may not propose amendments to more than six articles of the constitution in the same legislative session. (c) Three-fourths vote in each house at one session, or majority vote in each house in two sessions between which an election has intervened. (d) Three-fifths vote on amendment, except amendment for “new state tax or fee” not in effect on Nov. 7, 1994 requires two-thirds of voters in the election. (e) Two-thirds vote in each house at one session, or majority vote in each house in two sessions. (f) Majority vote on amendment must be at least 50 percent of the total votes cast at the election (at least 35 percent in Nebraska); or, at a special election, a majority of the votes tallied which must be at least 30 percent of the total number of registered voters. (g) Majority voting in election or three-fifths voting on amendment. (h) If five or fewer political subdivisions of the state are affected, majority in state as a whole and also in affected subdivisions) is required. (i) Two-thirds of both houses. (j) Majority of members elected sitting in joint session. (k) The two-thirds must include not less than a majority elected to each house. (l) Three-fifths of all members of each house at one session, or majority of all members of each house for two successive sessions. (m) If a proposed amendment is not approved at the election when
14 The Book of the States 2010
submitted, neither the same amendment nor one which would make substantially the same change for the constitution may be again submitted to the people before the third general election thereafter. (n) Amendments concerning certain elective franchise and education matters require three-fourths vote of members elected and approval by three-fourths of electors voting in state and two-thirds of those voting in each county. (o) Majority vote to amend constitution, two-thirds to revise (“revise” includes all or a part of the constitution). (p) Emergency amendments may be passed by two-thirds vote of each house, followed by ratification by majority vote of electors in election held at least one month after legislative approval. There is an exception for an amendment containing a supermajority voting requirement, which must be ratified by an equal supermajority. (q) Two-thirds of members of each house, first passage; majority of members of each house after popular ratification. (r) Majority of members elected to both houses, first passage; two-thirds of members elected to both houses, second passage. (s) Majority of all citizens voting for governor. (t) Two-thirds vote senate, majority vote house, first passage; majority both houses, second passage. As of 1974, amendments may be submitted only every four years. (u) Within 30 days after voter approval, governor must submit amendment(s) to U.S. Secretary of the Interior for approval. (v) If approved by two-thirds of members of each house, amendment(s) submitted to voters at special referendum; if approved by not less than three-fourths of total members of each house, referendum may be held at next general election.
state constitutions
Table 1.3 constitutional amendment procedure: by initiative Constitutional Provisions
State or other jurisdiction
Number of signatures required on initiative petition
Distribution of signatures
Referendum vote
Arizona ���������������������������
15% of total votes cast for all candidates for governor at last election.
None specified.
Majority vote on amendment
Arkansas �������������������������
10% of voters for governor at last election.
Must include 5% of voters for governor in each of 15 counties.
Majority vote on amendment
California ������������������������
8% of total voters for all candidates for None specified. governor at last election.
Majority vote on amendment.
Colorado �������������������������
5% of total legal votes for all candidates for secretary of state at last general election.
Majority vote on amendment.
Florida �����������������������������
8% of total votes cast in the state in the last 8% of total votes cast in each of election for presidential electors. 1/2 of the congressional districts.
Three-fifths vote on amendment except amendment for “new state tax or fee” not in effect Nov. 7, 1994 requires 2/3 of voters voting in election.
Illinois (a) �����������������������
8% of total votes cast for candidates for None specified. governor at last election.
Majority voting in election or 3/5 voting on amendment.
Massachusetts (b) ����������
3% of total votes cast for governor at No more than 1/4 from any preceding biennial state election (not less one county. than 25,000 qualified voters).
Majority vote on amendment which must be 30% of total ballots cast at election.
Michigan �������������������������
10% of total voters for all candidates at last gubernatorial election.
Majority vote on amendment
Mississippi (c) �����������������
12% of total votes for all candidates for No more than 20% from any governor in last election. one congressional district.
Majority vote on amendment and not less than 40% of total vote cast at election.
Missouri ��������������������������
8% of legal voters for all candidates for governor at last election.
The 8% must be in each of 2/3 of the congressional districts in the state.
Majority vote on amendment.
Montana ��������������������������
10% of qualified electors, the number of qualified voters to be determined by number of votes cast for governor in preceding election in each county and in the state.
The 10% to include at least 10% of qualified voters in one-half of the counties.
Majority vote on amendment
Nebraska �������������������������
10% of registered voters. The 10% must include 5% in each of 2/5 of the counties.
Nevada ����������������������������
10% of voters who voted in entire state in last general election.
None in effect after a U.S. District Majority vote on amendment Court ruling in 2004 invalidated the in two consecutive general. requirement. elections.
North Dakota �����������������
4% of population of the state.
None specified.
Ohio ���������������������������������
10% of total number of electors who voted for At least 5% of qualified electors governor in last election. in each of 1/2 of counties in the state.
Majority vote on amendment.
Oklahoma �����������������������
15% of legal voters for state office receiving highest number of voters at last general state election.
Majority vote on amendment.
Oregon ����������������������������
8% of total votes for all candidates for None specified. governor at last election at which governor was elected for four-year term.
Majority vote on amendment except for supermajority equal to supermajority voting requirement contained in proposed amendment.
South Dakota �����������������
10% of total votes for governor in last election.
Majority vote on amendment.
No. Mariana Islands ������
50% of qualified voters of commonwealth. In addition, 25% of qualified voters in each senatorial district.
Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. Key: (a) Only Article IV, the Legislature Article, may be amended by initiative petition. (b) Before being submitted to the electorate for ratification, initiative mea-
None specified.
None specified.
Majority vote on amendment which must be at least 35% of total vote at the election.
Majority vote on amendment.
None specified.
None specified.
Majority vote on amendment if legislature approved it by majority vote; if not, at least 2/3 vote in each of two senatorial districts in addition to a majority vote.
sures must be approved at two sessions of a successively elected legislature by not less than one-fourth of all members elected, sitting in joint session. (c) Before being submitted to the electorate, initiated measures are sent to the legislature, which has the option of submitting an amended or alternative measure alongside of the original measure.
The Council of State Governments 15
state constitutions
Table 1.4 procedures for calling constitutional conventions Constitutional Provisions State or other Provision for jurisdiction convention
Legislative vote for submission of convention question (a)
Popular vote to authorize convention
Periodic submission of convention question required (b)
Popular vote required for ratification of convention proposals
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Majority ME No No provision (c)(d) (c) 10 years; 2002 (c) Majority (e) No No 2/3 MP No
Not specified Not specified (c) MP
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2/3 2/3 2/3 (g) (d)
ME MP No provision 3/5 voting on proposal MP
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Not specified MP 9 years; 2008 2/3 MP No 3/5 (i) 20 years; 2008 No Majority MP 10 years; 2000
MP (h) Not specified MP
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2/3 Majority (j) (d) (d) Majority
MP No provision MP No provision MP
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
No Yes Yes No Yes
No Majority MP 16 years; 1994 2/3 ME No No Majority MP 20 years; 2002
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
Yes (m) Yes Yes Yes No
2/3 MP 20 years; 1990 3/5 MP (o) No 2/3 ME No Majority MP 10 years; 2002 No
MP MP No provision 2/3 voting on proposal
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
2/3 MP No Majority MP 20 years; 1997 2/3 MP No No 2/3 MP 20 years; 1992
Not specified MP MP
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Majority (e) 20 years; 1970 Majority (e) No No Majority MP 10 years; 2004 (d) ME No
MP No provision
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
Yes Yes (q) No Yes No
(d) (d) No Majority MP No No 2/3 ME No No
(p) MP
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(d) 2/3 Majority Majority 2/3
MP Not specified Not specified No provision Not specified
MP MP MP MP No
MP MP (k) No No ME
No ME MP MP ME
No 20 years; 2008 (f) No No No
No No No No 20 years; 1990
No No No No No
American Samoa............ Yes (r) No No No. Mariana Islands....... Yes Majority (t) 2/3 10 years Puerto Rico..................... Yes 2/3 MP No See footnotes at end of table.
16  The Book of the States 2010
MP
MP
MP 3/5 voting on proposal Not specified (l)
MP
MP No provision
ME
ME (s) MP and at least 2/3 in each of 2 senatorial districts MP
state constitutions
procedures for calling constitutional conventions—Continued Constitutional Provisions Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments. Key: MP — Majority voting on the proposal. ME — Majority voting in the election. (a) In all states not otherwise noted, the entries in this column refer to the proportion of members elected to each house required to submit to the electorate the question of calling a constitutional convention. (b) The number listed is the interval between required submissions on the question of calling a constitutional convention; where given, the date is that of the most recent submission of the mandatory convention referendum. (c) Unless provided otherwise by law, convention calls are to conform as nearly as possible to the act calling the 1955 convention, which provided for a legislative vote of a majority of members elected to each house and ratification by a majority vote on the proposals. The legislature may call a constitutional convention at any time. (d) In these states, the legislature may call a convention without submitting the question to the people. The legislative vote required is two-thirds of the members elected to each house in Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia; two-thirds concurrent vote of both branches in Maine; threefourths of all members of each house in South Dakota; and not specified in Alaska, but bills require majority vote of membership in each house. In South Dakota, the question of calling a convention may be initiated by the people in the same manner as an amendment to the constitution (see Table 1.3) and requires a majority vote on the question for approval. (e) The law calling a convention must be approved by the people. (f) The legislature shall submit the question 20 years after the last convention, or 20 years after the last vote on the question of calling a convention, whichever date is last.
(g) The power to call a convention is reserved to the people by petition. (h) The majority must be 50 percent of the total voted cast at a general election or at a special election, a majority of the votes tallied which must be at least 30 percent of the total number of registered voters. (i) Majority voting in the election, or three-fifths voting on the question. (j) Must be approved during two legislative sessions. (k) Majority must equal one-fourth of qualified voters at last general election. (l) Majority of those voting on the proposal is assumed. (m) The question of calling a constitutional convention may be submitted either by the legislature or by initiative petition to the secretary of state in the same manner as provided for initiated amendments (see Table 1.3). (n) Two-thirds of all members of the legislature. (o) Majority must be 35 percent of total votes cast at the election. (p) Convention proposals are submitted to the electorate at a special election in a manner to be determined by the convention. Ratification by a majority of votes cast. (q) Conventions may not be held more often than once in six years. (r) Five years after effective date of constitutions, governor shall call a constitutional convention to consider changes proposed by a constitutional committee appointed by the governor. Delegates to the convention are to be elected by their county councils. A convention was held in 1972. (s) If proposed amendments are approved by the voters, they must be submitted to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior for approval. (t) The initiative may also be used to place a referendum convention call on the ballot. The petition must be signed by 25 percent of the qualified voters or at least 75 percent in a senatorial district.
The Council of State Governments 17
Chapter Two
FEDERALISM AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
state-federal relations
State-Federal Relations: Cooperative Coercion By John Kincaid Coercive federalism continues, although “cooperative coercion” seems to characterize the current situation with President Barack Obama and Congress because of a significant increase in federal aid to state and local governments, improvements in intergovernmental communication, and movement away from total pre-emption of certain state powers. Nevertheless, federal officials continue to insist that state and local governments adhere to federal policy priorities.
Volatility marked 2009 and the onset of 2010. The recession, which started in December 2007, as well as heightened federal spending drenched the federal budget, most state budgets and many local budgets with red ink and drove many voters into revolt. Many Americans believed, too, that the federal government cared more about Wall Street than Main Street. President Barack Obama achieved passage of a $787.2 billion stimulus—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—in February 2009, pledging to keep unemployment below 8 percent, but his priorities thereafter seemed to be health care, global warming and education more than economic recovery. As unemployment reached 10.2 percent by the fall, the president’s approval ratings sagged, in part because he also could not satisfy some of the demands of his electoral base—such as closing the Guantanamo Bay prison (due in part to state resistance to receiving 250 detainees suspected of terrorism),1 de-escalating the war in Afghanistan, ending the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, re-negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, and obtaining congressional representation for Washington, D.C. Then the GOP won the November gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia despite Obama’s campaigning for the Democratic candidates. The president played an aggressive role in state races,2 including trying to convince New York’s Democratic governor, David A. Paterson, not to seek re-election. Then, in January 2010, a Republican who campaigned against the health care plan backed by the president and congressional Democrats won the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts that had been held for 47 years by Edward M. Kennedy, a chief Democratic champion of health care reform. The Democrats’ Senate majority dropped to 59, and health care reform came to a halt until Democrats used the
reconciliation process to pass their health plan two months later. Brown’s election, especially, was a stunning reversal for a president inaugurated a year earlier with an apparent mandate for change after having won 52.9 percent of the popular vote and 67.8 percent of the electoral vote. It initially appeared that the president and the large Democratic majority in Congress would institute cooperative changes in intergovernmental relations. “As a former state legislator, I know,” Obama said, “how important it is to have a strong partner in Washington … I am committed to being that kind of partner.”3 Democrats, moreover, are ideologically friendlier than Republicans to federal aid to states and localities, and the Recovery Act reflected that preference. Obama met with governors before his inauguration and appointed Valerie Jarrett as senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement. Many state and local officials applauded the selection of Jarrett, a powerful member of the administration4 and long-time aide from Chicago. In another nod to intergovernmental relations, the president created a White House Office of Urban Affairs and appointed Adolfo Carrion Jr., a former Bronx borough president, to direct it. Obama met with about 80 mayors in February, 2009—the first time a large mayoral delegation had met with a president since Bill Clinton. Cities also weren’t forgotten in the Recovery Act, which includes about $20 billion for urban programs. At the same time, in order to take advantage of this seemingly more favorable environment in Washington, DC, state and local governments stepped up their lobbying in 2009 in order to garner more dollars and also fend off mandates that might be added to spending programs for states and localities.5
The Council of State Governments 21
State-Federal RELATIONS Throughout 2009, however, the administration and Congress moved more toward continuity6 than discontinuity with coercive federalism trends that have prevailed since the late 1960s.7 They increased federal aid to state and local governments but also used conditions of aid to advance federal objectives. Federal officials continued to rely on categorical grants with no new emphasis on block grants. Democrats reversed President George W. Bush’s push for extensive federal pre-emption of state powers, but retained pre-emption preferences in some key policy fields. The president has improved intergovernmental communication, but that communication aimed to obtain cooperative state and local implementation of federal priorities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court remains a lukewarm friend of the states with no consistent philosophy of federalism.
Red-Ink Federalism Rising federal spending and state-local budget cuts, along with increasing federal, state and local debts and deficits headlined 2009. Federal spending approached $3.9 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year, twice the amount spent in the 2001 fiscal year; the president’s 2011 fiscal year budget proposed to spend $3.6 trillion. The public debt rose from $5.8 trillion, 41 percent of GDP, to $7.6 trillion, or 53 percent of GDP, in 2009. Debt could grow to 85 percent of GDP by 2018 and exceed 100 percent by 2022,8 crushing the U.S. economy. Altogether, states faced a budget shortfall of about $256 billion from the 2009 fiscal year through the 2011 fiscal year. States’ general fund spending dropped 3.4 percent in 2009 compared to the 2008 fiscal year, and spending was expected to fall another 5.4 percent in the 2010 fiscal year—the largest declines since 1979 when the National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers began tracking for their joint publication, the Fiscal Survey of the States.9 States closed a cumulative budget gap of $145.9 billion at the start of their 2010 fiscal year budgets. This was on top of the gaps they closed in the 2009 fiscal year and, for many, gaps they closed in the 2008 fiscal year. By mid-2010, however, at least 41 states faced budget shortfalls of about $35 billion requiring mid-year adjustments. State budget gaps for the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years could equal $350 billion, while the Recovery Act includes only about $140 billion for state relief.10 22 The Book of the States 2010
At the same time, many local governments, facing their own recessionary budget constraints, are experiencing reductions in state aid.11 The U.S. Conference of Mayors charged that the states were shortchanging cities in their distribution of federal stimulus funds. Mayors urged Congress and the president to send more federal funds directly to cities.12 These fiscal pressures have generated considerable political conflict within states as elected officials struggle to balance budgets. More than half the states could not enact their 2010 fiscal year budgets until the last minute, and four states—Arizona, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania—had no budget at the beginning of the fiscal year, while Connecticut, North Carolina and Ohio had passed only temporary budget extensions. Most states have experienced increases in welfare caseloads for the first time since welfare reform in 1996 established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.13 The number of food stamp recipients has increased in all states, and Medicaid enrollment also has expanded, adding more pressure to state budgets. At the same time, state and local governments face long-term unfunded liabilities for health and pension benefits for public employees. California experienced the most publicized fiscal crisis. In May 2009, voters rejected five ballot propositions to solve the state’s budget crisis, but approved a measure denying pay raises to the governor and legislators when the state’s budget is in deficit. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the federal government for $6.9 billion in budget aid,14 but received a cool reception. The Obama administration advised the state to “make some very difficult choices.” Critics charged that California had created its own budget problems and that bailing out the Golden State would compel bailouts of other states, encourage states to expect federal bailouts when they get in trouble, subsidize fiscally irresponsible states, and punish taxpayers in fiscally responsible states.15 California’s defenders argued that the state subsidizes the rest of the country because it gets only about 80 cents back for every tax dollar its residents send to Washington, D.C., and that the state has been comparatively fiscally responsible. If California had the same deficit relative to its GDP as the federal government, it would have had a $230 billion, not $24.3 billion, shortfall at the start of the 2010 fiscal year.16 More generally, proponents of more federal aid to state and local governments argue
state-federal relations that such aid will reduce state and local spending cuts and tax increases that thwart federal stimulus policies and retard economic recovery.17
Federal Grants-in-Aid Federal aid increased by 16.6 percent in actual dollars from the 2008 fiscal year to the 2009 fiscal year and is expected to increase by another 21.5 percent in the 2010 fiscal year, when aid will be about $653.7 billion, for a two-year increase of 41.7 percent. Thereafter, federal aid is expected to decrease in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years, followed by a slight increase in 2013. During the first quarter of 2009, federal aid became, for the first time in U.S. history, the single largest source of state and local revenue. Congressional earmarking continued as usual, however. Earmarked projects dropped from 11,610 in the 2008 fiscal year to 10,160 in the 2009 fiscal year, but earmarked funding increased from $17.2 billion to $19.6 billion.18 Children’s Health Insurance Program President Obama’s first major congressional victory was reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program—now known as CHIP—at $31.5 billion over four-and-a-half years. The act increases CHIP beneficiaries from about 11 million to 15 million by increasing eligibility to include families with annual incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level—$63,600 for a family of four. The act also eliminates the five-year residency requirement for legal immigrants, thus allowing legal immigrants to qualify upon arrival in the U.S. These expansions are to be covered by a 61 cent federal tax increase on a carton of cigarettes. States can insure children in families earning more than the federal cutoff, but the federal contribution will be reduced accordingly. Some states cover some adults, including pregnant women, but the reauthorization ended federal support for childless adults as of the 2010 fiscal year. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act The president’s biggest legislative accomplishment was the $787.2 billion (now estimated at $862 billion) 1,100-page Recovery Act, which provides about $250 billion to state and local governments for specific functions; about $130 billion of that money was targeted for immediate fiscal relief, primarily for Medicaid and education. Most of the money is to be spent over three
federal fiscal years: $47.4 billion in 2009, $96.9 billion in 2010, and $50.6 billion in 2011, although total spending, including about $212 billion in tax cuts, is spread over 11 years. Rather than establish a separate Recovery Act bureaucracy, the Office of Management and Budget is coordinating with 15 federal implementing agencies overseeing 215 funding lines and 86 existing grant programs. Most Recovery Act funds, therefore, are being distributed through existing formulas for federal aid programs, which usually require state and local matches. But these formulas do not always reflect current economic realities; consequently, states and localities hit hardest by the recession are not necessarily getting the most stimulus money. A leading criticism is that the Recovery Act failed to create many jobs and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8 percent. Aside from the longstanding debate about whether spending hikes or tax cuts are the best response to recession, the Recovery Act contained many provisions associated with coercive federalism that weakened its impact. For one, health, education and welfare spending for individuals outpaced other stimulus spending in 2009. This pattern is consistent with the shift of federal aid from places to persons under coercive federalism. This spending preserved some jobs in health, education and welfare and cushioned the recession’s blows for many people, but it weakened the Recovery Act’s impact on unemployment. Stimulus funds also were delayed by federal regulatory conditions and administrative hurdles associated with coercive federalism, such as the Recovery Act’s Buy American rules, which pre-empted many state and local procurement rules, maintenance-of-effort rules in about 15 of the major programs, rules forbidding reductions of Medicaid benefits below levels in effect on July 1, 2008, expanded Davis-Bacon (prevailing wage) requirements, historic preservation standards, and rules prohibiting federal money from substituting for state money. The Recovery Act also includes general language about states and localities not spending money on “imprudent” projects, and Obama warned that if state and local officials wasted stimulus money, he would “call them out.” Thus, the Recovery Act required states to take many large spending programs off the cutting table and to increase or maintain spending despite plummeting tax revenues. The Council of State Governments 23
State-Federal RELATIONS The Recovery Act established unprecedented oversight and accountability mechanisms for state and local governments; the Office of Management and Budget promulgated specific guidance rules establishing detailed procedural requirements and review procedures for Recovery Act funding; and Vice President Joe Biden and his special Recovery Cabinet act as a sheriff policing state and local uses of Recovery Act funds. Some governors and legislators balked at accepting funds that might commit states to long-term spending increases. For example, the Recovery Act provides up to $7 billion to extend unemployment benefits to people who lost lowwage, part-time and seasonal jobs. A few states, such as Alabama and Mississippi, declined to accept the funds because the Recovery Act requires states to modernize their unemployment laws to make more people eligible for benefits. Many governors objected to provisions requiring a $25 per week increase in benefits that states could be politically compelled to pay for after stimulus funding is exhausted. A notable success, though, has been the Recovery Act’s taxable Build America Bonds by which the federal government subsidizes the interest payments that local governments make to investors, increasing their yield by 35 percent. About $64 billion in Build America Bonds were issued in 45 states in 2009. Generally, the Recovery Act’s outcomes are consistent with analyses of previous federal efforts to assist states during recessions, which suggest that such programs are less than optimal because they are not usually well-timed, adequately triggered and effectively targeted.19 The Recovery Act also generated constitutional controversies involving state-federal relations and the separation of powers when Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford refused to accept $700 million for education.20 Congress enacted a Recovery Act amendment introduced by South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, a Democrat, in response to Sanford’s threat that authorizes a state legislature to override its governor by adopting a concurrent resolution. This provision intrudes upon state constitutional budget procedures. Furthermore, while Congress enacts concurrent resolutions that do not require the president’s signature, many states do not have concurrent resolutions, and Nebraska’s unicameral legislature has no concurrent procedures. 24 The Book of the States 2010
The South Carolina legislature included the stimulus money in the state’s budget and overrode the governor’s budget veto. Pursuant to Clyburn’s amendment, the legislature also approved a concurrent resolution accepting the money and enacted a law specifying how the funds would be spent. Sanford filed suit in federal court arguing that the Recovery Act authorized only governors to apply for the money. He contended that legislative usurpation of this power vested in the governor by the Recovery Act violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as the separation of powers mandated by the state’s constitution. The Obama administration criticized the governor for refusing the funds but supported his lawsuit. In June, however, Sanford requested the federal funds after the state supreme court, in response to lawsuits filed by a student and school administrators, ordered the governor to comply with the legislature’s budget law. The Recovery Act also is problematic because the provision establishing the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which provides $53.6 billion for education and other government functions, says, “The governor shall use…” That phrase contradicts state constitutional rules on spending money. Interstate disputes arose as well under the Recovery Act when some states were accused of using stimulus money to lure businesses from other states. Other Issues While Congress authorized some federal aid, it failed to reauthorize No Child Left Behind and surface transportation. That inaction was somewhat offset by the Recovery Act’s funding for education and transportation. Nearly 22 percent of the Recovery Act’s funds are devoted to infrastructure, with an emphasis on “shovel-ready” projects, but piecemeal extensions of transportation funding mean states cannot plan for the long term and Congress continues to avoid reform of infrastructure financing.21 Cities and states are also concerned about what the 2010 census will bring. The decennial population count will affect not only representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, but also federal aid. The 10 largest federal-aid programs, such as Medicaid, use census data in their formulas. In the 2009 fiscal year, these programs accounted for 84 percent, or $478.3 billion, of all federal aid.22
state-federal relations
Mandates and Other Regulation Although the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 reduced unfunded mandates, states have complained vigorously about de facto under-funded mandates in federal programs. From 2002 to 2008, moreover, the federal government promulgated an average of 527 rules per year regulating state governments and 343 regulating local governments.23 In 2009, most governors expressed concern about congressional health care proposals to expand Medicaid to cover about 11 million more people.24 The Recovery Act provided an $87 billion increase in support for Medicaid, which states used to cover more beneficiaries, preserve eligibility criteria, maintain current services, and prevent payment cuts to hospitals and physicians. These funds will not be available after December 2010. But Medicaid enrollment grew by 5.4 percent in the 2009 fiscal year, the highest rate in six years, and it might grow by 6.6 percent in the 2010 fiscal year. Medicaid spending increased by 7.9 percent in the 2009 fiscal year, the highest in five years.25 Although reform proposals called for the federal government to pay most of the additional costs for several years, states were concerned about their long-term costs thereafter. Congressional deals struck to advance reform soured interstate relations. Proposals called for the federal government to pay all additional Medicaid costs for Nevada, Michigan, Oregon, and Rhode Island for five years. Florida and Louisiana received favorable treatment, and then, Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat, struck a deal for the federal government to pay 100 percent of the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska forever. That provision was eventually removed from the proposal. States also split because more than 20 states that have already expanded Medicaid coverage would receive less federal aid for Medicaid than states that cover fewer people. “We are … being punished for our own charity,” complained Gov. David Paterson of New York.26 Although health care packages supported by the president passed the House and Senate, reform came to a halt for two months, not because of cost-shifting intergovernmental concerns but because of the January 2010 senatorial election in Massachusetts. Although Congress failed to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, President Obama signaled strong support for the de facto mandates contained in the law. This is already foreshadowed
in the $4.3 billion Race to the Top Fund, a Recovery Act program that will distribute money during the 2010 fiscal year to states with records of acceptable school reform. Those reforms include linking student achievement data to teacher and principal evaluations, equalizing allocations of strong teachers between high-performing schools and low-performing poor and minority schools, which would require measures of teacher quality, intervening actively to repair or displace failing schools, easing restrictions on charter school creations, adopting internationally benchmarked standards for K–12 education and joining the standards consortium begun by the National Governors Association. Teachers unions have objected and several states have enacted laws limiting the use of student performance data in teacher evaluations. Race to the Top grants are competitive and consistent with the administrative challenges of coercive federalism. The U.S. Department of Education estimated it would take states applying for the funds 681 hours to complete the grant application. In a development with potentially widespread local impact, Westchester County, N.Y., reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Housing and Urban Development to spend more than $50 million to acquire or construct 750 homes or apartments, of which 630 must be located in communities where residents are less than 3 percent black and 7 percent Hispanic. The settlement aims to reduce segregation between communities by enabling minorities to move into predominantly white communities. HUD announced that the settlement was a shot across the bow of some 1,225 state and local jurisdictions that receive Community Development Block Grant funds. HUD’s Deputy Secretary Ronald Sims said, “We’re clearly messaging other jurisdictions across the country that there has been a significant change in (HUD), and we’re going to ask them to pursue similar goals.”27 He added, “This is historic, because we are going to hold people’s feet to the fire.”28 For metropolitan areas, the president is emphasizing regionalism, growth limits, compact development and mass transit in part to “coerce people out of their cars.”29 The White House Office of Urban Affairs also will coordinate federal programs for metropolitan areas, including some 180 economic development grants and The Council of State Governments 25
State-Federal RELATIONS loans, about 108 transportation programs and some 44 worker training programs. Similarly, the administration is emphasizing programs that link many services in particular neighborhoods through a Choice Neighborhoods Initiative similar to the Green Impact Zone in Kansas City and also, through the Department of Education, develop cradle-to-college Promise Neighborhoods similar to the Harlem Children’s Zone. In July 2009, the Department of Homeland Security announced that all 66 state and local police agencies involving about 1,000 officers deputized to enforce immigration law under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act would have to sign a new, uniform memorandum with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement within 90 days. The new federal rules seek to prevent police from arresting people just to find out whether they are in the country illegally. The rules were prompted substantially by reaction against the behavior of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., whose department had identified some 30,000 illegal immigrants in the Phoenix area in recent years. The memorandum binds state and local police to federal civilrights laws and to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement oversight when they detain illegal immigrants for possible deportation. Homeland Security also said 11 new localities would join the 287(g) program by late 2009. Cooperative Federal Responses to State Pushbacks The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 imposes a number of requirements on states, including establishment of a statewide registry of sex offenders that conforms to federal standards and is compatible with a new public National Sex Offender Web site. States that failed to comply by July 2009 risked losing 10 percent of their funding under the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. As a result of considerable state pressure,30 the U.S. attorney general extended the implementation deadline to July 27, 2010. Also exemplifying pushback, at the end of 2009, at least 46 of the country’s 56 licensing jurisdictions had not met the federal REAL ID Act’s “material compliance” deadline, so the U.S. Department of Homeland Security waived the deadline. However, all requirements must be met by May 11, 2011. As of Dec. 31, 2009, both chambers of at least 23 states, plus uni26 The Book of the States 2010
cameral Nebraska, had passed anti-REAL ID measures.31
Pre-emption Generally, Democrats oppose total preemption of state authority in many matters of social and business regulation such as consumer protection, product liability and environmental protection. The Obama administration supports what some have called progressive federalism, whereby state and local governments forge ahead of the federal government on such things as consumer and environmental protection. The administration also supports states developing policies that can be adopted by the federal government.32 In February 2009, the administration began reversing a Bush policy by announcing federal officials will no longer pursue dealers of medical marijuana who comply with state laws.33 Fourteen states permit medical marijuana. This federal withdrawal also heightens the states’ role in marijuana regulation. In May, the president issued a federalism memorandum that restrains pre-emption by executive agencies by prohibiting pre-emption via preambles to regulations, requiring adherence to “legal principles governing pre-emption, including principles outlined in Executive Order 13132,” and mandating agency reviews of regulations issued during the past 10 years. This memorandum, however, was motivated less by principled federalism concerns than by pressures from key constituencies, such as trial lawyers, within the Democratic Party. In June 2009, Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act allowing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate most tobacco products. The act specifically preserves state product liability laws. In July 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency granted California the waiver under the federal Clean Air Act that it had sought since 2002 to enforce its own greenhouse gas emission standards, which 13 other states and Washington, D.C., also plan to enforce. In other areas, the president is more amenable to pre-emption. For example, Obama wants the federal government to take over the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for mass-transit systems34 and to increase federal regulation of insurance. During his campaign, he told Planned Parenthood, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”
state-federal relations that would pre-empt virtually all state and local laws deemed to be barriers to abortion. Obama also opposes the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but has not moved to repeal it. In a bow to state laws, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009 allows individuals to carry licensed, loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges where such firearms’ possession is permitted by state law. This might confuse visitors, though, because more than 30 parks span two or more states. Armed visitors must know which state’s law applies in each part of these parks. Also, because guns are still banned in federal buildings, visitors cannot take firearms into park visitor centers or rangers’ offices.
Taxation A Recovery Act tax break for businesses involving the cancellation of debt income could cost 43 states about $5.5 billion of revenue from 2009 to 2011 if they do not decouple their tax code from this provision.35 Despite the strictures of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,36 states have continued to consider ways to collect sales taxes on out-of-state mail-order sales, especially by arguing that in-state market affiliates of big online retailers like Amazon should collect the state sales tax. The idea originated with former Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York in 2008. Some states, however, have backed down in the face of online retailer threats to drop affiliates in their states and, thus, cause the states to lose businesses and jobs.
Federalization of Criminal Law Critics, both left and right, have stepped up attacks on the rising federalization of criminal law,37 another characteristic of coercive federalism. There are about 4,500 federal criminal laws. Also, the number of U.S. attorneys has increased from about 1,500 in 1980 to 7,500 today.38 Business interests object, for example, to the federal theft-of-honest-services statute, which is frequently used to prosecute business executives and also public officials. Civil libertarians worry about rights deprivations occurring under federal drug laws and such statutes as the federal anti-riot act, which makes it a felony to cross state lines to “organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot.” Of particular concern are federal laws that are overly broad, vague and punitive, including continued confinement of sex offenders after they have completed
their sentences. Furthermore, some significant federal laws lack requirements to prove traditional types of criminal intent, allow federal prosecutors to shop for a conviction-friendly venue, and produce disproportionately large private-property seizures compared to alleged offenses.
Federal Court Orders Court orders have been another feature of coercive federalism. For instance, in August 2009 a special panel of federal judges ordered California to reduce the number of prisoners in its prisons from 150,000 to about 110,000 within two years because overcrowding debilitated the system’s health care to a point that violated inmates’ constitutional rights.39
The Supreme Court’s Federalism In one of the court’s most significant 2009 federalism cases, Justice Antonin Scalia and the four liberal justices opined that federal regulations promulgated under the National Bank Act of 1864 do not pre-empt states from enforcing their fair lending and consumer protection laws against the country’s 1,500 national banks.40 In another important federalism case, the court ruled 5-4 that state juries can award damages for harms caused by drugs even when their manufacturers comply with federal regulations.41 The court, however, rejected by an 8-1 vote a constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requiring jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal “preclearance” for all changes in voting arrangements.42 Instead, the court said local jurisdictions in Voting Rights Act-covered states should be permitted to petition for exemption from preclearance. Nevertheless, the eight-member majority agreed that Section 5 “imposes substantial ‘federalism costs’” and has other liabilities that might not withstand scrutiny between now and its 2031 expiration date. Earlier in 2009, moreover, the court ruled 5-4 that the Voting Rights Act does not require states to create voting districts to try to elect black officials where blacks are less than a majority of the population.43 The decision voided a North Carolina “crossover” Senate district that was 39 percent African-American. In a highly publicized affirmative action case, the court’s conservatives and liberals split 5-4, ruling that New Haven, Conn., had discriminated against white firefighters when it failed to The Council of State Governments 27
State-Federal RELATIONS promote them after they performed better on an examination than black firefighters.44 The case garnered additional attention because Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then a court nominee, had voted against the white firefighters when the case came before her appeals court. In Caperton v. Massey, the court ruled 5-4 that the failure of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from a $50 million civil case involving a company that had donated $3 million to his judicial election campaign jeopardized the plaintiff’s due process rights under the 14th Amendment.45 The court’s “probability of bias” test for recusal, however, is vague, leaving undefined “significant and disproportionate influence” in a campaign. How much money is too much from a contributor? Should judges recuse themselves from cases involving parties that spent large sums opposing their election? Does a probability of bias exist for as long as a judge sits on the bench? In another 5-4 decision that sharply split the liberals and conservatives, the court ruled that criminal defendants have a right to cross-examine analysts who prepared forensic reports used against them in court.46 The justices also ruled 5-4 in a case originating in Alaska that a convicted felon has no constitutional right to postconviction access to DNA testing if a state does not allow it.47 Forty-four states and the federal government permit such access to biological evidence for testing, but not Alaska. Although the Obama administration supported Alaska, only the court’s conservatives voted to uphold states’ authority to craft these rules. In a potentially costly decision for public schools, the court held 6-3 that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a school district to pay tuition costs for a student whose parents unilaterally placed him in a private school after the district did not find the student eligible for special education and provide him such services.48 The Obama administration supported the plaintiffs. The court also opined that a federal appeals court had erred in requiring continued federal-court supervision of Arizona’s spending for teaching non-English-speaking students under the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act. The “Court of Appeals used a heightened standard that paid insufficient attention to federalism concerns,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the 5-4 majority.49
28 The Book of the States 2010
State Activism State policy activism, which is partly a response to and also result of coercive federalism, took a conservative turn in 2009. For example, 10th Amendment resolutions asserting state sovereignty have been passed by the legislatures and signed by the governors in Alaska and Tennessee, and passed by the legislatures of Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota.50 Bills have been introduced in the legislatures of Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma to create commissions to review the constitutionality of federal laws and, in the case of the Georgia bill, make it a criminal offense for federal officials to enforce laws not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. About 30 states are considering Health Care Freedom Acts that would guarantee the right of their residents to choose health insurers and services and prohibit state and local governments, as well as the federal government, from requiring citizens to purchase health insurance. These measures are unlikely to succeed in most states. Some states, including California, want the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to slow federal rulemaking to regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions because fast rules could overwhelm states with administrative and regulatory costs while budgets are depressed, delay infrastructure and economic development projects, and undercut state climate-change programs. In April 2009, Washington became the fifth state to join the Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey previously approved the compact. Together with Washington, they account for only 61 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Colorado, however, rejected the compact, which, if approved by enough states, would require all the member states to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in presidential elections.
Conclusion The long-term outlook for the states as coequal governing partners in the federal system is not strong because long-term fiscal pressures and trends in coercive federalism are working against them. There will be variations on these trends as the federal government flips between
state-federal relations Democratic and Republican majorities, but no party adheres to federalist principles that would call for more than marginal adjustments to the current balance of state-federal powers.
Notes 1 Chris Bodenner, “Not in Brownback’s Yard,” National Journal 41 (January 31, 2009): 50–51. 2 Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney, “Aggressive Push by White House in States’ Races,” New York Times, September 22, 2009, A1, A3. 3 Quoted in “As They See It,” State Legislatures 35 (June 2009): 34. 4 Michael A. Fletcher, “High-Powered and Low-Key: The quiet influence of Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, March 23–29, 2009, p. 13. 5 Dave Levinthal, “States and Municipalities Aggressively Lobby Federal Government for Scarce Aid,” Center for Responsive Politics, September 3, 2009, at http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/09/state-andmunicipal-politicos.html, accessed February 3, 2010. 6 See John Kincaid, “State-Federal Relations: Agendas for Change and Continuity,” The Book of the States 2009 (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 2009), pp. 21–27. 7 For background, see John Kincaid, “State-Federal Relations: Federal Dollars Down, Federal Power Up,” The Book of the States (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 2006), 19–25; John Kincaid, “StateFederal Relations: Defense, Demography, Debt, and Deconstruction as Destiny,” The Book of the States (Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2005), 25–30; John Kincaid, “Trends in Federalism: Continuity, Change and Polarization,” The Book of the States (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 2004), 21–27; John Kincaid, “State-Federal Relations: Continuing Regulatory Federalism,” The Book of the States (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 2002), 25–32; John Kincaid, “From Cooperation to Coercion in American Federalism: Housing, Fragmentation, and Pre-emption, 1780–1992,” Journal of Law and Politics 9 (Winter 1993): 333–433. 8 The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, Red Ink Rising (Washington, DC: Commission, December 2009). 9 National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of the States, December 2009 (Washington, DC: NGA and NASBO, 2009), p. vii. 10 Anon, “Policy Points: Recession Still Causing Trouble for States,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, January 28, 2010, at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index. cfm?fa=view&id=1283, accessed February 2, 2010. 11 Leslie Eaton, “Big Cities Bear Brunt of Cuts,” Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2009, A3. 12 HIS Global Insight, U.S. Metro Economies: Ameri-
can Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Mayors, 2009). See also, Peter Sanders and Christopher Conkey, “Mayors Struggle to Get Piece of Stimulus,” Wall Street Journal, January 17–18, 2009, A4, and Suzanne Sataline, “Cities Cry Foul On Stimulus Cash,” Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2009, A3. 13 Sara Murray, “Numbers On Welfare See Sharp Increase,” Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2009, A1, A2. 14 Stu Woo and Jim Carlton, “California Proposal Seeks $6.9 Billion,” Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2010, A3. 15 Brian M. Riedl, “Stimulus Bill Should Not Bail Out Irresponsible States,” WebMemo 2266 (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2009). 16 Joe Mathews, “California to Feds: Drop Dead,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, June 29–July 12, 2009, 26. 17 Ethan Pollack, “Dire States,” EPI Briefing Paper 252 (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, November 19, 2009). 18 Citizens Against Government Waste, “Earmarks Rise to $19.6 Billion in CAGW’s 2009 Pig Book,” April 14, 2009, at http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/ releases/2009/earmarks-rise-to-196.html, accessed January 12, 2010. 19 Robert H. Mattoon, “Should the federal government bail out the states? Lessons from past recessions,” Chicago Fed Letter 265 (August 2009): 1–4. 20 Mark Sanford, “Why South Carolina Doesn’t Want ‘Stimulus’,” Wall Street Journal, March 21–22, 2009, A21. 21 Ellen Hanak, “State Infrastructure Spending and the Federal Stimulus Package,” National Tax Journal 62 (September 2009): 573–583. 22 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Formula Grants, GAO-10-263 (Washington, DC: GAO, December 2009). 23 Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., Ten Thousand Commandments (Washington, DC: Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2009). 24 Jonathan Weisman, “Governors Assail Medicaidfor-Uninsured Plans,” Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2009, A4 and Kevin Sack and Robert Pear, “Governors Fear Medicaid Costs in Health Plan,” New York Times, July 20, 2009, A1, A11. 25 The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, “States Report Sharp Increase In Medicaid Enrollment And Spending Amid Worst Recession In Decades,” at http:// www.kff.org/medicaid/medicaid093009nr.cfm, accessed February 4, 2010. 26 Kate Zernike, “States Split Over Medicaid Costs in Senate’s Bill,” New York Times, December 27, 2009, 1, 4. 27 Quoted in Anon, “Color-Coding the Suburbs,” Wall Street Journal, August 15-16, 2009, A12. See also, Nick Timiraos, “Wealthy Suburbs Accept low-Income Homes,” New York Times, August 11, 2009, A3. 28 Quoted in Peter Applebome, “Integration faces a New Test in the Suburbs,” New York Times, August 23, 2009, Week in Review Section, p. 3. 29 Alan Wirzbicki, “LaHood defends mass transit push,” Boston Globe, May 21, 2009, at http://www.
The Council of State Governments 29
State-Federal RELATIONS boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/ lahood_defends.html, accessed January 12, 2010. 30 Abby Goodnough and Monica Davey, “Effort to Track Sex Offenders Draws Resistance From States,” New York Times, February 9, 2009, A1, A13. 31 Molly Ramsdell, “A Rough Road to REAL ID,” Legisbrief 18 (February 2010): 2. 32 John Schwarz, “From New Administration, Signals of Broader Role for States,” New York Times, January 30, 2009, A16. 33 Stu Woo and Juston Scheck, “California Marijuana Dispensaries Cheer U.S. Shift on Roads,” Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009, A6, and David Stout and Solomon Moore, “U.S. Won’t Prosecute in States That Allow Medical Marijuana,” New York Times, October 20, 2009, A1, A21. 34 Rachel L. Swarns, “Stricter Transit Standards to Be Sought,” New York Times, November 19, 2009, A17. 35 Michael Mazerov, Obscure Tax Provision of Federal Recovery Package Could Widen State Budget Gaps (Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 19, 2009). 36 Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). 37 Adam Liptak, “Right and Left Join to Take On U.S. in Criminal Justices Cases,” New York Times, November 24, 2009, A1, A22, and Harvey A. Silverglate, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (New York: Encounter Books, 2009). 38 William L. Anderson, “Federal Crimes and the Destruction of Law,” Regulation 32 (Winter 2009–2010): 10–15. 39 Solomon Moore, “Federal Judges Order California Prisons to Reduce Inmate Population,” New York Times, August 5, 2009, A10. 40 Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, L. L. C., 129 S. Ct. 2710 (2009). 41 Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009). 42 Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009). 43 Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009). 44 Ricci v. DeStafano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009). 45 Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009). 46 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). 47 District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009). 48 Forest Grove School District v. T. A., 129 S. Ct. 2484 (2009). 49 Horne v. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (2009). 50 Anon, “Facing Off With the Feds,” State Legislatures 36 (February 2010): 32–33.
30 The Book of the States 2010
About the Author John Kincaid is the Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Professor of Government and Public Service and Director of the Meyner Center for the Study of State and Local Government, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania. He is former editor of Publius: The Journal of Federalism; former executive director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; and co-editor of Constitutional Origins, Structure, and Change in Federal Countries (2005), Interaction in Federal Systems (2008), and Local Government in Federal Systems (2008).
State-Local Relations
State-Local Relations Trends By Joseph F. Zimmerman State-local relations in 2010 are complex and continually changing. Major trends since 2007 include creation of state commissions to study the local government system and to make recommendations for its reorganization; state laws granting local governments more or less discretionary authority; state assumption of control of failing public schools and fiscally distressed cities; and numerous court decisions determining the respective powers of the state and its political subdivisions. State-local relations are legally complex in most states and courts play a major role in delimiting the boundaries of powers between the state and its political subdivisions. These powers may be classified as exclusive state ones, exclusive general purpose local government ones, and concurrent powers exercisable by state and local governments. The latter historically were subject to the English Common Law Ultra Vires Rule—popularly known in the U.S. as Dillon’s Rule—holding they are creatures of the state and subject to its control. Abuse of the superior powers of the state legislature to control and modify local governments produced a voter reaction in the form of constitutional amendments in 41 states forbidding the legislature to enact a special law (applicable only to a named government). The National Municipal League, now the National Civic League, in 1921 proposed a model constitutional provision establishing an Imperium in Imperio—states within a state—by dividing power between the state and its local governments. Sixteen states currently use this system, although its effectiveness in providing greater local discretionary authority often has been limited by narrow judicial interpretation. The American Municipal Association, now National League of Cities, in the 1950s engaged Dean Jefferson B. Fordham of the University of Pennsylvania Law School to study state-local relations His 1953 report proposed a constitutional provision devolving to a municipal corporation adopting a charter all powers capable of devolution subject to pre-emption by general law with the exceptions of the powers to enact laws governing civil relations and to define and provide for the punishment of a felony. Twelve states have constitutional provisions providing for devolution of powers. All three systems are incorporated in the New York Constitution and result in exceptionally complex state-local relations that encourage mu-
nicipal attorneys frequently to seek advisory opinions from the state attorney general, comptroller and commissioner of education. Voters in 2008 took advantage of home rule in Centennial, Colo., and by a 2-to-1 margin approved a proposition converting the city from a statutory one into a home rule city, thereby expanding the city’s powers. Voters in Menifee, Quail Valley, Sun City and part of Romoland in California ratified a proposition to incorporate these communities as the City of Menifee.
Governmental Reorganization Interest in merging local governments continues to be a trend. The Indiana Commission for Local Government Reform in 2007 recommended eliminating 1,008 township governments by transferring their responsibilities to county executives, changing most county offices from elected to appointed, establishing the position of an elected county chief executive and transferring the responsibilities of several county officers to the executive. In 2009, Gov. Mitch Daniels sought legislative approval for a bill reorganizing township government. Senate Bill 512 was approved in the Senate by a narrow vote of 28 to 22, but was defeated in a House committee. The initial version of the bill would have eliminated township government. The 2007 Maine State Legislature enacted a school district restructuring program to reduce the number of districts from 290 to a maximum of 80. By July 1, 2009, 26 districts had been restructured, with the average size increasing from 566 students to 2,133 students. Maine also reduced its public safety dispatch centers from 48 to 16 since 2003. The 2007 New Jersey General Assembly created the Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization and Consolidation Commission to study and report on county and municipal government structure and functions. In 2009, Gov. Jon S. Corzine proposed
The Council of State Governments 31
State-Local Relations reducing state aid to more than 300 townships with populations of less than 10,000 and offering grants for merger studies. The only merger in the state since 1950 was the 1997 merger of Hardwick and Pohaquarry. The Ohio General Assembly in 2008 created a Commission on Local Government Reform and Consolidation to develop recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local governments. In addition, Ohio established a Local Government Services Collaboration Grant Program, funded at $900,000, to provide grants to local governments interested in consolidating services with services of other local governments. The New Jersey Commissioner of Education in 2007 decided the Jersey City and the Newark school systems, respectively under state control since 1989 and 1995, should be allowed to regain some local control. Patterson schools have been under state control since 1991. The Missouri State Board of Education in 2007 assumed control of 93 troubled St. Louis public schools which had a graduation rate of 55 percent and a drop-out rate of 19 percent.
California Proposition and State Laws California voters in 2008 approved a proposition prohibiting state and local government agencies from using eminent domain to take private, owneroccupied residences for private projects. An Alabama court invalidated a 1969 Jefferson County occupational tax, which necessitated the layoff of 1,004 county employees. The state legislature on Aug. 14, 2009, authorized the county to levy a new 0.45 percent tax on all workers in the county, including previously exempted professionals, and provided for a referendum in 2012 on continuance of the tax or its phase-out over five years. A companion bill requires the county commission to appoint a county manager. Colorado House Bill 09-1118 of 2009 eliminated the requirement an officer charged with keeping records must keep them in a “well-bound book” and substituted a requirement the records must be kept in a “visual text format that may be transmitted electronically.” House Bill 09-1217 allows a county to create a local improvement district to provide utility projects. Senate Bill 09-001 requires counties to adopt countywide community wildfire protection plans after determining a fire hazard exists in an unincorporated territory. And House Bill 09-1034 authorizes regional transportation authorities to levy five mills tax on property within its jurisdiction.
32 The Book of the States 2010
The 2008 Florida State Legislature enacted House Bill 697 granting discretionary power to the Florida building commission to implement energy standards for new commercial, governmental and residential buildings, and CS/SB 1694 establishing a voluntary certification process for 911 emergency dispatchers. The 2009 legislature enacted Senate Bill 252 applying the Code of Ethics to local government contract employees, and Senate Bill 216 prohibiting local governments to expend funds advocating for or against a referendum issue. The Illinois General Assembly in 2007 overrode Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s veto of a bill requiring public schools to provide students with a moment of silence at the start of classes. A 2008 Indiana law mandates a referendum on elementary and middle school building projects costing more than $10 million, and high school projects costing more than $20 million. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo drafted and the 2009 state legislature enacted The New N.Y. Government Reorganization and City Empowerment Act, which authorizes citizens, officers and counties to reorganize 10,521 local governments. The act allows consolidation or dissolution to be initiated by local governing bodies or initiative petition. Consolidation of towns and/or villages is subject to a constitutional referendum as is a proposed dissolution of a village. New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s control of the city’s public school system expired on June 30, 2009, but was extended for six years Aug. 6. Mayoral control continued as a majority of the members of the reconstituted school board support the mayor. In August, the legislature enacted the extension law. The Vermont General Assembly in 2009 eliminated local government zoning authority over telecommunications facilities (Act 54), authorized the Windham County assistant judges to borrow $200,000 to renovate the county sheriff’s office without a referendum, and increased property taxes by $23.2 million to fund education. The Virginia General Assembly in 2009 amended (1) §15.2-3201 of the Code of Virginia to extend from 2010 to 2018 the restriction on city annexation authority, granting of city charters, and county immunity proceedings, (2) §15.2.4166 of the code to increase from five to 15 years the period during which cities in transition to town status may continue to receive specified state library aid, (3) §§24.2-233 et seq. to provide a person who circulates or signs a petition for removal of a public officer is not liable for costs associated with the proceedings, (4) §2.2-4303 to increase from $30,000
State-Local Relations to 50,000 the amount for single or term contracts for professional services not requiring competitive negotiations under the Public Procurement Law, and (5) authorized local governments to ban the disposal of certain rechargeable batteries in any disposal facilities provided a recycling program has been implemented. Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin in 2007 used the item veto to remove words and numbers from the state budget enacted into law by the state legislature, and thereby raised the levy limits on local governments from 2 to 3 percent that added approximately $41 million to property tax bills.
Other Developments The Kansas health services secretary in 2009 assumed control of Milwaukee County’s child care, food aid and medical assistance programs because of mismanagement. Numerous public officials in rural areas of Oregon resigned in 2008 because of a new state ethics form considered to be invasive and unnecessary. They particularly resented the required listing of relatives and household members. Members of school boards and special district boards do not have to file the forms. The Texas State Comptroller offers a local government management assistance program providing county governments with a critique of their operating procedures at no cost to the county. The program, for example, reviewed Navarro County government department and offices in 2009 among other counties. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in 2007 assumed complete responsibility for permitting on-site sewage systems and water supplies. And the Wisconsin Health Services Secretary in 2009 stripped Milwaukee County of its responsibility to administer food aid, child care and medical assistance programs because of years of county mismanagement.
Court Decisions In 2007, the Washington State Supreme Court invalidated Initiative Proposition 747, which limited tax collections and note rates to 1 percent annually unless voters approved a larger amount, on the ground voters were deceived by anti-tax activist Tim Eyman: “A voter reading the text of the initiative would have perceived a much smaller impact on government coffers than would actually occur under I-747.” The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles referred to the constitutional prohibition of the transfer of authority over any part of a school system to entities outside the public school
system, and unanimously invalidated Assembly Bill 1381, which had transferred substantial jurisdiction over such schools to the mayor of the city. In Massachusetts, Barnstable Superior Court Judge Richard Connon opined Town Councilor J. Gregory Milne was ineligible to serve on a town charter commission because he held a public office. The New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a Trenton ordinance reorganizing the police department because a mandatory referendum is required by state law. The Lamoille County Superior Court in Vermont held it is illegal for Stowe voters to decide by Australian ballot whether to approve or reject sections of the town budget since state law requires a vote on the entire budget. And the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Vermont municipalities must demonstrate they have considered the negative secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses prior to enacting an ordinance prohibiting their operation. The Arizona Court of Appeals in 2008 opined cities and towns may reject developers’ plans if they conflict with the values of their respective residents. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns in 2008 filed suit against State Treasurer Dean Martin and then-Gov. Janet Napolitano challenging the constitutionality of section 47 of Chapter 285 of the 2008 session laws requiring counties and incorporated cities and towns to deposit $29,748,400 into the state general fund to help remove a $1.6 billion budget deficit. The state Supreme Court in 2009 noted the constitution strictly limits the contents of general appropriation bills and invalidated section 47 for its failure to identify the prior appropriations being reduced. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2009 ruled members of a city council, despite an air of impropriety, were entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their action condemning the plaintiff’s property. The Seventh Circuit in NRA v. City of Chicago in 2009 opined the city’s handgun ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it is not incorporated to the States.1 A Town of Gilmanton, N.H., zoning ordinance prohibited aircraft takeoffs and landing in some districts. The state Supreme Court in 2008 (1) rejected the appellant petition for a writ of mandamus directing issuance of a special exception allowing such aircraft operations, (2) opined a zoning board of appeals does not have to defer to a decision by the historic district commission, and (3) rejected a suit by a coalition of local governments contending the state funding of public schools violated the
The Council of State Governments 33
State-Local Relations constitutional requirement to pay for an adequate education. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in 2008 rejected the argument that Concord’s ban on electronic changeable copy signs violates the guarantee of free speech. The New Hampshire Supreme Court in 2009 reviewed the state constitution section providing “the state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified program or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision.” The court confirmed its earlier decisions that the prohibition does not cover mandates imposed prior to 1984 when voters ratified the constitutional amendment. A New Hampshire district court judge in 2009 struck down four local government sex offender residency restriction ordinances. And the Merrimack County Superior Court in 2009 ruled a proposed spending cap amendment of the Concord city charter is not authorized by state law. The New Jersey Supreme Court in 2009 unanimously ruled townships cannot restrict where released sex offenders may reside because state law allows parole officers to make that decision, thereby invalidating 127 such ordinances. The court in 2009 upheld a 2008 law changing the school financing formula by placing less focus on the poorest schools. The New York Supreme Court, a trial court, in 2009 invalidated a Rensselaer County sex offender residency law as pre-empted by state law, and a similar Albany County law. The New York Supreme Court in 2008 rejected the claim of a mining company that its state permit and the Mined Land Reclamation Law preempted the Nassau town ordinance. And the Ohio Supreme Court in 2009 upheld a 2006 state law barring city residency laws as a condition of employment by citing section 34 of the state constitution granting the legislature authority to prohibit residency laws.
Economic Crisis Produces State-Local Friction The economic recession created severe fiscal problems for most states and local governments. The fiscal problem was most acute in California where the state comptroller on July 2, 2009, commenced issuing a total of $1.1 billion in IOU vouchers to taxpayers and vendors because of the failure of the state legislature to enact budget bills. Three rating agencies reduced the state’s credit rating to one level above junk. The budget deadlock was broken in late July and a projected $28 billion deficit was erased.
34 The Book of the States 2010
The state public education budget was cut by $1.5 billion, its second cut in a year. In February, the education budget was reduced by $11 billion. Voter-approved Proposition 98 of 1988 requires the state legislature to appropriate approximately 40 percent of general fund revenues to support public schools. General purpose local governments experienced a sharp reduction in tax revenues that were exacerbated by the state borrowing $2 billion from local governments repayable in three years, and a shift of $1.7 billion in local redevelopment funds to the state. The assembly rejected a proposed shift of $1 billion in motor fuel taxes to the state from cities and counties. The $11.5 billion New Hampshire state budget enacted by the 2009 General Court reduced the state’s contribution to the state retirement system for local government employees by 5 percent ($27 million) in fiscal year 2010 and by another 5 percent in fiscal year 2011. Local governments maintain the reductions are a violation of the constitutional prohibition of unfunded mandates and filed a lawsuit. The 2007 New Jersey State Legislature enacted a property tax relief law granting homeowners an average tax credit of $1,100 and elderly homeowners a $1,250 credit, and placing a 4 percent cap on local property taxes with exceptions for townships and school districts that may exceed the limit with voter approval. States established 74 rated investment pools allowing local governments voluntarily to join a pool and to receive a higher rate of interest. A Florida pool, organized by the League of Cities, invested in the Columbia Fund, which shut down Dec. 10, 2007. To protect the investments of cities, the League took out a $156 million loan to establish a new investment pool for cities. The Florida Local Government Investment Pool, the largest pool in the nation, held $32 billion in investments in 2007 when numerous withdrawals reduced the fund to $14 billion and resulted in a temporary freeze on withdrawals. The pool held assets of $5.7 billion in February 2009.
Fiscal Distress Municipal bankruptcies were common during the Great Depression, and threats of bankruptcies occurred in the 1970s. New York state responded to the crises by creating a separate state financial control board for New York in 1975, Yonkers in 1978, Troy in 1995, Buffalo in 2003 and Nassau County in 2000. The Massachusetts General
State-Local Relations Court in 2004 created a financial control board for Springfield, and the board was dissolved in 2009. Michigan assumed control of the finances of Flint, Hamtramck and Highland Park. The current economic recession has placed severe strains on local government finances and the City of Vallejo, California, sought bankruptcy protection in 2008 with no reserves and 80 percent of the general fund dedicated to fire and police services.
Notes  NRA v. City of Chicago.
1
About the Author Joseph F. Zimmerman is a professor of political science at Rockefeller College of the State University of New York in Albany, and is the author of numerous books on intergovernmental relations.
The Council of State Governments  35
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
The State of State Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations: Do They Continue to Have a Role in the U.S. Federal System? By Richard Cole In the 1970s and 1980s a number of states created entities commonly known as Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIRs). Although as many as half the states at one time or another supported ACIRs, today only about 10 continue to do so. Relying on face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, e-mail correspondence, Web site analysis, and mailed surveys of directors and other staff members of both currently active as well as terminated ACIRs, this study reports on organization and structure, on staffing and finances, and on activities and performance characteristics of those state ACIRs that remain viable today. The study attempts to identify those factors that seem most related to successful performance of these existing agencies as well as factors related to those terminated agencies, and, in conclusion, speculates on the continued role of ACIRs in the U.S. federal system. Introduction In the 1970s and 1980s a number of states created Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations.2 These state commissions were created in response to the increasing complexity of the U.S. federal system and the recognition of the growing need for greater cooperation and dialog between various units of the state, local and federal governments. Patterned after the United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations—known as the U.S. ACIR, created in 1959—these commissions generally were bipartisan; included broad representation from local governments, executive and legislative branches and citizenry; and had permanent and professional staffs to carry out their work.3 Although the various state commissions differed in size and resources, they all shared similar missions and objectives. Most state commissions assumed the responsibilities of evaluating relationships among local, state and federal governmental agencies; preparing reports and studies to improve those relationships; serving as data centers and clearinghouses for information on intergovernmental issues; serving as forums for the discussion and resolution of intergovernmental problems; providing technical assistance; and occasionally, serving as policy advocates. Over the past several decades, about half the states created and funded advisory commissions on intergovernmental relations. This was due 36 The Book of the States 2010
in part to the efforts of the U.S. ACIR, which actively promoted state-level counterparts. Noting the increasing tensions between federal, state and local governments, and the increasing challenges brought by rapid urbanization, economic uncertainties and technological change, the U.S. ACIR encouraged states to adopt these commissions, and even developed model legislation for states.4 Table A presents a listing of all state commissions. The 10 states where commissions continue to be active have little in common. Most have more local governments than the average, but some— Louisiana, New Jersey, Tennessee and Utah— have far fewer than the average. Most have average-size populations; however, Florida is the fourth largest and North Dakota is the third smallest state in the country. Likewise, partisanship and party politics seem virtually unrelated to the existence or continued viability of state commissions. Legislatures in four states with commissions are predominantly Democratic, six are Republican. The electorate in four of these states voted Democratic in the 2008 presidential election, six voted Republican. Connecticut has one of the country’s strongest concentrations of those identifying themselves as Democrats, while Utah has one of the strongest concentrations of those calling themselves Republicans.5 Neither geography, demography, politics, nor electoral behavior explain the commitment of
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS islative act and later moved under jurisdiction of a university. The average commission Existing ACIRs has about 20 members, with a Terminated ACIRs State Web site range of 12 to 28. The governArizona, 1970s (?)–1980s(?) Connecticut, 1985 www.ct.gov/opm/acir ing bodies consist primarily of California, 1960s (?)–1970s (?) Florida, 1977 www.floridalcir.gov representatives of local govColorado, 1988–1994 Indiana, 1995 iacir.spea.iupui.edu ernments and the state legislaIowa, 1982–1995 Louisiana, 1986 senate.legis.state.la.us/acir tive branch. Less represented Maine, 1970s(?)–1980s(?) Missouri, 1985 http://oa.mo.gov/co/ir/ Massachusetts, 1981–1980s(?) North Dakota, 1989 www.legis.nd.gov are the executive branch and Minnesota, 1985–1995 Tennessee, 1978 www.tn.gov/tacir/ private citizens. Almost half say Montana, 1991–? Utah, 1987 www.cppa.utah.edu/ their commissions are required North Carolina, 1979–1998 (est.) Kansas, 2002 www.ksrevenue.org/kacir.htm by law to maintain bipartisan Ohio, 1978–1991 New Jersey, 1970 (b) Oklahoma, 1987–2002 membership, and a majority South Carolina, 1984–1995 say their commissions “someVirginia, 1978–2004 times” operate in a bipartiWashington, 1982–1997 san manner. One respondent Texas, 1971–1995 (a) noted the statute creating that Source: Richard Cole Key: commission requires “an even (a) The Texas ACIR actually was reauthorized by the Texas Legislature in 1997, but the split between the majority and reauthorization bill was vetoed by then-Gov. George Bush. (b) First created as New Jersey Commission on Interstate Cooperation in 1964, and minority memberships of the altered by statute to ACIR status in 1970. House and Senate.” Another commented on the difficulty these 10 states to their advisory commissions. in achieving bipartisanship: “The goal is to have Perhaps the only thing that can be said is that by legislators from both sides of the political aisle their continued support of commission activities, but [our state] is heavily Republican so this is these states demonstrate a shared commitment hard to achieve.” to the nonpartisan and broadly representative Most say they “always” or “usually” have mainapproach to the understanding and analysis of tained a mix of membership from the executive state-level intergovernmental policy issues these and legislative branches, local governments and agencies offer. the general public. Four agencies reported havThis study looks primarily at the organiza- ing no official commission membership positions tional, structural, financial and staffing aspects of for members of the public, and some that offiexisting state commissions and speculates on the cially have public membership report difficulty future of such commissions. This study is based in achieving active participation from this group. on face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, e-mail correspondence, Web site analysis, and on- Staffing and Finances Table C presents information related to the line surveys of directors and other staff members of both currently active as well as terminated staffing and financing of these state commissions. ACIRs, all conducted in the spring of 2009.6 The These state agencies share some commonalities, survey was developed with the help of a panel but many significant differences are revealed as of experts7 that included scholars of U.S. federal well. All agencies are relatively small and report relations, previous directors and assistant direc- that their budgets come entirely from state gentors of U.S. ACIR, previous directors of state eral funds. Almost all say the size of their staff commissions and state/local practitioners. has remained reasonably constant in recent years, and most say recent economic downturns probOrganization and Structure ably will not impact their staffing, finances or Table B illustrates relevant organizational and programs. One respondent noted, however, “[Our structure characteristics of commissions active as state] is facing substantial financial difficulties of 2009. and it’s likely that every agency will be impacted.” Virtually all these commissions were created Beyond this, though, significant financial and by state legislatures. In fact, the one agency staffing differences are evident. Although small, reporting “other” was initially created by a leg- the range of staffing varies considerably. Some of
Table A: The State ACIRs
The Council of State Governments 37
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Table B: Organization and Structure Characteristics
Table C: Staffing and Financial Characteristics
1. Mode of authorization a. Act of state legislature: 90% b. Other: 10%
1. Number of full time professional staff: a. Average = 3.13 b. Range = 0–12
2. Size of governing body a. Average = 19.7 members b. Range = 12–28
2. Number of part time professional staff: a. Average = 2.13 b. Range = 0–6
3. Make up of governing body (averages) a. Number of legislative members = 6.33 b. Number of executive branch members = 3.44 c. Number of representatives of local governments = 7.25 d. Number of “other” members (private citizens, etc.) = 3.83 4. Has governing body generally maintained a mix of membership from the executive and legislative branches, from local governments and from the general public? a. Always: 70% b. Usually: 20% c. Sometimes: 10% 5. Required by law to maintain bipartisan membership a. Yes: 55.6% b. No: 44.4% 6. How often does commission actually operate in a genuinely bipartisan way? a. Always: 20% b. Sometimes: 70% c. Rarely/never: 10%
Source: Richard Cole
those reporting small staffs receive support from other agencies. One respondent stated, “Our ACIR is provided staff as necessary by the Office of Policy and Management.” The size of operating budgets, averaging $534,000, varies more greatly. Some of those reporting very small budgets say they receive budget support elsewhere. One reported the state’s commission “receives minimal funding as a line item in OPMs expense budget,” and a university-connected ACIRs reported receiving some budget assistance from the school’s departmental operating budget.
Activities and Performance Respondents were asked to estimate the total amount of time and effort devoted to several activities. As shown in Figure A, time and work effort reported by these commissions consist mainly of conducting and publishing research, preparing legislative policy proposals, and hosting conferences and seminars. Other tasks, like 38 The Book of the States 2010
3. Number of clerical staff: a. Average = .38 b. Range = 0–1 4. Size of budget, this fiscal year a. Average = $534,641 b. Range = $0–$2,903,500 c. Proportion of budget derived from state general funds = 100% d. Proportion of budget derived from contract work with cities, counties, states and other organizations = 0% 5. Recent changes in size of staff a. Increased = 0 b. Stayed the same = 90% c. Decreased = 10% 6. Will recent economic turndown affect staffing and finances? a. Yes = 20% b. No = 80% 7. Will recent economic turndown affect programmatic efforts? a. Yes = 20% b. No = 80% Source: Richard Cole
serving as information clearinghouses or providing technical advice to local governments, appear to garner very little attention. Respondents also were asked to report on other aspects of their activities, such as who sets their work agenda, how their work is utilized and by whom. As shown in Table D, the work agenda of the advisory commissions for the most part is set by each agency’s commission. Respondents report their work is utilized mainly by state agencies and city and municipal governments. Very little commission work appears to be utilized by special district governments or regional councils. Among state agencies, legislative bodies are seen as utilizing the bulk of commission work while very little appears to be utilized by governors. Respondents were asked about their role in advocacy. Most indicate they take an advocacy position only “occasionally” (50 percent), or “rarely or never” (37.5 percent).
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Figure A: Percent of Time Devoted to Activities 2% 4% 6% ■ Research and Publication ■ Conferences/Seminars 18%
■ Preparing Legislative Policy Proposals 54%
16%
■ Preparing Advice for Governor ■ Preparing Technical Advice for Local Governments ■ Information Clearinghouse
Source: Richard Cole
Table D: Setting and Utilization of Work Agenda 1. Annual work agenda is set by: a. The commission: 75% b. The legislature: 25% 2. Percent of work utilized by: (a) a. City and municipal governments: 37.5% b. County governments: 26.6% c. Special district governments: 6.7% d. Regional councils: 8.3% e. State agencies (legislative and executive): 54.2% 3. Percent of work effort considering just state agencies: a. Legislature: 75.8% b. Office of Governor: 11.7% c. Various executive agencies: 27.5% 4. Frequency with which commission engages in “advocacy” projects a. Regularly: 12.5% b. Occasionally: 50% c. Rarely or never: 37.5% Source: Richard Cole (a) Totals exceed 100 percent due to some agencies reporting greater than 100 percent utilization by these entities.
The extent of commission engagement in various programmatic activities is shown in Table E. For the most part, these commissions provide advice to state legislative committees; review proposed state legislation for intergovernmental implications; monitor intrastate grants, contracts and other relationships; and maintain intergovernmental databases, such as state-local finances and census data. Considerably less attention is paid to monitoring intergovernmental agreements, providing cost estimates of unfunded state mandates and monitoring interstate relationships. Apparently no, or only minimal, time is spent on boundary commission duties and assistance to regional councils. In general, those agencies that operate in a truly bipartisan manner and are characterized by a good representative mix of membership report greater success with constituents than other agencies. In addition, evidence suggests those that at least “occasionally” engage in advocacy activities perceive higher levels of success with some constituents, particularly with the legislature and the governor. While these are intriguing results and may suggest broader patterns, the small number of agencies available for this study necessitates considerable caution in interpreting results. The Council of State Governments 39
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Table E: Extent of Engagement in Various Activities
Activity
Providing Advice to Legislative Committees Reviewing Proposed State Legislation for IGR implications Intrastate relationships that the state or local governments maintain Maintenance of IGR data bases (state/local finances, census, etc.) Annual Reports on status of the IGR system Intergovernmental agreements with the state Cost Estimates of Unfunded State Mandates and Other Actions Interstate Relationships that state and local govts maintain Boundary Commission Types of Duties Assistance to Regional Councils
Regularly or Occasionally
Rarely or Never
85.0% 75 62.5 57.2 50 42.9 37.5 25 0 0
12.5% 12.5 25 42.9 50 42.9 50 62.5 75 85.7
Source: Richard Cole Note: Percents fail to add to 100% in those instances where one or more agencies reported “not appropriate.”
Factors Accounting for Success and Issues to Avoid The reasons for success of state commissions vary. Some of the factors discussed above seem related to successful efforts, at least as viewed by existing commissions. Self-described ratings of “success” with many constituents (city and municipal governments, county governments, legislators and legislative committees, etc.) seem to be related to structural factors such as maintaining bipartisan commission membership and having a “good” mix of membership. Success also seems positively related to the willingness to at least occasionally engage in advocacy-type activities. Respondents were asked to list those factors they believed most account for the success, or at least longevity, of their agencies; advice they would give to newly formed state commissions on strategies; and tactics most critical to success and pitfalls and missteps to avoid. Table F presents those responses. The verbal responses correlate with many of the quantitative responses discussed earlier and seem to reinforce conclusions. Many respondents stressed the importance of having bipartisan commission membership and a good mix of representation from all sectors, as well as doing professional, well-balanced, objective policy work. Additional strategies and tactics related to successful efforts include developing productive relationships with other state organizations and “key players,” cultivating and maintaining local government support, and reaching out to local governments and local government associations. 40 The Book of the States 2010
One respondent suggests developing a “serial” (or annual) product and several suggested making sure the commission’s work is widely circulated and recognized.
Factors Related to Commission Terminations and Prospects for Their Continued Role in the U.S. Federal System Interviews conducted with former directors of terminated state commissions reveal many factors contributing to their demise. Partisanship played a factor in some terminations. One director said the commission was effective when the Democrats controlled the legislature, and half the commission’s recommendations were approved. “Republicans ran on a ‘we hate government’ campaign and after they took control none of our recommendations ever saw the light of day.” Another director said Republicans disregarded commission recommendations when they gained control of the legislature. In other states, the Democratic perspective led to the commission’s demise. One former director said, “The governor [a Democrat] viewed us with great suspicion. He saw us as too much of an advocate for the state’s metropolitan areas, as opposed to county governments and rural areas.” In another state the Democratic-controlled legislature “did not like any options [on tax reform] that we recommended and that ultimately led to our going out of business.” Alternative sources of available information,8 as well as competing sources of information, were identified by some former directors as contributing to the demise of their state’s commissions. One director said, “Our state legislature devel-
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Table F: Factors Contributing to Agency Success, Advice for Success, and Steps to Avoid Factors Contributing to Agency Success 1. The well balanced, inclusive makeup of the commission membership. 2. Thorough, balanced research and well thought out non-partisan activities. 3. It basically has members from all political subdivisions. 4. Chairperson, members, and staff committed to succeeding. 5. Involvement of state municipal association and assignment of Senate staff to support commission. 6. Adaptability and flexibility. 7. Great staff, continuity of staff. 8. Support by local governments and local government associations. 9. We do good policy work on a few issues each year. Perceptions that there is a reasonable amount of value added given the little bit of funding that we have. Strategies and Tactics Most Critical to a Successful ACIR 1. Limit partisan rhetoric and stay focused on the main goal. 2. Build solid relationships with key players in your community that have a demonstrated interest in intergovernmental issues. 3. Take on projects that are of importance to the larger community that you can work on. Use these to build awareness of the commission. 4. Membership should be for those that are truly interested. 5. Dedicated membership, adequate staff support, and funding as a budget unit. 6. Provide access to local government financial data bases. Reach out to local government associations to provide useful services and information. 7. Be responsive to requests by legislative leadership and staff. 8. Broad membership with some structural bi-partisanship. 9. Establish some serial work. We have done a survey of local elected officials since 1997. Strategies and Tactics to Avoid 1. Don’t burn bridges. 2. Instead of taking on an issue head to head that is likely to alienate supporters, try to work on educating individuals and entities on your perspective. 3. Most definitely avoid not marketing your work products and services. 4. Avoid controversial issues in a constructive fashion. 5. Listen to your stakeholders. 6. Avoid losing objectivity. 7. Find sufficient resources. Source: Richard Cole
oped its own research council” that did much of the work that might have gone to the commission. Another said, “In our state, the comptroller, the legislature and the governor all developed very sophisticated information gathering and policy analysis capabilities that ACIR simply could not compete with.” Another said his/her state’s legislative council and departmental research units
provided the type of information the commission would provide. The most frequently cited reason for commission terminations was simply the failure of legislative and executive bodies and other state policymaking agencies—as well as commission members themselves—to take the commission, its mission, recommendations and body of work seriously. “We just faded away, we fell into disrepair, no one took us seriously,” one former director stated. “We were a fad, and when we finished [the two tasks that had been assigned by the legislature] it just made sense to get rid of us.” Another said his state’s commission had problems getting a quorum. “We had difficulty finding times that were convenient and topics that were of sufficient interest to persuade many of our members to drive for hours to [the state’s capitol].” Another former director said, “We presented great things, there was never any criticism of the validity of our recommendations, but none were ever accepted.” The commission was a victim of “benign neglect,” another former director said, “we were never asked to do much; we were not very high on anyone’s priority list.” Two former directors interviewed said they, themselves, recommended commission termination.9 Issues of partisanship, competition with other state-level associations and growing alternative sources of information all played a role in the demise of many state commissions. But overall, if these interviews with former directors are representative, most state commissions failed because of a lack of commitment to their missions and a failure by many parties, including commission and staff members, to truly value the nonpartisan, nonbiased policy analysis work commissions provide. The commissions and the work they did came to be viewed as irrelevant to the policy process. In short, they became expendable.
Is There a Continued Role for State Commissions? There are few remaining commissions that were initiated in earlier decades and only one state commission initiated in the past decade. Not only have the majority of state commissions faded away, but so too has U.S. ACIR.10 It’s quite possibly the case that commissions belong to a bygone era, that they were fads whose times have come and gone. In considering possible future roles of commissions, it’s helpful to recall the times when most of The Council of State Governments 41
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS them were created and to compare the significant issues of U.S. intergovernmental relations, then and now. The 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were decades experiencing an explosion of intergovernmental activity. Between 1960 and 1980, the number of federal aid programs rose from 132 to more than 500, funds allocated to state and local governments rose from about $7 billion to more than $90 billion and the federal government was experimenting with various forms of grants. Most significantly, perhaps, was the growing provision of grant assistance provided directly to local governments and the increased reliance of local governments on federal aid as part of their operating budgets. This was a period described by one observer as one of “galloping intergovernmentalization”11 and it brought significant new management and administrative challenges to states and local governments. The important intergovernmental issues facing state and local policymakers were precisely the sorts that commissions—with their emphasis on research, technical assistance, management advice, agenda setting and policy coordination, all carried out in a nonpartisan or bipartisan manner and with the participation of state, local and private representatives—were best prepared to address. It’s no wonder commissions flourished in this era. Today, the important intergovernmental issues have changed significantly. Although the dollar amounts of federal grants have continued to rise, the federal government has shifted its focus so that increasing portions of aid go to states rather than to local governments. Further, the percent of federal assistance going to state and local governments for the purpose of capital investments, compared to that going to individuals, has declined as well. Today only about one-third of federal grant money is available for capital investment and general government purposes. Equally important has been the dramatic increase in federal rules, regulations and mandates placed by the federal government on the use of those funds by state and local governments, and in turn on local governments by their respective states.12 Referring to this local burden, one observer notes: … Nothing has bothered local officials more than state mandates, particularly those that strongly affect local budgets. State officials often rely on their legislative and regula42 The Book of the States 2010
tory authority to compel local units to follow certain procedures, make changes in existing programs, or assume new program responsibilities. Each year, local officials must guard against legislation burdening their jurisdictions with expensive or inefficient state programs.13 The dynamics of intergovernmental relations today, especially at the state and local level, have shifted from what might be described as coordination and cooperation to competition and adversity. Local governments compete with each other and with their states for dwindling federal resources. Local governments in particular must work to minimize the impact of the increasing costs of both federal and state mandates. State and federal relations today, one scholar argues, can best be described as that of “dueling policies.”14 In such a climate, the value of the perspectives that commissions contribute to the intergovernmental arena is greatly diminished. Yet, many who study, practice and make policy in intergovernmental affairs arenas continue to point to the need for the nonpartisan, objective consideration of, and recommendations about, intergovernmental management and policy issues that commissions are equipped to offer. Many, in fact, continue to hope for a resurgence of commissions, including U.S. ACIR. As Bruce McDowell put it: Considerably more consequential federal agencies than ACIR have disappeared from the scene, and the nation has survived. Nevertheless, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan probably was correct in his remarks to the United States Senate during debate on ACIR’s final appropriation …” the ACIR does important, if largely unheralded, work. And we stand on the brink of terminating it. This is a mistake which we will regret. … Without the ACIR, our knowledge of important matters will never be anything more than meager. The action we are about to take will harm our capacity to govern effectively.15 David Brunori speaks for many observers of both national- and state-level advisory commissions when in 2001 he suggested bringing back the commissions. “It has been five years since the ACIR was eliminated, in what can only
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS be described as a shortsighted effort to save money.”16 Similarly, former directors interviewed for this study expressed a continued need for commission activities and the hope to revive such an agency in their state. One former director put it this way: “The issues of the 1970s have not gone away. In some ways the need (for commissiontype oversight) is even greater today. Today’s issues are more complex and we still lack adequate information at the state and local level. The need still exists for a body of mixed state and local representatives, backed up by solid research, to sort through complex issues.” Realistically, it appears that only a dramatic event that significantly changes the dynamics of U.S. intergovernmental relations would rejuvenate demands for the reauthorization of commissions at either the national or state levels. Perhaps the nation’s economic collapse in 2008– 09, one almost universally viewed as America’s greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, will prove to be such a transformational event. Certainly the economic stimulus package passed by Congress in 2009—and possibly future stimulus packages— is forcing state and local governments to face many intergovernmental management questions and issues raised in previous years. The stimulus funding flows through state and local governments for public works and infrastructure, fiscal stabilization, Medicaid, education, public safety, public housing and other projects and services funded by the bill. State advisory commissions are especially wellequipped to handle these sorts of issues. State commissions are a product and a reflection of intergovernmental events and issues of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. That a few still remain active is a testament to the commitment those states for the bipartisan, objective and representative consideration of intergovernmental issues that such commissions offer and to the consistently high level of work these agencies produce. Times, though, have changed. Realistically, the chances for successful renewal of state commissions, or for U.S. ACIR, do not appear great. But, these also are extraordinary times. In many ways the intergovernmental issues and challenges that will be raised by the nation’s response to its current economic crisis are not greatly unlike those faced by cities, states and the federal government in the 1960s to 1980s. States and local governments will respond to these
challenges in many ways. It seems reasonable for states to look to commission-type agencies for assistance with these challenges.
Notes 1 The author wishes to thank The Council of State Governments for its support of this project and also the faculty and staff of the LBJ School at the University of Texas at Austin for providing facilities and research assistance greatly facilitating the completion of this effort. The author expresses his appreciation to Ms. Alejandra Ramirez Costa, doctoral student at the LBJ School, for her assistance in the data collection phases of the project. Special thanks go to the many present and former directors and staff members of state ACIRs—both active and abandoned—without whose generous assistance this study would not have been possible. 2 Less frequently, some states have used such terms as Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations and Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation. 3 A good summary of the various criteria some deem essential to the ACIR “model” is provided by Dana B. Brammer, “State-Local Relations Organizations; A Fresh Look at the ACIR Counterparts in the States,” in Public Administration Survey, vol. 42 (spring/summer, 1995). 4 ACIR, The Challenge of Local Government Reorganization: Substate Regionalism and the Federal Government, vol. III, A-44 (Washington, D.C.: February, 1974). 5 Gallup Poll, Jan. 30, 2009,(accessible at http://www. gallup.com). 6 Contact was made with ex-directors or officials from eight terminated ACIRs. In depth, hour-long, interviews were held either face to face or over the phone with most of them. In other cases, information was exchanged via e-mail. A special note of thanks is due Terrell Blodgett for his assistance in locating these ex-directors and arranging for these interviews. 7 I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Terrell Blodgett, David Caputo, Shama Gamkhar, John Kincaid, Dale Krane, Bruce McDowell, Jim Ray, Carl Stenberg, Delbert Taebel, Robert Whelan, Robert Wilson and Deil Wright, all of whom contributed generously of their time and considerable expertise in assisting with the development of the survey as well as all aspects of this study, and to all who place great value in searching for ways to preserve and improve the relationships among the various levels of government in the American federal system. 8 A brief but useful summary of various legislative reforms occurring over this period, including those dealing with alternative sources of information and research, can be found in: Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., The Reform of State Legislatures (University Press of America: New York, 1992).
The Council of State Governments 43
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 9 An issue that might be said to be related both to ACIRs creation and their demise is the role of leadership, or more specifically the presence of one or a few advocates or “champions”—politically influential individuals with extraordinary commitment to ACIR goals and objectives who may have played critical roles in ACIR creation, but who for whatever reason were unable to help the agency when threatened. . Describing his commission’s failure, one previous director said, “We were created by executive order of a governor best described as a ‘young Turk.’ He was very ‘statesman-like,’ had been a member of the U.S. ACIR’s commission, and was very excited about bringing that perspective to (our state). For three years during that governor’s term, we had a great commission. He was replaced by a weak governor offering no support.” Another former director said similarly, “The key to weathering a temporary storm, change in leadership, budget crisis, etc., is really to have powerful advocates in either the governor’s office or the legislature, or both.” Another former director stated, “Seems to me that to have a viable ACIR a state must have leaders that want answers to systemic problems, want alternative solutions to complex problems, want to include leaders from the public and private groups to help understand why and what needs to be done in the best interest of the state ... and be willing to champion the cause for the ACIR. ... None of this exists presently in my state.” 10 A closely related issue has been the demise of significant IGR presence in OMB, GAO, the White House, and U.S. House and Senate committees. John Kincaid sees all of this as systematic of the era that he calls “coercive federalism.” See, John Kincaid, “Three Faces of Contemporary American Federalism,” in: Iwan W. Morgan and Philip J. Davies, The Federal Nation: Perspectives on American Federalism (New York: MacMillan, 2008), 63–81. 11 Mavis Mann Reeves, “Galloping Intergovernmentalization as a Factor in State Management,” State Government, 54, No. 3 (1981), 102–07. 12 So pervasive have these regulations been for state and local governments, that some refer to the current period as one of “coercive federalism.” See: John Kincaid, “From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, (1990), 139–52. 13 David R. Berman, “State-Local Relations: Authority, Finances, Cooperation,” Municipal Year Book, 2002 (International City Management Association: Washington, D.C, 2002), 49. 14 John Kincaid, “State-Federal Relations: Dueling Policies,” The Book of the States, 2008 (The Council of State Governments: Lexington, Ky., 2008), 19–24. 15 McDowell, “Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996: The End of an Era,” 127. Senator Moynihan’s remarks are found in: U.S. Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 104th Congress, First Session, Vol. 141, No. 177, p. S-16932.
44 The Book of the States 2010
16 David Brunori, “Advice to the New Congress— Bring Back the ACIR,” State Tax Notes, January, 15, 2001, 189–91. Editor’s Note: This study is available in its entirety on http://www.csg.org/
About the Author Richard Cole is a professor of Urban Affairs and Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington. His areas of expertise include federalism, intergovernmental relations, urban policy analysis and urban administration and planning. Cole, a 2004 Fullbright Scholar, has published numerous books and authored dozens of articles. In the past, he has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Urban Affairs and Public Administration Review. He currently serves on the Advisory Council of Publius: The Journal of Federalism.
See footnotes at end of table.
$1,842,000 2,092,000 3,283,000 4,217,000 5,044,000 5,384,000 5,679,000 5,986,000 6,538,000 7,440,000 8,089,000 8,689,000 9,443,000 10,906,000 11,885,000 12,968,000 14,174,000 16,928,000 19,056,000 21,950,000 24,779,000 28,892,000 32,640,000 36,759,246 40,822,135 45,599,917 51,003,544 56,678,662 61,073,666 65,814,882 74,469,765 82,758,150 91,306,569 96,949,692 99,122,081 106,651,073 119,607,683 129,860,427 138,823,310 149,008,885 162,485,793
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $341,194 974,780 1,179,580 1,386,237 1,472,378 1,493,215 1,746,301 1,872,980 1,793,284 1,764,821 1,722,115 1,963,468 2,105,831 2,455,362 2,652,981 2,929,622
1944...................................... 1946...................................... 1948...................................... 1950...................................... 1952...................................... 1953...................................... 1954...................................... 1955...................................... 1956...................................... 1957...................................... 1958...................................... 1959...................................... 1960...................................... 1962...................................... 1963...................................... 1964...................................... 1965...................................... 1966...................................... 1967...................................... 1968...................................... 1969...................................... 1970...................................... 1971...................................... 1972...................................... 1973...................................... 1974...................................... 1975...................................... 1976...................................... 1977...................................... 1978...................................... 1979...................................... 1980...................................... 1981...................................... 1982...................................... 1983...................................... 1984...................................... 1985...................................... 1986...................................... 1987...................................... 1988...................................... 1989...................................... $1,842,000 2,092,000 3,283,000 4,217,000 5,044,000 5,384,000 5,679,000 5,986,000 6,538,000 7,440,000 8,089,000 8,689,000 9,443,000 10,906,000 11,885,000 12,968,000 14,174,000 16,928,000 19,056,000 21,950,000 24,779,000 28,892,000 32,640,000 36,759,246 40,822,135 45,941,111 51,978,324 57,858,242 62,459,903 67,287,260 75,962,980 84,504,451 93,179,549 98,742,976 100,886,902 108,373,188 121,571,151 131,966,258 141,278,672 151,661,866 165,415,415
To Federal government (a) Total
Fiscal year Total
For specified purposes
To local governments
$274,000 357,000 428,000 482,000 549,000 592,000 600,000 591,000 631,000 668,000 687,000 725,000 806,000 839,000 1,012,000 1,053,000 1,102,000 1,361,000 1,585,000 1,993,000 2,135,000 2,958,000 3,258,000 3,752,327 4,279,646 4,803,875 5,129,333 5,673,843 6,372,543 6,819,438 8,224,338 8,643,789 9,570,248 10,044,372 10,364,144 10,744,740 12,319,623 13,383,912 14,245,089 14,896,991 15,749,681
$861,000 953,000 1,554,000 2,054,000 2,523,000 2,737,000 2,930,000 3,150,000 3,541,000 4,212,000 4,598,000 4,957,000 5,461,000 6,474,000 6,993,000 7,664,000 8,351,000 10,177,000 11,845,000 13,321,000 14,858,000 17,085,000 19,292,000 21,195,345 23,315,651 27,106,812 31,110,237 34,083,711 36,964,306 40,125,488 46,195,698 52,688,101 57,257,373 60,683,583 63,118,351 67,484,926 74,936,970 81,929,467 88,253,298 95,390,536 104,601,291
$368,000 376,000 648,000 792,000 976,000 981,000 1,004,000 1,046,000 1,069,000 1,136,000 1,247,000 1,409,000 1,483,000 1,777,000 1,919,000 2,108,000 2,436,000 2,882,000 2,897,000 3,527,000 4,402,000 5,003,000 5,760,000 6,943,634 7,531,738 7,028,750 7,136,104 8,307,411 8,756,717 8,585,558 8,675,473 9,241,551 11,025,445 11,965,123 10,919,847 11,923,430 12,673,123 14,214,613 14,753,727 15,032,315 16,697,915
$298,000 339,000 507,000 610,000 728,000 803,000 871,000 911,000 984,000 1,082,000 1,167,000 1,207,000 1,247,000 1,327,000 1,416,000 1,524,000 1,630,000 1,725,000 1,861,000 2,029,000 2,109,000 2,439,000 2,507,000 2,633,417 2,953,424 3,211,455 3,224,861 3,240,806 3,631,108 3,821,135 4,148,573 4,382,716 4,751,449 5,028,072 5,277,447 5,686,834 6,019,069 6,470,049 6,784,699 6,949,190 7,376,173
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For general local government support Education Public welfare Highways Health
Table 2.1 SUMMARY OF STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL expenditureS: 1944–2008 (In thousands of dollars)
$41,000 67,000 146,000 279,000 268,000 271,000 274,000 288,000 313,000 342,000 390,000 391,000 446,000 489,000 545,000 619,000 655,000 783,000 868,000 1,080,000 1,275,000 1,407,000 1,823,000 2,234,523 2,741,676 3,449,025 4,403,009 5,372,891 5,348,992 6,463,263 7,225,683 7,801,993 8,702,054 9,228,542 9,442,292 10,811,143 13,658,898 13,862,386 14,786,497 16,739,853 18,060,733
Miscellaneous and combined
federal aid
The Council of State Governments 45
46 The Book of the States 2010 175,027,632 186,398,234 201,313,434 214,094,882 225,635,410 240,978,128 252,079,335 264,207,209 278,853,409 308,734,917 327,069,829 350,326,546 364,789,480 382,781,397 389,706,202 408,528,723 428,924,716 457,376,669 478,487,953
3,243,634 3,464,364 3,608,911 3,625,051 3,603,447 3,616,831 3,896,667 3,839,942 3,515,734 3,801,667 4,021,471 4,290,764 4,370,330 4,391,095 4,720,728 4,675,517 6,503,840 4,701,360 4,761,135
171,783,998 182,933,870 197,704,523 210,469,831 222,031,963 237,361,297 248,182,668 260,367,267 275,337,675 304,933,250 323,048,358 346,035,782 360,419,150 378,390,302 384,985,474 403,853,206 422,420,876 452,675,309 473,726,818
To Federal government (a) Total
For specified purposes
To local governments
16,565,106 16,977,032 16,368,139 17,690,986 18,044,015 18,996,435 20,019,771 21,808,828 22,693,158 25,495,396 27,475,363 31,693,016 28,927,053 30,766,480 31,027,535 28,284,852 29,984,822 30,945,612 32,373,446
18,403,149 20,903,400 25,942,234 31,339,777 30,624,514 30,772,525 31,180,345 35,754,024 32,327,325 35,161,151 40,206,513 41,926,990 47,112,496 49,302,737 42,802,564 46,859,165 53,891,394 56,945,447 53,371,645
7,784,316 8,126,477 8,480,871 9,298,624 9,622,849 10,481,616 10,707,338 11,431,270 11,648,853 12,075,195 12,473,052 12,350,136 12,949,850 13,337,114 13,972,060 14,486,020 15,230,034 14,844,331 16,545,920
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,790,396 11,772,189 12,379,498 13,611,228 15,067,156 16,518,461 20,816,777 20,241,742 20,366,508 17,656,423 18,127,028 19,436,156 20,342,928
19,593,296 20,747,101 21,993,593 20,960,927 27,879,561 28,926,886 18,530,703 15,453,241 20,037,843 26,173,293 19,690,737 21,454,592 23,276,887 23,953,537 28,460,611 33,395,230 25,784,570 31,620,694 36,480,742
Miscellaneous and combined
Key: … — Not available. (a) Represents primarily state reimbursements for the supplemental security July income program. This column also duplicates some funds listed under Public welfare and “All other” columns.
109,438,131 116,179,860 124,919,686 131,179,517 135,861,024 148,160,436 156,954,115 164,147,715 176,250,998 192,416,987 208,135,537 222,092,587 227,336,087 240,788,692 248,356,196 263,171,516 279,403,028 298,883,069 314,612,137
For general local government support Education Public welfare Highways Health
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
1990...................................... 1991...................................... 1992...................................... 1993...................................... 1994...................................... 1995...................................... 1996...................................... 1997...................................... 1998...................................... 1999...................................... 2000...................................... 2001...................................... 2002...................................... 2003...................................... 2004...................................... 2005...................................... 2006...................................... 2007...................................... 2008......................................
Fiscal year Total
SUMMARY OF STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL expenditureS: 1944–2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars)
federal aid
6,720,814 1,487,649 10,241,927 4,392,340 93,643,800 6,233,384 4,231,032 1,172,083 19,703,095 10,415,395 137,771 2,037,507 14,749,988 7,969,434 4,142,960 4,214,475 4,700,971 6,022,791 1,335,469 8,509,003 9,251,815 19,512,603 11,188,797 5,111,703 5,638,642 1,318,649 1,981,940 3,860,236 1,451,976 10,927,571 4,348,451 52,820,634 13,364,918 805,351 18,105,626 4,391,706 5,640,993 18,065,438 1,053,782 5,719,235
Alabama........................ Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
Colorado........................ Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
Hawaii........................... Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
Kansas........................... Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
Massachusetts............... Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
Montana........................ Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
New Mexico.................. New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
Oklahoma...................... Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
See footnotes at end of table.
2008
$478,487,953
State
United States...................
4,067,276 5,047,346 15,189,027 1,009,313 4,870,680
4,144,807 50,525,675 12,646,039 741,535 17,755,241
1,175,674 1,793,817 3,826,539 1,408,445 10,667,575
9,364,680 19,423,935 10,686,237 5,086,220 5,626,071
3,869,984 4,469,153 6,262,247 1,276,381 7,568,283
138,054 1,931,829 14,259,666 8,178,674 3,892,136
6,000,582 3,831,974 1,194,559 19,680,891 10,515,856
6,088,940 1,365,793 9,860,543 4,300,048 92,415,603
$457,376,669
2007
3,857,145 4,947,578 13,650,400 998,505 4,699,299
3,745,089 45,615,561 11,260,558 735,705 17,131,020
1,088,009 1,721,265 3,667,299 1,385,014 11,060,423
6,814,813 19,407,575 10,867,738 4,826,721 5,386,306
3,596,388 4,384,427 5,654,409 1,217,377 6,916,136
157,863 1,606,232 13,946,155 8,081,787 3,881,967
5,621,254 3,428,482 1,129,736 19,345,077 9,753,253
5,000,116 1,217,110 8,606,646 3,866,226 88,317,088
$428,924,716
2006
3,748,031 4,764,615 13,307,866 908,479 4,246,231
3,608,081 43,731,212 10,675,563 701,125 16,368,355
1,005,091 1,770,897 3,272,860 1,245,235 11,394,615
6,475,520 18,679,748 10,108,813 4,005,786 5,485,698
3,281,217 3,915,278 4,588,748 1,093,027 5,801,050
147,201 1,519,654 14,212,799 7,993,289 3,642,335
5,187,799 3,513,039 945,950 17,328,518 9,521,119
4,494,345 1,145,159 8,069,461 3,869,400 80,948,431
$403,467,210
2005
Table 2.2 STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES, BY STATE: 1999–2008 (In thousands of dollars) 2004
3,715,417 4,637,052 12,156,969 868,929 4,159,942
3,031,473 44,112,115 10,326,743 613,513 15,730,201
955,378 1,695,613 2,948,274 1,278,988 9,813,688
6,202,583 19,035,055 9,638,153 3,880,446 5,260,101
2,878,801 3,967,334 4,410,251 1,049,160 5,632,520
134,452 1,496,785 13,303,609 7,963,397 3,529,971
4,860,577 3,396,810 922,710 16,473,396 9,335,405
4,164,719 1,049,706 7,544,080 3,233,499 80,132,150
$389,706,202
2003
3,395,494 4,071,501 11,943,470 828,198 4,155,920
2,951,328 40,874,514 10,356,152 1,190,923 15,249,395
938,000 1,784,749 2,648,660 1,283,091 8,997,417
6,435,841 19,851,778 9,618,471 3,665,580 5,159,094
2,925,220 3,693,634 4,329,053 1,051,164 5,358,342
125,434 1,449,076 13,369,662 6,760,945 3,442,552
4,666,350 3,030,485 903,476 14,460,722 9,016,458
4,074,005 1,091,391 6,936,753 3,210,582 84,468,847
$382,781,397
2002
3,377,045 4,212,673 12,787,590 749,034 4,241,010
2,768,420 38,982,253 9,450,766 585,521 15,052,078
910,845 1,820,137 2,432,909 1,178,642 9,320,357
6,283,972 19,067,058 8,271,462 3,456,588 5,073,185
2,971,413 3,559,669 4,168,290 1,009,582 5,235,506
130,387 1,407,058 13,090,976 6,556,774 3,326,499
4,295,239 3,734,962 822,544 14,053,858 8,644,827
4,095,562 1,055,596 6,968,635 3,071,214 74,687,370
$364,789,480
2001
3,486,043 4,027,505 13,120,752 711,439 4,168,449
2,561,979 34,712,602 9,309,537 569,034 14,594,220
863,553 1,684,159 2,271,654 1,040,566 9,081,634
6,886,054 18,145,167 8,196,532 3,354,226 4,802,371
2,953,527 3,620,278 3,800,785 976,233 5,003,670
124,448 1,363,445 12,770,065 7,052,415 3,284,057
3,909,362 3,252,917 788,160 15,010,631 8,383,261
3,892,653 986,921 6,439,144 2,941,918 69,747,365
$350,326,546
2000
3,089,257 3,919,771 11,369,795 677,552 3,806,116
2,447,354 31,273,000 9,301,095 589,807 12,932,081
760,511 1,585,847 2,250,330 1,053,267 8,639,491
6,240,692 17,201,031 7,610,072 3,248,019 4,528,746
2,853,333 3,280,144 3,721,576 912,376 4,355,724
157,902 1,277,688 12,050,100 6,735,704 3,211,878
3,702,849 3,362,551 856,008 14,073,445 7,179,698
3,908,350 1,026,962 5,940,651 2,725,242 65,389,054
$327,069,829
1999
2,981,699 3,672,493 10,947,652 594,894 3,355,056
2,366,077 30,383,315 8,542,460 557,238 12,015,358
708,248 1,487,295 2,088,730 477,913 7,798,959
6,751,995 16,030,447 7,004,803 3,018,675 4,441,636
2,806,135 3,249,308 3,644,823 858,131 4,063,814
153,220 1,213,378 10,802,562 6,247,767 2,872,879
3,519,783 2,810,990 720,975 13,437,789 6,677,041
3,631,426 1,028,890 5,944,003 2,649,550 58,350,134
$304,933,250
federal aid
The Council of State Governments 47
48 The Book of the States 2010 2007
10,438,607 8,644,100 2,074,429 9,744,914 1,570,347
652,117 6,161,614 21,915,924 2,601,367 1,415,922
2006
10,019,166 7,820,778 2,077,950 9,561,057 1,301,223
633,891 5,910,319 19,264,517 2,384,403 1,357,660
2005
9,720,400 7,228,017 2,015,637 9,200,766 1,314,469
614,371 5,705,768 17,489,900 2,189,527 1,266,715
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
11,052,058 9,143,766 2,131,100 10,093,198 1,769,009
Virginia.......................... Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
2008 679,868 6,516,598 26,089,474 3,050,173 1,340,755
State
South Dakota................ Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
2003
8,352,635 6,785,341 1,544,758 9,478,166 952,705
514,949 4,952,923 17,332,957 2,165,151 938,085
2002
8,369,313 6,806,350 1,453,707 9,523,191 974,608
506,347 4,477,936 16,680,780 2,170,884 918,858
2001
7,869,121 6,576,757 988,322 8,895,941 818,841
480,960 4,582,883 17,204,468 2,100,657 919,865
2000
7,132,350 6,370,710 1,359,668 8,170,504 838,308
448,131 4,364,404 16,231,378 1,977,703 931,604
1999
6,499,840 6,117,069 1,577,358 7,887,652 762,009
471,786 4,175,192 15,023,666 1,811,906 699,231
Note: Includes payments to the federal government, primarily state reimbursements for the supplemental security income program.
8,819,067 6,911,826 1,942,069 9,285,137 1,204,014
576,215 5,301,665 17,032,016 2,112,921 981,307
2004
STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES, BY STATE: 1999–2008—Continued
federal aid
federal aid
Table 2.3 STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES, BY FUNCTION AND BY STATE: 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Specified functions State Total United States................ $478,487,953
General local government Public support Education welfare Highways Health
Miscellaneous and combined
$32,373,446
$314,612,137
$58,093,847
$16,545,920
$20,342,928
$36,519,675
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
6,720,814 1,487,649 10,241,927 4,392,340 93,643,800
212,223 38,019 2,362,872 238,905 804,671
5,374,101 936,255 5,741,004 3,782,377 49,898,209
61,322 68,201 968,566 0 25,094,478
211,077 2,806 809,636 164,203 3,923,294
31,389 143,706 73,024 1,744 8,556,682
830,702 298,662 286,825 205,111 5,366,466
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
6,233,384 4,231,032 1,172,083 19,703,095 10,415,395
92,481 123,230 0 1,831,691 430,020
3,942,294 2,898,487 1,046,673 15,268,941 9,175,334
1,145,576 539,123 9,270 32,657 502,034
315,190 2,057 7,853 630,920 0
90,753 283,992 12,065 9,930 99,655
647,090 384,143 96,222 1,928,956 208,352
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
137,771 2,037,507 14,749,988 7,969,434 4,142,960
101,687 203,918 1,879,242 2,476,514 131,588
0 1,650,675 8,930,758 4,882,595 3,028,844
324 325 1,502,377 179,142 115,439
0 131,082 711,540 37,770 452,099
8,088 5,037 168,791 41,407 105,424
27,672 46,470 1,557,280 352,006 309,566
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
4,214,475 4,700,971 6,022,791 1,335,469 8,509,003
85,275 0 217,783 133,007 114,784
3,686,480 3,923,152 4,322,857 1,089,182 6,516,573
1,737 124,932 105,855 21,268 3,727
162,078 173,800 79,572 28,192 529,521
38,462 152,056 1 0 652,798
240,443 327,031 1,296,723 63,820 691,600
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
9,251,815 19,512,603 11,188,797 5,111,703 5,638,642
1,800,929 1,074,783 1,481,148 786,989 5,980
5,948,408 13,127,362 7,336,532 3,258,587 5,014,253
363,705 2,891,264 657,360 186,603 57,206
202,722 1,265,104 752,102 193,722 294,048
19,202 244,517 167,526 48,737 27,102
916,849 909,573 794,129 637,065 240,053
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
1,318,649 1,981,940 3,860,236 1,451,976 10,927,571
270,860 432,231 1,121,712 81,935 2,023,291
877,416 1,307,545 2,475,811 1,094,261 6,998,795
30,691 31,153 88,057 109,759 874,415
27,442 6,879 100,784 35,672 176,978
20,287 77,813 14,335 35,971 57,717
91,953 126,319 59,537 94,378 796,375
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
4,348,451 52,820,634 13,364,918 805,351 18,105,626
1,322,856 1,343,022 162,327 143,343 2,198,857
2,964,904 28,933,898 9,446,918 495,497 10,933,519
0 11,335,247 2,718,144 14,157 2,376,702
31,642 9,831 240,766 98,154 668,831
0 4,970,998 212,784 10,368 1,007,286
29,049 6,227,638 583,979 43,832 920,431
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
4,391,706 5,640,993 18,065,438 1,053,782 5,719,235
103,967 160,099 77,545 82,466 1,697,902
3,479,207 4,027,599 10,736,848 880,089 3,545,003
47,907 477,241 2,559,528 87,759 61,873
276,406 440,332 725,476 0 106,373
225,034 100,234 1,156,549 0 32,634
259,185 435,488 2,809,492 3,468 275,450
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
679,868 6,516,598 26,089,474 3,050,173 1,340,755
54,026 566,283 213,931 0 25,092
533,563 4,460,093 23,692,295 2,801,736 1,231,262
5,336 610,467 616,532 26,607 169
36,940 394,276 313,160 61,803 56,390
6,175 5,181 335,874 36,525 3,895
43,828 480,298 917,682 123,502 23,947
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
11,052,058 9,143,766 2,131,100 10,093,198 1,769,009
1,016,359 85,031 102,180 1,937,637 522,755
6,744,291 7,304,623 1,808,374 6,022,988 1,035,669
689,942 5,698 25,829 668,118 25
443,914 642,947 9,992 560,430 114
331,687 349,056 52,372 309,840 8,225
1,825,865 756,411 132,353 594,185 202,221
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html.
Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
The Council of State Governments  49
federal aid
Table 2.4 STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES, BY TYPE OF RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AND BY STATE: 2008 (In thousands of dollars) State
Total intergovernmental expenditure Federal
School districts
Other local governments
United States......................
$478,487,953
$4,761,135
$254,401,906
$219,324,912
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
6,720,814 1,487,649 10,241,927 4,392,340 93,643,800
0 0 0 32 3,639,126
5,350,557 0 5,330,690 3,782,375 46,710,339
1,370,257 1,487,649 4,911,237 609,933 43,294,335
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
6,233,384 4,231,032 1,172,083 19,703,095 10,415,395
4,173 0 1,062 0 0
3,928,844 27,480 1,041,935 14,856,629 9,175,334
2,300,367 4,203,552 129,086 4,846,466 1,240,061
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
137,771 2,037,507 14,749,988 7,969,434 4,142,960
324 5 217 0 0
0 1,650,675 8,883,463 4,882,595 3,025,967
137,447 386,827 5,866,308 3,086,839 1,116,993
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
4,214,475 4,700,971 6,022,791 1,335,469 8,509,003
579 2,249 0 13,757 0
3,679,905 3,923,152 4,320,472 0 0
533,991 775,570 1,702,319 1,321,712 8,509,003
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
9,251,815 19,512,603 11,188,797 5,111,703 5,638,642
195,973 0 0 0 0
829,797 13,102,547 7,322,566 3,237,458 5,014,253
8,226,045 6,410,056 3,866,231 1,874,245 624,389
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
1,318,649 1,981,940 3,860,236 1,451,976 10,927,571
215 31,152 610 0 0
877,314 1,307,545 2,475,811 406 5,104,939
441,120 643,243 1,383,815 1,451,570 5,822,632
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
4,348,451 52,820,634 13,364,918 805,351 18,105,626
0 629,000 0 0 8,930
2,964,904 14,387,228 0 495,497 10,933,519
1,383,547 37,804,406 13,364,918 309,854 7,163,177
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
4,391,706 5,640,993 18,065,438 1,053,782 5,719,235
42,977 0 157,387 28,021 0
3,478,829 4,025,057 10,240,696 52,805 3,489,549
869,900 1,615,936 7,667,355 972,956 2,229,686
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
679,868 6,516,598 26,089,474 3,050,173 1,340,755
0 0 0 0 166
532,797 266,587 23,480,354 2,793,175 1,231,262
147,071 6,250,011 2,609,120 256,998 109,327
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
11,052,058 9,143,766 2,131,100 10,093,198 1,769,009
763 4,417 0 0 0
18,048 7,304,619 1,806,325 6,022,988 1,034,619
11,033,247 1,834,730 324,775 4,070,210 734,390
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html.
50  The Book of the States 2010
Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
The Council of State Governments  51
7,712,748 2,190,854 8,887,402 4,533,851 51,914,572 4,961,599 4,344,898 1,335,675 19,876,444 13,090,193 2,092,852 2,005,348 14,739,992 8,349,018 4,630,352 3,495,517 6,630,599 14,180,841 2,427,894 7,525,060 10,047,618 13,359,341 7,255,639 7,718,794 8,500,589 1,919,126 2,560,819 1,857,810 1,830,369 11,217,573 4,322,241 46,623,511 13,650,362 1,233,474 17,093,617 5,705,546 4,835,171 16,512,258 2,088,153 7,018,905
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
See footnotes at end of table.
$446,478,718
5,581,072 4,820,434 15,968,390 1,933,110 6,603,842
4,202,334 39,341,842 12,965,582 1,195,028 16,550,923
1,908,960 2,496,652 1,718,931 1,602,822 10,624,679
9,594,053 13,142,736 7,114,416 7,623,193 8,302,647
3,460,261 6,609,307 14,111,261 2,415,700 7,166,989
2,088,753 1,985,776 14,277,716 8,162,834 4,395,789
4,869,013 4,332,927 1,283,662 19,387,198 12,871,216
7,146,041 2,185,635 8,667,343 4,511,363 49,366,359
$423,178,152
1,011,102 1,163,174 2,822,556 259,230 1,230,324
776,050 4,520,837 1,886,019 259,309 2,252,136
300,002 170,179 401,442 223,216 1,552,801
1,376,149 2,629,843 1,149,869 1,062,609 1,141,565
661,424 1,206,812 1,522,122 235,114 1,497,588
526,910 317,333 2,761,932 1,545,199 851,120
1,160,738 421,425 160,115 3,351,104 2,227,765
1,506,047 297,497 1,421,535 688,319 10,994,739
$74,232,848
2,709,208 2,116,762 10,031,067 1,113,416 4,189,462
2,673,126 28,573,153 8,872,528 487,261 11,241,184
810,343 1,743,127 862,858 734,351 5,926,335
6,137,827 7,237,114 4,325,163 3,775,889 4,609,445
1,734,154 3,900,253 4,957,784 1,628,993 3,488,662
970,726 957,937 8,526,228 4,976,673 2,581,778
2,064,846 2,754,662 702,144 10,492,035 5,987,550
3,893,543 740,854 5,878,502 2,632,511 28,383,679
$243,512,900
918,084 460,424 544,803 163,206 215,343
147,896 1,499,654 488,509 40,859 602,467
87,678 48,368 110,248 30,396 416,962
448,964 924,810 213,941 174,282 984,451
115,176 218,820 357,516 79,419 762,987
112,524 141,080 562,563 226,448 137,959
792,278 274,464 87,566 1,568,154 1,076,207
330,893 55,523 293,009 116,040 2,532,340
$21,808,686
609,791 367,770 1,502,049 196,121 437,855
293,208 1,598,859 875,901 226,913 1,001,840
400,604 260,276 189,482 168,321 796,394
469,305 719,542 821,495 738,175 911,050
434,556 686,479 765,386 155,223 554,469
187,182 324,150 1,256,391 722,651 403,594
459,908 407,752 146,088 2,076,162 2,382,832
699,745 349,952 556,697 418,718 3,086,970
$35,689,545
124,474 14,737 543,868 155,043 415,063
119,907 7,281,669 684,780 38,446 542,694
10,166 64,167 138,879 227,547 592,894
453,565 216,605 141,223 95,601 197,942
35,256 21,292 69,580 12,194 358,071
4,099 19,572 462,276 186,184 234,563
92,586 11,971 52,013 489,246 218,977
566,707 5,219 220,059 22,488 2,548,213
$23,300,566
672 9,824 159,714 5,608 64,712
43,276 319,196 126,897 23 27,356
29 43,503 23,989 3,554 239,222
9,698 18,921 1,837 3,843 2,607
8,000 14,614 20,717 210 37,915
0 934 25,980 11,767 823
12,692 913 52,013 9,404 161,330
15,238 4,435 14,161 9,897 210,870
$2,935,018
3,037 0 1,405 27,597 231,639
0 5,354,953 497,672 6,846 222,470
3,667 893 98,456 201,409 3,733
0 80,087 45,106 12,336 124,262
0 0 0 0 24,111
0 7,991 353,190 79,661 187,862
241 0 0 0 0
471,844 0 65,276 0 796,387
$9,356,094
2,290 0 856 0 7,939
76,631 0 1,761 2,261 41,718
0 28 1,606 66 51,325
0 54,045 25,893 5 14,937
0 0 2,912 20 155,596
0 58 0 7,494 26,889
1,176 0 0 328,053 0
41,296 0 56,271 656 1,007
$1,093,106
From federal government From local governments Total intergovernmental Public Health & Public Health & revenue Total Education welfare hospitals Highways Total Education welfare hospitals
United States................
State
Table 2.5 state intergovernmental revenue from federal and local governments: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
Highways
22,164 271 21,734 0 49,250
0 0 24,319 22,635 75,206
5,201 14,608 8,993 9,923 126,365
149 25,498 55,412 32,165 45,192
27,256 0 0 11,468 20,927
0 10,449 64,507 48,814 10,812
30,688 0 0 0 15,155
23,913 0 41,529 0 700,447
$1,849,081
FEDERAL Aid
52  The Book of the States 2010 7,404,341 8,303,676 3,274,439 7,013,591 2,164,652
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming....................... 6,860,300 7,997,933 3,194,227 6,837,933 1,997,454
1,239,864 8,187,338 29,497,973 3,360,193 1,418,148 1,552,400 1,866,099 483,563 1,258,658 146,431
224,094 1,220,857 6,791,755 923,056 222,685 3,480,786 3,717,053 1,930,313 4,044,248 356,193
516,783 5,370,270 16,201,433 1,660,915 811,773 851,643 748,429 366,064 655,651 218,012
201,811 683,605 2,852,809 298,603 153,062 544,041 305,743 80,212 175,658 167,198
16,582 120,816 4,116,266 81,768 2,446 361,209 145,349 2,353 10,179 149,385
6,865 30,265 431,313 81,706 0
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
347,053 948,442 131,859 175,901 43,726
59,660 271,707 1,292,118 123,587 52,322
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected. html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
1,256,446 8,308,154 33,614,239 3,441,961 1,420,594 0 0 0 32,710 5,330
0 0 415,923 0 0
66,172 23,377 0 22,248 3,294
5,418 3,490 66,318 0 0
From federal government From local governments Total intergovernmental Public Health & Public Health & revenue Total Education welfare hospitals Highways Total Education welfare hospitals
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
State
state intergovernmental revenue from federal and local governments: 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars)
97,478 69,953 0 71,377 7,212
3,782 51,783 0 0 2,446
Highways
FEDERAL Aid
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.6 SUMMARY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In millions of dollars)
State and outlying area Total
Retirement and disability
Other direct payments Grants Procurement
Salaries and wages
United States.........................
$2,792,611
$818,525
$631,349
$574,659
$514,117
$253,962
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
47,966 9,423 54,314 23,857 299,923
16,200 1,373 16,243 9,316 75,904
10,423 663 9,749 6,224 67,722
7,242 2,702 10,325 5,050 82,219
10,253 2,480 13,832 1,331 52,045
3,847 2,206 4,166 1,936 22,033
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
38,015 38,879 6,623 149,872 74,165
11,263 9,262 2,710 57,665 22,919
7,120 7,660 1,514 43,870 15,543
6,524 7,378 1,435 20,226 14,569
7,709 12,856 366 16,625 11,069
5,399 1,723 598 11,486 10,065
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
15,009 11,227 100,672 52,813 23,927
3,873 3,943 30,934 17,479 8,453
2,265 2,101 26,612 14,365 7,059
2,283 2,133 22,737 8,857 5,057
2,456 2,003 13,197 8,922 1,870
4,133 1,047 7,192 3,189 1,488
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
25,129 52,264 44,496 11,974 77,905
7,565 13,313 11,801 4,458 17,243
6,127 18,610 11,056 2,433 12,793
4,280 8,312 12,337 2,930 10,528
4,102 7,729 6,240 1,130 25,602
3,054 4,300 3,062 1,023 11,739
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
72,115 82,933 38,246 30,098 60,829
16,860 28,688 12,658 8,854 17,098
17,353 22,107 10,191 6,691 13,899
20,427 19,205 9,230 6,790 10,372
13,350 8,612 3,363 5,539 14,450
4,124 4,322 2,804 2,224 5,010
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
8,843 15,739 17,260 10,311 72,085
2,979 4,800 6,323 3,841 22,659
2,104 4,539 3,478 1,938 19,316
2,185 3,733 3,107 1,877 16,204
572 1,208 2,701 1,914 8,961
1,004 1,459 1,651 742 4,946
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
23,846 174,071 70,203 7,323 90,592
5,941 49,371 26,129 1,747 31,753
3,174 45,462 15,180 2,490 25,577
5,531 54,421 15,165 1,660 17,769
6,914 13,732 5,794 552 9,096
2,287 11,085 7,934 872 6,397
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
31,758 27,530 121,551 9,841 38,832
11,347 10,551 39,892 3,071 14,034
7,515 6,285 33,974 2,631 7,730
6,216 6,132 21,678 2,441 6,422
2,853 2,375 18,294 865 7,621
3,828 2,187 7,713 833 3,025
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
8,552 58,672 210,005 17,117 6,080
2,256 18,717 53,203 5,251 1,791
2,993 12,604 39,202 2,756 1,120
1,794 14,188 38,300 3,536 2,103
653 9,876 60,703 3,030 564
855 3,288 18,597 2,544 502
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
118,527 56,436 18,002 40,137 5,969
25,441 17,933 7,221 14,978 1,455
14,742 10,164 4,022 9,881 976
8,776 11,023 3,711 8,431 2,422
53,868 10,386 1,328 4,487 529
15,699 6,929 1,720 2,358 588
Dist. of Columbia.................. American Samoa.................. Fed. States of Micronesia..... Guam...................................... Marshall Islands....................
47,203 257 118 1,533 89
2,269 52 1 245 1
3,204 11 5 96 3
6,163 169 112 361 85
16,541 18 0 611 0
19,027 6 0 220 0
No. Mariana Islands............. Palau....................................... Puerto Rico........................... U.S. Virgin Islands................ Undistributed........................
167 25 17,958 683 22,625
30 1 6,945 202 19
15 2 3,797 106 106
112 21 5,219 265 182
2 0 887 41 20,013
8 0 1,110 69 2,306
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: All amounts are aggregates. Detail may not add to total because
of rounding. Total expenditure does not include data on contingent liabilities (loans and insurance). For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html.
The Council of State Governments  53
54  The Book of the States 2010 3,872,774 3,943,209 30,933,516 17,479,138 8,453,250 7,565,338 13,313,016 11,801,197 4,457,927 17,243,311 16,860,210 28,687,998 12,658,486 8,853,793 17,098,375 2,978,575 4,799,573 6,323,113 3,841,393 22,658,648 5,941,087 49,370,870 26,129,285 1,747,492 31,752,662
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
See footnotes at end of table.
11,262,640 9,261,779 2,709,849 57,665,378 22,919,147
2,286,814 26,174,432 12,144,447 829,656 15,565,468
1,328,961 2,320,948 3,029,486 1,951,816 12,896,175
8,627,525 15,102,304 6,829,468 3,474,852 8,018,317
3,712,353 5,125,333 4,514,383 1,971,987 6,522,268
1,786,638 1,849,046 15,955,119 9,070,936 4,589,611
4,895,296 5,503,051 1,356,181 29,229,046 9,631,382
726,777 7,080,557 3,321,808 313,620 5,727,635
408,035 702,311 736,565 485,696 3,335,807
2,347,510 4,792,591 1,871,230 1,351,713 2,541,714
1,127,273 2,078,169 2,359,907 577,426 1,953,460
398,137 532,068 5,075,291 2,884,403 1,413,404
1,421,947 1,359,942 361,826 7,336,458 3,168,593
2,349,780 162,362 2,059,673 1,309,317 10,412,455
758,648 7,378,074 4,093,412 173,676 4,042,345
341,478 512,379 763,046 591,799 2,886,076
2,668,830 4,497,250 1,545,399 1,681,232 2,618,672
882,468 2,658,375 2,024,794 738,520 1,609,038
324,948 493,215 3,989,223 2,484,101 975,873
1,238,425 1,164,400 373,170 6,394,180 3,280,830
2,841,154 145,606 2,001,406 1,723,892 9,729,481
318,126 3,723,025 1,131,799 37,384 1,636,376
87,822 128,150 202,826 81,517 904,146
948,981 1,416,681 462,302 667,570 679,247
226,864 1,033,644 922,463 186,925 565,000
127,758 134,973 1,695,982 643,130 258,261
340,015 323,247 84,630 2,507,631 1,163,440
920,232 39,646 598,494 519,880 6,019,590
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
6,177,826 490,199 7,981,443 3,860,047 36,476,022
727,830 2,321,434 1,858,045 155,507 1,866,912
328,729 327,208 560,869 315,099 1,372,812
1,073,620 1,076,247 683,156 650,322 1,352,189
607,138 851,386 687,345 361,338 4,464,072
646,793 359,538 1,717,310 890,372 507,019
1,213,004 383,785 235,075 4,266,422 2,091,311
1,601,973 216,782 1,334,974 615,443 5,456,975
420,630 535,454 1,556,427 73,757 740,912
145,841 261,665 515,342 181,152 326,394
314,157 410,145 258,798 438,823 607,130
385,592 430,651 440,747 202,956 1,074,395
327,326 224,223 622,530 366,693 175,729
1,060,729 184,499 143,939 3,793,637 1,623,661
1,010,681 163,266 1,054,018 424,446 3,410,502
$37,418,123
16,200,350 1,372,620 16,242,519 9,315,925 75,904,247
$65,129,852
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
$111,821,513
$41,309,722
$118,338,974
$818,524,714
United States...................... $387,037,603
Supplemental Federal retirement security and disability benefits income payments Civilian Military
Retirement Survivors Disability State and insurance insurance insurance outlying area Total payments payments payments
Social Security payments
Table 2.7 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY, FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
367,917 1,073,133 1,320,866 83,052 869,042
173,262 257,674 299,388 146,634 497,960
528,085 711,212 551,475 313,152 624,281
260,266 567,032 475,056 292,769 500,828
169,643 187,259 676,719 487,999 249,839
599,852 193,797 84,011 2,434,566 1,074,166
720,774 123,640 742,306 503,518 2,529,048
$31,149,215
69,151 299,839 285,962 16,780 303,533
31,415 48,613 63,409 30,589 111,792
128,133 206,356 99,442 116,079 184,655
67,614 142,999 165,599 49,589 110,335
27,877 34,364 172,580 113,668 72,336
111,973 41,941 17,291 631,253 313,378
269,307 10,430 148,672 128,015 625,678
$7,932,743
Other benefit payments
Veterans benefits Payments for service connected disability
Other
265,194 784,922 416,519 64,060 1,000,439
133,032 240,626 152,183 57,091 327,486
223,368 475,212 357,217 160,051 472,169
295,771 425,427 210,902 76,416 443,916
63,654 128,524 1,028,761 537,836 211,178
381,399 107,117 53,727 1,072,184 572,386
308,623 20,688 321,533 231,368 1,244,497
$18,386,968
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
2,256,312 18,717,089 53,202,865 5,250,923 1,791,063 25,440,825 17,933,339 7,221,312 14,978,308 1,455,070 2,268,526 52,434 989 244,794 542 30,254 906 6,944,719 202,372 18,827
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa................ Fed. States of Micronesia... Guam................................... Marshall Islands..................
No. Mariana Islands........... Palau.................................... Puerto Rico......................... Virgin Islands...................... Undistributed...................... 7,617 354 2,960,862 122,871 0
483,699 14,108 277 92,355 324
9,080,582 8,201,071 2,684,720 8,330,927 675,030
1,074,395 8,274,866 22,636,337 2,319,585 931,914
4,713,452 5,317,876 20,067,209 1,558,711 6,209,625
5,590 309 1,278,912 30,993 0
148,713 13,931 131 41,239 126
2,738,738 2,196,313 1,221,326 2,317,677 199,247
338,714 2,729,174 8,406,689 683,281 252,166
1,626,038 1,425,422 6,398,679 378,160 1,821,946
2,005 11 1,893,913 24,384 0
179,239 12,586 19 22,944 32
2,814,657 2,109,110 1,454,890 1,932,862 155,327
224,778 3,006,627 6,801,875 535,049 264,120
1,568,214 1,274,870 5,252,872 475,218 2,190,502
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Reported amounts represent obligations of federal funds during the fiscal year. Detail may not
11,346,640 10,550,548 39,892,439 3,070,634 14,034,296
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
Retirement Survivors Disability State and insurance insurance insurance outlying area Total payments payments payments
Social Security payments
7,489 154 268,565 17,308 119
1,166,463 1,685 332 56,130 30
4,481,009 1,732,379 449,105 658,477 151,402
244,422 1,482,277 4,112,961 933,162 110,779
1,219,206 877,788 2,667,921 215,275 1,097,382
899 0 21,381 1,772 0
58,800 1,808 - 8,217 0
3,688,171 1,353,543 163,496 288,349 85,967
117,504 878,377 3,639,921 270,619 58,066
572,482 374,383 813,342 112,286 1,001,893
957 31 308,938 2,999 0
43,608 7,045 225 19,765 15
1,098,963 958,633 344,330 524,318 69,743
121,211 677,771 2,924,586 172,176 68,052
800,593 568,786 950,496 105,524 690,229
120 47 181,969 694 0
15,642 1,082 5 3,311 14
227,262 172,284 82,076 116,582 13,302
29,325 221,887 699,898 34,885 12,997
191,991 120,684 336,943 27,928 191,166
Other benefit payments
Veterans benefits Payments for service connected disability
Other
23 0 30,179 1,352 18,708
29,172 190 0 833 2
521,941 457,969 338,322 257,659 71,074
33,822 522,810 1,024,859 162,467 25,748
177,267 219,176 1,339,238 24,716 263,967
add to total because of rounding. For additional information see the complete report at http://www. census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html.
5,553 0 0 0 0
143,189 0 0 0 0
789,502 752,037 483,048 551,457 33,978
72,140 923,298 2,955,739 139,698 67,223
477,397 371,563 2,065,740 172,818 567,585
Supplemental Federal retirement security and disability benefits income payments Civilian Military
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY, FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars)
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
The Council of State Governments 55
56  The Book of the States 2010 7,119,627 7,660,302 1,514,237 43,869,903 15,543,303 2,264,861 2,101,381 26,612,495 14,365,056 7,059,140 6,127,276 18,610,041 11,055,505 2,433,414 12,793,410 17,352,867 22,106,575 10,190,586 6,690,866 13,898,852 2,103,946 4,539,085 3,477,950 1,937,623 19,315,752 3,173,517 45,462,095 15,180,224 2,490,454 25,577,183
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
See footnotes at end of table.
10,423,080 662,908 9,748,625 6,224,146 67,721,897
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
United States...................... $631,349,448
904,221 17,327,400 5,124,708 435,935 9,095,007
548,090 996,605 1,023,264 745,308 7,225,577
7,047,544 7,775,688 2,848,328 2,402,138 4,746,112
1,905,106 3,146,425 4,616,552 905,698 3,932,471
643,321 626,004 9,879,663 4,432,675 1,909,691
2,169,570 3,151,183 552,849 16,411,620 5,063,090
4,069,939 181,574 3,136,278 2,170,917 23,780,314
837,967 14,784,409 3,971,316 381,504 7,537,669
472,115 900,518 955,922 565,823 6,431,829
4,819,326 7,137,930 2,319,611 1,684,071 3,802,117
1,716,932 2,382,200 3,036,470 721,698 3,462,015
636,952 527,189 7,626,557 3,412,439 1,837,270
1,877,004 2,615,159 467,753 16,962,917 4,013,616
2,980,572 127,742 2,979,197 1,678,115 22,613,429
$217,272,018 $183,274,312
373,147 2,623,278 1,575,190 63,983 1,517,454
119,590 200,172 313,348 97,528 870,458
515,843 1,272,656 456,916 862,582 841,236
321,910 652,204 1,097,991 137,239 605,461
146,838 186,915 1,647,184 839,177 302,240
461,200 293,456 110,151 3,072,116 1,969,355
1,099,425 62,167 824,216 572,311 4,439,094
$42,536,550
166,213 2,576,980 1,006,218 40,702 1,403,272
87,176 95,801 505,280 102,587 2,307,893
1,655,847 2,171,293 840,207 163,205 503,948
240,676 510,794 183,981 135,504 584,010
182,937 184,001 2,221,167 900,098 377,430
394,199 693,221 114,989 1,680,832 877,406
288,242 103,769 392,122 328,967 6,510,468
$39,966,397
269,190 2,572,846 1,104,401 59,268 1,519,664
94,226 140,753 169,716 71,406 532,947
586,590 1,506,038 342,818 496,849 810,473
211,267 742,039 1,025,183 196,265 432,045
184,616 116,570 1,718,281 772,888 305,657
325,146 284,832 86,182 1,778,645 1,276,752
663,902 94,264 772,442 431,425 2,998,185
$34,696,551
40,752 1,821,593 248,114 11,949 601,566
30,912 40,888 28,795 53,761 529,356
673,735 219,241 172,551 95,566 145,026
64,345 130,544 144,491 50,866 275,230
38,429 15,934 570,344 234,036 42,249
115,653 181,477 30,502 375,117 338,362
259,292 17,226 72,641 75,954 934,592
$11,246,416
117,897 113,016 783,032 1,308,554 512,567
488,668 982,112 14,883 24,319 28,799
27,138 350,358 1,215,685 411,140 693,247
1,159,910 485,218 294,691 42,756 126,254
14,268 224,244 1,169,327 673,429 1,412,726
419,795 24,942 50,487 240,187 516,791
270,995 11,409 113,777 488,130 635,735
$21,140,030
Medicare benefits Excess State and Hospital Supplementary earned income Unemployment Food stamp Housing Agricultural outlying area Total insurance medical insurance tax credits compensation payments assistance assistance
Table 2.8 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS OTHER THAN FOR RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY, FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
170,803 836,741 491,457 58,656 588,337
95,863 131,910 108,785 150,954 515,940
429,848 352,398 331,216 196,312 1,491,889
157,340 233,941 236,189 105,985 2,488,911
302,106 96,927 633,112 349,250 203,534
399,468 150,784 56,051 1,229,452 698,739
404,192 1,488 349,464 140,799 1,830,024
$23,761,503
Federal employees life and health insurance
Other
293,327 2,805,831 875,787 129,905 2,801,649
167,307 1,050,326 357,957 125,936 872,954
1,596,996 1,320,974 1,663,254 379,003 864,804
349,791 10,326,676 419,956 137,403 887,012
115,395 123,598 1,146,861 2,751,064 668,343
957,591 265,248 45,273 2,119,017 789,193
386,520 63,268 1,108,486 337,528 3,980,056
$57,455,670
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
2,992,849 12,603,558 39,201,836 2,756,247 1,119,851 14,742,187 10,164,445 4,021,817 9,881,404 975,622 3,203,770 11,456 4,874 96,113 2,985 15,271 2,305 3,797,313 105,928 106,200
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa................ Fed. States of Micronesia... Guam................................... Marshall Islands..................
No. Mariana Islands........... Palau.................................... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands.............. Undistributed...................... 0 0 807,774 20,250 0
603,842 0 0 1152 0
3,995,089 3,196,376 1,696,547 3,331,584 282,823
478,998 5,017,593 13,671,146 854,813 387,831
2,906,252 1,980,978 13,616,828 986,545 2,504,734
0 0 1,498,084 16,458 0
522,955 0 0 916 0
3,412,256 2,908,582 1,335,850 2,865,879 220,736
404,303 3,222,952 10,085,237 664,186 283,086
2,000,311 1,829,408 10,925,092 740,117 2,060,553
0 0 3,445 0 0
82,743 0 0 0 0
916,096 610,119 254,974 536,571 51,358
97,189 1,085,844 4,666,952 257,519 54,403
583,935 386,399 1,392,163 123,268 889,541
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: These amounts generally represent obligations incurred during the fiscal year. Detail may not
7,514,790 6,285,214 33,974,249 2,631,291 7,729,692
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
9,884 0 0 22,861 0
112,325 4,799 0 60,160 0
610,022 680,801 304,128 429,671 26,391
78,003 1,114,793 3,068,234 153,461 73,972
491,363 560,430 1,386,971 107,719 706,793
1,158 -2 286,758 23,887 0
89,893 0 0 4,314 0
180,161 167,070 54,781 87,709 9,074
16,327 246,571 429,895 25,915 20,465
75,478 70,989 472,493 151,553 150,837
270 0 14,912 4182 0
264,311 95 0 84 0
260,844 293,959 33,815 471,741 83,054
903,939 354,451 1,907,326 67,436 26,107
428,424 179,881 161,484 8,071 229,160
0 0 88,330 829 0
1,026,568 0 0 18,921 0
1,502,875 613,653 3,429 280,421 215,933
35,778 365,438 1,382,309 280,236 40,869
393,610 277,854 891,455 65,688 258,442
Federal employees life and health insurance
Other
3,960 2,305 851,426 5,017 106,200
389,807 6,562 4,874 10,567 2,985
3,413,500 757,871 191,422 911,119 45,428
958,534 671,813 2,593,472 294,567 133,506
457,519 293,614 2,466,863 156,729 441,723
add to total due to rounding. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census. gov/govs/www/cffr.html.
0 0 246,584 12,444 0
111,325 0 0 0 0
451,343 936,014 146,873 966,710 40,825
19,778 524,104 1,397,265 158,114 99,613
177,899 705,660 2,660,900 291,601 487,909
Medicare benefits Excess State and Hospital Supplementary earned income Unemployment Food stamp Housing Agricultural outlying area Total insurance medical insurance tax credits compensation payments assistance assistance
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS OTHER THAN FOR RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY, FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars)
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
The Council of State Governments 57
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.9 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR GRANTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Corporation Agency for Appalachian for Nat’l & Corporation State and International Dept. of Regional Dept. of Community for Public Dept. of outlying area Total Development Agriculture Commission Commerce Service Broadcasting Defense United States................ $574,658,789
Delta Regional Authority
$550,853
$30,766,573
$66,644
$2,454,418
$563,699
$155,321
$4,542,221
$17,609
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
7,241,745 2,701,645 10,325,003 5,050,246 82,218,541
700 0 2,528 4,859 11,796
518,027 123,801 563,737 381,695 3,748,577
5,115 0 0 0 0
70,735 76,679 29,020 19,716 194,817
7,172 3,171 6,836 6,461 46,760
3,573 1,423 4,354 1,878 7,168
115,594 45,470 50,049 51,284 453,932
465 0 0 2,646 0
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
6,523,744 7,377,918 1,434,704 20,226,447 14,568,548
86 7,063 0 2,973 8,448
363,464 199,277 88,787 1,337,055 1,098,288
0 500 0 0 3,712
85,166 20,610 16,848 91,065 44,262
7,096 5,359 2,186 20,007 20,361
572 156 0 9,500 5,693
68,678 73,005 21,425 187,339 78,848
0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
2,282,897 2,132,602 22,736,949 8,857,373 5,056,580
0 0 672 9,527 0
111,441 155,013 989,371 507,141 296,951
0 0 0 0 0
45,505 15,053 51,487 28,158 19,650
3,248 3,315 14,924 7,064 6,943
0 1,584 5,657 3,593 3,689
55,187 32,149 146,788 98,885 68,489
0 0 1,373 0 0
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
4,279,998 8,312,104 12,336,706 2,930,133 10,527,683
123 0 862 181 42,610
435,021 493,884 560,805 128,156 370,116
0 11,065 0 0 2,554
19,401 23,239 55,627 29,160 73,510
6,601 8,553 7,439 3,514 24,351
1,654 1,678 879 83 3,490
70,988 31,996 56,489 45,878 286,346
0 2,777 1,318 0 0
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
20,427,439 19,204,628 9,229,876 6,790,370 10,372,135
48,169 377 2,029 0 0
401,561 774,986 544,940 472,600 527,382
0 0 0 6,548 0
86,405 53,566 24,626 78,358 25,175
28,594 13,966 15,273 11,876 8,583
560 9,566 1,899 3,500 6,588
200,803 75,189 83,178 18,935 81,322
0 0 0 3,344 2,666
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
2,184,512 3,732,564 3,106,948 1,876,746 16,204,358
0 250 0 674 56
156,923 230,996 169,430 79,593 535,621
0 5 0 0 0
11,365 12,747 16,113 27,170 62,549
7,126 4,610 3,742 5,028 11,142
1,859 2,985 1,423 1,815 3,343
53,107 37,425 23,858 29,538 81,051
0 0 0 0 0
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
5,530,748 54,420,855 15,164,646 1,660,075 17,769,029
0 29,830 9,245 0 2
302,754 1,765,770 920,757 260,343 845,698
0 3,229 3,665 0 4,383
16,365 127,076 58,073 11,329 46,524
4,979 36,781 11,274 2,027 14,213
3,673 4,770 5,633 0 4,922
28,569 162,965 87,028 31,495 102,439
0 0 0 0 0
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
6,215,864 6,132,218 21,677,608 2,441,039 6,421,517
8 14,730 276 518 0
543,880 345,007 870,411 79,306 438,907
0 0 5,709 0 2,471
25,529 180,002 59,840 19,199 43,034
6,471 9,065 23,195 4,792 5,658
3,010 1,829 5,347 0 2,839
123,647 75,205 225,496 23,890 44,600
0 0 0 0 0
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
1,794,478 14,188,155 38,299,554 3,535,990 2,103,020
0 1,312 1,128 0 264
291,715 606,940 2,829,836 214,739 75,148
0 5,488 0 0 0
7,631 30,660 107,027 15,697 6,139
2,346 9,057 23,509 6,338 3,498
2,263 1,351 6,363 4,526 0
20,496 26,510 322,994 41,905 18,527
0 3,021 0 0 0
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
8,776,161 11,022,500 3,711,334 8,431,159 2,422,121
169,696 12,464 0 552 0
521,529 502,411 195,806 448,465 62,202
4,241 0 7,818 0 0
52,463 95,062 16,188 53,039 7,405
13,076 20,538 6,661 13,985 2,579
1,586 4,149 5,840 1,753 1,169
131,439 127,141 41,494 59,674 18,645
0 0 0 0 0
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa.......... Fed. States of Micronesia............. Guam............................. Marshall Islands............
6,162,720 169,404
166,845 0
132,229 9,749
143 0
31,843 1,646
14,730 1,173
0 629
70,055 0
0 0
111,583 361,380 85,353
0 0 0
1,947 22,271 321
0 0 0
0 4,959 0
0 1,404 0
0 0 0
0 5,936 0
0 0 0
No. Mariana Islands..... Palau.............................. Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........ Undistributed................
111,678 21,471 5,218,911 265,300 181,773
0 0 0 0 0
11,592 191 2,079,701 22,312 0
0 0 0 0 0
2,514 0 20,922 6,470 0
161 0 4,527 359 0
0 0 3,507 0 0
13 0 25,603 3,232 0
0 0 0 0 0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Grants data in the CFFR generally cover obligations, which may
58 The Book of the States 2010
or may not result in actual expenditures. Obligations that do not result in expenditures may become deobligated. Deobligations are shown as negative amounts in the data. For additional information see the complete
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR GRANTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars)—Continued Equal Election Environmental Employment State and Dept. of Assistance Dept. of Protection Opportunity outlying area Education (a) Commission Energy Agency Commission United States............. $37,067,861
Dept. of Dept. of Health & Dept. of Housing Human Homeland & Urban Services Security Development
$115,000
$2,289,667
$3,745,071
$28,114
$27,685,678
$217,458
Alabama.................... Alaska........................ Arizona...................... Arkansas.................... California...................
555,415 310,075 868,053 359,063 4,420,466
1,760 575 1,990 1,063 12,909
42,668 5,037 17,950 8,821 269,655
41,328 88,586 66,371 29,830 265,952
0 168 487 0 2,332
4,234,761 1,016,352 6,816,433 3,248,938 58,545,749
85,268 24,145 88,313 82,057 794,240
324,776 131,997 388,674 167,655 3,852,119
2,879 1,979 5,213 1,766 25,232
Colorado.................... Connecticut............... Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia......................
499,232 344,893 118,477 1,852,389 1,010,625
1,695 1,362 575 6,478 3,170
111,791 45,347 9,710 44,450 43,858
63,610 62,117 29,993 105,275 95,813
334 794 228 1,069 130
3,361,042 5,332,807 833,696 12,033,923 9,371,613
80,818 36,346 8,609 311,850 109,203
317,054 451,003 61,071 1,168,369 660,894
4,717 1,964 521 12,904 5,590
Hawaii........................ Idaho.......................... Illinois........................ Indiana....................... Iowa............................
249,426 162,520 1,560,197 632,672 329,353
575 575 4,822 2,379 1,168
8,523 10,488 78,600 50,221 -21,601
32,537 48,507 123,864 62,148 45,557
114 296 1,526 432 688
1,178,998 1,162,395 15,406,718 5,515,900 2,836,761
35,308 12,306 220,709 176,764 481,194
163,615 72,592 1,329,624 345,185 255,578
1,510 1,419 10,429 5,134 3,526
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana................... Maine......................... Maryland....................
336,571 568,710 645,930 165,031 563,342
1,054 1,615 1,721 575 2,083
11,086 15,334 12,875 5,475 37,251
36,714 61,132 94,600 32,340 67,228
361 243 48 179 531
2,167,968 5,685,225 5,802,870 1,994,000 6,901,882
403,195 156,691 2,519,549 39,073 96,988
119,602 303,459 1,463,255 135,393 634,431
2,390 1,079 3,397 1,491 4,047
Massachusetts............ Michigan.................... Minnesota.................. Mississippi.................. Missouri.....................
752,232 1,126,578 484,496 424,879 606,217
2,558 3,864 1,922 1,103 2,202
143,564 117,346 35,720 20,824 36,277
95,639 121,724 66,110 34,533 73,418
972 1,055 438 0 762
15,566,816 14,062,989 5,762,405 4,001,503 6,889,919
134,149 80,110 84,336 753,056 199,045
1,130,084 583,173 379,719 195,878 386,077
5,213 8,397 4,280 2,340 4,037
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada....................... New Hampshire........ New Jersey.................
211,512 230,822 206,232 142,188 892,629
575 680 798 575 3,332
10,700 10,254 29,978 6,917 34,188
40,014 31,734 30,905 35,964 77,554
300 511 526 99 368
956,257 2,572,832 1,142,128 1,104,817 11,529,251
20,978 38,662 46,667 23,704 99,730
77,992 108,625 154,505 115,931 878,243
1,138 1,373 974 1,682 1,388
New Mexico............... New York................... North Carolina.......... North Dakota............ Ohio............................
534,553 2,587,801 1,034,382 158,289 1,169,231
706 7,499 3,205 575 4,451
65,510 177,222 99,916 38,279 65,988
36,952 191,778 89,571 27,284 76,596
300 2,532 66 153 2,286
3,097,704 40,857,681 10,403,229 619,220 12,168,878
40,413 731,036 81,277 22,137 152,036
154,752 2,981,546 575,107 67,170 968,249
675 11,713 8,004 969 7,378
Oklahoma.................. Oregon....................... Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island............. South Carolina..........
536,046 451,991 1,248,707 140,794 565,599
1,359 1,368 4,919 575 1,592
10,910 18,246 156,015 5,603 22,153
88,981 49,617 144,151 34,879 35,544
321 490 1,808 163 504
3,518,836 3,446,753 14,601,389 1,624,173 4,077,736
204,472 77,375 191,395 23,551 41,731
279,937 315,183 1,183,899 121,732 232,617
2,783 991 4,877 1,376 1,043
South Dakota............ Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont.....................
190,397 687,995 2,995,460 301,263 111,255
575 2,266 7,854 813 575
14,825 29,081 78,119 16,350 8,662
27,546 38,903 323,403 37,012 20,212
167 223 814 337 59
689,722 10,765,992 24,811,645 1,879,772 1,510,293
22,343 124,242 563,676 26,401 16,920
76,932 334,790 1,466,028 109,628 59,683
1,313 4,608 18,938 2,450 2,145
Virginia...................... Washington................ West Virginia............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
823,171 664,843 239,244 634,147 121,869
2,815 2,313 756 2,111 575
40,004 61,154 3,975 92,517 6,458
78,068 110,212 37,930 81,080 20,551
177 684 167 1,129 109
4,505,960 6,790,263 2,310,474 5,277,691 412,471
164,337 188,942 23,062 135,650 10,906
491,544 634,319 128,505 310,790 25,177
6,059 4,689 1,334 2,275 781
Dist. of Columbia...... American Samoa...... Fed. States of Micronesia.......... Guam.......................... Marshall Islands........
287,078 45,437
575 115
23,854 0
84,860 2,279
165 0
2,266,120 27,169
205,694 -1,285
283,747 2,630
2,199 65
5,549 70,524 1,992
0 115 0
0 -3 0
0 5,171 0
0 56 0
0 39,910 0
-5 13,946 0
0 35,156 0
40 156 33
No. Mariana Islands... Palau........................... Puerto Rico............... U.S. Virgin Islands.... Undistributed............
26,697 3,668 754,050 45,605 0
0 0 1,426 115 0
-43 0 1,307 259 0
0 0 34,840 6,555 0
0 0 407 5 0
5,658 0 1,140,060 25,891 0
2,180 0 2,161 4,246 0
4,860 0 467,117 18,011 0
163 40 2,263 87 0
report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Key:
$373,911,637 $10,311,904
Institute of Museum & Library Services
(a) Data for certain programs come from Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2008. (b) Payments in lieu of taxes have been categorized as ‘‘grants.’’
The Council of State Governments 59
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR GRANTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars)—Continued Dept. of State and the Dept. of Dept. of outlying area Interior Justice Labor NASA United States................ $5,870,111
National National National Archives and Endowment Endowment Records for the for the Admin. Arts Humanities
National Science Foundation
$3,025,884
$8,269,126
$954,310
$7,478
$120,977
$118,517
$5,542,192
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
34,162 82,964 99,597 25,351 377,559
30,821 12,807 72,838 17,772 564,932
99,144 48,604 105,932 97,999 1,002,159
30,472 3,834 23,886 2,372 157,018
67 0 131 0 684
1,151 921 1,211 723 11,246
845 936 2,017 1,342 8,407
37,856 39,740 113,533 15,601 807,538
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
246,875 5,036 4,074 38,736 15,782
94,104 27,854 9,211 228,956 100,380
92,899 112,192 22,443 249,698 175,880
51,588 3,340 3,565 12,999 14,911
159 288 0 0 595
2,724 1,186 813 2,057 2,830
1,066 1,283 1,599 1,938 3,489
258,455 51,931 34,022 154,375 101,897
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
39,865 41,593 37,619 19,239 8,290
12,470 8,019 85,125 31,481 18,939
37,040 43,052 390,083 183,423 96,097
18,353 2,482 11,608 6,607 6,289
150 100 205 105 48
1,139 930 3,247 1,038 920
989 550 9,616 2,092 848
41,302 15,021 276,519 102,163 44,134
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
19,618 50,411 110,796 10,480 15,335
19,253 26,627 23,006 9,518 110,471
59,981 134,238 114,022 42,598 197,051
2,414 4,060 2,393 4,020 147,878
181 23 21 65 454
643 1,100 1,336 1,152 3,262
691 1,174 1,552 2,498 3,017
31,121 22,811 37,002 25,439 120,164
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
8,873 30,039 15,955 9,840 23,843
56,360 63,947 81,140 8,244 42,537
183,400 481,623 124,602 97,811 152,653
59,309 13,695 5,536 8,670 9,767
313 12 22 26 19
5,220 1,842 12,635 817 2,680
10,104 2,909 1,480 844 3,171
403,327 161,718 83,914 24,726 64,345
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
145,345 17,336 648,823 17,762 6,534
11,004 16,695 41,421 9,841 75,694
32,440 36,683 54,635 28,516 227,375
5,682 4,690 1,804 15,347 11,332
10 75 10 0 509
1,137 903 869 870 1,738
726 1,363 575 731 2,097
24,002 26,266 15,482 21,216 124,260
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
691,982 21,939 17,902 81,978 26,631
18,876 229,637 81,377 7,030 55,664
46,905 428,428 269,293 22,977 313,614
5,411 32,678 5,089 4,494 11,608
96 498 123 20 0
1,305 18,540 1,407 860 1,826
580 10,192 2,023 729 2,929
46,687 426,536 153,390 12,184 120,787
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
23,717 187,440 58,065 3,873 9,764
25,345 35,386 84,420 12,729 29,638
59,800 139,152 363,547 38,670 161,279
9,972 4,973 23,810 3,440 2,835
304 0 129 0 76
859 1,243 3,006 1,083 1,025
984 843 6,371 1,448 1,085
27,601 78,623 229,880 43,110 35,664
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
98,872 29,324 69,003 245,076 5,347
8,248 36,364 189,272 17,696 6,450
21,470 155,845 453,860 57,914 21,306
3,419 6,817 52,155 5,017 3,760
10 186 150 70 0
797 1,047 2,965 1,348 1,031
586 1,579 3,982 760 897
11,263 47,447 212,988 35,180 11,041
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
40,174 70,682 67,485 17,666 1,395,675
88,586 64,124 21,978 48,528 5,122
231,222 205,149 48,561 168,516 20,711
67,038 15,329 11,959 13,648 1,476
617 17 0 350 76
1,494 2,131 764 1,381 707
4,728 1,775 588 1,250 699
112,726 124,991 11,840 116,172 10,729
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa.......... Fed. States of Micronesia............. Guam............................. Marshall Islands............
13,039 60,617
32,727 782
162,551 1,573
20,724 0
484 0
5,785 284
2,723 249
372,113 0
104,259 78,877 82,956
0 2,545 0
-207 5,046 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 281 0
0 327 0
0 201 0
No. Mariana Islands..... Palau.............................. Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........ Undistributed................
33,805 17,319 4,373 97,651 6,887
1,024 0 8,063 2,807 0
1,011 253 138,662 7,749 0
0 0 2,745 -8 0
0 0 0 0 0
283 0 875 309 0
312 0 669 260 0
95 0 17,685 3,379 0
(c) Includes Treasury payments to recipients that are separate from the government of the District of Columbia and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), as well as distributions
60 The Book of the States 2010
to state and local governments of seized cash assets and proceeds from the sale of other seized assets.
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR GRANTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars)—Continued Tennessee Small Social State Valley State and Business Security Dept. of Justice Authority Dept. of outlying area Admin. Admin. State Institute (b) Transportation
Dept. of the Treasury (c)
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Other
United States................... $160,974
$74,979
$301,180
$2,675
$456,775
$53,344,774
$880,792
$807,818
$230,498
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
2,894 540 1,833 1,276 14,074
1,587 500 1,200 858 5,617
1,731 602 5,347 1,745 35,973
8 13 143 0 5
112,472 0 0 0 0
865,091 680,047 973,537 511,674 6,501,529
99 122 3,156 210 10,095
12,455 48 8,161 5,061 42,561
656 509 2,473 530 27,440
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
2,111 1,922 1,062 6,978 2,889
682 859 500 2,943 2,011
5,732 3,004 764 8,052 6,342
56 0 0 12 77
0 0 0 0 6,985
786,541 576,034 161,823 2,301,950 1,557,131
122 641 85 5,729 2,959
11,831 8,703 1,709 23,860 11,538
3,447 1,045 909 3,517 2,347
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
540 540 9,666 2,451 2,757
500 500 2,197 1,632 624
1,465 498 14,739 6,448 6,080
4 14 4 22 0
0 0 425 0 0
241,708 334,276 1,916,635 1,047,877 529,606
150 118 3,905 734 115
824 6,090 24,971 5,536 11,703
410 609 3,626 1,321 2,184
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
4,627 3,910 1,006 1,067 2,625
587 1,877 1,124 668 844
2,434 2,618 3,121 1,287 5,971
35 0 3 0 241
0 42,937 0 0 0
519,653 636,729 795,087 236,172 771,293
304 902 660 134 6,046
5,082 14,006 16,200 14,198 12,126
645 2,004 1,713 307 20,148
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
3,945 2,063 1,759 4,222 3,784
6,858 4,036 1,057 900 1,268
16,170 6,897 4,573 1,657 3,882
2 8 270 4 20
0 0 0 26,291 0
1,025,753 1,370,548 1,366,182 561,404 1,178,401
1,319 1,428 177 299 255
21,577 23,509 16,307 14,524 33,217
27,590 7,468 22,895 811 2,626
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
1,279 1,148 1,013 922 4,026
800 500 713 500 1,176
1,291 1,772 917 1,015 4,621
21 9 70 17 0
0 0 0 0 0
403,499 326,016 506,231 196,273 1,510,750
106 44 1,164 199 2,571
6,196 13,861 5,613 5,906 19,117
1,126 691 328 1,938 2,112
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
2,252 12,222 3,775 962 7,684
715 3,965 1,910 500 2,127
2,119 39,821 6,915 184 7,704
78 277 39 0 54
0 0 2,605 0 0
420,761 3,470,102 1,209,172 285,870 1,554,073
233 9,478 7,108 421 2,359
3,475 25,619 7,294 1,930 18,935
1,369 11,693 4,794 666 9,758
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
1,249 1,099 6,312 938 1,548
1,059 711 3,162 500 836
1,778 4,623 11,899 1,599 1,866
1 24 20 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
681,372 682,244 2,110,606 245,297 642,906
160 1,113 2,552 223 970
34,853 5,096 33,537 6,234 14,645
621 1,796 12,859 1,344 1,352
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
782 3,062 8,399 1,185 1,290
500 1,387 3,752 500 500
594 2,308 12,511 1,685 1,899
47 14 95 1 27
0 264,837 0 0 0
296,175 948,525 3,691,760 508,070 207,853
95 1,435 12,820 125 204
2,775 11,335 23,620 3,675 5,936
575 4,206 5,427 457 2,101
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
4,239 2,724 4,588 2,768 540
1,697 1,287 804 1,351 500
6,287 6,236 721 4,303 442
452 53 24 14 0
223 0 0 0 0
1,190,933 1,288,055 520,862 916,522 291,854
11,077 2,302 124 1,107 10
5,638 16,916 1,279 20,481 2,092
2,863 1,548 505 2,247 592
Dist. of Columbia............ American Samoa............ Fed. States of Micronesia................ Guam................................ Marshall Islands..............
1,891 200
300 150
28,485 0
334 0
0 0
1,534,004 15,944
409,125 0
366 0
7,934 0
0 540 0
0 150 0
0 0 0
0 30 0
0 0 0
0 73,612 52
0 158 0
0 12 0
0 0 0
No. Mariana Islands....... Palau................................. Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands.......... Undistributed..................
0 0 1,292 510 0
150 0 1,200 150 0
0 0 293 162 0
0 0 10 0 23
0 0 0 0 0
21 0 128,994 18,505 0
0 0 373,094 654 0
0 0 2,627 0 162,964
0 0 441 25 11,899
The Council of State Governments 61
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.10 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Department of Defense State and outlying area
Dept. of Defense and nondefense Total Total Army Navy Air Force
Other defense
United States...............
$514,116,500
$354,952,779
$141,768,640
$93,493,056
$60,496,424
$59,194,660
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
10,253,408 2,479,933 13,831,919 1,330,673 52,045,242
8,349,841 1,989,420 12,197,916 729,535 37,373,022
5,132,802 834,223 4,582,727 534,350 6,245,788
276,052 158,915 2,529,497 6,401 10,333,198
414,064 432,494 1,464,376 56,990 13,237,738
2,526,923 563,788 3,621,316 131,795 7,556,298
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
7,709,499 12,855,536 365,872 16,624,628 11,068,697
4,831,836 12,170,694 217,701 12,228,148 7,162,950
1,177,681 5,409,563 115,688 5,255,224 2,951,101
135,571 4,522,121 10,405 2,453,358 488,934
2,749,676 1,522,715 66,322 3,323,271 3,183,969
768,907 716,296 25,286 1,196,295 538,947
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
2,455,943 2,002,630 13,197,030 8,922,445 1,870,384
2,221,647 158,926 9,091,396 7,958,410 1,063,308
702,186 81,209 2,407,319 6,171,442 264,197
870,936 6,770 4,246,546 876,134 260,652
295,732 61,450 1,060,027 227,165 424,044
352,794 9,497 1,377,505 683,670 114,415
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
4,102,495 7,729,047 6,240,312 1,129,854 25,601,542
2,935,161 5,610,452 4,671,986 851,861 12,689,796
1,090,114 1,349,905 2,763,244 351,336 6,053,997
95,311 258,856 1,472,134 259,660 4,211,940
1,593,407 198,433 72,723 10,273 1,083,639
156,329 3,803,258 363,885 230,592 1,340,220
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
13,349,950 8,611,507 3,362,548 5,538,575 14,449,513
11,218,067 6,166,896 1,905,662 4,360,092 12,163,737
4,306,532 4,836,808 507,810 636,434 4,786,727
3,686,521 725,522 861,515 3,343,541 5,381,808
2,070,734 139,076 72,052 259,300 1,277,852
1,154,281 465,491 464,285 120,817 717,350
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
572,175 1,208,203 2,700,760 1,913,772 8,960,521
241,594 771,726 1,093,155 1,601,644 7,198,309
104,531 135,606 356,918 773,809 4,011,785
3,255 18,178 189,998 413,815 1,374,674
91,256 460,510 504,488 297,124 335,136
42,552 157,432 41,751 116,895 1,476,714
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
6,913,761 13,731,728 5,794,493 552,108 9,096,216
1,438,738 9,344,374 3,473,948 202,688 6,898,325
740,600 3,100,103 1,340,823 72,123 1,748,482
56,690 3,888,308 1,187,613 3,714 749,064
512,442 1,016,451 260,655 102,953 2,453,050
129,006 1,339,513 684,857 23,898 1,947,729
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
2,852,848 2,374,693 18,293,505 865,481 7,620,643
1,983,230 1,432,526 13,522,774 669,124 4,846,951
809,737 1,161,576 6,159,324 63,070 1,005,035
164,144 162,954 3,658,113 581,678 2,917,416
524,002 18,795 614,101 2,437 176,194
485,346 89,200 3,091,236 21,940 748,306
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
653,328 9,875,529 60,702,945 3,029,636 564,436
399,401 3,430,949 51,225,763 1,870,187 426,433
54,492 677,819 26,785,539 485,233 284,580
66,486 197,390 10,241,106 113,691 100,518
34,276 452,057 9,658,034 1,046,275 10,236
244,147 2,103,683 4,541,083 224,988 31,098
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
53,868,495 10,386,170 1,328,450 4,487,347 528,759
39,019,844 5,549,207 355,742 3,255,218 194,882
13,931,761 944,992 216,738 1,733,712 51,343
13,245,849 1,819,573 73,571 821,069 1,112
3,150,837 1,031,802 44,361 30,006 46,771
8,691,397 1,752,840 21,072 670,432 95,656
Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Fed. States of Micronesia............ Guam............................ Marshall Islands..........
16,540,676 17,902
4,586,767 1,934
1,687,427 1,934
1,813,159 0
634,594 0
451,587 0
90 610,674 0
0 599,244 0
0 1,771 0
0 481,105 0
0 72,915 0
0 43,453 0
No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed (a)........
1,624 0 887,319 40,521 20,012,511
598 0 592,899 1,473 8,404,670
84 0 152,757 1,470 4,625,057
515 0 66,261 4 1,609,738
0 0 5,579 0 1,611,563
0 0 368,302 0 558,311
See footnotes at end of table.
62  The Book of the States 2010
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Nondefense agencies Environmental General State and Dept. of Dept. of Dept. of Dept. of Protection Services outlying area Total Agriculture Commerce Education Energy Agency Admin.
Dept. of Health and Human Services
United States............... $159,163,721
$5,499,318
$2,449,714
$1,321,241
$24,182,812
$1,361,703
$12,050,991
$13,375,509
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
1,903,566 490,513 1,634,003 601,138 14,672,220
16,350 25,572 43,222 83,047 537,604
1,738 24,356 1,764 120 47,361
106 117 14,833 89 56,812
1,076 9,310 17,881 595 3,100,433
1,097 557 187 229 67,025
109,087 56,036 151,337 33,918 784,127
41,438 3,281 74,226 51,939 367,180
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
2,877,662 684,842 148,170 4,396,480 3,905,747
126,301 9,095 5,077 58,090 73,569
69,477 3,145 827 31,756 25,610
6,159 14,262 271 675 20,961
373,065 12,790 265 19,529 20,449
50,097 4,061 4,782 21,747 38,722
176,762 33,761 11,501 423,870 403,135
49,399 40,441 7,702 70,977 1,946,948
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
234,296 1,843,704 4,105,634 964,035 807,076
3,185 90,956 261,664 18,229 47,506
14,244 793 4,296 24,140 212
3,761 144 38,765 8,887 95,419
862 1,273,235 1,005,259 2,616 34,011
20 707 35,064 2,503 239
38,890 22,624 326,713 45,384 32,748
6,634 375 96,659 106,788 101,738
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
1,167,334 2,118,594 1,568,325 277,993 12,911,746
250,500 20,056 115,454 1,430 89,460
1,725 7,550 1,490 3,018 1,169,837
167 1,145 –58 91 283,820
6,216 143,714 139,352 39 341,858
24,732 35,531 8,103 1,424 93,141
53,077 179,267 81,880 95,010 782,378
9,738 20,090 18,267 3,317 4,147,167
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
2,131,883 2,444,611 1,456,886 1,178,483 2,285,776
8,938 61,127 474,772 29,382 390,049
43,969 3,291 1,462 24,204 8,651
30,645 1,275 25,081 184 399
7,272 6,494 3,999 434 498,651
76,058 28,434 7,073 1,640 33,324
127,057 1,154,737 94,054 91,060 331,830
188,122 204,838 71,820 15,856 40,399
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
330,581 436,476 1,607,606 312,128 1,762,212
71,369 71,519 12,512 11,715 14,898
752 4,139 1,779 5,951 26,375
184 92 422 8,722 37,983
13,984 2,612 770,508 1,281 85,572
353 19,913 8,082 13,627 75,766
23,048 30,566 39,890 12,345 196,974
33,506 19,438 9,024 8,750 59,902
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
5,475,023 4,387,354 2,320,544 349,421 2,197,891
51,564 90,888 42,313 97,878 76,905
1,041 22,459 14,724 323 7,809
92 61,160 39,769 74 1,002
4,701,285 895,788 339,469 12,842 196,574
2,359 22,599 66,424 108 64,325
54,180 434,940 115,089 31,981 213,493
74,793 155,616 428,286 84,354 117,922
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
869,618 942,168 4,770,731 196,356 2,773,692
22,631 224,359 63,837 383 12,398
4,741 13,396 85,977 2,112 19,098
2,099 5,142 39,265 114 197
11,847 8,276 440,268 156 1,576,980
4,813 7,951 56,164 8,348 1,324
94,182 100,879 221,498 16,835 86,607
106,198 34,479 1,666,770 11,116 149,295
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
253,927 6,444,580 9,477,182 1,159,449 138,003
15,176 84,504 297,064 43,871 1,633
233 1,820 14,756 4,587 602
–1,994 974 97,757 131 75
7,308 3,016,378 600,004 27,090 1,111
1 829 69,304 1,983 2,541
8,251 105,560 570,663 63,645 20,060
32,019 85,554 255,920 36,072 2,099
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
14,848,651 4,836,964 972,708 1,232,128 333,877
218,410 96,424 42,188 171,374 13,224
403,858 58,869 6,810 5,329 289
86,250 2,577 129 34 0
796,490 3,184,141 144,534 1,198 3,211
229,630 20,109 760 21,179 26
2,029,659 232,571 44,564 67,715 6,419
1,070,475 123,449 23,646 97,568 1,517
Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Fed. States of Micronesia............ Guam............................ Marshall Islands..........
11,953,909 15,968
232,919 14,594
79,915 110
331,556 0
220,353 0
92,141 0
1,459,857 292
429,212 0
90 11,431 0
0 150 0
0 66 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 6,516 0
0 10 0
No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed (a)........
1,026 0 294,420 39,048 11,607,842
0 0 7,500 15 554,466
10 0 584 93 146,071
0 0 122 0 3,305
0 0 0 0 104,147
0 0 24 11 34,513
–31 0 32,516 14,736 75,250
0 0 3,608 1,454 568,112
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 63
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Nondefense agencies—continued Dept. of State and Homeland outlying area Security United States............... $13,849,574
Dept. of Housing Dept. of and Urban the Dept. of Dept. of Development Interior Justice Labor NASA
National Archives National and Records Science Admin. Foundation
$965,254
$4,376,104
$6,008,777
$2,036,067
$14,633,400
$202,197
$232,254
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
81,557 81,267 238,684 16,393 765,835
330 131 49,506 557 30,643
4,971 88,764 144,005 8,664 517,099
211,195 4,459 88,666 26,277 539,365
15,373 7,775 18,123 12,335 133,656
727,175 15,897 166,065 316 3,717,702
0 120 26 1,948 20,642
0 38 16 0 1,941
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
177,537 56,926 5,061 313,879 234,795
65,955 93 56 50,912 43,397
283,857 1,978 18,422 61,555 28,693
24,864 38,991 3,187 148,655 182,585
8,639 14,667 6,552 81,302 52,544
815,423 142,612 6,991 1,118,778 9,715
547 0 186 295 8,137
26,853 230 17 139 2,106
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
20,676 5,451 26,956 90,522 28,391
787 253 1,020 3,043 58
32,348 55,972 23,202 14,239 3,118
7,051 8,194 66,905 39,950 6,068
14,233 15 40,133 16,745 11,609
531 392 18,226 95,620 5,516
0 0 785 0 893
0 210 7,822 8 0
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
–27,384 30,157 365,480 8,069 588,408
989 263 9,227 99 67,462
8,247 12,448 48,962 4,878 206,704
7,941 69,513 59,568 1,724 298,649
7,713 37,538 14,328 20,179 90,527
353 703 375,251 477 1,423,068
1,160 26 401 0 105,476
0 0 0 0 10,906
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
148,196 55,227 30,028 283,182 189,513
6,356 2,847 16,718 154 760
45,151 16,035 17,939 26,192 26,647
57,557 28,862 36,149 11,389 72,907
52,624 32,388 6,277 24,762 31,515
126,543 7,785 10,493 370,353 9,473
2,703 2,508 3,204 6 8,197
1,036 595 57 0 245
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
2,682 2,900 8,160 26,244 136,336
6 –5 141 5,101 2,136
33,526 9,788 98,429 1,866 17,500
5,460 6,810 8,993 11,433 100,952
4,790 766 25,121 1 21,218
2,669 112 2,796 9,142 59,764
0 44 0 39 267
0 35 0 170 3,933
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
77,066 198,675 106,387 1,935 72,503
623 44,029 –3,234 –266 4,401
160,101 36,702 19,001 10,912 20,002
44,125 129,940 62,445 12,831 40,702
20,490 79,053 12,061 7,421 38,189
105,999 28,551 4,039 79 232,360
4 5,375 148 0 163
10 602 72 0 57
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
19,088 30,030 58,957 10,959 97,904
50,248 –27 –1,140 200 1,697
26,207 107,600 66,069 575 4,370
44,646 16,727 149,425 6,152 32,666
28,776 17,737 68,012 7,866 7,431
247 4,274 24,710 2,046 1,205
3 14 992 0 25
759 5 370 10 7
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
3,626 102,776 739,875 6,382 16,875
–2 58 126,009 731 3
70,458 18,129 71,089 86,874 1,039
1,721 70,138 248,043 8,146 2,187
695 12,849 117,572 30,577 7,996
0 26,621 3,546,796 601,293 817
5 927 10,966 0 12
0 35 1,395 0 0
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
4,253,801 128,057 141,183 55,332 8,586
53,988 8,246 0 497 3
469,215 172,911 13,880 19,022 75,659
981,373 21,874 58,146 75,822 2,650
77,885 15,110 21,478 457 0
557,025 17,212 29,589 3,420 290
10,537 0 3,302 13 0
99,440 167 160 2,882 0
Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Fed. States of Micronesia............ Guam............................ Marshall Islands..........
3,179,659 7
305,425 0
387,742 194
1,120,836 0
623,608 0
123,781 0
4,050 0
64,676 0
0 609 0
0 5 0
0 310 0
0 726 0
0 44 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed (a)........
7 0 27,346 487 520,336
0 0 2,558 0 12,212
567 0 4,077 986 671,214
159 0 12,443 829 689,707
7 0 16,554 0 20,753
0 0 0 0 83,107
0 0 0 0 8,051
0 0 0 0 5,249
See footnotes at end of table.
64 The Book of the States 2010
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Nondefense agencies—continued State and outlying area
U.S. Postal Service (b)
United States............... $15,834,998
Small Business Admin.
Social Security Dept. of Dept. of Admin. State Transportation
Dept. of the Treasury
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Other nondefense (c)
$73,845
$807,586
$2,008,658
$4,533,792
$4,461,858
$21,189,196
$7,708,872
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
207,372 38,218 252,895 134,620 1,674,751
52 26 13 31 1,213
6,302 3,000 1,763 599 16,568
6,810 13,201 364 33,949 26,824
4,234 87,816 39,726 783 379,268
5,295 2,732 2,038 360 617,468
148,684 27,585 325,525 188,303 1,244,766
313,326 254 3,140 6,066 23,936
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
270,829 215,545 46,221 858,178 438,458
46 287 0 236 746
1,886 4,081 79 4,357 8,140
3,138 2,357 113 21,745 1,778
84,521 15,032 589 124,486 13,304
15,827 1,562 118 34,510 18,051
184,479 68,715 29,593 907,458 282,901
62,003 4,210 561 43,351 51,004
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
56,851 61,699 775,179 315,039 185,606
12 0 55 1 4
180 86 14,989 957 1,020
49 1,231 36,218 1,901 2,994
10,004 44,095 25,994 2,961 9,053
–122 231,064 219,447 4,376 192,131
23,571 45,639 997,363 147,597 42,841
530 569 82,921 22,529 5,902
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
190,052 199,771 197,781 85,773 328,950
1 51 6 5 7,562
976 8,023 514 527 425,078
57 815 80 24 99,217
20,681 3,047 17,033 9,001 529,267
295 16,460 2,435 573 851,993
609,082 140,314 102,554 42,084 186,676
1,015 1,192,112 10,218 250 784,143
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
426,326 546,400 322,555 115,374 371,360
510 0 0 0 321
7,934 6,585 1,393 1,098 34,289
17,382 3,865 5,045 0 13,973
205,592 7,574 3,626 16,793 16,001
57,216 36,637 6,798 51 5,944
326,176 234,025 290,440 157,850 199,526
168,522 3,081 27,902 8,518 1,802
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
54,077 113,743 103,644 81,835 593,850
0 446 0 0 33
590 361 566 133 3,753
–28 3,101 229 80,161 14,082
50,007 3,576 27,056 5,600 130,351
148 614 57 232 34,066
33,110 135,530 489,312 24,158 119,507
349 10,378 884 3,622 26,994
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
80,353 1,151,620 444,874 43,469 623,365
142 676 3 0 400
448 20,895 2,302 302 2,361
166 21,702 42,526 0 11,304
9,429 61,202 58,546 1,368 36,839
210 370,235 2,747 7,833 11,007
90,029 505,997 246,813 35,736 409,866
516 48,651 275,741 241 16,341
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
173,135 168,138 754,471 65,108 175,146
20 11 405 0 104
518 1,039 12,858 113 1,601
695 7,255 5,440 46 25,600
165,120 30,248 324,185 451 30,534
9 1,232 36,665 1,765 661
108,271 162,572 599,390 61,790 528,908
5,364 832 96,142 211 19,933
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
49,609 312,244 1,030,784 128,099 43,384
2 90 2,533 1 0
–333 1,643 25,725 1,611 841
41 26,071 10,830 777 237
442 12,440 83,900 65,603 372
27 98,830 153,111 14,907 79
66,447 747,872 1,323,227 52,387 27,869
195 1,718,238 79,859 –15,318 8,172
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
410,869 297,782 103,008 296,470 26,869
13,539 39 6 77 5
73,746 1,916 723 2,133 210
780,733 657 6,165 2,226 0
886,681 78,877 1,325 10,198 18,093
295,516 1,627 117,150 2,370 4,869
343,414 367,840 198,381 390,318 31,216
706,116 6,509 15,579 6,495 140,741
Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Fed. States of Micronesia............ Guam............................ Marshall Islands..........
118,571 254
38,126 0
15,808 0
592,359 0
545,537 54
819,216 0
276,664 462
891,896 0
0 2,414 0
0 6 0
0 25 0
90 0 0
0 130 0
0 -19 0
0 360 0
0 80 0
No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed (a)........
233 0 67,310 4,468 0
0 0 303 0 5,700
0 0 579 0 84,698
0 0 6 0 83,057
75 0 6,291 14407 204,370
0 0 853 15 162,566
0 0 111,120 855 6,746,029
0 0 629 691 824,927
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 65
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Data shown for U.S. Postal Service represent actual outlays for contractual commitments, while all other amounts shown represent the value of contract actions, and do not reflect federal government expenditures. Nonpostal data generally involve only current year contract actions; however, multiple-year obligations may be reflected for contract actions of less than 3 years duration. Negative amounts represent the deobligation of prior year contracts. For
66 The Book of the States 2010
additional information, see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/ govs/www/cffr.html. (a) For all agencies, this line includes procurement purchases made using government-issued purchase cards. (b) Data shown for U.S. Postal service represent actual outlays for contractual commitments. (c) Includes Fiscal Year 2000 procurement data for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which did not provide Fiscal Year 2008 procurement data.
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.11 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SALARIES AND WAGES, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Department of Defense Military services State and Nondefense outlying area Total civilian (a) Total
Other defense civilian Total
Army Active military
Inactive military Civilian Total
Active military
United States............... $253,961,853 $162,149,089 $91,812,764 $4,982,899 $86,829,865 $52,274,486 $11,276,310 $23,279,069 $46,170,497 28,208,821 Alabama...................... 3,847,174 1,910,885 1,936,289 124,866 1,811,423 721,421 329,973 760,029 1,450,322 482,889 Alaska.......................... 2,205,603 775,180 1,430,423 12,298 1,418,125 1,210,690 49,537 157,898 809,785 695,918 Arizona........................ 4,165,927 2,790,647 1,375,280 58,009 1,317,271 926,690 107,508 283,073 505,931 297,352 Arkansas...................... 1,935,787 1,178,731 757,056 4,626 752,430 335,575 306,500 110,355 447,557 79,644 California..................... 22,032,702 14,507,286 7,525,416 334,309 7,191,107 4,112,691 694,806 2,383,610 1,517,722 667,024 Colorado...................... 5,399,274 3,097,472 2,301,802 128,779 2,173,023 1,675,070 141,239 356,714 1,300,699 1,085,847 Connecticut................. 1,722,986 1,378,883 344,103 43,438 300,665 155,900 72,294 72,471 117,483 44,967 Delaware...................... 598,056 310,611 287,445 2,634 284,811 189,109 38,581 57,121 57,604 17,237 Florida.......................... 11,485,822 7,519,449 3,966,373 113,656 3,852,717 2,391,169 416,397 1,045,151 843,956 375,648 Georgia........................ 10,064,947 4,754,032 5,310,915 118,931 5,191,984 3,632,949 379,449 1,179,586 3,638,274 2,919,527 Hawaii.......................... 4,132,799 629,710 3,503,089 37,918 3,465,171 2,715,315 136,373 613,483 1,817,857 1,571,587 Idaho............................ 1,047,362 720,811 326,551 2,146 324,405 217,359 56,592 50,454 101,966 29,168 Illinois.......................... 7,191,544 5,745,621 1,445,923 76,851 1,369,072 574,505 291,644 502,923 681,265 155,470 Indiana......................... 3,188,637 2,103,488 1,085,149 212,919 872,230 187,851 450,230 234,149 633,469 162,811 Iowa.............................. 1,488,097 1,199,680 288,417 2,665 285,752 75,122 160,905 49,725 237,148 58,662 Kansas.......................... 3,053,882 1,390,495 1,663,387 14,569 1,648,818 1,273,008 183,924 191,886 1,436,872 1,123,402 Kentucky...................... 4,299,999 1,783,533 2,516,466 39,365 2,477,101 2,079,851 209,722 187,528 2,430,157 2,057,985 Louisiana..................... 3,062,465 1,820,168 1,242,297 14,561 1,227,736 832,561 194,625 200,550 800,748 520,602 Maine........................... 1,023,033 608,048 414,985 26,787 388,198 94,916 44,920 248,362 67,694 22,165 Maryland...................... 11,739,422 8,494,998 3,244,424 134,184 3,110,240 1,420,584 230,854 1,458,802 1,246,057 522,825 Massachusetts.............. 4,124,479 3,427,082 697,397 69,574 627,823 220,554 160,068 247,201 328,383 93,916 Michigan...................... 4,322,450 3,581,367 741,083 85,595 655,488 147,427 231,184 276,877 539,460 102,536 Minnesota.................... 2,804,267 2,325,569 478,698 12,512 466,186 113,434 275,615 77,137 391,152 85,287 Mississippi.................... 2,224,047 1,159,102 1,064,945 11,224 1,053,721 502,922 248,349 302,450 423,023 88,253 Missouri....................... 5,010,190 3,347,963 1,662,227 56,809 1,605,418 708,112 645,998 251,308 1,292,121 516,022 Montana....................... 1,003,753 743,566 260,187 1,465 258,722 163,792 49,398 45,532 84,411 24,586 Nebraska...................... 1,459,318 845,150 614,168 8,141 606,027 381,481 95,580 128,966 176,611 43,555 Nevada......................... 1,651,085 980,444 670,641 5,369 665,272 518,362 71,713 75,197 105,780 32,485 New Hampshire.......... 741,962 612,157 129,805 10,029 119,776 52,197 36,797 30,782 70,642 20,816 New Jersey................... 4,945,796 3,678,202 1,267,594 44,915 1,222,679 404,392 212,171 606,116 739,597 114,251 New Mexico................. 2,286,996 1,463,711 823,285 24,384 798,901 475,977 70,636 252,288 207,462 44,724 New York..................... 11,085,402 8,905,883 2,179,519 98,124 2,081,395 1,339,934 409,835 331,626 1,772,980 1,194,810 North Carolina............ 7,934,382 3,309,729 4,624,653 83,759 4,540,894 3,667,592 313,328 559,974 3,345,968 2,819,409 North Dakota.............. 872,445 446,487 425,958 2,395 423,563 300,899 63,552 59,112 90,062 23,811 Ohio.............................. 6,396,971 4,364,518 2,032,453 480,851 1,551,602 497,827 306,361 747,414 419,937 116,474 Oklahoma.................... 3,827,508 1,674,079 2,153,429 57,039 2,096,390 1,040,291 274,587 781,512 962,017 578,075 Oregon......................... 2,187,479 1,867,563 319,916 1,666 318,250 85,808 127,471 104,971 235,092 48,465 Pennsylvania................ 7,713,217 5,907,218 1,805,999 428,036 1,377,963 317,632 428,354 631,977 892,527 234,286 Rhode Island............... 832,615 450,828 381,787 4,743 377,044 85,325 66,344 225,375 96,646 32,461 South Carolina............ 3,025,490 1,429,175 1,596,315 28,562 1,567,753 1,006,575 241,639 319,539 743,934 430,992 South Dakota.............. 855,221 597,985 257,236 1,331 255,905 159,437 55,382 41,086 90,548 23,287 Tennessee..................... 3,287,945 2,576,392 711,553 37,028 674,525 179,874 281,697 212,954 478,498 94,973 Texas............................. 18,597,432 10,239,695 8,357,737 175,105 8,182,632 6,151,030 675,577 1,356,025 5,648,662 4,372,798 Utah.............................. 2,544,391 1,381,076 1,163,315 45,279 1,118,036 311,333 220,423 586,280 370,326 90,431 Vermont....................... 501,720 393,940 107,780 2,134 105,646 37,329 50,438 17,879 71,214 23,514 Virginia........................ 15,699,034 6,383,955 9,315,079 1,576,226 7,738,853 4,525,046 330,950 2,882,857 2,642,826 1,478,915 Washington.................. 6,929,095 3,179,276 3,749,819 38,982 3,710,837 2,511,799 242,379 956,659 2,106,873 1,667,277 West Virginia............... 1,719,526 1,509,145 210,381 600 209,781 61,235 90,594 57,952 160,374 40,492 Wisconsin..................... 2,358,452 1,973,146 385,306 5,449 379,857 121,299 190,929 67,629 310,759 92,178 Wyoming...................... 587,916 372,747 215,169 1,117 214,052 150,244 26,063 37,745 43,781 13,022 Dist. of Columbia........ 19,027,144 17,011,223 2,015,921 68,722 1,947,199 1,097,702 78,589 770,908 979,527 775,035 American Samoa........ 6,218 6,050 168 0 168 97 0 71 71 0 Fed. States of Micronesia............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guam............................ 219,841 43,864 175,977 5,707 170,270 101,303 13,880 55,087 337 0 Marshall Islands.......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Mariana Islands... 8,119 8,071 48 0 48 37 0 11 11 0 Palau............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Puerto Rico................. 1,109,758 869,727 240,031 6,516 233,515 12,302 186,469 34,744 197,342 922 U.S. Virgin Islands...... 68,751 57,356 11,395 0 11,395 1,550 7,887 1,958 8,977 33 Undistributed.............. 2,305,921 2,305,921 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments  67
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SALARIES AND WAGES, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Department of Defense—continued Military services—continued Army—continued
State and outlying area
Inactive military Civilian Total
Navy Active military
Air Force Inactive military Civilian Total
Active military
Inactive military
Civilian
United States............... $10,211,447 $7,750,229 $17,552,521 $8,689,204 $514,895 $8,348,422 $23,106,847 $15,376,461 $549,968 $7,180,418 Alabama...................... 317,880 649,553 19,049 10,641 5,156 3,252 342,052 227,891 6,937 107,224 Alaska.......................... 35,690 78,177 4,022 2,467 665 890 604,318 512,305 13,182 78,831 Arizona........................ 80,913 127,666 88,708 58,653 7,474 22,581 722,632 570,685 19,121 132,826 Arkansas...................... 293,988 73,925 2,482 729 1,608 145 302,391 255,202 10,904 36,285 California..................... 588,940 261,758 4,095,329 2,426,472 67,726 1,601,131 1,578,056 1,019,195 38,140 520,721 Colorado...................... 119,773 95,079 31,197 20,963 7,498 2,736 841,127 568,260 13,968 258,899 Connecticut................. 58,038 14,478 153,722 102,780 3,620 47,322 29,460 8,153 10,636 10,671 Delaware...................... 33,549 6,818 1,766 409 1,204 153 225,441 171,463 3,828 50,150 Florida.......................... 355,142 113,166 1,155,494 636,333 39,385 479,776 1,853,267 1,379,188 21,870 452,209 Georgia........................ 350,827 367,920 364,125 180,613 15,390 168,122 1,189,585 532,809 13,232 643,544 Hawaii.......................... 112,820 133,450 1,132,902 739,742 4,880 388,280 514,412 403,986 18,673 91,753 Idaho............................ 53,524 19,274 5,195 1,088 1,309 2,798 217,244 187,103 1,759 28,382 Illinois.......................... 259,886 265,909 170,825 87,185 18,587 65,053 516,982 331,850 13,171 171,961 Indiana......................... 423,498 47,160 158,035 6,143 5,446 146,446 80,726 18,897 21,286 40,543 Iowa.............................. 150,772 27,714 4,842 3,326 1,327 189 43,762 13,134 8,806 21,822 Kansas.......................... 165,820 147,650 4,577 2,872 1,563 142 207,369 146,734 16,541 44,094 Kentucky...................... 205,046 167,126 17,979 4,556 2,740 10,683 28,965 17,310 1,936 9,719 Louisiana..................... 175,097 105,049 85,124 35,452 12,975 36,697 341,864 276,507 6,553 58,804 Maine........................... 38,094 7,435 295,828 63,447 2,883 229,498 24,676 9,304 3,943 11,429 Maryland...................... 219,006 504,226 1,228,233 376,653 5,317 846,263 635,950 521,106 6,531 108,313 Massachusetts.............. 148,464 86,003 33,723 17,139 5,185 11,399 265,717 109,499 6,419 149,799 Michigan...................... 208,729 228,195 26,530 14,908 10,571 1,051 89,498 29,983 11,884 47,631 Minnesota.................... 264,024 41,841 17,680 10,405 6,597 678 57,354 17,742 4,994 34,618 Mississippi.................... 236,510 98,260 227,604 121,580 3,670 102,354 403,094 293,089 8,169 101,836 Missouri....................... 599,708 176,391 88,551 30,388 39,360 18,803 224,746 161,702 6,930 56,114 Montana....................... 45,265 14,560 1,336 299 1,011 26 172,975 138,907 3,122 30,946 Nebraska...................... 88,416 44,640 20,780 16,797 3,277 706 408,636 321,129 3,887 83,620 Nevada......................... 60,976 12,319 34,844 20,943 3,482 10,419 524,648 464,934 7,255 52,459 New Hampshire.......... 33,740 16,086 21,200 19,064 1,230 906 27,934 12,317 1,827 13,790 New Jersey................... 189,963 435,383 126,128 11,644 6,663 107,821 356,954 278,497 15,545 62,912 New Mexico................. 67,000 95,738 9,066 4,549 2,226 2,291 582,373 426,704 1,410 154,259 New York..................... 369,599 208,571 82,035 56,201 20,035 5,799 226,380 88,923 20,201 117,256 North Carolina............ 298,388 228,171 738,045 457,057 9,094 271,894 456,881 391,126 5,846 59,909 North Dakota.............. 53,568 12,683 950 189 654 107 332,551 276,899 9,330 46,322 Ohio.............................. 261,418 42,045 32,642 15,872 13,663 3,107 1,099,023 365,481 31,280 702,262 Oklahoma.................... 251,165 132,777 53,269 44,699 5,041 3,529 1,081,104 417,517 18,381 645,206 Oregon......................... 110,888 75,739 13,155 7,214 4,899 1,042 70,003 30,129 11,684 28,190 Pennsylvania................ 397,261 260,980 379,835 45,150 16,470 318,215 105,601 38,196 14,623 52,782 Rhode Island............... 57,503 6,682 252,206 37,531 4,191 210,484 28,192 15,333 4,650 8,209 South Carolina............ 229,037 83,905 341,219 170,138 6,953 164,128 482,600 405,445 5,649 71,506 South Dakota.............. 53,239 14,022 776 25 665 86 164,581 136,125 1,478 26,978 Tennessee..................... 265,508 118,017 105,698 50,507 10,800 44,391 90,329 34,394 5,389 50,546 Texas............................. 615,926 659,938 238,411 143,515 43,083 51,813 2,295,559 1,634,717 16,568 644,274 Utah.............................. 213,699 66,196 9,305 4,328 3,132 1,845 738,405 216,574 3,592 518,239 Vermont....................... 39,579 8,121 1,430 894 453 83 33,002 12,921 10,406 9,675 Virginia........................ 288,766 875,145 3,719,219 1,980,822 28,779 1,709,618 1,376,808 1,065,309 13,405 298,094 Washington.................. 210,315 229,281 1,191,015 528,002 15,263 647,750 412,949 316,520 16,801 79,628 West Virginia............... 86,253 33,629 12,684 7,875 1,616 3,193 36,723 12,868 2,725 21,130 Wisconsin..................... 172,610 45,971 11,717 5,321 4,928 1,468 57,381 23,800 13,391 20,190 Wyoming...................... 23,784 6,975 464 4 460 0 169,807 137,218 1,819 30,770 Dist. of Columbia........ 45,535 158,957 695,329 101,589 32,344 561,396 272,343 221,078 710 50,555 American Samoa........ 0 71 97 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micronesia................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guam............................ 0 337 36,801 0 0 36,801 133,132 101,303 13,880 17,949 Marshall Islands.......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Mariana Islands... 0 11 37 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palau............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Puerto Rico................. 179,322 17,098 9,306 3,897 2,347 3,062 26,867 7,483 4,800 14,584 U.S. Virgin Islands...... 6,986 1,958 0 0 0 0 2,418 1,517 901 0 Undistributed.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 See footnotes at end of table.
68 The Book of the States 2010
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SALARIES AND WAGES, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Nondefense agencies Federal Environmental Deposit General State and Dept. of Dept. of Dept. of Dept. of Protection Insurance Services outlying area Total (a) Agriculture Commerce Education Energy Agency Corporation Admin.
Dept. of Health and Human Services
United States............... Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California..................... Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................ Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa.............................. Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland...................... Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri....................... Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey................... New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio.............................. Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............ South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont....................... Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming...................... Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Micronesia................... Guam............................ Marshall Islands.......... No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed..............
$5,237,897 6,197 22,220 244,879 25,922 113,224 39,693 4,236 990 37,489 590,773 3,546 3,343 55,232 2,926 2,839 12,101 2,175 10,189 2,472 2,785,606 50,034 11,676 27,279 1,225 31,490 51,549 7,514 4,630 1,610 13,228 153,202 73,881 77,333 22,092 56,594 83,325 14,100 72,785 3,235 4,636 63,505 9,077 63,041 4,199 962 12,856 51,880 27,647 3,847 5,290 260,358 0 0 63 0 0 0 7,535 167 0
$162,149,089 1,910,885 775,180 2,790,647 1,178,731 14,507,286 3,097,472 1,378,883 310,611 7,519,449 4,754,032 629,710 720,811 5,745,621 2,103,488 1,199,680 1,390,495 1,783,533 1,820,168 608,048 8,494,998 3,427,082 3,581,367 2,325,569 1,159,102 3,347,963 743,566 845,150 980,444 612,157 3,678,202 1,463,711 8,905,883 3,309,729 446,487 4,364,518 1,674,079 1,867,563 5,907,218 450,828 1,429,175 597,985 2,576,392 10,239,695 1,381,076 393,940 6,383,955 3,179,276 1,509,145 1,973,146 372,747 17,011,223 6,050 0 43,864 0 8,071 0 869,727 57,356 2,305,921
$6,209,317 72,403 56,064 110,244 121,524 507,979 235,285 11,318 15,346 115,285 169,218 32,009 153,000 112,915 56,813 136,701 65,217 69,805 164,838 18,472 288,797 26,884 81,670 126,218 119,346 286,821 178,726 92,186 27,403 23,537 34,171 150,787 74,088 137,830 57,767 64,344 62,807 258,334 109,629 3,916 59,193 61,449 76,435 247,962 109,421 20,235 149,170 135,441 49,942 108,011 53,519 668,664 420 0 3,903 0 447 0 34,565 843 0
$3,256,717 $399,395 7,312 189 40,439 0 13,043 0 3,004 115 78,664 13,751 103,359 6,020 4,885 0 638 0 65,539 375 17,335 14,504 25,490 0 7,694 0 18,564 13,173 84,250 119 5,065 92 10,845 0 7,646 0 11,431 0 6,010 0 941,459 0 49,689 6,873 20,402 0 8,705 192 17,894 0 35,135 7,028 8,356 0 6,352 0 7,712 0 2,577 86 18,442 0 5,325 0 32,590 8,548 37,766 0 4,482 0 10,999 2,961 24,059 0 24,033 121 17,340 7,944 4,334 0 21,136 92 6,393 0 9,094 0 47,006 10,310 9,179 0 2,540 0 933,807 98 109,042 5,591 2,950 0 8,437 0 4,028 0 307,404 300,604 1,139 0 0 0 1,912 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,786 533 0 76 0 0
$1,509,149 0 122 20,328 3,841 42,379 62,476 0 0 0 5,192 118 32,438 29,943 261 963 0 3,976 7,804 0 131,940 24 0 76 0 8,992 11,743 1,527 31,994 168 1,440 105,017 15,209 99 4,795 14,765 8,005 129,942 33,361 0 39,306 14,972 63,793 19,542 2,076 0 1,769 178,447 26,167 0 4,628 449,511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$1,689,063 3,723 2,610 433 0 88,769 65,936 566 0 7,102 98,875 585 2,281 116,139 188 362 47,133 306 481 0 8,876 66,743 28,928 7,275 2,375 595 3,239 78 13,403 0 20,198 130 69,263 119,875 0 54,772 4,728 9,896 79,797 6,554 0 91 811 81,103 86 0 130,175 47,400 2,207 175 0 490,465 0 0 89 0 100 0 4,021 126 0
$450,365 $1,033,374 2,371 3,536 0 2,601 2,206 4,127 1,756 1,478 26,518 74,786 2,530 28,933 2,179 1,242 927 315 6,685 8,691 16,561 59,884 0 3,396 0 1,023 23,147 61,175 3,224 3,096 5,726 1,287 2,279 1,358 4,832 1,080 4,004 3,358 0 547 1,979 11,020 16,659 22,851 3,382 5,791 4,976 2,617 2,383 1,318 18,762 64,427 879 1,078 3,419 1,306 0 1,689 2,392 1,650 3,755 14,402 1,182 2,831 17,364 54,785 5,031 3,518 2,245 937 2,653 6,004 4,473 3,464 1,672 3,654 5,323 48,435 0 708 1,852 2,128 2,332 942 9,605 2,808 48,269 80,673 4,162 1,585 0 394 816 117,335 3,671 34,384 1,172 1,700 5,496 1,367 0 445 168,620 272,842 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 896 2,171 0 126 0 0
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 69
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SALARIES AND WAGES, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Nondefense agencies—continued Dept. of State and Homeland outlying area Security United States............... $12,333,919 Alabama...................... 95,277 Alaska.......................... 183,064 Arizona........................ 410,020 Arkansas...................... 21,073 California..................... 1,487,991 Colorado...................... 115,234 Connecticut................. 112,477 Delaware...................... 5,273 Florida.......................... 925,370 Georgia........................ 309,420 Hawaii.......................... 160,990 Idaho............................ 19,609 Illinois.......................... 245,205 Indiana......................... 59,816 Iowa.............................. 15,797 Kansas.......................... 31,048 Kentucky...................... 53,726 Louisiana..................... 215,009 Maine........................... 79,826 Maryland...................... 255,570 Massachusetts.............. 258,117 Michigan...................... 250,393 Minnesota.................... 95,121 Mississippi.................... 87,238 Missouri....................... 106,461 Montana....................... 48,685 Nebraska...................... 54,105 Nevada......................... 73,188 New Hampshire.......... 30,857 New Jersey................... 311,223 New Mexico................. 129,844 New York..................... 695,080 North Carolina............ 203,296 North Dakota.............. 37,487 Ohio.............................. 118,521 Oklahoma.................... 32,586 Oregon......................... 102,964 Pennsylvania................ 197,649 Rhode Island............... 38,349 South Carolina............ 86,233 South Dakota.............. 7,056 Tennessee..................... 64,953 Texas............................. 1,372,204 Utah.............................. 31,712 Vermont....................... 111,293 Virginia........................ 941,420 Washington.................. 311,701 West Virginia............... 32,973 Wisconsin..................... 49,001 Wyoming...................... 5,287 Dist. of Columbia........ 1,439,593 American Samoa........ 1,201 Micronesia................... 0 Guam............................ 16,485 Marshall Islands.......... 0 No. Mariana Islands... 4,186 Palau............................. 0 Puerto Rico................. 162,647 U.S. Virgin Islands...... 23,017 Undistributed.............. 0 See footnotes at end of table.
70 The Book of the States 2010
Dept. of Housing Dept. of and Urban the Dept. of Dept. of Development Interior Justice Labor NASA $884,854 6,100 2,783 8,501 4,646 53,719 26,554 5,722 268 19,419 34,840 2,117 729 37,619 5,471 2,475 13,683 4,774 7,798 471 11,046 18,203 13,188 6,687 5,025 8,797 726 2,866 2,435 3,352 11,187 2,775 43,489 7,844 584 19,997 9,905 4,636 33,933 2,105 5,213 550 10,247 49,356 1,954 360 7,645 14,903 1,808 5,580 98 334,381 0 0 71 0 0 0 6,219 0 0
$4,392,662 8,660 142,119 245,214 18,600 430,167 499,031 3,676 2,158 78,491 64,719 30,709 130,937 14,821 14,405 8,177 24,020 20,326 69,129 11,303 49,432 70,713 25,701 50,707 25,161 43,525 119,890 26,573 118,051 5,758 21,308 257,595 59,137 34,353 47,475 17,562 61,508 191,941 70,039 3,085 13,159 79,429 37,365 68,441 111,321 4,483 303,649 143,448 44,391 40,803 99,538 315,444 897 0 1,288 0 781 0 7,420 4,629 0
$8,851,892 82,353 14,271 158,756 62,039 734,745 150,483 57,950 10,744 453,678 199,199 33,274 20,919 260,319 88,945 21,272 53,336 155,470 128,551 10,546 120,491 122,296 129,249 104,510 63,033 127,878 15,879 20,367 37,246 12,928 181,218 41,185 504,453 148,100 8,761 125,487 89,521 62,767 358,885 12,195 117,234 19,476 91,627 681,717 33,472 8,233 697,855 87,068 292,535 56,098 9,193 1,703,290 192 0 4,474 0 945 0 57,953 7,231 0
$1,369,484 10,919 1,122 4,041 2,430 73,424 32,651 5,604 961 40,940 44,333 1,661 2,453 67,500 8,027 2,859 3,860 34,104 6,405 1,967 7,101 38,851 8,796 4,228 3,871 26,448 1,782 2,450 2,625 2,984 15,517 2,775 51,980 5,743 1,295 35,189 3,812 3,709 75,415 2,140 2,708 1,090 7,732 65,537 8,638 379 39,535 22,670 37,346 8,079 1,780 529,756 0 0 122 0 69 0 2,071 0 0
$1,885,187 248,565 0 144 0 216,788 1,514 101 0 209,448 0 0 0 0 152 0 0 0 2,014 0 302,381 102 128 0 34,329 119 0 0 0 0 200 6,362 3,275 137 0 162,397 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 346,586 1,273 0 206,211 0 3,606 107 0 139,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
National National Archives Science and Records Foundation $167,913 0 283 0 1,768 7,399 2,037 0 0 90 4,857 0 0 2,173 0 1,089 3,408 0 0 216 70,110 5,227 1,617 0 0 28,517 0 0 0 0 0 92 2,371 0 0 3,603 0 0 2,902 0 0 0 0 6,447 0 0 0 1,716 95 0 0 21,896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$141,684 0 204 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SALARIES AND WAGES, BY AGENCY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars) Nondefense agencies—continued State and U.S. Postal outlying area Service
Small Business Admin.
United States............... Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California..................... Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................ Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa.............................. Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland...................... Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri....................... Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey................... New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio.............................. Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............ South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont....................... Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming...................... Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Micronesia................... Guam............................ Marshall Islands.......... No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed..............
$304,808 3,709 823 1,650 2,806 30,130 10,451 1,101 666 7,672 12,138 1,302 723 5,580 1,439 1,620 841 2,366 4,241 1,088 1,806 2,551 2,424 1,638 1,439 4,927 787 881 1,007 843 2,126 1,284 13,701 2,459 1,052 3,128 1,418 1,478 4,216 750 1,191 744 1,536 54,453 1,713 806 14,575 3,408 962 1,675 896 80,408 0 0 213 0 0 0 1,879 88 0
$64,269,998 841,667 155,116 1,026,432 546,388 6,797,363 1,099,221 874,839 187,601 3,483,115 1,779,584 230,741 250,421 3,146,241 1,278,657 753,324 771,371 810,816 802,738 348,131 1,335,118 1,730,343 2,217,691 1,309,165 468,271 1,507,250 219,483 461,654 420,662 332,147 2,410,276 326,131 4,674,116 1,805,623 176,429 2,530,073 702,707 682,426 3,062,195 264,256 710,871 201,350 1,267,314 4,183,673 519,919 176,085 1,667,608 1,208,619 418,084 1,203,291 109,054 481,247 1,031 0 9,797 0 945 0 273,194 18,133 0
Social Security Dept. of Dept. of Admin. State Transportation $4,357,252 $1,211,010 146,436 0 3,160 81 37,044 639 28,956 688 421,671 12,228 47,493 1,838 26,623 2,288 6,757 0 146,527 25,690 115,122 179 6,011 1,262 7,956 0 217,651 6,598 52,160 0 21,134 0 19,477 0 47,446 506 46,578 7,711 12,174 83 937,420 2,842 80,557 3,761 90,989 593 31,996 257 38,100 0 154,721 64 7,614 165 11,392 0 13,406 0 9,827 25,810 62,987 820 45,500 361 273,717 18,457 69,623 2,669 5,341 0 99,631 0 31,453 0 27,955 0 255,132 3,903 10,169 0 37,027 38,538 5,665 0 62,160 0 209,702 19,871 11,825 0 3,709 0 147,382 1,590 96,683 5,387 27,024 0 41,808 0 2,793 0 20,723 1,025,836 206 0 0 0 588 0 0 0 197 295 0 0 21,027 0 827 0 0 0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: All amounts represent outlays during the federal government’s fiscal year. Department of Defense data represent salaries, wages and compensation, such as housing allowances; distributions by state are based on duty station. State detail for all other federal government agencies are
$5,511,898 24,418 103,259 50,649 17,931 457,204 141,485 18,687 3,051 264,946 263,171 32,241 10,448 226,833 105,741 16,720 91,626 38,990 28,604 13,507 53,222 116,417 70,213 114,789 13,970 89,301 14,028 12,738 32,176 87,856 167,969 62,881 269,772 48,055 11,388 140,960 278,227 27,081 85,043 8,333 23,508 7,051 106,176 434,049 68,893 4,825 223,314 210,089 13,230 24,931 5,343 756,820 419 0 3,729 0 88 0 14,784 719 0
Dept. of the Treasury
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
All other nondefense (a)
$8,828,587 43,577 6,689 55,224 19,833 952,152 131,234 59,584 12,512 255,335 430,603 11,401 9,918 223,124 68,768 19,047 27,729 288,955 40,767 10,011 534,176 267,122 172,190 71,996 17,091 358,170 8,500 20,578 29,520 17,860 128,169 13,268 646,210 85,044 7,815 211,101 44,555 47,991 464,087 12,525 22,340 6,994 241,329 775,444 318,679 5,116 122,520 105,452 245,648 46,138 4,945 1,072,750 0 0 114 0 0 0 36,197 490 0
$18,327,367 294,482 36,683 375,697 289,966 1,751,718 253,949 179,828 61,131 1,329,800 448,002 47,521 66,109 701,572 257,248 181,005 204,937 232,299 250,039 89,895 248,345 432,036 428,896 344,224 252,041 422,605 48,727 116,125 159,672 48,218 246,525 149,610 1,187,731 500,474 55,938 659,449 223,098 269,587 788,896 76,940 238,449 118,158 497,717 1,289,361 136,084 53,891 388,335 383,866 276,027 361,190 65,455 597,974 544 0 913 0 0 0 207,524 861 0
$9,525,297 8,990 1,466 21,376 3,967 134,518 39,775 5,977 1,273 37,763 75,522 5,336 811 160,097 11,782 2,125 6,226 3,935 8,479 1,329 396,261 40,995 17,450 12,913 4,992 15,931 1,729 3,040 3,625 1,698 13,040 5,574 116,666 14,857 604 24,328 4,428 3,122 130,309 1,234 4,361 738 16,614 84,948 4,885 629 135,170 18,411 3,631 7,112 455 5,573,506 0 0 27 0 18 0 25,305 23 2,305,921
estimates, based on place of employment. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. (a) The “undistributed” amount includes the salaries and wages for the Federal Judiciary that could not be geographically allocated.
The Council of State Governments 71
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.12 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIRECT LOAN PROGRAMS—VOLUME OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Department of Agriculture
State and outlying area Total
Commodity loans— price supports
Other agriculture loans
Federal direct student loans
Other direct loans
United States.........................
$37,905,214
$3,080,288
$6,445,626
$26,747,797
$1,631,503
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
650,595 25,143 2,755,711 408,964 2,676,599
146,232 0 0 207,553 602,381
107,260 18,651 58,731 180,818 167,853
389,992 0 2,695,856 8,771 1,846,814
7,111 6,492 1,124 11,822 59,549
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
894,912 126,275 95,610 1,093,204 1,097,582
0 0 0 0 0
321,537 30,942 39,557 152,119 120,811
570,062 94,137 55,751 880,694 952,172
3,313 1,196 302 60,391 24,599
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
29,220 257,943 2,361,041 1,142,807 1,123,366
0 0 0 0 0
21,842 76,616 137,562 78,508 216,882
5,149 180,181 2,206,002 1,002,677 733,809
2,230 1,146 17,477 61,621 172,675
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
443,067 378,184 844,053 157,382 769,231
0 0 0 0 0
124,331 148,366 538,125 67,697 65,264
307,592 225,517 99,472 84,654 617,782
11,145 4,300 206,456 5,031 86,185
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
1,239,477 2,079,817 1,224,573 1,150,212 618,857
0 0 0 711,137 0
34,052 199,754 220,741 325,755 124,202
1,201,926 1,877,799 988,140 71,314 479,417
3,499 2,264 15,693 42,006 15,237
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
68,267 202,013 134,080 71,163 629,122
0 0 0 0 0
65,615 121,405 15,324 52,557 45,163
226 77,144 116,384 17,408 569,224
2,426 3,464 2,372 1,197 14,736
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
28,494 1,869,582 667,605 79,357 1,125,557
0 0 112,819 0 0
21,577 113,425 223,681 67,927 100,949
719 1,740,578 325,298 10,550 1,006,936
6,198 15,580 5,806 880 17,672
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
269,250 490,742 1,117,617 168,408 315,942
0 0 0 0 0
146,842 104,379 184,752 7,874 175,517
110,873 378,748 931,653 157,785 138,451
11,535 7,615 1,212 2,749 1,974
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
111,983 524,656 2,333,955 104,825 59,304
0 137,277 1,162,889 0 0
110,017 150,311 492,088 65,627 52,424
611 232,429 652,714 39,198 6,330
1,354 4,640 26,264 0 550
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
1,944,315 485,273 458,891 453,226 20,774
0 0 0 0 0
140,137 104,206 97,897 142,842 14,908
1,209,317 346,276 359,991 271,608 5,865
594,861 34,791 1,003 38,776 0
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa.................. Fed. States of Micronesia...................... Guam...................................... Marshall Islands....................
406,582 36
0 0
0 0
395,712 0
10,870 36
1,341 1,837 2,014
0 0 0
1,341 2,072 2,014
0 –245 0
0 10 0
No. Mariana Islands............. Palau....................................... Puerto Rico........................... U.S. Virgin Islands................ Undistributed........................
134 471 102,777 11,795 0
0 0 0 0 0
134 471 34,660 9,513 0
0 0 68,051 2,282 0
0 0 67 0 0
See footnotes at end of table.
72 The Book of the States 2010
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIRECT LOAN PROGRAMS—VOLUME OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Amounts represent dollar volume of direct loans made during the fiscal year. For additional information see the complete report at http:// www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. The CFDA defines “Direct Loans” as “Financial assistance provided through the lending of federal monies for a specific period of time, with a reasonable expectation of repayment. Such loans may or may not require the payment of interest.” The CFDA defines “Guaranteed/ Insured Loans” as “Programs in which the federal government makes an arrangement to indemnify a lender against part or all of any defaults by those responsible for the repayment of loans.” Loan program amounts reflect the volume of loan activities. These amounts represent either direct loans made to certain categories of borrowers, or the federal government contingent liability for loans guaranteed. Loan data does not represent actual expenditures associated with the loan programs. Any actual outlays
under these programs, appear in the direct payments categories in the CFFR. Federal government contingent liability can vary by program, and caution should be used in comparing one federal loan program to another, or in interpreting the data presented to reflect actual federal outlays over time. The following also should be noted: 1. Amounts guaranteed do not necessarily represent future outlays. 2. All amounts reflect the dollar value of loans provided during the fiscal year, and not the cumulative totals of such activity over the life of the program. 3. Direct loans are not reported on a net basis, as in the federal budget, but rather are shown in terms of total amounts loaned. 4. Programs otherwise similar can vary in the share of the total liability that the federal government guarantees or insures. Certain veterans guaranteed loan programs are guaranteed only up to a stated maximum dollar value, for example. In these cases, the federal government contingent liability is less than the total value of the loan or insured policy agreement.
The Council of State Governments 73
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.13 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAMS—VOLUME OF COVERAGE PROVIDED BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Mortgage State and insurance outlying area Total for homes United States............. $313,986,908
Federal Veterans housing Family guaranteed and Mortgage U.S.D.A. Education insured loans— insurance— guaranteed Loan program VA home loans condominiums loans
Small business loans
Other guaranteed loans
$173,288,813
$67,583,009
$36,038,000
$8,010,946
$13,095,610
Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California...................
3,850,948 1,010,192 8,535,204 2,703,303 26,548,361
2,829,029 502,630 5,940,475 1,420,859 12,165,285
0 0 0 519,712 8,218,276
616,024 300,620 1,676,124 283,457 2,006,719
13,833 78,767 218,242 3,404 1,025,225
256,540 88,968 257,474 400,419 501,798
135,523 39,208 442,895 75,452 2,626,059
0 0 –6 0 5,000
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia.......................
8,546,139 2,976,898 1,023,539 13,832,688 11,669,779
5,576,873 2,182,712 805,769 8,629,714 8,222,560
703,812 181,567 0 663,209 254,614
1,390,494 123,706 159,478 2,799,001 1,475,965
365,287 268,063 12,965 455,992 189,800
85,873 58,024 29,185 330,907 967,769
423,800 143,325 16,142 823,889 558,882
0 19,500 0 129,976 189
Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................
385,312 1,857,117 10,348,868 5,269,485 2,660,543
188,393 1,273,870 7,076,354 4,142,098 1,128,444
0 0 700,243 0 778,205
102,683 275,227 912,002 595,689 188,638
40,118 5,010 676,552 46,628 20,576
15,465 172,941 452,580 253,338 398,226
38,653 130,069 531,137 231,732 146,455
0 0 0 0 0
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
2,146,343 5,058,202 2,667,185 968,813 10,108,251
1,492,223 2,205,209 1,660,899 503,059 7,379,719
0 1,274,102 312,410 194,222 0
347,386 381,964 325,815 91,938 1,665,832
7,764 58,567 19,327 10,693 638,759
196,895 1,062,361 243,363 126,851 109,281
102,075 76,000 105,370 42,050 234,661
0 0 0 0 80,000
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
5,983,758 7,526,452 4,339,375 1,703,972 6,500,981
2,863,187 4,963,501 2,889,871 1,134,435 4,117,143
2,523,874 838,285 0 0 774,569
156,914 600,596 380,205 296,455 694,122
200,459 283,405 211,000 1,552 82,204
50,276 533,787 447,600 180,280 501,139
189,049 306,878 410,699 91,250 331,803
0 0 0 0 0
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey.................
1,121,950 3,234,319 4,246,262 1,074,537 9,444,916
561,376 761,791 3,094,994 597,255 7,517,919
211,453 1,823,823 0 212,042 618,195
105,989 391,171 877,856 95,047 393,015
11,798 5,931 69,105 52,480 599,669
170,343 177,353 34,911 45,411 62,339
60,990 74,251 169,395 72,303 251,439
0 0 0 0 2,340
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio............................
2,061,754 11,405,516 9,152,723 725,627 8,356,230
1,216,723 5,915,142 5,288,584 264,102 6,110,920
225,114 3,544,288 853,448 198,411 0
428,461 313,962 1,829,731 82,565 1,079,873
15,989 111,161 74,733 6,815 215,718
97,042 154,986 585,925 129,249 453,854
79,229 677,716 520,302 44,485 384,986
–804 688,263 0 0 110,880
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
3,477,670 3,375,585 11,175,441 1,142,723 3,812,166
1,988,567 2,368,269 5,713,813 626,973 2,248,907
548,054 0 3,947,124 412,585 676,304
446,847 555,380 775,352 38,683 515,528
10,061 55,772 136,683 19,719 23,786
353,002 216,870 216,963 11,693 214,819
131,139 179,294 333,505 33,069 132,827
0 0 52,000 0 –4
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont......................
1,260,781 6,412,839 25,363,889 5,532,186 577,424
290,128 4,213,789 12,539,450 3,963,527 115,367
611,419 736,263 7,277,748 403,869 341,157
101,388 845,448 3,410,205 448,126 33,084
2,980 69,573 121,986 276,444 8,272
201,877 418,720 391,872 124,165 53,287
52,988 129,048 1,192,629 316,055 26,256
0 –3 430,000 0 0
Virginia....................... Washington................ West Virginia.............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
13,511,465 8,876,383 772,903 9,970,571 665,954
6,667,704 5,392,504 540,994 2,403,113 503,749
2,666,696 799,110 0 6,384,040 0
2,918,614 1,812,557 94,371 458,457 84,374
549,414 335,499 846 56,625 1,536
282,437 153,890 118,177 372,420 45,166
418,366 382,822 18,514 295,916 31,129
8,233 0 0 0 0
Dist. of Columbia...... American Samoa....... Fed. States of Micronesia.......... Guam.......................... Marshall Islands.........
542,865 0
319,518 0
0 0
13,480 0
74,470 0
0 0
25,396 0
110,000 0
0 21,388 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 2,895 0
0 0 0
0 14,495 0
0 3,998 0
0 0 0
No. Mariana Islands... Palau........................... Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands..... Undistributed.............
0 0 1,279,497 14,867 17,154,767
0 0 764,680 4,647 0
0 0 0 0 17,154,767
0 0 37,997 489 0
0 0 169,467 222 0
0 0 267,031 5,969 0
0 0 40,322 3,541 0
0 0 0 0 0
See footnotes at end of table.
74 The Book of the States 2010
$14,334,966 $1,635,564
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAMS—VOLUME OF COVERAGE PROVIDED BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Amounts represent dollar volume of loans guaranteed during the fiscal year. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. The CFDA defines “Guaranteed/Insured Loans” as “Programs in which the federal government makes an arrangement to indemnify a lender against part or all of any defaults by those responsible for the repayment of loans.” Loan and program amounts reflect the volume of loan activities. These amounts represent the federal government contingent liability for loans guaranteed. Loans and insurance data do not represent actual expenditures associated with the loan or insurance programs. Any actual outlays under these programs, such as insurance claims paid by the federal government, appear in the direct payments categories in the CFFR. Federal government contingent liability can vary by program, and caution should be used in comparing
one federal loan or insurance program to another, or in interpreting the data presented to reflect actual federal outlays over time. The following also should be noted: 1. Amounts guaranteed or insured do not necessarily represent future outlays. 2. All amounts reflect the dollar value of loans or insurance coverage provided during the fiscal year, and not the cumulative totals of such activity over the life of the program. 3. Direct loans are not reported on a net basis, as in the federal budget, but rather are shown in terms of total amounts loaned. 4. Programs otherwise similar can vary in the share of the total liability that the federal government guarantees or insures. Certain veterans guaranteed loan programs are guaranteed only up to a stated maximum dollar value, for example. In these cases, the federal government contingent liability is less than the total value of the loan or insured policy agreement.
The Council of State Governments 75
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.14 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROGRAMS—VOLUME OF COVERAGE PROVIDED BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Insurance programs by volume of coverage provided State and Flood Crop outlying area Total insurance insurance
Foreign investment insurance
Life insurance for veterans
Other insurance
United States...................
$1,272,109,121
$1,168,413,565
$87,935,365
$16,959
$15,307,142
$436,090
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
11,133,274 610,719 8,283,272 3,120,973 68,510,394
10,515,953 583,767 7,779,296 2,153,966 63,102,458
398,524 400 157,219 833,673 3,800,476
0 0 0 0 5,334
216,274 21,676 342,495 133,020 1,537,457
2,523 4,876 4,262 313 64,668
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
5,811,684 8,320,057 5,697,689 471,780,472 21,656,341
4,439,618 8,003,990 5,542,544 467,050,858 20,322,338
1,069,128 76,095 103,814 3,333,899 962,667
1,026 0 0 0 0
251,543 238,399 48,759 1,376,388 361,637
50,370 1,573 2,572 19,328 9,700
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
10,747,806 2,465,279 17,757,723 8,979,218 13,526,236
10,504,353 1,658,117 7,605,691 4,376,965 1,772,877
104,994 733,944 9,508,297 4,368,357 11,563,035
0 0 0 0 0
136,526 68,691 629,171 232,959 189,873
1,933 4,526 14,564 936 452
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
5,850,857 3,979,130 100,498,281 1,904,203 13,972,401
1,722,688 2,784,698 99,680,975 1,745,950 13,311,886
3,968,783 1,030,701 622,645 70,483 325,300
0 0 0 0 708
148,690 159,054 175,510 85,024 316,689
10,696 4,677 19,151 2,746 17,817
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
11,028,737 5,992,439 9,796,924 16,031,354 6,084,805
10,569,254 3,940,893 1,699,018 15,202,833 3,623,308
52,417 1,629,588 7,769,136 718,490 2,160,577
0 0 0 0 0
399,473 419,413 325,731 105,851 292,418
7,592 2,546 3,039 4,180 8,501
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
1,808,562 8,365,743 4,041,781 1,712,241 48,452,391
693,338 1,686,644 3,922,944 1,623,283 47,835,513
1,046,235 6,561,640 13,327 7,114 96,970
0 0 0 0 0
63,829 116,192 104,678 81,185 516,039
5,160 1,266 831 659 3,870
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
2,798,497 35,987,505 31,617,826 6,539,536 9,317,035
2,556,609 34,678,499 29,754,315 721,714 5,895,764
121,780 333,610 1,433,047 5,776,499 2,853,323
0 322 5,000 0 0
119,789 972,399 423,873 39,273 552,890
320 2,675 1,590 2,050 15,059
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
3,230,794 7,541,792 12,486,536 3,513,084 45,702,919
2,348,543 6,753,420 11,292,264 3,449,678 45,076,697
691,826 585,474 397,023 1,697 389,274
0 0 0 0 3,166
180,734 198,701 784,173 61,709 233,115
9,691 4,197 13,076 0 667
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
4,681,306 5,918,586 154,397,702 1,112,805 658,837
540,621 4,804,521 150,176,478 970,434 599,019
4,088,447 870,838 3,272,232 21,762 25,547
0 0 0 0 0
51,401 240,488 916,743 98,022 33,971
837 2,739 32,248 22,587 299
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
25,280,033 9,545,615 2,465,815 4,700,804 659,497
24,360,663 7,860,839 2,357,522 2,302,491 504,529
452,191 1,335,311 17,898 2,054,077 125,579
0 0 0 0 0
446,173 337,963 88,568 334,755 28,536
21,005 11,502 1,827 9,480 853
Dist. of Columbia............ American Samoa............ Fed. States of Micronesia................ Guam................................ Marshall Islands..............
260,099 0
224,093 0
0 0
1,403 0
26,702 0
7,901 0
0 47,946 0
0 47,946 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
No. Mariana Islands....... Palau................................. Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands.......... Undistributed..................
108 0 5,357,007 366,453 0
108 0 5,318,888 361,894 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 37,960 4,559 0
0 0 158 0 0
See footnotes at end of table.
76 The Book of the States 2010
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROGRAMS—VOLUME OF COVERAGE PROVIDED BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Amounts represent dollar volume of the face value of insurance coverage provided during the fiscal year. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. The CFDA defines “Insurance” as “Financial assistance provided to assure reimbursement for losses sustained under specified conditions. Coverage may be provided directly by the federal government or through private carriers and may or may not involve the payment of premiums.” All data on insurance programs of the federal government, with the exception of data on flood insurance, come from the FAADS. National Flood Insurance data (CFDA number 97.022), reflecting insurance in force on September 30, 2008, are from FEMA, Department of Homeland Security. Insurance program amounts reflect
the volume of insurance activities. Insurance data do not represent actual expenditures associated with the loan or insurance programs. Any actual outlays under these programs, such as insurance claims paid by the federal government, appear in the direct payments categories in the CFFR. Federal government contingent liability can vary by program, and caution should be used in comparing one federal loan or insurance program to another, or in interpreting the data presented to reflect actual federal outlays over time. The following also should be noted: 1. Amounts insured do not necessarily represent future outlays. 2. All amounts reflect the dollar value of insurance coverage provided during the fiscal year, and not the cumulative totals of such activity over the life of the program. 3. Programs otherwise similar can vary in the share of the total liability that the federal government guarantees or insures.
The Council of State Governments 77
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.15 PER CAPITA AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, BY MAJOR OBJECT CATEGORY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In dollars) State and outlying area
United States resident population— July 1, 2008 (a) Total
Retirement and disability
Other direct payments Grants Procurement
Salaries and wages
United States totals*............
304,059,724
$9,041.50
$2,667.33
$2,062.78
$1,868.49
$1,619.90
$823.01
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
4,661,900 686,293 6,500,180 2,855,390 36,756,666
10,288.89 13,729.86 8,355.77 8,355.00 8,159.68
3,475.05 2,000.05 2,498.78 3,262.58 2,065.05
2,235.80 965.93 1,499.75 2,179.79 1,842.44
1,553.39 3,936.58 1,588.42 1,768.67 2,236.83
2,199.41 3,613.52 2,127.93 466.02 1,415.94
825.24 3,213.79 640.89 677.94 599.42
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
4,939,456 3,501,252 873,092 18,328,340 9,685,744
7,696.15 11,104.18 7,585.36 8,177.07 7,657.09
2,280.14 2,645.28 3,103.74 3,146.24 2,366.28
1,441.38 2,187.88 1,734.34 2,393.56 1,604.76
1,320.74 2,107.22 1,643.25 1,103.56 1,504.12
1,560.80 3,671.70 419.05 907.04 1,142.78
1,093.09 492.11 684.99 626.67 1,039.15
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
1,288,198 1,523,816 12,901,563 6,376,792 3,002,555
11,651.37 7,367.81 7,803.05 8,282.01 7,969.03
3,006.35 2,587.72 2,397.66 2,741.05 2,815.35
1,758.16 1,379.03 2,062.73 2,252.71 2,351.04
1,772.16 1,399.51 1,762.34 1,389.00 1,684.09
1,906.50 1,314.22 1,022.90 1,399.21 622.93
3,208.20 687.33 557.42 500.04 495.61
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
2,802,134 4,269,245 4,410,796 1,316,456 5,633,597
8,967.80 12,242.03 10,088.02 9,095.91 13,828.71
2,699.85 3,118.35 2,675.53 3,386.31 3,060.80
2,186.65 4,359.09 2,506.46 1,848.46 2,270.91
1,527.41 1,946.97 2,796.93 2,225.77 1,868.73
1,464.06 1,810.40 1,414.78 858.25 4,544.44
1,089.84 1,007.20 694.31 777.11 2,083.82
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
6,497,967 10,003,422 5,220,393 2,938,618 5,911,605
11,098.08 8,290.48 7,326.22 10,242.11 10,289.77
2,594.69 2,867.82 2,424.81 3,012.91 2,892.34
2,670.51 2,209.90 1,952.07 2,276.88 2,351.11
3,143.67 1,919.81 1,768.04 2,310.74 1,754.54
2,054.48 860.86 644.12 1,884.75 2,444.26
634.73 432.10 537.18 756.83 847.52
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
967,440 1,783,432 2,600,167 1,315,809 8,682,661
9,140.58 8,824.98 6,637.98 7,836.62 8,302.19
3,078.82 2,691.20 2,431.81 2,919.42 2,609.64
2,174.76 2,545.14 1,337.59 1,472.57 2,224.64
2,258.03 2,092.91 1,194.90 1,426.31 1,866.29
591.43 677.46 1,038.69 1,454.45 1,032.00
1,037.53 818.26 634.99 563.88 569.62
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
1,984,356 19,490,297 9,222,414 641,481 11,485,910
12,017.05 8,931.16 7,612.22 11,415.11 7,887.23
2,993.96 2,533.10 2,833.24 2,724.15 2,764.49
1,599.27 2,332.55 1,646.01 3,882.35 2,226.83
2,787.18 2,792.20 1,644.32 2,587.88 1,547.03
3,484.13 704.54 628.31 860.68 791.95
1,152.51 568.77 860.34 1,360.05 556.94
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
3,642,361 3,790,060 12,448,279 1,050,788 4,479,800
8,718.97 7,263.78 9,764.48 9,365.41 8,668.16
3,115.19 2,783.74 3,204.65 2,922.22 3,132.80
2,063.16 1,658.34 2,729.23 2,504.11 1,725.45
1,706.55 1,617.97 1,741.41 2,323.06 1,433.44
783.24 626.56 1,469.56 823.65 1,701.11
1,050.83 577.16 619.62 792.37 675.36
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
804,194 6,214,888 24,326,974 2,736,424 621,270
10,634.48 9,440.60 8,632.58 6,255.31 9,786.55
2,805.68 3,011.65 2,186.99 1,918.90 2,882.91
3,721.55 2,027.96 1,611.46 1,007.24 1,802.52
2,231.40 2,282.93 1,574.37 1,292.19 3,385.03
812.40 1,589.01 2,495.29 1,107.15 908.52
1,063.45 529.04 764.48 929.82 807.57
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
7,769,089 6,549,224 1,814,468 5,627,967 532,668
15,256.19 8,617.14 9,921.61 7,131.65 11,206.77
3,274.62 2,738.24 3,979.85 2,661.41 2,731.66
1,897.54 1,552.01 2,216.53 1,755.77 1,831.58
1,129.63 1,683.02 2,045.41 1,498.08 4,547.15
6,933.70 1,585.86 732.14 797.33 992.66
2,020.70 1,058.00 947.67 419.06 1,103.72
Dist. of Columbia.................. American Samoa.................. Fed. States of Micronesia..... Guam...................................... Marshall Islands....................
591,833 64,827 107,665 175,991 63,174
79,757.02 3,970.78 1,091.68 8,709.55 1,406.91
3,833.05 808.83 9.18 1,390.95 8.57
5,413.30 176.71 45.27 546.13 47.25
10,412.94 2,613.18 1,036.39 2,053.40 1,351.08
27,948.22 276.15 0.84 3,469.92 0
32,149.51 95.91 0 1,249.16 0
No. Mariana Islands............. Palau....................................... Puerto Rico........................... U.S. Virgin Islands................ Undistributed........................
86,616 20,701 3,954,037 109,840 0
1,927.42 1,192.31 4,541.69 6,216.98 0
349.29 43.77 1,756.36 1,842.42 0
176.31 111.33 960.36 964.39 0
1,289.34 1,037.21 1,319.89 2,415.34 0
18.75 0 224.41 368.91 0
93.73 0 280.66 625.92 0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. U.S. total population and per capita figures in the top row include only the 50 states and the District of Columbia; the U.S. Outlying Areas represented at the bottom of
78 The Book of the States 2010
the table are excluded from this figure. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. N.A. – Not applicable (a) All population figures represent resident population as of July 1, 2008.
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.16 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, BY MAJOR OBJECT CATEGORY, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In dollars) State and outlying area
Percent distribution of United States resident population— July 1, 2008 (a) Total
Retirement and disability
Other direct payments Grants Procurement
Salaries and wages
United States.........................
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
1.5 0.2 2.1 0.9 11.9
1.7 0.3 1.9 0.9 10.7
2.0 0.2 2.0 1.1 9.3
1.7 0.1 1.5 1.0 10.7
1.3 0.5 1.8 0.9 14.3
2.0 0.5 2.7 0.3 10.1
1.5 0.9 1.6 0.8 8.7
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
1.6 1.1 0.3 5.9 3.1
1.4 1.4 0.2 5.4 2.7
1.4 1.1 0.3 7.0 2.8
1.1 1.2 0.2 6.9 2.5
1.1 1.3 0.2 3.5 2.5
1.5 2.5 0.1 3.2 2.2
2.1 0.7 0.2 4.5 4.0
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
0.4 0.5 4.2 2.1 1.0
0.5 0.4 3.6 1.9 0.9
0.5 0.5 3.8 2.1 1.0
0.4 0.3 4.2 2.3 1.1
0.4 0.4 4.0 1.5 0.9
0.5 0.4 2.6 1.7 0.4
1.6 0.4 2.8 1.3 0.6
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
0.9 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.8
0.9 1.9 1.6 0.4 2.8
0.9 1.6 1.4 0.5 2.1
1.0 2.9 1.8 0.4 2.0
0.7 1.4 2.1 0.5 1.8
0.8 1.5 1.2 0.2 5.0
1.2 1.7 1.2 0.4 4.6
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
2.1 3.2 1.7 1.0 1.9
2.6 3.0 1.4 1.1 2.2
2.1 3.5 1.5 1.1 2.1
2.7 3.5 1.6 1.1 2.2
3.6 3.3 1.6 1.2 1.8
2.6 1.7 0.7 1.1 2.8
1.6 1.7 1.1 0.9 2.0
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
0.3 0.6 0.8 0.4 2.8
0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 2.6
0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 2.8
0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 3.1
0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 2.8
0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.7
0.4 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.9
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
0.6 6.3 3.0 0.2 3.8
0.9 6.2 2.5 0.3 3.2
0.7 6.0 3.2 0.2 3.9
0.5 7.2 2.4 0.4 4.1
1.0 9.5 2.6 0.3 3.1
1.3 2.7 1.1 0.1 1.8
0.9 4.4 3.1 0.3 2.5
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
1.2 1.2 4.0 0.3 1.5
1.1 1.0 4.4 0.4 1.4
1.4 1.3 4.9 0.4 1.7
1.2 1.0 5.4 0.4 1.2
1.1 1.1 3.8 0.4 1.1
0.6 0.5 3.6 0.2 1.5
1.5 0.9 3.0 0.3 1.2
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
0.3 2.0 7.9 0.9 0.2
0.3 2.1 7.5 0.6 0.2
0.3 2.3 6.5 0.6 0.2
0.5 2.0 6.2 0.4 0.2
0.3 2.5 6.7 0.6 0.4
0.1 1.9 11.8 0.6 0.1
0.3 1.3 7.3 1.0 0.2
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
2.5 2.1 0.6 1.8 0.2
4.2 2.0 0.6 1.4 0.2
3.1 2.2 0.9 1.8 0.2
2.3 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.2
1.5 1.9 0.6 1.5 0.4
10.5 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.1
6.2 2.7 0.7 0.9 0.2
Dist. of Columbia.................. American Samoa.................. Fed. States of Micronesia..... Guam...................................... Marshall Islands....................
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
3.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
7.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
No. Mariana Islands............. Palau....................................... Puerto Rico........................... U.S. Virgin Islands................ Undistributed........................
0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8
0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.9
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Values for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Outlying Areas were used in
calculating these distributions. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. (a) All population figures represent resident population as of July 1, 2008.
The Council of State Governments 79
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.17 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND ALL OTHER AGENCIES, BY STATE AND OUTLYING AREA: FISCAL YEAR 2008 Federal expenditure Per capita federal Percent distribution of (millions of dollars) expenditure (dollars) (a) federal expenditure State and Dept. of All other Dept. of All other Dept. of All other outlying area Defense federal agencies Defense federal agencies Defense federal agencies
Exhibit: Dept. of Energy, defense-related activities (millions of dollars) (b)
United States...............
$488,726
$2,303,885
$1,574.13
$7,467.38
100%
100%
$15,080
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
11,412 3,629 14,677 1,962 48,763
36,553 5,794 39,637 21,894 251,160
2,448.02 5,287.22 2,257.98 687.23 1,326.64
7,840.87 8,442.65 6,097.79 7,667.76 6,833.04
2.3 0.7 3.0 0.4 10.0
1.6 0.3 1.7 1.0 10.9
0 0 0 0 1,143
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
8,263 12,772 671 20,175 14,176
29,752 26,106 5,952 129,697 59,988
1,672.87 3,647.92 767.97 1,100.78 1,463.63
6,023.28 7,456.25 6,817.39 7,076.29 6,193.46
1.7 2.6 0.1 4.1 2.9
1.3 1.1 0.3 5.6 2.6
113 0 0 8 0
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
6,107 742 11,307 9,509 1,596
8,902 10,485 89,365 43,304 22,332
4,740.92 486.84 876.38 1,491.21 531.53
6,910.45 6,880.97 6,926.67 6,790.80 7,437.50
1.2 0.2 2.3 1.9 0.3
0.4 0.5 3.9 1.9 1.0
0 707 69 0 0
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
5,055 8,590 6,412 1,516 17,295
20,074 43,675 38,085 10,459 60,610
1,804.03 2,011.96 1,453.60 1,151.33 3,070.00
7,163.78 10,230.06 8,634.42 7,944.57 10,758.70
1.0 1.8 1.3 0.3 3.5
0.9 1.9 1.7 0.5 2.6
0 13 0 0 0
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
12,430 7,393 2,726 5,883 14,514
59,685 75,540 35,519 24,215 46,315
1,912.97 739.08 522.25 2,001.89 2,455.24
9,185.11 7,551.40 6,803.98 8,240.22 7,834.53
2.5 1.5 0.6 1.2 3.0
2.6 3.3 1.5 1.1 2.0
0 0 0 0 402
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
701 1,685 2,303 1,942 8,873
8,142 14,054 14,957 8,369 63,212
724.31 944.80 885.71 1,476.00 1,021.96
8,416.26 7,880.18 5,752.27 6,360.62 7,280.23
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.8
0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 2.7
0 0 645 0 0
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
2,711 12,222 9,742 734 9,774
21,135 161,849 60,461 6,589 80,818
1,366.30 627.10 1,056.35 1,144.07 850.97
10,650.75 8,304.06 6,555.87 10,271.04 7,036.27
0.6 2.5 2.0 0.2 2.0
0.9 7.0 2.6 0.3 3.5
4,059 433 0 0 100
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
4,833 2,202 16,368 1,187 7,490
26,925 25,328 105,183 8,654 31,342
1,326.83 581.00 1,314.85 1,129.71 1,671.90
7,392.15 6,682.78 8,449.63 8,235.70 6,996.27
1.0 0.5 3.3 0.2 1.5
1.2 1.1 4.6 0.4 1.4
0 0 405 0 1,611
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
795 5,047 63,546 3,346 611
7,758 53,625 146,458 13,771 5,469
988.12 812.14 2,612.18 1,222.77 983.16
9,646.37 8,628.46 6,020.40 5,032.54 8,803.39
0.2 1.0 13.0 0.7 0.1
0.3 2.3 6.4 0.6 0.2
0 1,363 531 0 0
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
52,155 10,780 771 3,989 515
66,372 45,656 17,231 36,148 5,455
6,713.08 1,645.95 424.98 708.70 966.20
8,543.11 6,971.18 9,496.63 6,422.95 10,240.57
10.7 2.2 0.2 0.8 0.1
2.9 2.0 0.7 1.6 0.2
0 2,224 9 0 11
Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Fed. States of Micronesia............ Guam............................ Marshall Islands..........
6,732 4
40,471 254
11,374.06 60.32
68,382.96 3,910.46
1.4 0.0
1.8 0.0
1,232 0
0 789 0
118 743 89
0.00 4,485.31 0.00
1,091.68 4,224.24 1,406.91
0.0 0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0
No. Mariana Islands... Palau............................. Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands...... Undistributed..............
2 0 880 18 8,405
165 25 17,078 665 14,221
17.99 0.00 222.54 162.72 0.00
1,909.43 1,192.31 4,319.16 6,054.26 0.00
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7
0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6
0 0 0 0 0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. For additional information see the complete report at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/ cffr.html.
80  The Book of the States 2010
(a) All population figures represent resident population as of July 1, 2008. (b) These data are presented for illustrative purposes only. They were compiled from preliminary FY 2008 state budget allocation tables that were prepared for submission to Congress and that were found on the Department of Energy Web site.
FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCES
Table 2.18 STATE RANKINGS FOR PER CAPITA AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE: FISCAL YEAR 2008 State Total
Retirement and disability
Other direct payments Grants Procurement
Salaries and wages
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
13 3 30 31 36
2 49 41 5 48
16 50 44 23 31
37 2 35 24 13
8 4 9 49 21
20 1 32 30 37
Colorado.............................. Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
41 9 44 35 42
46 36 11 7 45
46 21 36 9 41
46 16 33 50 40
17 3 50 32 25
8 48 29 35 13
Hawaii................................. Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
6 45 40 34 37
16 39 44 28 24
34 47 26 15 11
23 44 26 45 30
11 24 29 23 47
2 28 42 46 47
Kansas................................. Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
23 4 15 22 2
32 9 34 3 13
22 1 7 30 14
39 19 5 15 21
19 13 22 35 2
9 15 27 24 3
Massachusetts..................... Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
10 33 46 14 12
38 22 43 14 20
5 20 28 13 10
4 20 25 10 27
10 33 44 12 7
34 49 44 26 19
Montana.............................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
21 25 49 39 32
12 33 42 19 37
24 6 48 45 18
12 17 48 43 22
48 43 27 20 28
14 21 33 41 39
New Mexico........................ New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
5 24 43 7 38
17 40 23 31 27
42 12 39 2 17
7 6 32 8 38
5 42 45 34 39
6 40 18 5 43
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
26 47 18 20 27
10 26 6 18 8
25 38 4 8 37
29 34 28 9 42
40 46 18 36 14
12 38 36 23 31
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
11 19 28 50 17
25 15 47 50 21
3 27 40 49 33
14 11 36 47 3
37 15 6 26 31
10 45 25 17 22
Virginia................................ Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
1 29 16 48 8
4 29 1 35 30
29 43 19 35 32
49 31 18 41 1
1 16 41 38 30
4 11 16 50 7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2008, July 2009. Note: For additional information see the complete report at http://www. census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html. States are ranked from largest per capita amount of federal funds (1) to smallest per capita amount of federal
funds (50). Rankings are based upon per capita amounts shown in Table 2.10. Federal funds for loans and insurance coverage are excluded from consideration in this table. Also excluded are per capita amounts for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Outlying Areas.
The Council of State Governments  81
Chapter Three
STATE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
state legislative branch
75 Years of Institutional Change in State Legislatures By Karl T. Kurtz The 75th anniversary of The Book of the States inspires a look back at the first 1935 edition to determine what we can learn about state legislatures in the 1930s compared to the 2000s, and to recount the history of change in these institutions. Most of the story of change relates to the strengthening of legislatures—the process by which they have increased their ability to make decisions independently of the executive branch and lobbyists.
The three standard measures of the effort to increase legislative capacity, which political scientists call “professionalization,” are the time that legislators spend on the job, the compensation they receive and the staff resources available to them. The chapter on legislatures in the 1935 Book of the States has only nine tables, compared to three times as many in modern editions. Nonetheless, we can learn a lot about how dramatically different the legislatures of today are on the dimensions of time, compensation and staff compared to the era of the 1930s.
Time The time demands of legislative work have increased greatly since the 1930s. The most basic measure of this is the predominance of annual legislative sessions today compared to biennial sessions in the earlier period. In 1933, five states held annual sessions, 43 met biennially and one, Alabama, met only every four years. Today it is the reverse: Only five states continue to meet biennially and the remaining 45 have annual sessions. Most of this shift to annual sessions occurred during the heyday of legislative reform in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By 1974, 42 states had switched to annual sessions. Arkansas became the most recent to switch when voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2008. The switch to annual sessions is the most obvious evidence of more time on the job by legislators today. Comparing the number of days spent in session is more difficult within the confines of the information in The Book of the States, but we can reach a few general conclusions. In addition to switching to annual sessions, about half the 31 states that had constitutional limits on session length in 1931 increased the number of days allowed in session or gave the legislature more flexibility in how to use those days. The other half of the states in this category kept their limits on session length
but applied them to annual, as opposed to biennial, sessions. Virtually all the states that had no limit on session length in the 1930s spend more time in session today. Special sessions also occupy the time of legislators. In 1933, 35 states held 43 special sessions, while in 2009, 23 states held 63 special sessions. Presumably, the reduction in the number of states holding special sessions is due to the growth in annual sessions, making it less necessary for governors or legislative leaders to convene the legislature extraordinarily. Requests for service from constituents also affect the time demands on state legislators. In general, the larger the population of a legislative district, the more demand there is for help in dealing with constituents’ problems. The population of legislative districts in each state is determined both by the number of legislators and the state’s population. In 1933, 7,527 state legislators served a 48-state population of 125 million people. Seventy-five years later, the U.S. population has increased to 306 million, but the total number of legislators has declined to 7,382, even after adding two more states to the union. That’s a net reduction of 145 state legislators. But this reduction in the total number masks differences between houses of representatives and senates. In the house chambers, two factors caused a net reduction of 295 legislators. First was Nebraska’s conversion to unicameralism in 1937, which eliminated 100 house members. Second, a prevailing belief of the legislative reform movement of the 1970s that smaller legislatures were more efficient and effective led Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont to eliminate more than 80 house seats each, followed by Georgia, Illinois, Ohio and Rhode Island, each of which also reduced the number of their house seats by 20 or more. The total number of senators, on the other hand, actually
The Council of State Governments 85
State Legislative Branch
Table A: State Legislative Membership and District Populations, 1933 and 2009 (population in thousands) Senate
House/Assembly
1933
2009
1933
2009
Average Average Average Average Number of population Number of population Number of population Number of population State members per district (a) members per district (a) members per district (a) members per district (a) United States...........
1,821
70.3
1,971
159.4
5,706
21.9
5,411
56.6
Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California.................
35 . . . 19 35 40
76.0 . . . 22.4 53.0 149.1
35 20 30 35 40
134.5 34.9 219.9 82.6 924.0
106 . . . 63 100 80
25.1 . . . 6.8 18.5 74.5
105 40 60 100 80
44.8 17.5 109.9 28.9 462.0
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia.....................
35 35 17 38 51
30.6 46.9 14.6 40.8 57.8
35 36 21 40 56
143.6 97.7 42.1 463.4 175.5
65 267 35 95 205
16.5 6.1 7.1 16.3 14.4
65 151 41 120 180
77.3 23.3 21.6 154.5 54.6
Hawaii...................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa..........................
. . . 44 51 50 50
. . . 10.5 152.3 66.1 49.9
25 35 59 50 50
51.8 44.2 218.8 128.5 60.2
. . . 59 153 100 108
. . . 7.9 50.8 33.0 23.1
51 70 118 100 100
25.4 22.1 109.4 64.2 30.1
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
40 38 39 33 29
46.9 71.0 55.8 24.9 58.4
40 38 39 35 47
70.5 113.5 115.2 37.7 121.3
125 100 101 151 118
15.0 27.0 21.6 5.4 14.4
125 100 105 151 141
22.5 43.1 42.8 8.7 40.4
Massachusetts.......... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Mississippi................ Missouri....................
40 38 67 49 34
107.1 125.8 39.9 41.4 111.0
40 38 67 52 34
164.8 262.4 78.6 56.8 176.1
240 100 134 140 150
17.8 47.8 19.9 14.5 25.2
160 110 134 122 163
41.2 90.6 39.3 24.2 36.7
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
56 43 17 24 21
9.7 32.2 5.6 19.9 195.6
50 49 21 24 40
19.5 36.7 125.9 55.2 217.7
102 100 40 418 60
5.3 13.9 2.4 1.1 68.5
100 9.7 . ... Unicameral..... 42 62.9 400 3.3 80 108.8
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina......... North Dakota........... Ohio..........................
24 51 50 49 32
18.7 257.4 65.4 13.8 210.6
42 62 50 47 33
47.8 315.2 187.6 13.8 349.8
48 150 120 113 135
9.4 87.5 27.2 6.0 49.9
70 150 120 94 99
28.7 130.3 78.2 6.9 116.6
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
44 30 50 39 46
54.4 32.6 195.7 17.3 38.1
48 30 50 38 46
76.8 127.5 252.1 27.7 99.2
118 60 208 100 124
20.3 16.3 47.0 6.8 14.1
101 60 203 75 124
36.5 63.8 62.1 14.0 36.8
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont....................
45 33 31 23 30
15.3 83.2 194.0 22.6 11.9
35 33 31 29 30
23.2 190.8 799.4 96.0 20.7
103 99 150 60 248
6.7 27.7 40.1 8.7 1.4
70 99 150 75 150
11.6 63.6 165.2 37.1 4.1
Virginia..................... Washington.............. West Virginia............ Wisconsin................. Wyoming..................
40 46 30 33 27
61.5 34.6 58.4 92.1 8.5
40 49 34 33 30
197.1 136.0 53.5 171.4 18.1
100 99 94 100 62
24.6 16.1 18.6 30.4 3.7
100 98 100 99 60
78.8 68.0 18.2 57.1 9.1
Sources: Previous editions of The Book of the States and the U.S. Census Bureau. Key: (a) Actual district populations vary substantially from the average in states with multi-member districts.
86  The Book of the States 2010
state legislative branch increased by 150 during this period. The expansion of senates in Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York, along with the addition of Alaska and Hawaii as states, account for three-quarters of the additional senators nationally. That state legislators today represent far more people than they did 75 years ago is perhaps an obvious point given the slight decline in the number of legislators and a large increase in population. When we look at individual state data on the ratio between state population and number of members in each chamber, though, some of the differences are dramatic. In Nevada today, House members on average represent 26 times as many people as they did in 1933. Florida’s ratio between population and House members is 16 times greater, and California’s has increased tenfold. Changes in ratios of senators to population are somewhat less dramatic, but nonetheless large in many states. The only states in which legislators today represent almost the same number of people as they did in 1933 are North Dakota, whose population has declined slightly, and West Virginia, whose population has increased slightly, as has the number of legislators. Closely related to the time demands of legislative work is the length of legislative terms. The need to campaign for elections greatly affects the work of legislators. The longer the term of office, the less time lawmakers need to spend on campaigns.
Table B: Length of Legislative Terms of Office
1933
2010
Senates 2 years 3 years 4 years
31 1 16
12 0 38
Houses 1 year 2 years 4 years
2 42 4
0 44 5
Source: The Book of the States.
The only significant change in the length of terms in houses of representatives is the switch from oneyear to two-year terms in New Jersey and New York. In senates, though, most states have changed
from two- to four-year terms, thereby demanding less time for campaigns. As an aside to this discussion of time demands of legislative work, in 1933 there were no term limits for state legislators. Successful voter efforts to impose term limits on legislatures in 15 states through the initiative process did not begin until the 1990s. Term limits have created a new management problem, unforeseen in the 1930s, for legislatures in the 2000s.
Compensation To compensate for longer sessions, the much larger number of constituents and the increases in responsibility, the pay for legislators has changed dramatically since the 1930s. In 1935, legislators
Table C: Legislative Compensation Comparison Number of states Compensation
1935 in 2007 terms
2007
<$3,000
12
1
$3,000 – $4,999
12
0
$5,000 – $6,999
7
0
$7,000 – $14,999
8
9
>$15,000
9
40
Sources: The Book of the States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Karl Kurtz.
in 19 states were paid less than $300 a year, with Kansas the lowest at $75 per year and New Hampshire close behind at $100. In 13 states, legislators received $400 to $600 in annual pay. Only nine states paid their lawmakers $1,000 or more for legislative service, led by New York at $2,500. For the most part, the same larger population states that pay their legislators more today paid more in 1935. If we restate those 1935 salaries in 2007 terms, to take into account the effect of inflation, they are not comparable to today. Legislators in 1935 were paid substantially less compared to today. Lawmakers in 31 states received less than $7,000 per year in today’s dollars. Currently, only New Hampshire pays its legislators $100 per year. And in 1935 nine states paid their legislators more than $15,000 (in 2007 dollars), compared to 40 states today.
The Council of State Governments 87
State Legislative Branch Every state has increased real compensation for legislators except New Hampshire. It is two to five times higher in most states and as much as 10 to 20 times higher in a few states. Keep in mind that 1935 was at the end of the Great Depression and that similar increases in real compensation occurred for American workers in most industries and professions since that time. In fact, the increases in compensation that legislators have received in most states appear to be due more to overall improvement in personal income than to the professionalization of legislatures. The largest increases in legislative pay occurred in most states before 1972 (the earliest year for which I collected these data), which is early in the period of legislative reform. Legislator pay has declined in real terms in 20 states since 1972, and in another seven states the inflation-adjusted pay increases have been less than 10 percent in 35 years.
Staff The 1935 edition of The Book of the States provides limited information about legislative staff. After a lengthy description of the history and work of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library, which was formed in 1901 and is generally regarded as the first “legislative reference service,” a chapter in the book lists 22 states that had established research offices by 1935 and provides this sketchy description of the numbers of staff: Many of the bureaus have developed into effective organizations, although some of them have only one or two staff members. Among those which have the desirable combination of high standards of workmanship and staffs of fairly adequate size are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Each of five states—California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—has eight or more people engaged in legislative reference work on a full-time basis. If we make a wild guess that the five states with “adequate size” had 10 staff on average, and estimate that the other 17 states with reference bureaus averaged, say, five people each, then give the remaining 26 states that are not listed as having research offices two staff each, that would mean that there were approximately 200 to 250 full-time staff working for the 48 state legislatures in the mid-1930s.
88 The Book of the States 2010
This rough estimate may leave out other fulltime legislative staff, but probably not a lot. The legislative clerks and secretaries, whose offices long pre-date the development of research services, were staffed in those days almost entirely on a part-time basis. The bill drafters and legal counsels, fiscal analysts, legislative auditors, committee support, security personnel, information technology experts, and personal and partisan staff that populate today’s state legislatures simply did not exist in the 1930s, at least not full-time. To the extent that legislatures used such specialists, they borrowed them from executive agencies or state universities or hired them for the session only. More importantly, before the advent of professional staff in legislatures, the members relied on themselves and their fellow members for expertise on issues. Even with this roughest of estimates, it seems safe to say that the total number of full-time staff working for state legislatures was less than 500 in 1935. Today, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ last census in 2009, there are approximately 28,000 full-time staff who work for state legislatures. Sixteen states by themselves have staffs of more than 500 each. By the 1960s every state legislature had some kind of legislative research service, most of them working in a central, nonpartisan staff office. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the majority of states established legislative fiscal offices to provide independent evaluations of the budget prepared by the executive branch. In the 1970s, many states transferred state auditors’ functions to the legislative branch and established program review offices, either on their own or as part of a legislative auditor’s office. During this period, clerks and secretaries’ offices and security services became full-time, professional operations in most states. Some states split their research and committee staff functions to serve the house and senate independently. The most populous states added personal staff to members. Between 1968 and 1974 legislative staff more than doubled. In the 1980s, states added information technology staff and established legislative information offices. Partisan leadership, caucus and members’ personal staff continued to grow throughout the 1980s and 1990s to the extent that today, they make up slightly more than half of all legislative staff. By the late 1990s, though, the growth of legislative staff had leveled off, and in the 2000s there has actually been a slight decline in the number of legislative staff.
state legislative branch
Other Legislative Organization and Procedure The nine tables in the 1935 Book of the States reveal a few other things about the legislatures of that era compared to today. The one table that has barely changed at all is the list of official names of legislative bodies. The only changes from 1933 to today are that Montana changed its official name to Legislature from Legislative Assembly, and Nebraska eliminated its House of Representatives and became a unicameral body. Otherwise, this table is identical today except for the addition of information about the legislatures of the District of Columbia and the territories and commonwealths of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (The information about the U.S. territories and commonwealths that is common to modern editions of The Book of the States is missing from the early volumes.)
Table D: Number of Standing Committees
1933
2010
Senates <11 11 – 20 21 – 30 31 – 40 >40
1 4 16 18 9
6 31 10 2 1
Houses <11 11 – 20 21 – 30 31 – 40 >40
0 1 12 18 17
3 22 14 7 3
Source: The Book of the States.
One of the principle strategies of the legislative strengthening movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s was to urge legislatures to reduce the number of legislative committees, rationalize their structure and jurisdictions, and make them effective gatekeepers in screening legislation for the chamber as a whole. The need for this reform is evident in data from the 1935 Book of the States on the number of standing committees in each chamber. Well over half the senates and houses
had more than 30 standing committees each, and very few had 20 or fewer. Today’s numbers reflect the fact that those recommendations for committee restructuring were widely adopted in the states: The range of 11 to 20 standing committees has become the norm for state senates, and four out of five houses of representatives now have 30 or fewer committees. Another plank in the legislative strengthening platform was establishing detailed and meaningful deadlines for processing legislation to avoid end of session logjams. Both the first and the most recent editions of The Book of the States contain tables on deadlines for the introduction of bills, but the information in these tables only scratches the surface of the topic and does not allow us to reach any meaningful conclusions about deadlines. Another table in the first volume of The Book of the States reveals that lieutenant governors had the power to appoint the standing committees in 16 of the 48 states. Today that is true in only two states as state senates have moved to place management responsibility for their chambers in the hands of senators whom they elect to leadership positions rather than in the statewide elective office of lieutenant governor. Unfortunately, this tidbit of information about legislative leadership powers is the only thing we can draw on from the 1935 edition about how legislative leadership has changed over time. There are numerous other legislative strengthening topics we cannot learn about from the nine tables of that otherwise admirable first effort at reporting on the organization and procedure of America’s legislatures. Topics that have become routine in recent editions of The Book of the States—benefits for legislators, pre-filing and carryover of bills, vetoes and veto overrides, the appropriations process and requirements for fiscal notes, the number of bill introductions and enactments, and procedures for standing committees—were not addressed in volume one. On the other hand, there are some intriguing miscellaneous facts about legislatures in the first edition. For example, we learn that in 1933, 35 percent of all members of Congress previously served in state legislatures. For the last three decades of American politics, that proportion is substantially higher, hovering consistently around 50 percent. The 1935 edition also contains the names of all 7,500 state legislators in the United States. By comparing those names to the same list in the next (1937) edition, we can estimate the rate of turn-
The Council of State Governments 89
State Legislative Branch over in the membership of legislatures in those days. Nationally the average proportion of newly elected members serving in the houses of representatives was 55 percent, which compares to a turnover rate of about 25 percent in legislatures in the 2000s. This dramatic change in turnover is a result of the legislative strengthening changes in time, compensation and staff previously described. As the capacity of legislatures has increased, so too has the desirability of the job of legislator, thereby reducing the number who voluntarily step down from office. As the job has become more attractive, incumbent lawmakers have made skillful use of the resources of experience, information and staff available to them to ensure that they are re-elected.
Conclusion The transformation in the institutional capacity of state legislatures that is summarized here coincided with resurgence in the policy roles of legislatures in the federal system. The legislatures of the early 1930s were emerging from a period in which the U.S. Supreme Court had consistently ruled that state government had little role in the regulation of private business, and they were entering into the great expansion of federal power and authority brought about by the New Deal and World War II. Legislatures of the period were notoriously malapportioned with overrepresentation of rural and farming interests at the expense of urban, industrial populations. The Supreme Court’s one person, one vote decisions of the 1960s provided an initial spark to the legislative strengthening movement by forcing legislatures to be more representative of state population as a whole and bringing in a new generation of legislators. State legislatures remained quiescent in their policy roles until the 1970s and 1980s. (The Sometime Governments is the title of the most important book urging legislative improvement and reform in 1970.) Then the “new federalism” policies of the Nixon and Reagan administrations turned responsibility back to the states, and in the 2000s, states took on even more policymaking responsibility when federal domestic programs were severely cut due to economic conditions. The states and their governors and legislatures had no choice but to assert their authority and responsibility. Thanks to the legislative strengthening movement, they had the capacity to do so. The challenges legislatures face today are not the same as in 1935. At least for the time being,
90 The Book of the States 2010
legislatures have built their capacity and, except for isolated cases, are unlikely any time soon to be adding staff and facilities, increasing their compensation or expanding their time on the job. New challenges that face the modernized American legislature include finding the resources and will to overcome a severe economic downturn, coping with term limits, mitigating the effects of intense partisan conflict, controlling the effects of money in politics, harnessing the power of information technology, improving methods of redrawing their legislative districts, and dealing with intense public distrust and cynicism toward democratic institutions.
About the Author Karl T. Kurtz is director of the Trust for Representative Democracy at the National Conference of State Legislatures. He wasn’t around for the 1935 edition of The Book of the States, but has worked for The Council of State Governments or NCSL for more than half of the 75-year span of this publication. He last wrote the state legislatures chapter for The Book of the States for the 1974–75 edition.
state legislative branch
2009 Legislative Elections By Tim Storey The 2009 legislative elections could best be described as the proverbial calm before the storm. There were regular elections for only two legislative chambers—the New Jersey Assembly and the Virginia House of Delegates—in 2009 in contrast to 2010 when nearly all states will choose state legislators in advance of the 2011 redistricting free-for-all. In the two chambers that held 2009 elections, Republicans made modest gains giving GOP partisans optimism that 2010 will be a very good year for the party after losing legislative seats in the past three consecutive election cycles.
Minor Changes in 2009 at the State Legislative Level New Jersey and Virginia were the only states to hold regular elections in November 2009 for state legislative seats. In New Jersey, voters filled 80 State Assembly seats, and in Virginia, voters elected 100 members to the House of Delegates. These were the only two of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers that had elections scheduled in the odd-numbered year. Nebraska is the country’s only unicameral legislature; it has only a state Senate. That, combined with the bicameral legislatures in the 49 other states, totals 99 state legislative chambers. 2009 was the low point of the decade for regular legislative elections with only 180 seats being contested—that’s 2.4 percent of the 7,382 legislative seats in the 50 states. Party control did not change in either the New Jersey Assembly or the Virginia House of Delegates as a result of the 2009 elections, with Democrats keeping the Assembly in New Jersey and Republicans holding the Virginia House. Republicans did gain seats in both states. In Virginia, Republicans surged not only winning back the governor’s mansion for the first time in eight years but also adding six seats in the House of Delegates. The net gain of six GOP seats in the Virginia House brought the Republican majority to 59 versus 39 Democrats and two independents. Democrats have a 22-18 majority in the Virginia Senate following a special election in January 2010 that switched a GOP Senate seat to the Democratic column. Like Virginia, New Jersey voters switched control of the governor’s office from Democrat to Republican. Republicans did not fare as well in legislative races netting only one seat in the New Jersey Assembly leaving the Democrats with a
healthy 47-33 majority over Republicans. Democrats also control the New Jersey Senate by a 23-17 margin.
Partisan Breakdown after 2009 Elections The overall partisan control of state legislatures did not change as a result of the 2009 off-year elections. Democrats have a majority of seats in both chambers of the legislature in 27 states. Republicans hold both chambers in 14 states. In eight states, the control is divided with neither party controlling both the senate and the house. That tallies 49 states because, in addition to being unicameral, Nebraska’s legislature is also nonpartisan. In terms of chambers, Democrats have a decided edge. They have a majority of seats in 60 chambers, while Republicans hold more seats in 36 chambers. Two chambers have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats—the Alaska Senate with 10 of each, and the Montana House with 50 each, Despite gains by the GOP in 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia, Democrats still hold a comfortable majority of all U.S. state legislative seats—55.2 percent of the nation’s 7,382 state legislative seats. Republicans control 44.3 percent of all seats. Independents or third party members hold 22 legislative seats, or 0.3 percent. The remaining seats belong to the nonpartisan legislators in Nebraska or are vacant. The last time Democrats had such a sizable advantage in control of legislatures was prior to the 1994 election when they held 59 percent of all seats. Republicans scored huge gains adding more than 500 seats in 1994 to bring legislatures into a decade-long stretch of relative parity. That period of partisan equality lasted until 2006 when Democrats made big gains across the country to surge over the 55 percent mark. Democrats padded their
The Council of State Governments 91
State Legislative Branch
Figure A: State Legislative Party Control 2010
Republican (14) Democrat (27) Split (8) Nonpartisan
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
advantage in the 2008 elections. Democrats have added seats to their legislative total in each of the past three two-year election cycles. The last time either major party gained seats in four consecutive election cycles was from 1928 to 1936.
Overall Control of States Both governors elected in 2009 were Republican and took over from Democratic governors. After the elections in New Jersey and Virginia, 24 states have Republican governors, while 26 states have Democratic governors. When combined with control of legislatures to consider overall partisan control, 2010 legislative sessions commenced with 24 states being dividedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;neither party having control of both legislative chambers and the governor. Democrats have control of state government in 16 states, while Republicans are in charge in nine states. In the first two-thirds of the last century, it was common to have one party control in most states. Since 1964, at least 20 states have had divided government following each election, and on average, 26 states have been divided over that period. Divided government seems to be a permanent fixture in the states.
92â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
2010 Elections The November 2010 elections promise to be volatile with 6,115 legislative seats scheduled for regular elections in 46 states. That number is nearly 83 percent of all legislative districts. The only states not holding elections in 2010 are Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia. In Kansas and New Mexico, no Senate seats are upâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;only the House seats will be filled. In 16 states, all Senate seats are up for grabs, and almost all the others, half the Senate seats will be elected. In addition to the abundance of legislative races, 37 states are also electing a governor. In at least 23 of those states, the incumbent governor is not running in 2010, almost guaranteeing that more than half the governors will be new in 2011, assuming that at least two incumbents seeking re-election are defeated in either the primary or general election. Because Democrats have more legislative seats than they have held in more than 15 years, it will be challenging for them to increase their numbers in 2010, Republicans are hoping to reclaim ground lost in the past six years. Democrats have gained seats in each of the past three election cycles. The last time either party added seats in four consecu-
state legislative branch
Figure B: State Government Control 2010
Republican (9) Democrat (16) Split (24) Nonpartisan
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
tive election cycles was when the Democrats did it from 1930 to 1936. Another trend that bodes well for Republicans in 2010 is the fate of the presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s party in midterm elections. Since 1900, the party holding the White House has lost legislative seats in 25 of the 27 mid-term election cycles. The only exceptions were in 1934 when Democrats gained more than 1,100 seats with Franklin Roosevelt in the White House and in 2002 when Republicans, under President George W. Bush, gained about 180 seats. The shift of only a few seats could alter party control in many state legislatures. In 12 states with 2010 elections, a switch of three or fewer seats will change senate control, and in 10 states, a shift of five or fewer seats will result in a new house majority. In Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Wisconsin, both chambers fall within those margins, making them states to watch. Regionally, the South continues to be a strong area for Republican legislative candidates. Since 1990, 20 percent of all Southern legislative seats have shifted from Democrat to Republican, and the two parties now hold roughly the same number of seats in the South. In 2008, the South was
the only region where Republicans gained seats, making big gains in Tennessee and Oklahoma. The Democrats established the Northeast as their strongest region. Following the 2008 election, the Pennsylvania Senate was the only legislative chamber north of Virginia and east of Ohio in the hands of the GOP.
Redistricting Because state legislatures are at the forefront of policymaking on many of the most important issues to Americans such as education, health care and transportation, every legislative election cycle is important. State legislators are elected to find solutions to some of the most vexing problems confronting America. And in almost every state, legislators must craft policies while balancing state budgets, placing a premium on creative and costeffective policies. So, it matters which party is in control following each election because that party will take the lead in passing laws and charting the policy direction in key areas such as education and health care. In addition to determining which party will lead when tackling problems, the 2010 elections take on added importance because of
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 93
State Legislative Branch
Figure C: Projected U.S. House Reapportionment 2010
-2
+4
States Projected to Lose U.S. House Seats States Projected to Gain U.S. House Seats
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Election Data Services.
the redistricting process that takes place every 10 years following the census. The process of using new census data to redraw political boundaries to make them equal in population is known as redistricting. The U.S. Constitution requires all legislative districts from local governments up to the U.S. House of Representatives be redrawn after a census is taken to ensure all districts have roughly the same number of people, Each member of a legislative body must represent approximately the same number of people as every other member—a concept known as one person, one vote. This means that each person’s vote, and voice, is equally represented when legislative debates take place and when legislative votes are taken on proposed laws. In 44 states, the state legislature—usually with the consent of the governor—is responsible for drawing new U.S. House districts. Six states use a commission for this congressional redistricting. In 37 states, legislatures have the initial responsibility for drawing their own state house and state senate districts once new census data is delivered by the Census Bureau in early 2011. Thirteen states assign the task of state legislative redistricting to
94 The Book of the States 2010
a commission. In five states, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas, a commission is empaneled if the legislature fails to enact new district plans by a certain date. The redistricting process is conducted under a large body of complex federal law that governs how legislatures and commissions can draw the lines. In addition, the process is often very partisan, with legislators and commissioners carefully examining the potential electoral consequences of various alternatives using historic political and election data to predict the outcome of potential elections in newly proposed districts. Drawing districts to favor a specific party is commonly referred to as gerrymandering after former Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry, whose name was attached to a Massachusetts State Senate plan drawn to favor his partisans in 1812. If one party completely controls the entire redistricting process, that party will likely draw plans to give their candidates an advantage in as many districts as possible. Once the districts are enacted, they are unlikely to change for another 10 years unless found invalid by a court. That’s why the 2010 elections take on added significance.
State Legislative Branch If one party gets an advantage in this election by winning a large number of legislative chambers and governors races, they can control redistricting. Redistricting can give a party a 10-year edge in elections, Controlling the redistricting process will be especially important in the states that are either gaining or losing representation in Congress. Based on U.S. Census Bureau population estimates from 2009, 21 states are projected to either gain or lose seats in the U.S. House as a result of population shifts since 2000. The allocation of House seats to each state based on state population totals is the process known as reapportionment. Texas could be the biggest winner in reapportionment and gain as many as four new U.S. House seats. Some projections show Ohio losing two seats. If the Census Bureau’s 2009 state population estimates are confirmed by the 2010 census, the biggest surprise in the 2010 reapportionment could be that California does not gain a seat in Congress for the first time since it became a state in 1850. California will continue to have the largest congressional delegation with 53, followed by Texas as the second largest, possibly growing to 36 House members. Figure C uses 2009 population estimates to show possible apportionment shifts that could emerge when the 2010 census is complete. Along with New Jersey and Virginia, Louisiana and Mississippi also hold legislative elections in odd-numbered years. Louisiana and Mississippi conducted elections in 2007 with legislators in those states elected to four-year terms. Barring any party switches or special elections, party control in all four of the odd-year states is now set for the redistricting process that will begin in March 2011. In New Jersey, commissions draw both legislative and congressional plans. In Louisiana, Mississippi and Virginia, party control of redistricting is divided, so either a compromise will be forged, or the redistricting process will wind up in court.
About the Author Tim Storey is a senior fellow in the Legislative Management Program of the Denver, Colo.-based National Conference of State Legislatures. He specializes in elections and redistricting, as well as legislative organization and management. He has staffed NCSL’s Redistricting and Elections Committee since 1990 and has authored numerous articles on elections and redistricting. Every two years, he leads NCSL’s StateVote project to track and analyze legislative election results. He graduated from Mars Hill College in North Carolina and received his master’s degree from the University of Colorado’s Graduate School of Public Affairs.
The Council of State Governments 95
state legislatures
Table 3.1 names of state legislative bodies and convening places
State or other jurisdiction
Both bodies
Upper house
Lower house
Convening place
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
Legislature Legislature Legislature General Assembly Legislature
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives Assembly
State House State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
General Assembly General Assembly General Assembly Legislature General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives
State Capitol State Capitol Legislative Hall The Capitol State Capitol
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
Legislature Legislature General Assembly General Assembly General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives
State Capitol State Capitol State House State House State Capitol
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
Legislature General Assembly Legislature Legislature General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Delegates
State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State House State House
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
General Court Legislature Legislature Legislature General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives
State House State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
Legislature Legislature Legislature General Court Legislature
Senate House of Representatives (a) Senate Assembly Senate House of Representatives Senate General Assembly
State Capitol State Capitol Legislative Building State House State House
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
Legislature Legislature General Assembly Legislative Assembly General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives Assembly House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives
State Capitol State Capitol State Legislative Building State Capitol State House
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
Legislature Legislative Assembly General Assembly General Assembly General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives
State Capitol State Capitol Main Capitol Building State House State House
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
Legislature General Assembly Legislature Legislature General Assembly
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives
State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State House
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
General Assembly Legislature Legislature Legislature Legislature
Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate
House of Delegates House of Representatives House of Delegates Assembly (b) House of Representatives
State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol
Dist. of Columbia.................. American Samoa.................. Guam...................................... No. Mariana Islands............. Puerto Rico........................... U.S. Virgin Islands..............
Council of the District of Columbia Legislature Legislature Legislature Legislative Assembly Legislature
(a)
Council Chamber
Senate House of Representatives (a) Senate House of Representatives Senate House of Representatives (a)
Maota Fono Congress Building Civic Center Building The Capitol Capitol Building
Source: The Council of State Governments, Directory Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Elective Officials 2009. Key: (a) Unicameral legislature. Except in the District of Columbia, members go by the title Senator. (b) Members of the lower house go by the title Representative.
96â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Regular sessions
Jan. Jan. Jan. Feb. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan.
Annual
Annual
Arkansas.................... Annual
Biennium (k)
Annual
Alaska........................
Arizona......................
California...................
Colorado....................
Connecticut............... Annual
Delaware....................
120 C
None
60 C (i) 30C
(h)
121 C; 90 Statutory (g)
30 L in 105 C
No
Jan.
Mon. on or nearest 9th day
None None (q)
Jan.
2nd Mon.
Annual
Jan.
1st Tues after 1st Mon.
even—60 L; odd—30 L (s) even—60 L in 85 C; odd—45 L in 60 C
No By petition, majority, each house
The Council of State Governments 97
Annual
Mississippi.................
See footnotes at end of table.
Annual
Biennium
Michigan....................
Minnesota..................
Annual
Biennium
Maryland...................
Massachusetts...........
Jan.
Feb.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Tues. after 1st Mon.
Feb. 12, 2008
2nd Wed.
1st Wed.
2nd Wed.
125 C (y); 90 C (y)
120 L
None
(v)
90 C
No
No (x)
No
By petition (w)
By petition, majority, each house
last Mon. (even-years) last Mon. (odd-years)
Joint call, presiding officers of both houses with the consent of a majority of the members of each political party
Mar. (even-years) Apr. (odd-years)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
By petition, 2/3 members, each house Petition to governor of 2/3 members, each house
Yes
Yes (l)
No
Yes
No (p)
No
Joint call, presiding officers, both houses
No
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
Maine......................... (t) Dec.(even-years); 1st Wed. (quadrennial election year) Calendar days set by Jan. (subsequent even-year) Wed. after 1st Tues. statute (u)
Louisiana................... Annual
Kentucky....................
Kansas........................ Annual Jan. 2nd Mon. odd—None; even-90 C (i)
Annual
None
2nd Wed.
40 L 60 L (i)
Iowa............................
Jan.
2nd Mon. 3rd Wed.
odd—61 C or Apr. 29; even—30 C or Mar. 14
Annual
Annual
Idaho..........................
Illinois........................
Jan. Jan.
Indiana....................... Annual Jan. 2nd Mon. (r)
Annual
Annual
Georgia......................
Hawaii........................
Yes
Joint call, presiding officers, both houses
By petition, 3/5 members, each house
June 30
Yes
Yes (l)
No
No (j)
Yes
Yes
Yes (f)
By petition, 2/3 members, each house (n)
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
No
No
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
No
Joint call, presiding officers, both houses or by petition
2nd Tues.
Wed. after 1st Mon. (odd-years) (m) Wed. after 1st Mon. (even-years)
No later than 2nd Wed.
1st Mon. (d)
2nd Mon. 2nd Mon.
2nd Mon.
3rd Tues. (g)
2nd Tues. (b) 1st Tues. (c)(d) 1st Tues. (e)
Florida........................ Annual Mar. 1st Tues. after 1st Mon. (o) 60 C (i)
Annual
Jan. Mar. Feb.
Alabama.................... Annual
Legislature may determine subject
Special sessions
Legislature convenes State or other Limitation on jurisdiction Year Month Day length of session (a) Legislature may call
Table 3.2 LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS: LEGAL PROVISIONS
None
None
None
None
30 C
None
30 C
None
None
None
30 L or 40 C
None
20 C
30 L (i)
40 L
20 C (i)
None
None
None
None
None
None
30 C
12 L in 30 C
Limitation on length of session
STATE LEGISLATURES
98 The Book of the States 2010 Wed. after 1st Tues.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
See footnotes at end of table.
(pp)
Guam.........................
2nd day
2nd Mon.
2nd Mon. 2nd Mon.
Jan. Jan. July
(oo)
American Samoa...... Annual
Dist. of Columbia.....
1st Mon. 2nd Tues. (odd-years) 2nd Mon. (even-years)
Jan.
2nd Wed.
2nd Mon.
2nd Wed.
Wed. after 1st Mon.
4th Mon.
2nd Tues.
2nd Tues.
2nd Tues.
2nd Tues.
1st Tues.
1st Tues.
2nd Mon.
1st Mon.
Jan.(odd yrs.) Feb. (even yrs.)
Biennium
Wisconsin...................
Wyoming.................... Biennium
Jan. Jan
Annual
Annual
Washington................
Jan.
West Virginia.............
Annual
Annual
Vermont.....................
Virginia......................
Jan.
Biennial-odd year Jan.
Annual
Texas...........................
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Utah............................
Annual
Biennium (kk)
South Dakota............
Tennessee..................
Annual
Biennium
Jan.
Biennial-odd year Jan.
Biennium (hh)
Feb.
Oregon.......................
Rhode Island.............
odd—60 C; even—30 C None
By petition, 3/4 members, each house
No
No
No
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
By vote, 2/3 members, each house
Joint call, presiding officers, both houses
Governor may call
By petition, majority, each house
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
Joint call, presiding officers, both houses
Yes (ff)
By petition, 3/5 members, each house
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
By petition, 3/5 members, each house (l)
By petition, majority, each house (cc)
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
No
By petition, 2/3 members, each house
By petition, majority, each house
None (pp)
45 L 45 L
None
odd-40 L; even-20 L; biennium-60 L
None
60 C (i)
odd—105 C; even—60 C
Only the governor may call
No
. . .
By petition, majority members, each house
(nn)
By petition, 3/5 members, each house
By vote, 2/3 members, each house
odd—30 C (i); even—60 C (i) (tt)
None
45 C
140 C
90 L (ll)
odd—40 L; even—40 L
(ii)
None
None
None
last Fri. in May
None
80 L in the biennium
3rd Wed. after 2nd Mon. (odd-years) None
Pennsylvania.............
South Carolina..........
45 L None
Jan.
1st Mon. (gg)
Biennium
Annual
Ohio............................
Oklahoma..................
odd—90 L; even—60 L 120 C
Wed. after 1st Mon.
3rd Tues.
2nd Tues. of even year
May 30 90 L
Jan. (dd)
Jan.
Wed. after 1st Mon. 1st Mon.
Tues. after Jan. 3, but not later than Jan. 11
(ee)
North Carolina..........
Jan. Jan.
Wed. after 1st Mon. 1st Mon.
North Dakota............ Biennial-odd year Jan.
Annual
Annual
New Mexico..............
New York...................
Annual
Biennium
New Hampshire........
New Jersey.................
Jan.
Annual
Biennial-odd year Feb.
Nebraska....................
Nevada.......................
Jan.
Annual
Biennial-odd year Jan.
Missouri.....................
Montana.....................
No
No
. . .
Yes
No
Yes (l)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes (jj)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (l)
Yes (l)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes (l)
None (pp)
None
...
20 L
None
None
30 C
None (mm)
None
30 C
30 C
30 L (ll)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None (ff)
None
None
30 C
None
15 L (bb)
None (aa)
None
None
30 C (z)
Legislature Limitation may determine on length subject of session
Special sessions
Legislature convenes State or other Limitation on jurisdiction Year Month Day length of session (a) Legislature may call
Regular sessions
LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS: LEGAL PROVISIONS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
2nd Mon. (ss)
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, February 2009. Key: Annual — holds legislative sessions every year. Biennial-odd year — holds legislative sessions every other year. Biennium — holds legislative sessions in a two-year term of activity. C — Calendar day L — Legislative day (in some states called a session day or workday; definition may vary slightly, however, generally refers to any day on which either house of legislature is in session). (a) Applies to each year unless otherwise indicated. (b) General election year (quadrennial election year). (c) Year after quadrennial election. (d) Legal provision for organizational session prior to stated convening date. Alabama—in the year after quadrennial election, second Tuesday in January for 10 C. California—in the even-numbered general election year, first Monday in December for an organizational session, recess until the first Monday in January of the odd-numbered year. No. Mariana Islands—in year after general election, second Monday in January. (e) Other years. (f) By 2/3 vote each house. (g) Convening date is statutory. Length of session is 121 calendar days, 90 by statute. (h) No constitutional or statutory provision; however, by legislative rule regular sessions shall be adjourned sine die no later than Saturday of the week during which the 100th day from the beginning of each regular session falls. The Speaker/President may by declaration authorize the extension of the session for a period not to exceed seven additional days. Thereafter the session can be extended only by a majority vote of the House/Senate. (i) Session may be extended by vote of members in both houses. Arkansas—2/3 vote. Florida—3/5 vote, session may be extended by vote of members in each house. Hawaii—petition of 2/3 membership for maximum 15-day extension. Kansas—2/3 vote. Virginia—2/3 vote for 30 C extension. West Virginia—may be extended by the governor. (j) After governor’s business has been disposed of, members may remain in session up to 15C days by a 2/3 vote of both houses. (k) Regular sessions begin after general election, in December of even-numbered year. In California, in the even-numbered general election year, first Monday in December for an organizational session, recess until the first Monday in January of the odd-numbered year. (l) Only if legislature convenes itself. In Illinois, governor may call a special session and determine its subject. The Constitution does not mention limiting the subject(s) of a special session called by legislative leaders. In New York, special sessions may also be called by the governor. Legislature may determine subject only if it has convened itself. In New Mexico, special sessions may only be called by the governor and subjects are limited to issues included in governor’s proclamation; extraordinary session may only be called by the legislature and have no limitations on subject. (m) Odd-numbered years—not later than Wednesday after first Monday in June; even-numbered years not later than Wednesday after first Monday in May.
None
No
No
Yes (l)
None
20 C
10 C
(n) Notice sent to secretary of state. (o) A regular session of the legislature shall convene on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of each oddnumbered year, and on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, or such other date as may be fixed by law, of each even-numbered year. (p) If three-fifths of the General Assembly certifies to governor that an emergency exists, governor must convene a special session for all purposes. (q) Constitution encourages adjournment by May 31. (r) Legislators may reconvene at any time after organizational meeting; however, second Monday in January is the final date by which regular session must be in process. (s) During the odd-year session, the members convene for four days, then break until February. (t) Regular session begins after general election in even-numbered years. Session which begins in December of general election year runs into the following year (odd-numbered); second session begins in next even-numbered year. The second session is limited to budgetary matters; legislation in the governor’s call; emergency legislation; legislation referred to committee for study. (u) Statutory adjournment for the First Regular Session (beginning in December of even-numbered years and continuing into the following odd-numbered year) is the third Wednesday of June; statutory adjournment for the Second Regular Session (beginning in January of the subsequent even-numbered year) is the third Wednesday in April. The statutes provide for up to two extensions of up to five legislative days each for each session. (v) Legislative rules say formal business must be concluded by Nov. 15th of the 1st session in the biennium, or by July 31st of the 2nd session for the biennium. (w) Joint rules provide for the submission of a written statement requesting special session by a specified number of members of each chamber. (x) Special session is called by the governor. (y) 90 C sessions every year, except the first year of a gubernatorial administration during which the legislative session runs for 125 C. (z) 30 C if called by legislature; 60 C if called by governor. (aa) No limit, however legislators are only paid up to 20 calendar days during a special session. (bb) Limitation is on legislative pay and mileage. (cc) Or by joint call, presiding officers, both houses. (dd) Session officially begins on the first Wednesday following the first Monday of the new legislative term (commencing the first of the year), and lasts until the legislature completes its business and adjourns sine die. However, over the past several years, both houses have adopted the tactic of declaring a recess at the call of the leaders, in order to facilitate easy recall of the legislature to override vetoes, etc. Over time the custom has become to formally adjourn both houses just before the new session opens. This leads to the rather interesting convention that when the governor calls the legislature into session, it is considered “special” or “executive,”even though the regular session is ongoing. (ee) Legal provision for session in odd-numbered year; however, legislature may divide, and in practice has divided, to meet in even-numbered years as well. (ff) Legislative Council may reconvene the Legislature assembly. However, a reconvened session may not
No, governor calls
Jan. (ss)
U.S. Virgin Islands....
Annual
No
5 mo. 4 mo.
Jan. Aug.
Puerto Rico............... Annual (rr) 2nd Mon. 3rd Mon.
Upon request of presiding officers, both houses
No. Mariana............ Annual (rr) (d)(rr) 90 L (qq) Islands
Legislature Limitation may determine on length subject of session
Special sessions
Legislature convenes State or other Limitation on jurisdiction Year Month Day length of session (a) Legislature may call
Regular sessions
LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS: LEGAL PROVISIONS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 99
exceed the number of days available (80) but not used by the last regular session. (gg) Unless Monday is a legal holiday; in second year, the General Assembly convenes on the same date. (hh) Sessions are two years and begin on the 1st Tuesday of January of the odd-numbered year. Session ends on November 30 of the even-numbered year. Each calendar year receives its own legislative number. (ii) The regular session ends the first Thursday in June; it can be extended with a two-thirds majority vote. (jj) Legislators must address topic for which the special session was called. (kk) Each General Assembly convenes for a First and Second Regular Session over a two-year period. (ll) 90 legislative days over a two-year period. During special sessions members will be paid up to 30 legislative days; further days will be without pay or per diem. (mm) No limitation, but the convening of the new General Assembly following an election would by operation end the special session. (nn) The Legislature may call itself into Extraordinary Session on any subject by a majority vote of the
LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS: LEGAL PROVISIONS—Continued organizing committees of each house, by joint resolution, or by a petition of a majority of each house. (oo) Each Council period begins on January 2 of each odd-numbered year and ends on January 1 of the following odd-numbered year. (pp) Legislature meets on the first Monday of each month following its initial session in January. One legislative day or one special session day may become several calendar days. Special sessions may address only one subject. (qq) 60 L before April 1 and 30 L after July 31. (rr) Legislature meets twice a year. During general election years, the legislature only convenes on the January session. (ss) The legislature convenes in January on the second Monday, March, June and September, the third Wednesday. (tt) The Constitution provides that the governor must call a special session upon “application” of 2/3 of the members of each house.
STATE LEGISLATURES
100 The Book of the States 2010
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.3 THE LEGISLATORS: NUMBERS, TERMS, AND PARTY AFFILIATIONS: 2010 Senate and House/ Senate House/Assembly State or other Assembly jurisdiction Democrats Republicans Other Vacancies Total Term Democrats Republicans Other Vacancies Total Term totals State and territory totals... State totals.........................
1,080 1,026
911 893
13 2
Alabama............................ Alaska................................ Arizona.............................. Arkansas............................ California...........................
21 10 12 27 25
14 10 18 8 14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Colorado............................ Connecticut....................... Delaware............................ Florida................................ Georgia..............................
21 24 15 14 22
14 12 6 26 34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hawaii................................ Idaho.................................. Illinois................................ Indiana............................... Iowa....................................
23 7 37 17 32
2 28 22 33 18
Kansas................................ Kentucky............................ Louisiana........................... Maine................................. Maryland............................
9 17 24 20 33
Massachusetts.................... Michigan............................ Minnesota.......................... Mississippi.......................... Missouri.............................
35 16 46 (d) 27 11
Montana............................. Nebraska............................ Nevada............................... New Hampshire................ New Jersey.........................
23 27 . . . . . . . ......... Nonpartisan election........... 12 9 . . . . . . 14 10 . . . . . . 23 17 . . . . . .
New Mexico....................... New York........................... North Carolina.................. North Dakota.................... Ohio....................................
27 32 30 21 12
15 30 20 26 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oklahoma.......................... Oregon............................... Pennsylvania...................... Rhode Island..................... South Carolina..................
22 18 20 33 19
26 12 30 4 27
South Dakota.................... Tennessee........................... Texas................................... Utah.................................... Vermont.............................
14 14 12 8 23
Virginia.............................. Washington........................ West Virginia..................... Wisconsin........................... Wyoming............................
22 31 26 18 7
Dist. of Columbia (i)........ American Samoa.............. Guam.................................. No. Mariana Islands......... Puerto Rico....................... U.S. Virgin Islands............
1 2,072* 1 1,971*
. . . . . .
3,065 3,028
2,383 2,356
31 21
6 6
5,505 5,411
. . . ...
7,577* 7,382*
35 20 30 35 40
4 4 2 4 4
60 18 25 71 49
45 22 35 28 29
. . . ... . . . 1 (e) 1(b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
105 40 60 100 80
4 2 2 2 2
140 60 90 135 120
... . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 36 21 40 56
4 2 4 4 2
38 114 24 44 74
27 37 17 76 105
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65 151 41 120 180
2 2 2 2 2
100 187 62 160 236
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 35 59 50 50
4 2 (a) 4 4
45 18 70 52 56
6 52 48 48 44
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51 70 118 100 100
2 2 2 2 2
76 105 177 150 150
31 20 15 15 14
. . . 1 (b) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 38 39 35 47
4 4 4 2 4
49 65 52 96 104
76 35 50 54 36
. . . . . . 3 (b) 1 (c) 1 (b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
125 100 105 151 141
2 2 4 2 4
165 138 144 186 188
5 22 21 25 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 38 67 52 34
2 4 4 4 4
143 66 87 (d) 74 74
16 43 47 48 88
1 (b) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 . . . . . . 1
160 110 134 122 163
2 2 2 4 2
200 148 201 174 197
50 4 49 4 21 4 24 2 40 4 (f)
50 50 . . . . . . 100 2 . ...............................Unicameral. ................................ 28 14 . . . . . . 42 2 225 175 . . . . . . 400 2 47 33 . . . . . . 80 2
150 49 63 424 120
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42 62 50 47 33
4 2 2 4 4
45 105 68 36 53
25 43 52 58 46
. . . 2 (b) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70 150 120 94 99
2 2 2 4 2
112 212 170 141 132
. . . . . . . . . 1 (b) . . .
. . . . . . ... . . . . . .
48 30 50 38 46
4 4 4 2 4
40 36 103 69 51
61 24 97 6 73
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 3 . . . . . .
101 60 203 75 124
2 2 2 2 2
149 90 253 113 170
21 19 19 21 7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 33 31 29 30
2 4 4 4 2
24 48 73 22 95
46 51 77 53 48
. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (g)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70 99 150 75 150
2 2 2 2 2
105 132 181 104 180
18 18 8 15 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 49 34 33 (h) 30
4 4 4 4 4
39 61 71 52 19
59 37 29 46 41
2 (b) . . . . . . 1 (b) . . .
. . . . . . . . . ... . . .
100 98 100 99 (h) 60
2 2 2 2 2
140 147 134 132 90
11 0 2 (b) . . . . ......... Nonpartisan election........... 10 5 . . . . . . 1 4 4 (k) . . . 22 (m) 9 (n) . . . . . . 10 . . . 5 (o) . . .
13 18 (j) 15 9 31 (p) 15
4 4 2 4 4 2
. ............................... Unicameral................................. 20 (j) 2 . ......... Nonpartisan election.......... . ...............................Unicameral. ................................ . . . 10 10 (l) . . . 20 2 37 (m) 17 (n) . . . . . . 54 (p) 4 . ...............................Unicameral..................................
13 38 15 29 85 15
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 101
STATE LEGISLATURES
THE LEGISLATORS: NUMBERS, TERMS, AND PARTY AFFILIATIONS: 2010—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments, March 2010. *Note: Senate and combined body (Senate and House/Assembly) totals include Unicameral legislatures. Key: . . . — Does not apply (a) The entire Senate comes up for election in every year ending in “2” with districts based on the latest decennial Census. Senate districts are divided into three groups. One group elects senators for terms of four years, four years and two years;the second group for terms of four years, two years and four years; the third group for terms of two years, four years, and four years. (b) Independent. (c) Unenrolled. (d) Democratic-Farmer-Labor. (e) Green Party. (f) All 40 Senate terms are on a ten year cycle which is made up of a 2 year-term, followed by 2 consecutive four year terms, beginning after the decennial census.
102 The Book of the States 2010
(g) Independent (2); Progressive (5). (h) All House seats contested in even-numbered years; In the Senate 17 seats contested in gubernatorial years; 16 seats contested in presidential years. (i) Council of the District of Columbia. (j) Senate: senators are not elected by popular vote, but by county council chiefs. House: 21 seats; 20 are elected by popular vote and one appointed, non-voting delegate from Swains Island. (k) Independent (3); Covenant (1). (l) Covenant (7); Independent (3). (m) New Progressive Party. (n) Popular Democratic Party. (o) Independent (3); Independent Citizens Movement (2). (p) Constitutionally, the Senate consists of 27 seats and the House consists of 51 seats. However, extra at-large seats can be granted to the opposition to limit any party’s control to 2/3. After the 2008 election, extra seats for the minority party were added in both the Senate and House.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.3A THE LEGISLATORS: NUMBERS, TERMS, AND PARTY AFFILIATIONS BY REGION: 2010 Senate and House/ Senate House/Assembly Assembly State Democrats Republicans Other Vacancies Total Term Democrats Republicans Other Vacancies Total Term totals State totals............
1,026
893
Eastern Region Connecticut........... Delaware............... Maine..................... Maryland............... Massachusetts....... New Hampshire.... New Jersey............ New York............... Pennsylvania......... Rhode Island......... Vermont................. Regional total.......
24 15 20 33 35 14 23 32 20 33 23 272
12 6 15 14 5 10 17 30 30 4 7 150
Midwestern Region Illinois.................... Indiana................... Iowa....................... Kansas................... Michigan................ Minnesota.............. Nebraska............... North Dakota........ Ohio....................... South Dakota........ Wisconsin.............. Regional total.......
37 22 . . . . . . 17 33 . . . . . . 32 18 . . . . . . 9 31 . . . . . . 16 22 . . . . . . 46 (e) 21 . . . . . . . .......... Nonpartisan election........... 21 26 . . . . . . 12 21 . . . . . . 14 21 . . . . . . 18 15 . . . . . . 222 230 0 0
Southern Region Alabama................ Arkansas................ Florida................... Georgia.................. Kentucky............... Louisiana............... Mississippi............. Missouri................. North Carolina...... Oklahoma.............. South Carolina...... Tennessee.............. Texas...................... Virginia.................. West Virginia......... Regional total.......
21 27 14 22 17 24 27 11 30 22 19 14 12 22 26 308
14 8 26 34 20 15 25 23 20 26 27 19 19 18 8 302
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Western Region Alaska.................... Arizona.................. California.............. Colorado................ Hawaii................... Idaho...................... Montana................ Nevada................... New Mexico.......... Oregon................... Utah....................... Washington........... Wyoming............... Regional total.......
10 12 25 21 23 7 23 12 27 18 8 31 7 224
10 18 14 14 2 28 27 9 15 12 21 18 23 211
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (g) . . . 1
1
1,971*
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 0
36 21 35 47 40 24 40 62 50 38 30 423
6
5,411*
...
7,382*
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . 3
151 41 151 141 160 400 80 150 203 75 150 1,702
2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . . .
187 62 186 188 200 424 120 212 253 113 180 2,125
59 (d) 50 4 50 4 40 4 38 4 67 4 49 4 47 4 33 4 35 2 33 (f) 4 501 . . .
70 48 . . . . . . 118 2 52 48 . . . . . . 100 2 56 44 . . . . . . 100 2 49 76 . . . . . . 125 2 66 43 . . . 1 110 2 87 (e) 47 . . . . . . 134 2 . ................................ Unicameral.................................. 36 58 . . . . . . 94 4 53 46 . . . . . . 99 2 24 46 . . . . . . 70 2 52 46 1 (g) . . . 99 (f) 2 545 502 1 1 1,049 . . .
177 150 150 165 148 201 49 141 132 105 132 1,550
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
35 35 40 56 38 39 52 34 50 48 46 33 31 40 34 611
4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 . . .
60 71 44 74 65 52 74 74 68 40 51 48 73 39 71 904
45 28 76 105 35 50 48 88 52 61 73 51 77 59 29 877
. . . 1 (h) . . . 1 (g) . . . 3 (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (g) . . . 7
. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
105 100 120 180 100 105 122 163 120 101 124 99 150 100 100 1,789
4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . . .
140 135 160 236 138 144 174 197 170 149 170 132 181 140 134 2,400
. . . . . . 1 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
20 30 40 35 25 35 50 21 42 30 29 49 30 436
4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 . . .
18 25 49 38 45 18 50 28 45 36 22 61 19 454
22 35 29 27 6 52 50 14 25 24 53 37 41 415
... . . . 1 (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
. . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
40 60 80 65 51 70 100 42 70 60 75 98 60 871
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . . .
60 90 120 100 76 105 150 63 112 90 104 147 90 1,307
Source: The Council of State Governments, March 2010. *Note: Senate and combined body (Senate and House/Assembly) totals include Unicameral legislatures. Key: . . . — Does not apply (a) Unenrolled. (b) All 40 Senate terms are on a ten year cycle which is made up of a 2 year-term, followed by 2 consecutive four year terms, beginning after the decennial census. (c) Independent (2); Progressive (5).
. . .
3,028
2,356
2 114 4 24 2 96 4 104 2 143 2 225 4 (b) 47 2 105 4 103 2 69 2 95 . . . 1,125
37 17 54 36 16 175 33 43 97 6 48 562
21 . . . . . . 1 (a) 1 (g) 1 (g) . . . . . . 2 (g) . . . . . . 7 (c) 12
(d) The entire Senate comes up for election in every year ending in “2” with districts based on the latest decennial Census. Senate districts are divided into three groups. One group elects senators for terms of four years, four years and two years;the second group for terms of four years, two years and four years; the third group for terms of two years, four years, and four years. (e) Democratic-Farmer-Labor. (f) All House seats contested in even-numbered years; In the Senate 17 seats contested in gubernatorial years; 16 seats contested in presidential years. (g) Independent. (h) Green Party.
The Council of State Governments 103
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.4 MEMBERSHIP TURNOVER IN THE LEGISLATURES: 2009 Senate State or other jurisdiction
House/Assembly
Total number of members
Number of membership changes
Percentage change of total
Total number of members
Number of membership changes
Percentage change of total
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
35 20 30 35 40
3 1 0 1 1
9 5 0 3 0
105 40 60 100 80
4 2 0 0 2
4 5 0 0 2
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
35 36 21 40 56
3 0 1 2 3
9 0 5 5 5
65 151 41 120 180
2 2 1 2 7
3 1 2 2 4
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
25 35 59 50 50
0 0 1 1 0
0 0 2 2 0
51 70 118 100 100
0 0 3 0 2
0 0 3 0 2
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
40 38 39 35 47
1 3 3 0 1
3 0 8 0 2
125 100 105 151 141
4 1 3 1 0
3 1 3 1 0
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
40 38 67 52 34
0 1 0 1 1
0 3 0 2 3
160 110 134 122 163
1 0 0 4 4
1 0 0 3 2
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
50 49 21 24 40
0 1 0 2 2
0 2 0 8 5
100 1 1 . ..................... Unicameral.................... 42 0 0 400 2 1 80 10 13
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
42 62 50 47 33
0 0 3 1 1
0 0 6 2 21
70 150 120 94 99
1 7 4 1 2
1 5 3 1 2
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
48 30 50 38 46
0 2 2 0 0
0 7 4 0 0
101 60 203 75 124
1 2 2 1 2
1 3 1 1 2
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
35 33 31 29 30
0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 3 3
70 99 150 75 150
1 2 0 3 4
1 2 0 4 3
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
40 49 34 33 30
3 1 0 0 2
8 2 0 0 7
100 98 100 99 60
19 3 2 0 2
19 3 2 0 3
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa................ Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands..............
13 18 15 9 28 15
0 0 0 3 2 0
0 0 0 33 11 0
Source: The Council of State Governments, March 2010.
104â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
. ..................... Unicameral.................... 21 0 0 . ..................... Unicameral.................... 18 14 78 51 1 2 . ..................... Unicameral....................
25 18 24 21 21 18 21 21 21 21 18 24 18 21 21 18 21 18 21 24 18 U 21 18 21 21 18 21 18 18 21 21 21 18 21
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
See footnotes at end of table.
21 21 25 21 18
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . H
. . . U H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H H 5 . . .
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
. . . H H H 3
State or other U.S. citizen jurisdiction Minimum age (years) (a)
H(c) . . . 4 (c) 30 days . . .
H 5 . . . 1 30 days
1 U 1 (c) 2 (c) 2 (c)
. . . H 1 4 (c) H
H(c) 2 (c) 2 1 1 (c)
3 30 days 2 2 1
1 H 3 2 2 (c)
3 (c) 3 3 2 3
State resident (years) (b)
House/Assembly
Table 3.5 THE LEGISLATORS: QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION
H 1 4 30 days H(e)
H 1 (h) 1 H 1
6 mo. (g) U 30 days (l) H 1
1 (d) 6 mo. 2 1
H 1 1 3 mo. 6 mo. (f)
H 1 2 (n) 1 60 days
1 H 1 2 1
1 1 1 1 1
District resident (years)
H . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . . . . H H
. . . U H H H
H H H H 2
H H H . . . . . .
H H . . . H . . .
H H H . . . H
. . . H . . . H H
25 21 25 18 25
25 18 25 18 18
18 21 21 30 30
18 21 21 25 30
18 30 18 25 25
18 21 21 25 25
25 18 27 21 25
25 25 25 25 18
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H H 5 . . .
H H H 2 H
H H H . . . H
. . . H H H 3
Qualified voter U.S. citizen (years) Minimum age (years) (a)
H(c) H 4 (c) 30 days . . .
H 5 2 1 30 days
1 H(c) 1 (c) 7 (c) 2 (c)
5 H 1 4 (c) H
H(c) 6 (c) 2 1 1 (c)
3 30 days 2 2 1
1 H 3 (c) 2 2 (c)
3 (c) 3 3 2 3
State resident (years) (b)
Senate
H 1 4 30 days H(e)
H 1 (h) 1 H 1
6 mo. (g) 1 30 days (l) H 1
5 (d) 6 mo. 2 1
H 1 1 3 mo. 6 mo. (f)
H 1 2 (n) 1 . . .
1 H 1 2 1
1 1 1 1 1
District resident (years)
H ... ... H ...
H ... ... H H
... H H H H
H H H H 3
H H H ... ...
H H ... ... ...
H H H ... H
... H ... H H
Qualified voter (years)
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 105
106 The Book of the States 2010 21 18 18 18 21 U 25 U 21 25 U
Virginia................................ Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa.................. Guam...................................... No. Mariana Islands............. Puerto Rico...........................
U.S. Virgin Islands.............. U
U H (i) U . . . H
H H 1 H H
H H H H H
U
U 5 U 3 2
H . . . 1 (c) 1 H (c)
2 (c) 2 3 (c) 2
State resident (years) (b)
House/Assembly
U
U 1 U (d) 1 (k)
H . . . 1 H (m) 1
H 1 1 6 mo. 1
District resident (years)
21
18 30 (j) 25 25 30
21 18 25 18 25
21 30 26 25 18
. . .
. . . H (i) H . . . H
H H 5 H H
H H H H H
3 (c)
1 5 5 5 2
H . . . 5 (c) 1 H (c)
2 3 5 3 (c) 2
State resident (years) (b)
Senate
3
H 1 . . . (d) 1 (k)
H . . . 1 H (m) 1
H 1 1 6 mo. 1
District resident (years)
H
H ... H H ...
H H H H (m) H
H H H ... ...
Qualified voter (years)
(g) Shall be a resident of the county if it contains one or more districts or if the district contains all or parts of more than one county. (h) After redistricting, candidate must have been a resident of the county in which the district is contained for one year immediately preceding election. (i) Or U.S. national. (j) Must be registered matai. (k) The district legislator must live in the municipality he/she represents. (l) 30 days prior to close of filing for declaration of candidacy. (m) Ten days prior to election. (n) In the first election after a redistricting, a candidate may be elected from any district that contains a part of the district in which (s)he resided at the time of redistricting, and may be re-elected if a resident of the district (s)he represents for 18 months before re-election.
U
U . . . U H . . .
H H H H (m) H
H H H . . . . . .
Qualified voter U.S. citizen (years) Minimum age (years) (a)
Source: The Council of State Governments survey, February 2009. Note: Many state constitutions have additional provisions disqualifying persons from holding office if they are convicted of a felony, bribery, perjury or other infamous crimes. Key: U — Unicameral legislature; members are called senators, except in District of Columbia. H — Formal provision; number of years not specified. . . . — No formal provision. (a) In some states candidate must be a U.S. citizen to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (b) In some states candidate must be a state resident to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (c) State citizenship requirement. In Tennessee- must be a citizen for three years. (d) Must be a qualified voter of the district; number of years not specified. (e) At the time of filing. (f) If the district was established for less than six months, residency is length of establishment of district.
21 21 21 25 18
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
State or other U.S. citizen jurisdiction Minimum age (years) (a)
THE LEGISLATORS: QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 107
(a) ES ES (a) (a) ES (a) (a) EC/ES (a) ES (a) ES (a) ES ES ES ES ES ES EC (a) ES (a) (a) ES (a) (a) ES ES (a) (a) (a) (a) ES (x) (a) ES ES ES (a) (a) ES (a) ES (a)
Alabama (b)........................ Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
Colorado.............................. Connecticut (c)................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
Hawaii (d)........................... Idaho.................................... Illinois (g)............................ Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky (i)........................ Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
Massachusetts..................... Michigan (q)........................ Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Montana.............................. Nebraska (U)...................... Nevada (s)........................... New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
New Mexico........................ New York (u)...................... North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio (w)(x).........................
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island (y)................. South Carolina....................
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
See footnotes at end of table.
President
State or other jurisdiction
President pro tem ES AP ES . . . ES
ES ES ES ES ES
ES ES ES ES ES
ES ES (r) ES AP ES
. . . ES ES ES ES
ES (e) ES ES AP ES
ES (e) ES . . . ES ES
ES ES ES AP ES
ES . . . AP ES ES
Majority leader EC EC . . . EC EC
EC EC EC EC EC
EC (t) EC EC EC . . .
. . . . . . . . . AP MA
AP EC EC . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC AP (n)
EC EC AP (g) . . . EC
EC AP EC AP EC
(b) EC EC EC EC
EC . . . . . . . . . EC
EC EC EC AL . . .
. . . AT (v) . . . EC . . .
. . . . . . . . . AP MA
AP EC EC . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC AP (n)
. . . EC AP/5 . . . EC
EC AP . . . AL . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assistant majority leader
Table 3.6 SENATE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS: METHODS OF SELECTION Majority floor leader . . . EC . . . . . . EC (aa)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
EC (t) AT (v) . . . . . . ES
ES . . . EC . . . MA
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
. . . EC . . . (j) (n)
EC . . . . . . AT . . .
. . . EC . . . EC (z) EC (aa)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ES
. . . . . . EC . . . MA
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
. . . . . . . . . (j) (n)
. . . . . . . . . AT . . .
. . . AP . . . AP or AL . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assistant majority floor leader
. . . AP . . . AP or AL . . .
(b) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Majority whip EC . . . . . . EC EC (aa)
EC EC EC AL . . .
EC AT EC . . . ES
ES . . . EC AP MA
. . . EC AL /7 . . . EC
EC EC . . . (k) AP
EC . . . AP/3 AT . . .
. . . AP EC AP or AL EC
. . . EC EC EC EC
Majority caucus chair . . . EC . . . . . . EC (aa)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
EC AT (v) EC EC . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . MA
(p) EC . . . . . . EC
EC EC . . . . . . . . .
EC (f) EC AP EC . . .
EC AP . . . AP or AL EC
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
Minority leader EC EC . . . EC EC
EC EC EC EC EC
EC (t) EC EC EC ES (x)
. . . . . . . . . EC MI
EC EC EC . . . EC
EC . . . . . . EC EC (o)
EC EC EC EC EC
EC EC EC EC EC
(b) EC EC EC EC
Assistant minority leader EC . . . . . . . . . EC
EC EC EC AL . . .
. . . AT (v) . . . EC ES
. . . . . . . . . AL MI
. . . EC EC . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC . . .
. . . EC AL/5 . . . EC
EC AL . . . AL . . .
. . . . . . EC . . . EC
Minority floor leader . . . EC . . . . . . EC (aa)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
EC (t) AT (v) . . . . . . . . .
ES . . . EC . . . MI
. . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . (l) (o)
EC . . . . . . EC . . .
. . . AL . . . AL . . .
(b) . . . . . . . . . EC
Assistant minority floor leader . . . . . . . . . EC (z) EC (aa)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . EC . . . MI
. . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (l) . . .
. . . . . . . . . (h) . . .
. . . AL . . . AL . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Minority whip EC . . . . . . EC EC (aa)
EC EC EC AL . . .
EC AL EC . . . ES
ES . . . EC AL MI
. . . EC EC/5 . . . . . .
EC EC . . . (m) EC
. . . . . . AL (h) . . .
. . . AL EC AL EC
. . . EC EC EC EC
Minority caucus chair ... EC ... EC (z) EC (aa)
EC ... EC ... ...
EC AL (v) EC EC ...
... ... ... ... MI
(p) EC ... ... EC
EC ... ... ... ...
... EC AL EC ...
EC AL ... AL EC
... EC ... ... EC
STATE LEGISLATURES
108 The Book of the States 2010 (ee) ES ES (r) ES (hh) ES (p) ES
Dist. of Columbia (U)........ American Samoa................ Guam (U)(gg)..................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands (U).......
President pro tem (ff) ES ES (e) . . . EC . . .
ES ES AP EC ES (e)
Majority leader . . . . . . EC (hh) EC ES
EC (bb) EC AP EC . . .
Assistant majority leader . . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . EC . . . . . . . . . EC ES (ii) EC (jj) . . .
EC (bb) EC . . . . . . EC
Majority floor leader
. . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . . . .
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Note: In some states, the leadership positions in the Senate are not empowered by the law or by the rules of the chamber, but rather by the party members themselves. Entry following slash indicates number of individuals holding specified position. Key: ES — Elected or confirmed by all members of the Senate. EC — Elected by party caucus. AP — Appointed by president. AT — Appointed by president pro tempore. AL — Appointed by party leader. MA— Elected by majority party. MI—Elected by minority party. (U) — Unicameral legislative body. . . . — Position does not exist or is not selected on a regular basis. (a) Lieutenant governor is president of the Senate by virtue of the office. (b) Majority leader and majority floor leader appointed by president pro tempore and the Senate Democratic Caucus. Minority leader and minority floor leader elected by active members of the minority party. Additional leadership positions: deputy president pro tempore- appointed by Committee on Assignments and Dean of Senate- appointed by Committee on Assignments. (c) Position titles are as follows: chief deputy president pro tem, two deputy presidents pro tem, a chief assistant president pro tem, three assistant presidents pro tem, three deputy majority leaders (AP); a minority leader pro tem, two chief deputy minority leaders, a deputy minority leader-at-large, and three deputy minority leaders (AL). (d) An additional position of President Emeritus exists. (e) Official title is vice president. In Guam, vice speaker. (f) Official title is majority caucus leader. (g) The president can appoint a majority leader, and has done so in the current General Assembly. Additional leadership positions: the minority leader appoints a deputy minority leader and four assistant minority leaders (h) Appointed by minority leader. (i) In each chamber, the membership elects Chief Clerk; Assistant Clerk; Enrolling Clerk; Sergeant-atArms; Doorkeeper; Janitor; Cloakroom Keeper; and Pages. (j) Same position as majority leader. (k) Same position as assistant majority leader. (l) Same position as minority leader. (m) Same position as assistant minority leader. (n) Majority leader also serves as majority floor leader; deputy majority leader is official title and serves as assistant majority floor leader. There is also an assistant deputy majority leader, a majority whip, deputy majority whip, and two assistant majority whips. (o) Minority leader also serves as the minority floor leader. (p) President and minority floor leader are also caucus chairs. In Puerto Rico, president and minority
(a) (a) ES ES (dd) ES
President
Virginia................................ Washington (cc).................. West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
State or other jurisdiction
Assistant majority floor leader
SENATE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS: METHODS OF SELECTION—Continued
Majority whip
Majority caucus chair . . . . . . . . . . . . (kk) ES
EC EC . . . EC EC
Minority leader . . . . . . EC EC EC (p) ES
EC EC EC EC . . .
Assistant minority leader . . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . EC . . .
Minority floor leader . . . . . . EC . . . EC (jj) . . .
EC EC . . . . . . EC
Assistant minority floor leader . . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . . . .
Minority whip . . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC AL . . . EC
... ... ... ... (p) ES
EC EC ... EC EC
Minority caucus chair
leader. In Oregon, majority leader and minority leader. (q) Senate Rule 1.104 provides that the president pro tempore (ES), assistant president pro tempore (ES), and the associate president pro tempore (ES) are elected by a majority of the Senate. The rules also provide for the selection of additional positions: assistant majority caucus whip (EC), assistant minority caucus whip (EC), assistant majority caucus chairperson (EC), and assistant minority caucus chairperson (EC). (r) Official title is speaker. In Guam the Speaker is elected on the Floor by majority and minority members on Inauguration Day. (s) Additional leadership positions: Assistant Majority and Minority Whips, elected by caucus. (t) Majority leader also serves as majority floor leader. Minority leader also serves as minority floor leader. (u) Additional positions appointed by the majority leader, Senate Finance Comm. Chair, Vice President pro tem, Majority Program Development Comm. Chair, Majority Steering Comm. Chair, two assistant majority leaders, various deputies and assistants. Additional positions appointed by the minority leader, Senate Finance Comm. ranking member, Minority Policy Comm. chair, Minority Program Development chair, three (additional assistant minority leaders, various deputies and assistants. (v) The assistant majority leader bears the title of senior assistant majority leader; majority floor leader bears the title of deputy majority leader for legislative operations; Majority caucus chair bears the title of majority conference chair; assistant minority leader bears the title deputy minority leader; minority floor leader bears the title assistant minority leader for floor operations; minority caucus chair bears the title minority conference chair. (w) While the entire membership actually votes on the election of leaders, selections generally have been made by the members of each party prior to the date of this formal election. (x) In Ohio president acts as majority leader and caucus chair; minority leader also acts as minority caucus chair; the fourth ranking minority leadership position is assistant minority whip (ES). (y) Additional positions include deputy president pro tempore. (z) Official title for majority floor leader is known as the assistant majority whip; the assistant minority floor leader is known as the assistant minority whip and the minority caucus chair is known as minority caucus manager. (aa) Majority leader serves as majority floor leader and majority caucus chair. Assistant majority leader serves as assistant majority floor leader and majority whip. Minority leader serves as minority floor leader and minority caucus chair. Assistant minority leader serves as assistant minority floor leader and minority whip. (bb) Majority party and Minority party in Senate elects caucus officers. (cc) Washington Senate also has the leadership position of vice-president pro tem. (dd) Caucus nominee elected by whole membership. (ee) Chair of the Council, which is an elected position. (ff) Appointed by the chair; official title is chair pro tem. (gg) Additional positions include: Parliamentarian, elected by majority caucus and Senior Senator, elected by majority caucus. (hh) Speaker also serves as majority leader. (ii) Official title is floor leader. (jj) Official title is alternate floor leader. (kk) Official title is caucus chair.
. . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC AP . . . EC
STATE legislatures
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 109
See footnotes at end of table.
EH EH AS AS . . .
EC EC . . . EC EC
EC EC . . . EC (s) EC
AS EC EC AL . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . (t)
AS . . . EC . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . (t)
AS . . . EC . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . EH
EC EC . . . EC (t)
AS EC EC AL . . .
EC AS EC . . . EH
. . . EC . . . . . . (t)
AS . . . EC . . . . . .
EC AS (q) EC EC . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
EC EC . . . . . . (k)
. . . EC AS (e) AL . . .
EC AS . . . AS EC
EC EC . . . EC EC
EC EC EC EC EC
EC EC EC EC EH (k)
EC EC EC . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC (h) EC (l)
EC EC EC EC EC
EC EC EC EC EC
EC EC EC EC EC
EC EC . . . . . . EC
EC EC EC AL . . .
. . . AL . . . EC EH
AL EC AL . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC (h) EC
EC EC AL (e) AL EC
EC AL . . . EC . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . (t)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
EC (m) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
. . . EC . . . (h) EC (l)
EC . . . . . . EC . . .
. . . AL . . . AL . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . EC
. . . EC . . . EC (s) (t)
EC . . . EC . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
. . . . . . . . . (h) EC (l)
EC . . . . . . AL . . .
. . . AL . . . AL . . .
. . . . . . EC . . . . . .
EC EC . . . EC (t)
EC EC EC AL . . .
EC AL EC . . . EH
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
EC EC . . . (h) EH
EC . . . . . . AL . . .
EC AL EC AL EC
. . . EC EC EC EC
... EC ... EC (s) (t)
EC ... EC ... ...
EC AL (q) EC EC ...
... EC ... ... EC
EC EC ... ... (k)
... EC AL (e) AL ...
EC AL ... AL EC
... EC ... ... EC
EH EH EH EH EH
AS EC EC EC EC
EC (m) . . . . . . . . . EH
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
EC EC . . . (h) AS
EC . . . . . . AL . . .
EC AS EC AS EC
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah .................................... Vermont...............................
EH EH EH EH EH
. . . AS . . . EC . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
. . . . . . . . . (h) AS
EC . . . . . . AL . . .
. . . AS . . . AS . . .
. . . EC EC EC AS
EH EH EH EH EH
EC AS EC EC . . .
. . . EC . . . . . . EC
. . . EC . . . (h) (j)
EC . . . . . . AL . . .
. . . . . . . . . AS . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oklahoma . ......................... Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina . .................
. . . AS EH . . . EH
AS . . . EC . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC (h) AS (j)
. . . EC AS (e) AL EC
EC EC/4 (b) . . . AS . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . AS
EH EH EH EH EH (k)
AS . . . EC . . . . . .
EC . . . . . . EC (h) AS (j)
EC EC AS (e) EC EC
EC EC EC AS EC
. . . . . . . . . . . . AS
New Mexico........................ New York (p)...................... North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio (r)...............................
. . . EH AS EH EH
EH EH EH AS (h) EH (i)
EH (d) . . . . . . AL EH
AS AS/4 (b) . . . EH EH
EC EC EC EC AS
EH EH . . . . . . . . . . . . EH . . . . . . . . . EH . . . EH ... ................................................................................................................................(o).......................................................................................................................................................... EH EH . . . . . . EC EC EC . . . . . . . . . EC EC EC ... EH AS (d) AS AS . . . . . . AS . . . AS AL . . . . . . AL ... EH EH MA MA MA MA MA MA MI MI MI MI MI MI
Speaker pro tem EH . . . AS AS AS
Speaker
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey .........................
Majority leader
EC EH EH EH EH
Assistant majority leader
Massachusetts..................... Michigan (n)........................ Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Assistant majority floor leader
EH EH EH EH EH
Majority whip
Kansas (f)............................ Kentucky (g)....................... Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland (bb).....................
Majority caucus chair
EH EH EH EH EH
Minority leader
Hawaii (c)............................ Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Assistant minority leader
EH EH EH EH EH
Minority floor leader
Colorado (a)........................ Connecticut ........................ Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
Assistant minority floor leader
EH EH EH EH EH
Minority whip
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
Minority caucus chair
State or other jurisdiction
Majority floor leader
Table 3.7 HOUSE/ASSEMBLY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS: METHODS OF SELECTION
STATE LEGISLATURES
Minority floor leader
Assistant minority leader
Minority leader
Majority caucus chair
Assistant majority floor leader
Majority floor leader
Assistant majority leader
Majority leader
Speaker pro tem
Speaker
110 The Book of the States 2010
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Note: In some states, the leadership positions in the House are not empowered by the law or by the rules of the chamber, but rather by the party members themselves. Entry following slash indicates number of individuals holding specified position. Key: EH — Elected or confirmed by all members of the House. EC — Elected by party caucus. AS — Appointed by speaker. AL — Appointed by party leader. MA — Elected by majority party. MI — Elected by minority party. . . . — Position does not exist or is not selected on a regular basis. (a) Additional positions include deputy majority whip (EC) and assistant majority caucus chair (EC). (b) Official titles: speaker pro tem - deputy speaker; assistant majority leader - deputy majority leader. (c) Other positions in Hawaii include speaker emeritus. (d) Official title is deputy speaker. In Hawaii, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, vice speaker. (e) The two deputy majority leaders appointed by the speaker are among eight assistant majority leaders; and the two deputy Republican (minority) leaders appointed by the Republican (minority) leader are among the eight assistant leaders. (The term “Minority” is in the state constitution, but has not been recently used by the leadership of the Republican (Minority) party.) (f) Additional positions include minority agenda chair (EC) and minority policy chair (EC). (g) In each chamber , the membership elects chief clerk; assistant chief clerk; enrolling clerk; sergeantat-arms; doorkeeper; janitor; cloakroom keeper; and pages. (h) Speaker pro tem each occurrence. Majority leader also serves as majority floor leader; assistant majority leader also serves as assistant majority floor leader and majority whip; minority leader also serves as minority floor leader; assistant minority leader also serves as assistant minority floor leader and minority whip. (i) There is also a deputy speaker pro tem. (j) Majority leader also serves as majority floor leader. Official title of assistant majority leader is deputy majority leader. There are also an assistant majority floor leader, majority whip, chief deputy majority whips, and deputy majority whips. (k) Speaker and minority leader are also caucus chairs. (l) Minority leader also serves as the minority floor leader. There are also a minority whip, assistant
minority leader, a chief deputy minority whip, an assistant minority whip, and several deputy minority whips. (m) Majority leader also serves as majority floor leader; minority leader also serves as minority floor leader. (n) Other positions include: two associate speakers pro tempore (EH); majority caucus chair (EC); assistant majority whip (EC); assistant associate minority floor leader (EC); minority assistant caucus chair (EC); assistant minority whip (EC). (o) Unicameral legislature; see entries in Table 3.6, “Senate Leadership Positions — Methods of Selection.” (p) Additional majority positions appointed by the speaker: deputy speaker (AS), deputy majority leader, Ways and Means Committee chair, Democratic Program Committee chair, Democratic Steering Committee chair, various deputies and assistants. Additional minority positions appointed by the minority leader: deputy minority leader, Ways and Means Committee ranking member, Republican Steering Committee chair, Republican Program Committee chair, various deputies and assistants. (q) Official titles: the majority caucus chair is majority conference chair; minority caucus chair is minority conference chair. (r) While the entire membership actually votes on the election of leaders, selections generally have been made by the members of each party prior to the date of this formal election. Additional positions include assistant majority whip, the 6th ranking majority leadership position (EH) and assistant minority whip, the 4th ranking minority leadership position (EH). (s) Assistant majority leader is known as majority assistant whip; assistant minority floor leader known as minority assistant whip; minority caucus chair known as minority caucus manager. (t) Majority leader also serves as majority floor leader; assistant majority leader also serves as assistant majority floor leader and majority whip; minority leader also serves as minority floor leader; assistant minority leader also serves as assistant minority floor leader and minority whip. (u) The majority caucus also has a secretary, who is appointed by the speaker; the minority caucus has 2 vice-chairs, 1 vice-chair/treasurer and an interim sergeant-at-arms. (v) The title of majority leader is not used in Virginia; the title is majority floor leader. (w) The title of minority leader is not used in Virginia; the title is minority floor leader. (x) Caucus nominee elected by whole membership. (y) Speaker also serves as majority leader. (z) Official title is floor leader. (aa) Official title is alternate floor leader. (bb) There is a parliamentarian for the majority appointed by the Speaker and a minority parliamentarian elected by the minority party caucus.
EH EH (d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............................................................................................................................... (o)........................................................................................................................................................... EH (y) . . . (y) . . . EH (z) . . . . . . . . . EC . . . . . . . . . . . . ... EH (k) EH (d) EC . . . EC (aa) . . . . . . . . . EC (k) . . . EC . . . . . . (k) ............................................................................................................................... (o)...........................................................................................................................................................
Assistant minority floor leader
American Samoa................ Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands..............
Minority whip
EH . . . EC (v) . . . EC (v) . . . EC EC EC (w) . . . EC (w) . . . AL EC EH EH EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EH AS AS AS . . . . . . AS AS EC . . . . . . . . . . . . ... EH (x) EH (x) EC EC . . . . . . . . . EC EC EC . . . . . . . . . EC EH EH . . . . . . EC . . . EC EC . . . . . . EC . . . EC EC ............................................................................................................................... (o)...........................................................................................................................................................
Minority caucus chair
Virginia (u).......................... Washington ........................ West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming............................. Dist. of Columbia...............
State or other jurisdiction
Majority whip
HOUSE/ASSEMBLY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS: METHODS OF SELECTION—Continued
STATE legislatures
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.8 METHOD OF SETTING LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION
State
Method
Alabama �������������������������������
Constitutional Amendment 57
Alaska �����������������������������������
Alaska Stat. §24.10.100 , §24.10.101
Arizona ���������������������������������
Arizona Revised Statutes 41-1103 and 41-1904—Compensation commission sends to a public vote
Arkansas �������������������������������
Amendment 70, Ark. Stat. Ann. §10-2-212 et seq.
California ������������������������������
Art. IV, §4; Proposition 112; Cal. Gov. Code §8901 et seq.
Colorado �������������������������������
Colorado Stat. 2-2-301(1)
Connecticut ��������������������������
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §2-9a; The General Assembly takes independent action pursuant to recommendations of a Compensation Commission.
Delaware �������������������������������
Del. Code Ann. Title 29, §710 et seq.; §§3301-3304, are implemented automatically if not rejected by resolution.
Florida �����������������������������������
§11.13(1), Florida Statutes; Statute provides members same percentage increase as state employees.
Georgia ���������������������������������
Ga. Code Ann. §45-7-4 and §28-1-8
Hawaii �����������������������������������
Art. III, §9; Commission recommendations take effect unless rejected by concurrent resolution or the governor. Any change in salary that becomes effective does not apply to the legislature to which the recommendation was submitted.
Idaho �������������������������������������
Idaho Code 67-406a and 406b; Citizens’ Commission
Illinois �����������������������������������
25 ILCS 120; Salaries set by Compensation Review Board. 25 ILCS 115; Tied to employment cost index, wages and salaries for state and local government workers.
Indiana ����������������������������������
Ind. Code Ann. §2-3-1-1; An amount equal to 18% of the annual salary of a judge under IC 33-38-5-6, as adjusted under IC 33-38-5-8.1.
Iowa ���������������������������������������
Iowa Code Ann. §2.10; Iowa Code Ann. §2A.1 thru 2A.5
Kansas �����������������������������������
Kan. Stat. Ann. §46-137a et seq.; §75-3212
Kentucky �������������������������������
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §6.226-229; the Kentucky committee has not met since 1995. The most recent pay raise was initiated and passed by the General Assembly.
Louisiana ������������������������������
La. Rev. Stat. 24:31 & 31.1
Maine ������������������������������������
Maine Constitution Article IV, Part Third, §7 and 3 MRSA, §2 and 2-A; Increase in compensation is presented to the legislature as legislation; the legislature must enact and the governor must sign into law; takes effect only for subsequent legislatures.
Maryland �������������������������������
Art. III, §15; Commission meets before each four-year term of office and presents recommendations to the General Assembly for action. Recommendations may be reduced or rejected.
Massachusetts �����������������������
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 3, §§9,10; In 1998, the voters passed a legislative referendum that starting with the 2001 session, members will receive an automatic increase or decrease according to the median household income for the commonwealth for the preceding 2-year period.
Michigan �������������������������������
Art. IV §12; Compensation Commission recommends, legislature by majority vote must approve or reduce for change to be effective the session immediately following the next general election.
Minnesota �����������������������������
Minn. Stat. Ann §15A.082; Compensation council makes a recommendation. Must be approved by the legislature and governor. Does not go into effect until after next election of the House.
Mississippi �����������������������������
Miss. Code Ann. 5-1-41
Missouri ��������������������������������
Art. III, §§16, 34; Mo. Ann. Stat. §21.140; Recommendations are adjusted by legislature or governor if necessary.
Montana ��������������������������������
Mont. Laws 5-2-301; Tied to executive broadband pay plan.
Nebraska �������������������������������
Neb. Const. Art. III, §7; Neb. Rev. Stat. 50-123.01
Nevada ����������������������������������
§218.210-§218.225
New Hampshire �������������������
Art. XV, part second
New Jersey ����������������������������
Statute. NJSA 52:10A-1
New Mexico ��������������������������
Art. IV. §10 ; 2-1-8 NMSA
New York ������������������������������
Art. 3, §6; Consolidated Laws of NY Ann. 32-2-5a
North Carolina ���������������������
N.C.G.S. 120-3
North Dakota �����������������������
Statutes 54-03-10 and 54-03-20; Legislative Compensation Commission 54-03-19.1
Ohio ���������������������������������������
Art. II, §31; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. title 1 ch. 101.27 thru 101.272
Oklahoma �����������������������������
Okla. Stat. Ann. title 74, §291 et seq.; Art V, §21; Title 74, §291.2 et seq.; Legislative Compensation Board
Oregon ����������������������������������
Or. Rev. Stat. §171.072
Pennsylvania �������������������������
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 46 PS §5; 65 PS §366.1 et seq. Legislators receive annual cost of living increase that is tied to the Consumer Price Index.
Rhode Island ������������������������
Art. VI, §3
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 111
STATE LEGISLATURES
METHOD OF SETTING LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION—Continued
State
Method
South Carolina ���������������������
S.C. Code Ann. 2-3-20 and the annual General Appropriations Act
South Dakota �����������������������
Art. III, §6 and Art. XXI, §2; S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §20402 et seq.
Tennessee ������������������������������
Art. II, §23; Tenn. Code Ann. §3-1-106 et seq.
Texas ��������������������������������������
Art. III, §24; In 1991 a constitutional amendment was approved by voters to allow Ethics Commission to recommend the salaries of members. Any recommendations must be approved by voters to be effective. The provision has yet to be used.
Utah ���������������������������������������
Art. VI, §9; Utah Code Ann. §36-2-2, et seq.
Vermont ��������������������������������
Vt. Stat. Ann. title 32, §1051 and §1052
Virginia ���������������������������������
Art. IV, §5; Va. Code Ann. §30-19.11 thru §30-19.14
Washington ���������������������������
Art. II, §23; §43.03.060; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §43.03.028; Salary Commission sets salaries of legislature and other state officials based on market study and input from citizens.
West Virginia ������������������������
Art. 6, §33; W. Va. Code §4-2A-1 et seq.; Submits by resolution and must be concurred by at least four members of the commission. The Legislature must enact the resolution into law and may reduce, but shall not increase, any item established in such resolution.
Wisconsin ������������������������������
Sections 20.923 and 230.12, Wis. Statutes, created by Chapter 90, Laws of 1973, and amended by 1983 Wis. Act 27 and Wis. Act 33, provide the current procedure for setting salaries of elected state officials. Generally, compensation is determined as part of the state compensation plan for non-represented employees and is approved by vote of the joint committee on employment relations.
Wyoming �������������������������������
Wyo. Stat. §28-5-101 thru §28-5-105
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010.
112 The Book of the States 2010
. . .
. . .
Arizona ���������������������������
Arkansas �������������������������
. . .
Iowa ���������������������������������
See footnotes at end of table.
. . .
. . .
Illinois �����������������������������
Indiana ���������������������������� . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
$25,000
$22,616
$67,836
$16,116
39/mile
55./mile
50./mile, tied to federal rate.
One roundtrip per wk. at state rate.
$137/day (U). $102.75/day for Polk County legislators (U) set by the legislature to coincide with federal rate. State mileage rates apply.
$138/day (U) tied to federal rate.
$139/per session day.
$122/day for members establishing second residence in Boise; $49/day if no second residence is established and up to $25/day travel (V) set by Compensation Commission.
$150/day for members living outside Oahu during session; $120/day for members living outside Oahu during interim while conducting legislative business; $10/day for members living on Oahu during the interim while conducting official legislative business.
. . .
$48,708
Idaho �������������������������������
. . .
...
$133/day for House and $133 for Senate (V) tied to federal rate. Earned based on the number of days in session. Travel vouchers are filed to substantiate.
. . .
44.5/mile for business travel.
No per diem is paid. $7,334 expense allowance annually.
Hawaii �����������������������������
$29,697
40/mile.
50¢/mile Ga. Code Ann. §50-19-7 sets rate $173/d (U) set by the Legislative Services of reimbursement at the same mileage Committee. rate established by the US General Services Administration
. . .
$28,000 $41,680
$45/day for members living in the Denver metro area. $99/day for members living outside Denver (V). Set by the legislature.
$173/day for each day they are in session.
$136/d (V) plus mileage tied to federal rate.
$35/day for the 1st 120 days of regular session and for special session and $10/day thereafter. Members residing outside Maricopa County receive an additional $25/day for the 1st 120 days of reg. session and for special session and an additional $10/day thereafter (V). Set by statute.
$189 or $234/day (depending on the time of year) tied to federal rate. Legislators who reside in the Capitol area receive 75% of the federal rate.
$3,958/month plus $50/day for three days during each week that the legislature actually meets during any session (U).
Session per diem rate
Georgia ��������������������������� . . . . . . $17,342
. . .
Florida �����������������������������
. . .
. . .
50./mile.
. . .
. . .
Connecticut ��������������������
Delaware �������������������������
46/mile or 48/mile for 4wd. vehicle. Actual miles paid.
Colorado ������������������������� . . . . . . $30,000
50.5/mile.
$15,362 Members are provided a vehicle. Mileage is not reimbursed.
44.5/mile on actual miles.
$24,000
California ������������������������ . . . . . . $95,291
. . .
. . .
$50,400
50./mile for approved travel.
. . .
. . .
Mileage cents per mile
Alaska �����������������������������
Annual salary 10/mile for a single roundtrip per session. 50.5/mile interim cmte. attendance.
Limit on days
Salaries
Alabama ������������������������� $10 C . . . . . .
State Per-diem salary
Regular sessions
Table 3.9 LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION AND LIVING EXPENSE ALLOWANCES DURING SESSIONS
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 113
. . .
50/mile, set by Dept. of Admin.
114 The Book of the States 2010
See footnotes at end of table.
New Hampshire ������������� . . . 2 yr. term $200
$116/d (U) tied to federal rate.
Session per diem rate
Federal rate for Capitol area (U). Legislators who live more than 50 miles from the capitol, if require lodging, will be paid at HUD single-room rate for Carson City area for each month of session.
$109/day outside 50-mile radius from Capitol; $39/day if member resides within 50 miles of Capitol (V) tied to federal rate.
$103.69/d (U).
$103.20/d tied to federal rate. Verification of per diem is by roll call.
$116/day (U) tied to federal rate.
Senators receive $96/day and Representatives receive $77/legislative day (U) set by the legislature/Rules Committee.
$12,000 yearly expense allowance for session and interim (V) set by compensation commission.
From $10/day-$100/day, depending on distance from State House (V) set by the legislature.
Lodging $96/day; meals $32/day (V) tied to federal rate and compensation commission. $225/day for out of state travel. Includes meals and lodging.
$38/day housing, or mileage and tolls in lieu of housing (at rate of $0.44/ mile up to $38/day) plus $32/day for meals. Per diem limits are set by statute.
$159/day (U) tied to federal rate (26 U.S.C. Section 162(h)(1)(B)(ii)).
$119.90/d (U) tied to federal rate. (110% federal per diem rate).
Round trip home to State House @ No per diem is paid. 38¢/mile for first 45 miles and 19¢/mile thereafter; or members will be reimbursed for actual expenses and mileage will be paid at the maximum IRS mileage rate
$146.90/day max. of 60 days 60 days . . . Federal rate, currently 50.5/mile of session for holdover Senators, $146.29/day for all other legislators.
Nevada ����������������������������
$12,000
50.5/mile, tied to federal rate.
. . .
. . .
47/mile
Nebraska �������������������������
$35,915
50/mile; Rate is based on IRS rate. Reimbursement for actual mileage traveled in connection with legislative business
. . .
Montana �������������������������� $82.64L ... . . .
. . .
48.5/mile; determined by Federal Register and Legislature.
Mississippi ���������������������� . . . . . . $10,000
Missouri ��������������������������
Reimbursed at federal mileage rate for one trip per week during session (for non-local Members) and for needed business travel during interim.
Minnesota ����������������������� . . . . . . $31,140.90
$79,650
50/ per mile as of 01-01-2010
. . .
Michigan �������������������������
. . .
Between $10 and $100, determined by distance from State House.
Massachusetts ���������������� . . . . . . $58,237.15
50¢/mile for authorized events
$43,500
. . .
Maryland ������������������������
50/mile, tied to federal rate.
$13,526 for first regular 44/mile session; $9,661 for second regular session.
. . .
Mileage cents per mile
50.5¢/mile based on federal mileage rate
Maine ������������������������������ . . . . . .
. . .
Annual salary
$16,800 plus additional $6,000/yr. (U) expense allowance.
. . .
. . .
Limit on days
Salaries
Louisiana ������������������������ . . . . . .
$88.66 C
$186.73 C
Kansas �����������������������������
Kentucky �������������������������
State Per-diem salary
Regular sessions
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION AND LIVING EXPENSE ALLOWANCES DURING SESSIONS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
50¢/mile; one round trip/week during session.
North Dakota �����������������
. . .
South Carolina ���������������
. . .
. . .
...
. . .
. . .
$38,400
$10,400
$13,089
$78,315
$21,612
54/mile.
. . .
The Council of State Governments 115
See footnotes at end of table.
Vermont �������������������������� . . . . . .
$117 C
$6236.62/wk. during session; $118 per day for special sessions or interim cmte. meetings.
. . .
Federal mileage rate, now about 50¢/ mile, state employee reimbursement rate
50/mile, rnd. trip from home to capitol.
$19,009
Utah ���������������������������������
. . .
50¢/mile set by Comptroller’s Office same for all state employees; an allowance for single, twin and turbo engines at $1.24/mile is also given
. . .
37¢/mile for one round trip from Pierre to home each weekend. One trip is also paid at 5¢/mile. During the interim, 37¢/ mile for scheduled committee meetings.
34.5/mile.
40.5/mile to and from session.
Rate is tied to federal rate
50/mile.
Texas �������������������������������� . . . . . . $7,200
Tennessee �����������������������
South Dakota ����������������� . . . 2 yr. term $12,000
. . .
...
Pennsylvania ������������������
Rhode Island ������������������
. . .
. . .
Oklahoma �����������������������
Federal per diem rate for Montpelier is $101/day for lodging and $61/day for meals for non-commuters; commuters receive $61/day for meals plus mileage.
$106/day (U) lodging allotment for each calendar day, tied to federal rate, $61/day meals (U).
$168/d (U) set by Ethics Commission.
$185/L (U) tied to the federal rate.
$110/L (U) set by the legislature.
$119/day for meals and housing for each statewide session day and committee meeting; tied to federal rate.
No per diem is paid.
$154 GSA Method $163 IRS High/Low Method
$116/d (U) tied to federal rate.
$150/d (U) tied to federal rate.
50./mile, tied to federal rate.
Lodging reimbursement up to $1,040/m (V).
$104/d (U) set by statute. $559/m expense allowance.
Varies (V) tied to federal rate.
40¢/mile; one round trip/week from home No per diem is paid. to Statehouse for legislators outside Franklin County only
Oregon ����������������������������
Session per diem rate
$159/d (V) tied to federal rate and the constitution.
No per diem is paid.
Ohio ��������������������������������� . . . . . . $60,584
$141/day ($148/day effective . . . ... 7/1/10) during legislative sessions (C)
29¢/mile, 1 round trip/week during session; 1 round trip for attendance at interim cmte. mtgs.
50.5/mile.
North Carolina ��������������� . . . . . . $13,951
$79,500
. . .
50.5/mile, tied to federal rate.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
New Mexico �������������������
Mileage cents per mile
New York ������������������������
Annual salary Top leadership with state cars get gas credit cards.
Limit on days
Salaries
New Jersey ���������������������� . . . . . . $49,000
State Per-diem salary
Regular sessions
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION AND LIVING EXPENSE ALLOWANCES DURING SESSIONS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
116 The Book of the States 2010
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010. Key: C — Calendar day L — Legislative day (U) — Unvouchered (V) — Vouchered d — day w — week m — month y — year . . . — Not applicable N.R.— Not reported
. . .
50/mile.
...
Wyoming ����������������������
$150 L
48.5¢/mile for in-district business mileage plus one round trip/week to Capitol
Wisconsin ������������������������ . . . . . . $49,943
$109/day (V) set by the legislature, includes travel days for those outside of Cheyenne.
$88/day maximum (U) set by compensation commission (90% of federal rate). Per diem authorized under 13.123 (1), Wis. Statutes, and Leg. Joint Rule 85. 20.916(8) State Statutes and Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER) establishes the max. amount according to the recommendations of the Director of the Office of State Employment Relations. The leadership of each house then determines, within that maximum, what amount to authorize for the session.
$131/d (U) during session set by compensation commission.
$90/day
50/mile. 40.5/mile based on Dept. of Admin. travel regs.
. . .
West Virginia ������������������ . . . . . . $20,000
. . .
$42,106
Session per diem rate
Washington ���������������������
Mileage cents per mile
House—$135/day (U) tied to federal rate. Senate—$169 (U) tied to federal rate.
Annual salary Senate—$18,000; 50/mile. House—$17,640
Limit on days
Salaries
Virginia ��������������������������� . . . . . .
State Per-diem salary
Regular sessions
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION AND LIVING EXPENSE ALLOWANCES DURING SESSIONS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 117
See footnotes at end of table.
Senate $3,244/month for district office expenses with four staff. House $2,482/month for district office expenses. Speaker $3,408 and Senate President $3,567
None.
Colorado..................
Florida.....................
Based on the size of their districts.
California................
Reimbursement provided for office expenses.
Legislators may receive reimbursement of up to $14,400 annually for legislative expenses incurred. Standing subcommittee chairs and committee chairs may receive additional annual expense reimbursements of up to $1,800 and $3,600, respectively. Legislators who formally decline to receive per diem and mileage reimbursements may receive additional annual expense reimbursements of up to $10,200.
Arkansas..................
Delaware.................
None.
Arizona....................
Senators receive $5,500 and Representatives receive $4,500 in unvouchered expense allowance.
Senators receive $10,000/y and Representatives receive $8,000/y for postage, stationery and other legislative expenses. Staffing allowance determined by rules and presiding officers, depending on time of year.
Alaska......................
Connecticut.............
None, although annual appropriation to certain positions may be so allocated.
Alabama..................
No
Yes (a)
Yes. (e)
Yes (a)
Yes (a)
No
No
Yes (a)
Yes (a)
Legislator’s compensation for Phone State office supplies, district offices and staffing allowance
Table 3.10 LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION: OTHER PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS
(f)
No
No
No
(d)
No
(c)
No
No
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.P
O.P.
S.A.
S.P.P.
S.A., O.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.P.—After O.P. three months the state pays entire amount for basic plan.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.A.
S.A.
S.P.P.
S.A., O.P.
O.P.
O.P.
N.A.
Life insurance benefits
N.A.
S.P.
O.P.
S.A.
S.P.
N.A.
S.P.
O.P.
O.P.
State pays full amount for $12,000 policy; additional is optional at legislator’s expense.
S.P.
State provides $10,000 coverage with option to purchase greater amount.
State pays 15K policy; additional amount is paid by legislator.
Small policy available; Optional; if additional is optional at selected is legislator’s expense. included in health insurance
N.A.
Some health O.P. insurance plans include discounts on eyewear.
N.A.
S.P.
O.P.
S.A.
O.P.; unless included in Health Ins.
N.A.
Insurance benefits Transportation offered to Disability legislators Health Dental Optical insurance
STATE LEGISLATURES
118 The Book of the States 2010
There is no set dollar amount for office supplies. All supplies are provided by the House Supply room. Any item not carried in the Supply Room may be purchased with statutory legislative allowance funds which is currently $10,200/year. House members do not have district offices. With the exception of the Speaker’s Office and Majority and Minority Leadership offices, the House Finance, Judiciary and Consumer Protection offices, each House Majority and Minority member is allowed 1 permanent full-time Office Manager. During the session each committee chair receives $5,100/month for temporary staff salaries, and all other members receive $4,800 month.
$1,700/y for unvouchered constituent expense. No staffing allowance.
Senators receive $83,063/y and Representatives $69,409/y for office expenses, including district offices and staffing.
All of these come out of one main Senate budget. We do not have district offices.
$300/m to cover district constituency postage, travel, telephone and other expenses. No staffing allowance.
$7,083/year which is taxable income to the legislators. Staffing allowances vary for leadership who have their own budget. Legislators provided with secretaries during session only.
$1,788.51 for district expenses during interim.
Hawaii.....................
Idaho........................
Illinois......................
Indiana.....................
Iowa.........................
Kansas.....................
Kentucky.................
See footnotes at end of table.
$7,000/y reimbursable expense account. If the member requests and provides receipts, the member is reimbursed for personal services, office equipment, rent, supplies, transportation, telecommunications, etc.
Georgia....................
No
Yes (i)
No
No
No
Yes (h)
Yes (a)
No
Legislator’s compensation for Phone State office supplies, district offices and staffing allowance
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
(g)
No
N.A.
S.A.
S.P.P.
N.A.
S.P.P.
O.P.
O.P.
S.P., legislator O.P. pays dep. portion
S.P.P.
S.A.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
O.P.
S.P., legislator O.P. pays dep. portion
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.A.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.A, S.P.P.
O.P.
S.P.
S.P.
N.A.
S.P.
S.P.P.
S.A.
O.P.
Insurance benefits Transportation offered to Disability legislators Health Dental Optical insurance
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION: OTHER PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
State pays $20,000; extra available at legislator’s expense.
150% of annual salary if part of KPERS. Additional insurance is optional at legislator’s expense.
State pays first $20,000, additional at legislator expense.
S.A.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
O.P.
Life insurance benefits
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 119
None. However, supplies for staff offices are provided and paid for out of general legislative account.
Each member receives an annual district office allowance. For Fy 2010 the district office allowances are: House members—$39,894 Senate members—$33,395 In addition each Senator is provided with 1 full time administrative aide funded by the Senate. Finally, selected House leadership position holders receive from $845 to $3,471 in additional district office allowance funds annually, and selected Senate leadership position holders receive an additional $1,471 in additional district office allowance funds annually.
$7,200/y for office expenses.
$51,800 per majority Senator for office budget $51,800 for minority Senator for office budget
No district offices. Supples provided in State Capitol. In the House, Staffing provided centrally. For Senators, one legislative assistant plus $75/week for interns.
A total of $1,500/m out of session.
$800/m to cover all reasonable and necessary business expenses.
None.
Maine.......................
Maryland.................
Massachusetts.........
Michigan..................
Minnesota................
Mississippi...............
Missouri...................
Montana..................
See footnotes at end of table.
$500/month. Senators and Representatives receive an additional $,1500 supplemental allowance for vouchered office expenses, rent, travel mileage in district. Senators and Representatives staff allowance $2,000/ month starting salary up to $3,000 with annual increases
Louisiana.................
Yes (n)
Yes (m)
Yes
Yes (dd)
Yes (a)
No
No
Yes (k)
Yes (j)
Legislator’s compensation for Phone State office supplies, district offices and staffing allowance
Limited
No
No
(l)
No
No
No
No
No
S.P.P.
S.A., O.P.
S.A.
S.P.P.-Senators pay 100%
S.P.P.
Covered under medical plan
O.P.
O.P.
S.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.-legislator only premiums
S.A.
S.P.
O.P.
O.P.
State pays: 90% single; 50% family.
O.P.
O.P.
N.A.
S.A.
Health, vision, life, cancer, prescription offered via cafeteria plan.
S.P.P.
S.A.
S.A.
S.P.P.
N.A.
S.P.
None
O.P.
N.A.
O.P.
N.A.
N.A.
O.P.
Insurance benefits Transportation offered to Disability legislators Health Dental Optical insurance
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION: OTHER PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
State pays $14,000 term policy. Additional at legislator’s expense.
S.P.—Additional amounts are optional at legislator’s expense.
S.P.P.
State pays premium for benefit of $35,000.
Offered at different levels as part of cafeteria plan.
$5,000 policy provided; Additional up to 8 times salary at legislator’s expense.
Term insurance; optional at legislator’s expense.
O.P.
State pays half; legislator pays half.
Life insurance benefits
STATE LEGISLATURES
120 The Book of the States 2010
None.
None.
$1,250 for office supplies; district office varies by location within state; $110,000 for staffing
None.
Staff allowance set by majority leader for majority members and by minority leader for minority members. Staff allowance covers both district and capitol; geographic location; seniority and leadership responsibilities will cause variations.
Non-leaders receive $6,708/y for any legislative expenses not otherwise provided. Full-time secretarial assistance is provided during session.
None.
None.
$350/y for unvouchered office supplies plus five rolls of stamps.
Nevada.....................
New Hampshire......
New Jersey..............
New Mexico............
New York.................
North Carolina........
North Dakota..........
Ohio.........................
Oklahoma................
See footnotes at end of table.
No allowance; however, each member is provided with two full-time capitol staff year-round.
Nebraska.................
Yes (t)
Yes (a)
Yes (s)
Yes (r)
Yes (a)
No
None for Assembly
No
$2,800 allowance
Yes (a)
No
No
No
No
(q)
No
(p)
No
(o)
No
S.P.
O.P.
O.P.
S.P.P.
N.A.
S.A.
O.P.
O.P.
O.P.
Allowance rang- S.A. ing from $608.57 for legislator only to $1,596.95 per month for family.
S.P.P.
S.P.
S.P.; O.P. family coverage
S.P.P.
N.A.
S.A.
O.P.
O.P.
O.P.
S.A.
S.P.
O.P.
O.P.
No cost if participating provider used
N.A.
S.A.
N.A.
O.P.
O.P.
S.A.
N.A.
O.P.
O.P.
S.P.
N.A.
It depends on the retirement plan they are enrolled in.
N.A.
O.P.
O.P.
Insurance benefits Transportation Legislator’s compensation for Phone offered to Disability State office supplies, district offices and staffing allowance legislators Health Dental Optical insurance
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION: OTHER PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
S.A.
Amount equal to salary; premium paid by state. Member may purchase a supplemental policy, which is also offered to state employees.
State pays for $1,300 term life policy.
O.P.
O.P.
N.A.
Depends on retirement plan enrollment. If State Pension Plan same as all state employees.
N.A.
O.P.
O.P.
Life insurance benefits
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 121
None.
West Virginia...........
See footnotes at end of table.
Maximum of $7,800/yr for legislative expense reimbursement. Legislative staff are paid directly so there is no staffing allowance.
Washington.............
Approved allowance for staff salaries and staff travel. Other expenses such as supplies, stationery, postage, district office rental, telephone expense, etc, provided as needed
Texas........................
Legislators receive $1,250/m; leadership receives $1,750/m office expense allowance. Legislators receive a staffing allowance of $37,871/y; leadership receives $56,804/y.
$1,000/m for expenses in district (U).
Tennessee................
None.
None.
South Dakota..........
Virginia....................
Senate $3,400/y for postage, stationary and telephone. House $1,800/y for telephone and $600/y for postage. Legislators also receive $1,000/m for in district expenses that is treated as income.
South Carolina........
Vermont...................
None.
Rhode Island...........
None.
Staffing is determined by leadership.
Pennsylvania...........
Utah.........................
Session office supplies, ($15.50/d Interim office allowance. ($450–750/m depending on geographic size of district.) Session staffing allowance, $4,858/m; Interim staffing allowance, $3,327/m.
Oregon.....................
Yes
Yes (a)
Yes
(aa)
No (z)
No
Yes (x)
Yes (w)
Yes (a)
No
No
Yes (u)
Legislator’s compensation for Phone State office supplies, district offices and staffing allowance
No
No
No
No
No
No
(y)
No
No
No
(v)
No
S.A.
S.A.
O.P.
N.A.
S.P.P.
S.A.
O.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.P.
O.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.
O.P.
S.P.
S.P.P.
N.A.
S.P.P.
O.P.
State pays 80%, O.P. legislator pays 20%
N.A.
S.P.P.
S.A.
O.P.
Included in medical
S.P.P.
N.A.
S.P.P.
Included in health coverage
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
S.A.
S.P.P.
O.P.
Equal to salary to maximum of $150,000.
O.P.
Life insurance benefits
N.A.
S.P.
O.P.
State pays $15,000; Legislator pays $7,000.
N.A.
S.P.P.
O.P.
S.P.P.
S.P.—only S.P.P. permanent disability retirement through retirement system
N.A.
S.P.
O.P.
N.A.
S.P. for acciN.A. dental death/ dismemberment ins. only
S.P.P.
O.P.
Medical/hospital, dental, vision, prescription. State members and employees pay 1% of salary for health benefits.
S.A.
Insurance benefits Transportation offered to Disability legislators Health Dental Optical insurance
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION: OTHER PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
122 The Book of the States 2010
Up to $750 quarter through the constituent service allowance.
Wyoming................. (cc)
(bb)
No
No
N.A.
Some HMOs cover
N.A.
O.P.
N.A.
O.P.
N.A.
O.P.
Life insurance benefits
(k) Pre-paid phone cards are issued to members of the Senate and the House. (l) Reimbursement for approved travel. (m) Phone cards issued but expenditures deducted from monthly expense allowance (n) Leadership positions only (o) Motor pool or private; legislative police shuttle to/from Reno airport. (p) Automobiles for Assembly Speaker, Assembly Majority Leader and Minority Leader. (q) Top leadership has access to vehicles. (r) Allowance of $2,275 for postage, stationery and telephone (s) Only Legislative Council members or chairs of interim cmtes. (t) Senate members receive phone credit card for state-related business use away from capitol. (u) State-provided office and district office phone for legislative business only (v) Business mileage reimbursement or use fleet lease vehicle from Department of General Services. (w) Telephone allowance: $600/6 m for legislators and $900/6 m for leadership (x) Phone cards for in-state long distance (only). (y) In lieu of mileage, members residing greater than 100 miles from the seat of government may be reimbursed for coach class airline fare for attendance at session or committee meetings. Limited to one round trip per week during session. (z) All members are issued Blackberry phones. (aa) Leaders for legislative business. (bb) Members office expenses, including phone expense, are limited to the amount of each legislator’s office budget, as established by the committees. on Senate and Assembly organization. (cc) Telephone credit card for official business only with a $2,000 limit during 2 yrs. (dd) Reimbursed at federal mileage rate for one trip per week during session (for non-local Members) and for needed business travel during interim
N.A.
S.A.
Insurance benefits Transportation offered to Disability legislators Health Dental Optical insurance
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010. Key: (U) — Unvouchered. (V) — Vouchered. d — day. m — month. w — week. y — year. N.A. — Not available. S.P. — State pays full amount. S.P.P.— State pays portion and legislator pays portion. S.A.— Same as state employees O.P.— Optional at legislator’s expense. (a) Official state business only (b) Phone cards are allowed for certain districts. (c) Access to motor pool for legislative trips only. (d) Members are provided a vehicle, for which they pay a portion of the payment. (e) Official business only; charges for personal calls are reimbursed by legislator. (f) Rental cars for official business. (g) Neighbor Island members are allowed one round trip from their home island every week—during session and during the interim. Additional trips are allowed when authorized by the Speaker. (h) During session only (i) If monthly bill exceeds $200, leadership is notified (j) District office line with one extension
$12,000 for 2 year session in the Assembly. N/A staffing, DO. $45,000 for two year period for office expenses. In Senate, $55,955 office budget for 2 year session and $204,577 staff salary budget to fund 2 staff persons.
Wisconsin................
Legislator’s compensation for Phone State office supplies, district offices and staffing allowance
LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION: OTHER PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
State
None
$133,639/yr.
Arkansas ����������������������
California ��������������������� $133,639/yr.
None
None
None
None
Minority leader
None
Salary differential for presiding officer is $7,500
$4,000
$27,477
Hawaii ��������������������������
Idaho ����������������������������
Illinois ��������������������������
$14,039.22/yr
$46.51/day
$32,000
150% of base salary
Kansas ��������������������������
Kentucky ����������������������
Louisiana ���������������������
Maine ���������������������������
See footnotes at end of table.
$11,593
Iowa ������������������������������
Indiana ������������������������� $7,000
None
$11,484
Florida ��������������������������
Georgia ������������������������
125% of base salary
None
$36.73/day
$12,665.64/yr
$11,593
Maj. floor ldr. $5,500; asst. maj. floor ldr. $3,500
$20,649
None
None
$200/mo.
$12,376
$19,983
Delaware ����������������������
$8,835
$10,689
112.5% of base salary
None
$36.73/day
$12,665.64/yr
$11,593
Min. floor ldr. $6,000; min. asst. floor ldr. $5,000; min. ldr. pro tem. emeritus $1,500
$27,477
None
None
$200/mo.
None
$12,376
$8,835
------------ All leaders receive $99/day salary during interim when in attendance at committee or leadership meetings.-----------
$124,923/yr.
None
Connecticut �����������������
Colorado.....................
None
None
None
$500
Alaska ��������������������������
Arizona ����������������������
Majority leader None
Presiding officer
$2/day plus $1,500/mo. expense allowance
Alabama ����������������������
Table 3.11 ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SENATE LEADERS
None
Pres. Pro Tem $24,500. Joint Budget Cmte. $28,000/yr. for chair and vice-chair.
Leaders: Maj., min. caucus chairs and whips, $28.15/day. Committee Chairs: for standing cmtes. only $18.71/day
Asst. maj., min. ldrs., vice pres., $7,165.34/yr. Committee Chairs: $11,289.98/year for Senate Ways and Means and House Appropriations Committee
Pres. Pro Tem $1,243.
Asst. Pres. Pro Tem. $3,000; Maj. Cauc. Chairman $5,500; Asst. Maj. Cauc. Chair $1,500; Appropriations Comm. Ranking Maj. Mem. $2,000; Tax & Fiscal Policy Ranking Maj. Mem. $2,000; Maj. Whip $4,000; Asst. Maj. Whip $2,000; Min. Cauc. Chair $5,000; Asst. Min. Cauc. Chair $1,000; Appropriations Comm. Ranking Min. Mem. $2,000; Tax & Fiscal Policy Ranking Min. Mem. $2,000; Min. Whip $3,000; Asst. Min. Whip $1,000. Committee Chairs: $1,000
Dpty. min. leader $20,649; Asst. maj. and min. ldr., $20,649; maj and min. caucus chair, $20,649 All cmte. chairs and minority spokesperson $10,327.
None
None
President pro tem, $400/mo; admin. flr. ldr., $200/mo; asst. admin. flr. ldr., $100/mo.
None
Leaders: Maj. and min. whips $7,794. Committee chairs: Joint Finance Cmte. Chair, $11,459; Capital Improvement Chair and Vice-Chair $4,578; Sunset Cmte. Chair $4,578.
Leaders: Dep. min. and maj. ldrs., $6,446/year; asst. maj. and min. ldrs. and maj. and min. whips $4,241/yr. Committee chairs: All cmte. chairs, $4,241.
None
None
$3,600/yr for committee chairs; $1,800/yr. sub-cmte. chairs.
None
None
Committee chairs: Senate Finance and Taxation Cmte., $150/mo.
Other leaders and committee chairs
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 123
124 The Book of the States 2010 None
None
$5/day during session
None
$900
$50/two-yr term
1/3 above annual salary
None
$41,500
Montana �����������������������
Nebraska ����������������������
Nevada �������������������������
New Hampshire ����������
New Jersey �������������������
New Mexico ����������������
New York ���������������������
President receives additional $21,612/year in salary.
$43,939/year
Oregon �������������������������
Pennsylvania ���������������
See footnotes at end of table.
$12,364
$17,932
Oklahoma ��������������������
$35,153/year
$35,153/year
None
$12,364
President Pro Tem $86,165; Minority Leader $86,165;Asst. Min. Maj Flr Leader $81,163; Ldr 78,668; Min Whip 71,173; Asst Asst Maj Flr Leader $76,169; Min Whip 63,381 Maj Whip $71,173; Asst Maj Whip $66,175
Ohio ������������������������������ President $94,437 None
$10/day during legislative $10/day during legislative sessions, sessions, $284 ($298 effective $284 ($298 effective 7/1/10) per 7/1/10) per month during month during term of office. term of office.
North Dakota ������������� None
$17,048 and $7,992 expense allowance
$17,048 and $7,992 expense allowance
$34,500
None
None
None
$900
None
None
None
None
Additional compensation is 40% of base salary
$22,000
$22,500
None
Minority leader
North Carolina ������������ $38,151 and $16,956 expense allowance.
None
None
None
None
$900
None
None
None
Lt. Gov.—$60,000 total salary; Pres. Pro Tem, $15,000
Missouri �����������������������
$26,000
Mississippi �������������������
$5,513
Michigan ����������������������
$22,500
None
Additional compensation is 40% of base salary
$35,000
Majority leader
Minnesota �������������������� None
$13,000/yr.
Presiding officer
Massachusetts �������������
State
Maryland ���������������������
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SENATE LEADERS—Continued
Maj. and min. whips, $26,678 maj. and min. caucus chairs, $16,634; maj. and min. caucus secretaries $10,986; maj. and min. policy chairs, $10,986; maj. and min. caucus admin., $10,986; maj. and min. caucus appropriations committee chairs, $26,678
None
$12,364 for Appropriations and Budget Committee Chairs
Committee Leaders: $6,500 for all committee chairs except Finance Chair, who receives $10,000. Vice-chairs receive $5,000 with the Vice-Chair of Finance receiving $5,500.
Leaders: Asst. ldrs., $5/day during session. Committee Chairs: Substantive standing cmte. chairs $5/day.
Dep. pro tem: $21,739 and $10,032 expense allowance
Leaders: 22 other leaders with compensation ranging from $13,000 to $34,000. Committee Chairs: between $9,000 and $34,000.
None
None
None
Leaders: Pres. Pro Tem, $900. Committee Chairs: Standing cmte. chairs $900.
None
None
None
None
Assistant Majority Leader - $4,152/year. Tax Committee chair - $4,152/year. Finance Committee chair - $4,152/year. Senate Tax Cmte. and Cmte. on Finance Chair $35,292,
Leaders: Maj. flr. ldr., $12,000; min. flr. ldr., $10,000. Committee Chairs: Appropriation Cmte. Chairs $7,000.
Leaders: asst. maj. and min. ldr., (and 2nd and 3rd assistant), Pres. Pro Tem., each $15,000. Committee Chairs: $7,500–$15,000/yr.
None
Other leaders and committee chairs
STATE LEGISLATURES
None $200/d for interim business
$57,027
None
$3,000
Presiding officer is Lt. Governor who is paid an annual salary $60,500.
None
Lt. gov. holds this position
$150/day during session.
None
Texas �����������������������������
Utah ������������������������������
Vermont �����������������������
Virginia ������������������������
Washington ������������������
West Virginia ���������������
Wisconsin ���������������������
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010.
Wyoming ���������������������� $3/day
None
None
South Dakota ��������������
Tennessee ��������������������
$200/d for interim business
None
$2,000
None
None
None
None
None
Minority leader
4 salary days per month during interim
None
$50/day during session.
4 salary days per month during interim
None
$50/day during session.
$8,000 addition to base salary $4,000 addition to base salary
$2,000
None
None
None
Lt. gov. holds this position
None
Majority leader
South Carolina ������������
Presiding officer
Senate President receives double the annual rate for Senators
State
Rhode Island ���������������
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SENATE LEADERS—Continued
None
None
Up to 4 add’l people named by presiding officer receive $150 for a maximum of 30 days. $150/day (max. 30 days) for Finance and Judiciary chair.
None
President pro tem $200/d for interim business
None
Leaders: Maj. whip, asst. maj. whip, min. whip and asst. min. whip, $2,000. Committee Chairs: $2,000 for Executive Appropriations Chair (Co-chair)
None
None
None
Leaders: President pro tem, $11,000. Committee Chairs: $600/ interim expense allowance for committee chairs of the Senate.
None
Other leaders and committee chairs
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 125
126â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
$133,639
--------------- All leaders receive $99/day salary during interim when in attendance at committee or leadership matters.--------------
$10,689
$19,893
$11,484
$6,812/mo.
$7,500
$4,000
$27,477
$6,500
$11,593
$13,696.80/yr.
$46.51/day
$32,000 (a)
150% of base salary
$13,000/year
California.......................
Colorado........................
Connecticut...................
Delaware.......................
Florida............................
Georgia..........................
Hawaii............................
Idaho..............................
Illinois............................
Indiana...........................
Iowa................................
Kansas............................
Kentucky.......................
Louisiana.......................
Maine.............................
Maryland.......................
See footnotes at end of table.
None
None
125% of base salary
None
$36.73/day
$12,356.76/yr.
$11,593
$5,000
$23,300
None
None
$200/mo.
None
$12,376
$8,835
$124,923
None
None
112.5% of base salary
None
$36.73/day
$12,356.76/yr.
$11,593
$5,500
$27,477
None
None
$200/mo.
None
$12,376
$8,835
$133,639
None
None
None
Arkansas........................
None
None
None
Minority leader
$500
None
Arizona..........................
Majority leader
Alaska............................
Presiding officer
$2/day plus $1,500/mo. expense allowance None
State
Alabama........................
Table 3.12 ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR HOUSE/ASSEMBLY LEADERS Other leaders and committee chairs
None
None
Leaders: Speaker pro tem, $24,500 (a). Committee Chairs: $28,000/year for chairman and vice chairman of Joint Budget Cmte.
Leaders: maj. and min. caucus chairs & whips, $28.15/day. Committee Chairs: $18.71/day for standing committees only.
Leaders: asst. maj. and min. ldrs., spkr. pro tem, $6,990.62/yr. Committee Chairs: $11,014.64/year for House Appropriations Cmte.
Speaker pro tem, $1,243
Leaders: Speaker pro tem, $5,000; maj. caucus chair, $5,000; min. caucus chair, $4,500; asst. min. flr. leader, $3,500; asst. maj. flr. ldr., $1,000; maj. whip, $3,500; min. whip, $1,500. Committee Chairs: $1,000.
Leaders: dpty. maj. and min., $19,791; asst. maj. and asst. min. ,maj. and min. conference chr. $18,066. Committee Chairs and Minority Spokespersons: $10,327.
None
None
Governorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s flr. ldr., $200/mo; asst. flr. ldr., $100/mo.; spkr. pro tem, $400/mo.
None
Leaders: maj. and min. whips, $7,794. Committee Chairs: $11,459 for Joint Finance Committee Chair; $4,578 Capital Improvement Chair and Vice Chair; $4,578 Sunset Committee Chair.
Leaders: Dep. spkr., dep. maj. and min. ldrs., $6,446/yr; asst. maj. and min. ldrs.; maj. and min whips, $4,241/yr. Cmte Chairs: $4,241.
2nd ranking min. ldrs. receive $124,923/yr.
$3,600/yr. for cmte. chairs; $1,800/yr. sub cmte. chairs.
None
None
$150/mo. for House Ways and Means and Senate Finance and Taxation chairs
STATE LEGISLATURES
See footnotes at end of table.
None
$35,153/year
None
Speaker of the House receives double annual rate for Representatives.
$17,048 (a) and $7,992 expense allowance
Rhode Island.................
$38,151 (a) and $16,956 expense allowance
North Carolina.............
$34,500
$43,939/year
$41,500
New York.......................
None
Pennsylvania.................
None
New Mexico..................
None
None
Speaker receives additional $21,612/year in salary
1/3 above annual base salary
New Jersey....................
Oregon...........................
$50/two-year term
New Hampshire............
$900
$12,364
$900
Nevada...........................
None
$17,932
None
Nebraska.......................
None
Oklahoma......................
$5/day during session
Montana........................
$125/mo.
Speaker pro tem $86,165; maj flr. leader $81,163; asst. maj. flr. leader $76,169; maj. whip $71,173; asst. maj. whip $66,175
$208.34/mo.
Missouri.........................
None
40% of base salary
Ohio............................... $94,437 (a)
$60,000 (a)
Mississippi.....................
$10/day during legislative session, $270/m during term of office.
40% of base salary
Minnesota......................
No position
$22,500
Majority leader
North Dakota............... $10/day during legislative session.
$27,000
Michigan........................
Presiding officer
$35,000
State
Massachusetts...............
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR HOUSE/ASSEMBLY LEADERS—Continued
None
$35,153/year
None
$12,364
Minority leader $86,165; asst. min. ldr. $78,668; min. whip $71,173; asst. min. whip $63,381
$10/day during legislative session, $270/m during term of office.
$17,048 (a) and $7,992 expense allowance
$34,500
None
None
None
$900
None
None
$125/mo.
None
40% of base salary
$22,000
$22,500
Minority leader
None
Maj. and min. whips, $25,945; maj. and min. caucus chairs, $16,177; maj. and min. caucus secretaries, $10,683; maj. and min. policy chairs, $10,683; maj. and min. caucus admin., $10,683.
None
Leaders: Speaker pro tem, $12,364. Committee Chairs: $12,364 for Appropriations and Budget Committee Chairs.
$6,500 for all committee chairs except Finance Chair, who receives $10,000. Vice chairs receive $5,000 with the Vice Chair of Finance receiving $5,500.
Leaders: Asst. ldrs., $5/day during legislative sessions. Committee Chairs: $5/day for all substantive standing committees
Speaker pro tem, $21,739 and $10,032 expense allowance.
Leaders: 31 leaders with compensation ranging from $9,000 to $25,000. Committee Chairs: $9,000 to $34,000 set by statute.
None
None
None
Leaders: Speaker pro tem, $900. Committee Chairs: $900/ flat amount for all standing committee chairs.
None
None
None
Spkr. pro tem., $15,000
$35,292 for Committee on Finance.
Leaders: Spkr. pro tem, $5,513; min. flr. ldr., $10,000; maj. flr. ldr., $12,000. Committee Chairs: $7,000 for Appropriation Committee chairs.
Leaders: asst. maj. and min. ldr. (and 2nd and 3rd asst.), and spkr. pro tem, $15,000 each. Committee Chairs: $7,500–$15,000/year.
Other leaders and committee chairs
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 127
128 The Book of the States 2010
None
$3,000
$704/week during session plus an additional $10,984 in salary.
$8,000 addition to base salary
$49,280, $8,000 additional to None base salary (a)
The Speaker may receive. $150.00/day when not in session or interim committees not meeting for attending to legislative business
$25/month
$3/day
Texas..............................
Utah...............................
Vermont.........................
Virginia..........................
Washington...................
West Virginia.................
Wisconsin.......................
Wyoming.......................
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010. (a) Total annual salary for this position.
$57,027
Majority leader
None
$50/day during session
$45,280, $4,000 additional to base salary (a)
$4,000 addition to base salary
None
$2,000
None
None
None
None
Minority leader
$4 salary days per month during interim $4 salary days per month during interim
None
$50/day during session
$4,000 addition to base salary
None
$2,000
None
None
None
None
Tennessee......................
None
South Dakota................
Presiding officer
$11,000/yr
State
South Carolina..............
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR HOUSE/ASSEMBLY LEADERS—Continued
$4 salary days per month during interim
None
Leaders: The Chairman of Finance & Judiciary may receive $150.00/day up to 30 days when the Legislature is not in session or meeting for interims. Up to six add’l people named by presiding officer receive $150 for a maximum of 30 days when the Legislature is not in session or meeting for interims. Chairs: $150/day (max. 30 days) for Finance and Judiciary chairs.
None
None
None
Leaders: whips and asst. whips, $2,000. Committee Chairs: $2,000 for Executive Appropriations Chair (Co-chair).
None
None
None
Leaders: Speaker pro tem, $3,600/yr. Committee Chairs: $600/interim expense allowance for committee chairs of the House
Other leaders and committee chairs
STATE LEGISLATURES
Mandatory—except that officials subject to term limits may opt out for a term of office.
Optional. Those elected before 7/1/99 may have service covered as a regular state employee but must have 5 years of regular service to do so.
Legislators elected after 1990 are not eligible for retirement benefits for legislative service.
Mandatory
Arizona..........................
Arkansas........................
California......................
Colorado........................
See footnotes at end of table.
Mandatory
Optional
Alaska............................
Connecticut...................
None available.
State Employees Retirement System Tier IIA
Either Public Employees’ Retirement Association or State Defined Contribution Plan. A choice is not irrevocable.
Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
Elected Officials Retirement System
Public Employees Retirement System
State or other jurisdiction Participation Plan name
Alabama........................
Table 3.13 STATE LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Age 60, 25 yrs. credited service; age 62, 10–25 yrs. credited service; age 62, 5 yrs. actual state service. Reduced benefit available with earlier retirement ages.
PERA: age 65, 5 yrs. service; age 50, 30 yrs. service; when age + service equals 80 or more (min. age of 55). DCP: no age requirement & vested immediately
Age 65, 10 yrs. service; or age 55, 12 yrs. service; or any age, 28 yrs. service; any age if serving in the General Assembly on 7/1/79; any age if in elected office on 7/1/79 with 17 and 1/2 yrs. of service. As a regular employee, age 65, 5 yrs. service, or any age and 28 yrs. Members of the contributory plan established in 2005 must have a minimum of 10 yrs. legislative service if they have only legislative state employment.
Age 65, 5+ yrs. service; age 62, 10+ yrs. service; or 20 yrs. service; earlier retirement with an actuarial reduction of benefits. Vesting at 5 yrs.
Age 60 with 10 yrs.
Requirements for regular retirement
2%
Employee: 8%
Non-contributory plan in effect for those elected before 2006. For those elected then and thereafter, a contributory plan that requires 5% of salary.
Employee 7%
Employee 6.75%
Employee contribution rate
(.0133 x avg. annual salary) + (.005 x avg. annual salary in excess of “breakpoint” x credited service up to 35 years. 2003—$36,400 2007—$46,000 2004—$38,600 2008—$48,800 2005—$40,900 2009—$51,700 2006—$43,400 After 2009—increase breakpoint by 6% per year rounded to nearest $100.
PERA: 2.5% x FAS x yrs. of service, capped at 100% of FAS. DCP benefit depends upon contributions and investment returns.
For service that began after 7/1/99: 2.07% x FAS x years of service. FAS based on three highest consecutive years of service. For service that began after July 1, 1991, $35 x years of service equals monthly benefit. For contributory plan, 2% x FAS x years of service.
4% x years of credited service x highest 3 yr. average in the past 10 yrs. The benefit is capped at 80% of FAS. An elected official may purchase service credit in the plan for service earned in a non-elected position by buying it at an actuarially-determined amount.
2% (first 10 yrs.); or 2.25% (second 10 yrs.); or 2.5% over 20 yrs. x average salary over 5 highest consecutive yrs. x yrs. of service
Benefit formula
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 129
130 The Book of the States 2010
Optional. Elected officials may opt out and may choose between DB and DC plans.
Optional: Choice when first elected.
Mandatory
Mandatory
Optional
DB plan is optional for those serving on April 30, 1989. Defined contribution plan is optional for those serving on April 30, 1989 and mandatory for those elected or appointed since April 30, 1989.
Optional
Optional
Florida...........................
Georgia..........................
Hawaii...........................
Idaho..............................
Illinois............................
Indiana...........................
Iowa...............................
Kansas...........................
See footnotes at end of table.
Mandatory
Public Employees Retirement System
Public Employees Retirement System
Legislator’s Retirement System and Defined Benefit (DB) Plan and Defined Contribution Plan (DC).
General Assembly Retirement System
Public Employees Retirement System; elected officials’ plan
Georgia Legislative Retirement System
Florida Retirement System
State Employees Pension Plan
State or other jurisdiction Participation Plan name
Delaware.......................
STATE LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS—Continued
Age 65, age 62 with 10 yrs. of service or age plus yrs. of service equals 85 pts.
Age 65; age 62 with 20 yrs. service Rule of 88; reduced benefit at 55 with at least 4 years of service.
DB plan: Vesting at 10 yrs. Age 65 with 10 yrs. of legislative service; or if no longer in the legislature, these options apply: at least 10 yrs. service; no state salary; at age 55+ Rule of 85 applies; or age 60 with 15 yrs. of service. Early retirement with reduced benefit. Immediate vesting in the DC plan,
Age 55, 8 yrs. service; or age 62, 4 yrs. service
Age 65 with 5 yrs. service; reduced benefit at age 55 with 5 yrs. of service.
Age 55 with 5 years of service, any age with 10 years service. Vesting at 5 years.
Vested after 8 yrs.; age 62, with 8 yrs. of service; age 60 with reduction for early retirement.
Vesting in DB plan, 6 years: in DC plan, 1 year. DB plan: Age 62 with 6 years; 30 years at any age. DC plan: any age
Age 60, 5 yrs. credited service
Requirements for regular retirement
4 % o f s a l a r y, ( 4 % annualized salary for Legislators).
3.7% individual
DC plan: 5% employee, 20% state (of taxable income). DB plan and employer contributions funded by appropriation.
8.5% for retirement; 2% for survivors; 1% for automatic increases; 11.5% total
6.97%
Main plan is non-contributory; 7.8% for elected officials’ plan for annuity.
Employee rate 3.75% + $7 month
No employee contribution. Employer contribution for 2004–2005 for legislators is 12.49% of salary.
3% of total monthly compensation in excess of $6,000
Employee contribution rate Benefit formula
3 highest yrs. x 1.75% x yrs. service divided by 12.
2% times FAS x years of service for first 30 years, + 1% times FAS times years in excess of 30 but no more than 5 in excess of 30. FAS is average of 3 highest years.
DB benefit plan monthly benefit: Lesser of (a) $40 x years of General Assembly service completed before November 8, 1989 or (b) 1/12 of the average of the three highest consecutive years of General Assembly service salary. DC plan: numerous options for withdrawing accumulations in accord with IRS regulations. Loans are available. A participant in both plans may receive a benefit from both plans.
3% of each of 1st 4 yrs.; 3.5% for each of next 2 yrs.; 4% for each of next 2 yrs.; 4.5% for each of the next 4 yrs.; 5% for each yr. above 12
Avg. monthly salary for highest 42 consecutive months x 2% x months of credited service.
3.5 x yrs. of service as elected official x highest average salary plus annuity based on contributions as an elected official. Highest average salary = average of 3 highest 12-month periods as elected official.
$36 month for each year of service.
DB plan: 3% x years of creditable service x average final compensation (average of highest 5 yrs). DC plan: Dependent upon investment experience.
2% times FAS times years of service before 1997 + 1.85% times FAS times years of service from 1997 on. FAS = average of highest 3 years.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Optional after each election or re-election to the General Court.
Optional
Massachusetts...............
Michigan........................
See footnotes at end of table.
Mandatory
Optional
Maryland.......................
Mississippi.....................
Mandatory
Maine.............................
Mandatory
None available
Louisiana.......................
Minnesota......................
Optional. Those who opt out are covered by the state employees’ plan
Legislators’ plan within the Public Employees’ Retirement System
Legislators Retirement Plan before 7/1/97; Defined Contribution Plan (DCP) since then.
Legislative Retirement System (DB) for legislators elected before 3/31/97. Others may join the state defined contribution plan.
State Retirement System legislator’s plan
State Legislator’s Pension Plan
Maine State Retirement Plan
Kentucky Legislator’s Retirement Plan
State or other jurisdiction Participation Plan name
Kentucky.......................
STATE LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS—Continued
Age 60 with 4 or more years of service, or 25 years of service.
LRP: Age 62, 6 yrs. service and fully vested. DCP: age 55 and vested immediately. LRP members do not have Social Security coverage. DCP members have Social Security coverage.
Age 55, 5 yrs. or age plus service equals 70
Age 55 with 6 years service; unreduced benefit at 65. Vesting at 6 years. Reduced benefits for retirement before age 65.
Age 60, with 8 yrs.; age 50, 8+yrs creditable service (early reduced retirement)
Age 60 (if 10 yrs. of service on 7/1/93) and age 62 (if less than 10 yrs. of service on 7/1/93). Reduced benefit available for earlier retirement.
Age 65 with five years of service; any age with 30 years of service, and intermediate provisions. Early retirement with reduced benefits.
Requirements for regular retirement
Regular: 7.25% state 9.75% to 10.75% effective July 1, 2005; Supplement for legislative service: 3%/6.33%
LRP: 9%; DCP: 4% from member, 6% from state.
7%–13% for DB plan. For the DC plan, the state contributes 4% of salary. Members may contribute up to 3% of salary. The state will match the member’s contribution in addition to the state 4% contribution.
9%. Some legislators are grandfathered at lower rates.
5% of annual salary
7.65% legislators; employer contribution is actuarially determined.
5% of creditable compensation, set by law at $27,500: not the same as actual salary. Revised to be payable on compensation reported on W-2 forms beginning in 2005.
Employee contribution rate Benefit formula
Legislators who qualify for regular state retirement benefits also automatically qualify for the legislators’ supplemental benefits. Regular: 2% times FAS times years of service up to and including 25 years of service + 2.5% times FAS times service in excess of 25 years FAS is based on the high 4 years. Supplement: 1% times FAS times years of legislative service through 25 years, + 1.25% times FAS times years of service in excess of 25.
2.7% x high 5 yr. avg. salary x length of service (yrs.) DCP benefit depends upon contributions and investment return.
For DB plans, various provisions, depending on when service started. For the DC plan, benefits depend upon contributions and earnings.
2.5 times years of service times FAS. FAS = average of highest 36 months. Service credit is allowed for membership in other Massachusetts retirement plans.
3% of legislative salary for each yr of service up to a max. of 22 yrs. 3 months. Benefits are recalculated when legislative salaries are changed.
2% of average final compensation (the average of the 3 high salary years) times years of service.
2.75% of FAS (based on creditable compensation) x years of service. FAS is the average monthly earnings for the 60 months preceding retirement.
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 131
132 The Book of the States 2010
Optional
None available
Mandatory; but Chapter 380, Laws of 2005, allows legislators to withdraw from the system at will. The decision is final.
None available
Mandatory
Optional
Mandatory
Mandatory
None available.
Optional
Montana........................
Nebraska.......................
Nevada...........................
New Hampshire............
New Jersey....................
New Mexico..................
New York.......................
North Carolina..............
North Dakota................
Ohio...............................
See footnotes at end of table.
Mandatory
Public Employees Retirement System
Legislative Retirement System
New York State and Local Retirement System
Legislative Retirement Plan
Public Employees’ Retirement System
Legislator’s Retirement System
Public Employees Retirement System. Either a DB or a DC plan is available.
Missouri State Employee Retirement System
State or other jurisdiction Participation Plan name
Missouri.........................
STATE LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS—Continued
Age 60 with 5 years service or 55 with 25 years service or at any age with 30 years service
Age 65 with 5 years of service; reduced benefit available at earlier ages.
Age 62 with 5 years of service; 55 with 30 years; reduced benefit available at 55/5. Vesting at 5 years.
Plans 1A and 1B: Age 65 with 5 years of service; 64/8; 63/11; 60/12; or any age with 14 years of service. Plan 2: 65 with five years of service or at any age with 10 years of service.
Age 60; no minimum service requirement. Early retirement with no benefit reduction with 25 years of service. Vesting at 8 years.
Age 60, 10 yrs. service
Vesting at 5 years. Age 60 with at least 5 years service; age 65 regardless of years of service; or 30 years of service regardless of age
Age 55; three full biennial assemblies (6 years) or Rule of 80. Vesting at 6 years of service.
Requirements for regular retirement
8.5% of gross salary. A 10% contribution rate for legislators will be phased in over three years starting in 2006.
7%
3% for first 10 years of m e m b e r s h i p ( Ti e r 4 provisions).
Plan 1A: $100 per year for service after 1959. Plan 1B: $200 per year (now closed to new enrollments). Plan 2: $500/year
5% of salary
15% of session salary
6.9% for DB plan. Employer contribution of 4.19% plus employee contribution of 6.9 % for DC plan.
Non-contributory
Employee contribution rate Benefit formula
2.2% of final average salary times years of service up to and through 30 years of service. 2.5% starting with the 31st year of service and every year thereafter.
Highest annual compensation x 4.02% x years of service.
Tier 4: For less than 20 yrs. of service, pension =1/60th for (1.66%) of final average salary (FAS) x years of service: for 20-years service, pension =1/50th (2%) of FAS x years of service; each year of service beyond 39, pension = 3/200th (1.5%) of FAS.
Plan 1A: $250 per year of service. Plan 1B: $500 per year of service after 1959. Plan 2: 11 percent of the IRS per diem rate in effect on December 31st of the year a legislator retires x 60 x the years of credited service. For a legislator who retired in 2003 the benefit would be $957 per year of credited service. Annual 3% COLA.
3% x Final Average Salary x years of service. FAS = higher of three highest years or three final years. Benefit is capped at 2/3 of FAS. Other formulas apply if a legislator also has other service covered by the Public Employee Retirement System.
Number of years x $25 = monthly allowance
DB plan: 1/56 times years of service times FAS. Early retirement with reduced benefits is available. DC plan: Employee contributions and earnings are immediately vested. Employer contributions and earnings are vested after 5 years.
Monthly pay divided by 24 x years of creditable service, capped at 100% of salary. Benefit is adjusted by the percentage increase in pay for an active legislator.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Optional
Optional
Tennessee......................
Texas..............................
The Council of State Governments 133
See footnotes at end of table.
Mandatory
None available.
South Dakota................
Virginia..........................
Mandatory, but members may opt out six months after being sworn into office.
South Carolina..............
None available. Deferred compensation plan available.
Legislators elected after January 1995 are ineligible for retirement benefits based on legislative service. (a)
Rhode Island.................
Vermont.........................
Optional
Pennsylvania.................
Mandatory
Optional
Oregon...........................
Utah...............................
Legislators may retain membership as regular public employees if they have that status when elected; one time option to join Elected Officials’ Plan.
Governors’ and Legislators’ Retirement Plan
Employee Retirement System: Elected Class Members
South Carolina Retirement System
State Employees’ Retirement System
Public Employee Retirement System legislator plan
Public Employee Retirement System, as regular member or elected official member. [Information here is for the Elected Officials’ Plan.]
State or other jurisdiction Participation Plan name
Oklahoma......................
STATE LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS—Continued
Age 50, 30 yrs. service (unreduced); age 55, 5 yrs. service; age 50, 10 yrs. service (reduced)
Age 62 with 10 years and an actuarial reduction; age 65 with 4 years of service for full benefits.
Age 60, 8 yrs. service; age 50, 12 yrs. service. Vesting at 8 years.
Age 55, 4 yrs. service
Age 60, 8 yrs. service; 30 yrs. of service regardless of age
Age 50, 3 yrs. service; any age with 35 years of service; early retirement with reduced benefit.
Age 55, 30+ yrs. service, 5 years vesting.
Elected Officials’ Plan: Age 60 with 6 years service vesting at 6 years.
Requirements for regular retirement
8.91% of creditable compensation
Non-contributory
8%
5.43%
10%
7.5%
16.317% of subject wages
Optional contribution of 4.5%, 6%, 7.5%, 8.5%, 9%, or 10% of total compensation.
Employee contribution rate Benefit formula
1.7% of average final compensation x yrs. of service
$24.80/month (as of July 2004) x years of service; adjusted semiannually according to consumer price index up to a maximum increase of 2%.
2.3% x district judge’s salary x length of service, with the monthly benefit capped at a the level of a district judge’s salary, and adjusted when such salaries are increased. Various annuity options are available. Military service credit may be purchased to add to elective class service membership. In July 2005, a district judge’s salary was set at $125,000, a year.
$70 per month x yrs. service with a $1,375 monthly cap
4.82% of annual compensation x yrs. service
3% x final avg. salary x credited yrs. of service (x withdrawal factor if under regular retirement age—50 for legislators).
1.67% x yrs. service and final avg. monthly salary
Avg. participating salary x length of service x computation factor depending on optional contributions ranging from 1.9% for a 4.5% contribution to 4% for a 10% contribution.
STATE LEGISLATURES
134 The Book of the States 2010
Optional
Mandatory
None available
Mandatory
Optional
Optional
Optional
West Virginia.................
Wisconsin......................
Wyoming.......................
Dist. of Columbia.........
Puerto Rico...................
Guam.............................
U.S. Virgin Islands........
Retirement System of the Employees of the Government of Puerto Rico
See column to left. PERS plan 2 is a DB plan. PERS plan 3 is a hybrid DB/ DC plan.
Age 60, 10 yrs. service
8%
5% or 8.5%
8.28%
Before 10/1/87, 7%; after 10/1/87, 5%
2.6% of salary in 2003, adjusted annually
4.5% gross income
PERS plan 2: Employee contribution of 2.43% for 2002. Estimated at 3.33% for 2005–2007. Plan 3: No required member contribution for the DB component. The member may contribute from 5% to 15% of salary to the DC component.
Employee contribution rate Benefit formula
At age 60 with at least 10 yrs. of service, at 2.5% for each yr. of service or at any time with at least 30 yrs. service
An amount equal to 2% of avg. annual salary for each of the first 10 yrs. of credited service and 2.5% of avg. annual salary for each yr. or part thereof of credited service over 10 yrs.
1.5% of average earnings multiplied by the number of years of accredited service.
Multiply high 3 yrs. average pay by indicator under applicable yrs. or months of service.
Higher benefit of formula (2.165% x years of service x salary for service before 2000; 2% x years of service x salary for service 2000 and after) or money-purchase calculation.
2% of final avg. salary x yrs. service. Final avg. salary is based on 3 highest yrs. out of last 10 yrs.
PERS plan 2: 2% x years of service credit x average final compensation. Plan 3: DB is 1% x service credit years x average final compensation. DC benefit depends upon the value of accumulations.
Key: N.A. — Information not available None available. — No retirement benefit provided. (a) Constitution has been amended effective 1/95. Any legislator elected after this date is not eligible to join the State Retirement System, but will be compensated for $10,000/yr. with cost of living increases to be adjusted annually.
Age 60, 30 yrs. service; age 55, 15 yrs. service
After 1990, age 65 with 30 years of service.
Age 62, 5 yrs. service; age 55, 30 yrs. service; age 60, 20 yrs. service
Age 62 normal; age 57 with 30 years of service.
Age 55, if yrs. of service + age equal 80
PERS plan 2: Age 65 with 5 years of service credit. Plan 3: Age 65 with 10 years of service credit for the DB side of the plan; immediate benefits (subject to federal restrictions) on the DC side of the plan. The member may choose various options for investment of contributions to the DC plan.
Requirements for regular retirement
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, January 2006 and updated January 2009. Notes: This table shows the retirement plans effective for state legislators elected in 2003, 2004 and thereafter. In general the table does not include information on closed plans, plans that continue in force for some legislators who entered the plans in previous years, but which have been closed to additional members. The information in this table was updated for all states and Puerto Rico in 2004 and updated for 2005 state legislation. Information for the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands dates from 2002.
Optional. If before an election the legislator belonged to a state public retirement plan, he or she may continue in that by making contributions. Otherwise the new legislator may join PERS Plan 2 or Plan 3.
State or other jurisdiction Participation Plan name
Washington...................
STATE LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.14 BILL PRE-FILING, REFERENCE AND CARRYOVER
State or other jurisdiction
Bill referral restricted by rule (a) Bills referred to committee by: Pre-filing of Bill carryover bills allowed (b) Senate House/Assembly Senate House/Assembly allowed (c)
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
H (d) H H H H (h)
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
(e) (f) President President President (g) Rules Cmte.
Speaker (f) Speaker Speaker Speaker Rules Cmte.
L, M L, M L L L
L, M L, M L L L
... H ... ... H (h)
H H H H H
President Pres. Pro Tempore Pres. Pro Tempore President President (f)
Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker
L, M (i) M L L, M . . .
L (i) M L M . . .
... ... H ... H
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
(j) . . . H H (l) H
(j) President (e) Rules Cmte. Pres. Pro Tempore President
Speaker Speaker Rules Cmte. Speaker Speaker
. . . L (k) (m) M
. . . L (k) . . . M
H ... H ... H
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland.........................
H H H H H
President Cmte. on Cmtes. President (o) Secy. of Senate President (q)
Speaker Cmte. on Cmtes. Speaker (o) Clerk of House Speaker (q)
L (n) L, M L (p) L
L (n) L, M L (p) L
H ... ... H ...
Massachusetts................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi....................... Missouri...........................
H . . . H (r) H H
Clerk Majority Ldr. President President (e) Pres. Pro Tempore
Clerk Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker
M . . . L, M L L
M . . . L, M L L
H H H (r) ... ...
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
H H H H H
President Reference Cmte. (s) President (u) President President
Speaker U Speaker (u) Speaker Speaker
. . . L L (v) L L, M
. . . U . . . M L, M
... H (t) ... H H
New Mexico.................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
H H . . . H H (y)
(w) Pres. Pro Tempore Rules Chair President Reference Cmte.
Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker Rules & Reference Cmte.
L, M M M L L (z)
M (x) M M L L, M (aa)
... H H ... H (bb)
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
H H H H H
Majority Leader President President Pro Tempore President President
Speaker Speaker Chief Clerk Speaker Speaker
L (dd) M M M
L (ee) M M M
H (cc) ... H H H (ff)
South Dakota.................. Tennessee........................ Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
H H H H (hh)
President Pro Tempore Speaker President President President
Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker
L L, M L L M
L L, M L L M
... H (gg) ... ... H
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia (nn).......... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
H H H . . . H
Clerk (mm) President President President
Clerk (ii) Speaker Speaker Speaker Speaker
L, M (jj) L L, M . . . M
(kk) L L, M . . . M
H (ll) H ... H (oo) ...
. . . Cmte. on Calendar Chairs President Senate President in Pro-Forma meeting
. . . U Secretary U
. . . L, M (pp) M L
. . . U M U
... H ... H
American Samoa............ . . . Guam............................... H Puerto Rico..................... . . . U.S. Virgin Islands.......... . . . See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 135
STATE LEGISLATURES
BILL PRE-FILING, REFERENCE AND CARRYOVER—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009 with March 2010 update. Key: H — Yes . . . — No L — Rules generally require all bills be referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction. M — Rules require specific types of bills be referred to specific committees (e.g., appropriations, local bills). U — Unicameral legislature. (a) Legislative rules specify all or certain bills go to committees of jurisdiction. (b) Unless otherwise indicated by footnote, bills may be introduced prior to convening each session of the legislature. In this column only: H —pre- filing is allowed in both chambers (or in the case of Nebraska, in the unicameral legislature); . . . — pre-filing is not allowed in either chamber. (c) Bills carry over from the first year of the legislature to the second (does not apply in Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas, where legislatures meet biennially). Bills generally do not carry over after an intervening legislative election. (d) Except between the end of the last regular session of the legislature in any quadrennium and the organizational session following the general election and special sessions. (e) Lieutenant governor is the president of the Senate. (f) Senate bills by president with concurrence of president pro tem. House bills by president pro tem with concurrence of president, if no concurrence, referred to Majority Leader for assignment. (g) Senate Chief Counsel makes recommendations to the Presiding officer. (h) Bills drafted prior to session. Introduction on the first day. Bills introduced in the first year of the regular session and passed by the house of origin on or before the January 31st constitutional deadline are carryover bills. (i) In either house, state law requires any bill which affects the sentencing of criminal offenders and which would result in a net increase of imprisonment in state correctional facilities must be assigned to the appropriations committee of the house in which it was introduced. In the Senate, a bill must be referred to the Appropriations Committee if it contains an appropriation from the state treasury or the increase of any salary. Each bill which provides that any state revenue be devoted to any purpose other than that to which it is devoted under existing law must be referred to the Finance Committee. (j) Prefiling allowed only in the House, seven calendar days before the commencement of the regular session, in even-numbered years. Senate bills are referred to committee by the members of the majority leadership appointed by the President. (k) In even-numbered years, the Rules Committee is to refer to substantive committees only appropriation bills implementing the budget, and bills deemed by the Rules Committee to be of an emergency nature or of substantial importance to the operation of government. (l) Only in the Senate (m) At the discretion of President Pro Tempore. (n) Appropriation bills are the only “specific type” mentioned in the rules to be referred to either House Appropriation Cmte. or Senate Ways and Means. (o) Subject to approval or disapproval. Louisiana–majority members present. (p) Maine Joint Rule 308 sections 1,2,3, “All bills and resolves must be referred to committee, except that this provision may be suspended by a majority vote in each chamber.” (q) The President and Speaker may refer bills to any of the standing committees or the Rules Committees, but usually bills are referred according to subject matter. (r) Pre-filing of bills allowed prior to the convening of the 2nd year of the biennium. Bill carryover allowed if in second year of a two-year session. (s) The Nebraska Legislature’s Executive Board serves as the Refer-
136 The Book of the States 2010
ence Committee. (t) Bills are carried over from the 90-day session beginning in the oddnumbered year to the 60-day session, which begins in even-numbered year. Bills that have not passed by the last day of the 60-day session are all indefinitely postponed by motion on the last day of the session. The odd-numbered year shall be carried forward to the even-numbered year. (u) In the Senate any member may make a motion for referral, but committee referrals are under the control of the Majority Floor Leader. In the House any member may make a motion for referral, and a chart is used to guide bill referrals based on statutory authority of committee, but committee referrals are under the control of the Majority Floor Leader. (v) Rules do not require specific types of bills be referred to specific committees. (w) Sponsor and members. (x) Speaker has discretion. (y) Senate Rule 33: Between the general election and the time for the next convening session, a holdover member or member-elect may file bills for introduction in the next session with the Clerk’s office. Those bills shall be treated as if they were bills introduced on the first day of the session. House Rule 61: Bills introduced prior to the convening of the session shall be treated as if they were bills introduced on the first day of the session. Between the general election and the time for the next convening session, a member-elect may file bills for introduction in the next session with the Clerk’s office. The Clerk shall number such bills consecutively, in the order in which they are filed, beginning with the number “1.” (z) Senate Rule 35: Unless a motion or order to the contrary, bills are referred to the proper standing committee. All Senate bills and resolutions referred by the Committee on Reference on or before the first day of April in an even-numbered year shall be scheduled for a minimum of one public hearing. (aa) House Rule 37: All House bills and resolutions introduced, in compliance with House Rules, on or before the fifteenth day of May in an even-numbered year shall be referred to a standing select, or special committee, and shall be scheduled for a minimum of one public hearing. House Rule 65: All bills carrying an appropriation shall be referred to the Finance and Appropriations Committee for consideration and report before being considered the third time. (bb) Bills carry over between the first and second year of each regular annual session, but not to the next biennial 2-year General Assembly. (cc) A legislature consists of two years. Bills from the first session can carry over to the second session only. 2007 will begin a new Legislature, the 51st, and no bills will carry over to 2007. (dd) The President can refer bills to any standing or special committee and may also attach subsequent referrals to other committees following action by the first committee. (ee) Rules specify bills shall be referred by the Speaker to any standing or special committee and may also attach subsequent referrals to other committees following action by the first committee. (ff) Allowed during the first year of the two year session. (gg) Bills and resolutions introduced in the First Regular Session may carry over to the Second Regular Session (odd-numbered year to evennumbered year) only. (hh) Bills are drafted prior to session but released starting first day of session. (ii) Under the direction of the speaker. (jj) Jurisdiction of the committees by subject matter is listed in the Rules. (kk) The House Rules establish jurisdictional committees. The Speaker refers legislation to those committees as he deems appropriate. (ll) Even-numbered year session to odd-numbered year session. (mm) By the floor leader. (nn) Prefiling allowed only in the house in even-numbered years. (oo) From odd-year to even-year, but not between biennial sessions. (pp) Substantive resolutions referred to sponsor for public hearing.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.15 TIME LIMITS ON BILL INTRODUCTION
State or other jurisdiction
Time limit on introduction of bills
Procedures for granting exception to time limits
Alabama..........................
House: no limit. Senate: 24th legislative day of regular session (a).
Unanimous vote to suspend rules
Alaska..............................
35th C day of 2nd regular session.
Introduction by committee or by suspension of operation of limiting rule.
Arizona............................
House: 29th day of regular session; 10th day of special session. Senate: 22nd day of regular session; 10th day of special session.
House: Permission of rules committee. Senate: Permission of rules committee.
Arkansas..........................
55th day of regular session (50th day for appropriations bills). Retirement and health care legislation affecting licensures shall be introduced during the first 15 days
2/3 vote of membership of each house.
California.........................
Deadlines established by the Joint Rules Committee.
House: Rules Committee grants exception with 3/4 vote of House. Senate: Approval of Rules Committee and 3/4 vote of membership.
Colorado..........................
House: 22nd C day of regular session. Senate: 17th C day of regular session.
Committees on delayed bills may extend deadline.
Connecticut.....................
10 days into session in odd-numbered years, 3 days into session in even-numbered years (b).
2/3 vote of members present.
Delaware..........................
House: no limit. Senate: no limit.
Florida..............................
House: noon of the first day of regular session. Senate: noon first day of regular session (c)(d).
Georgia............................
Only for specific types of bills
Hawaii..............................
Actual dates established during session.
Majority vote of membership.
Idaho................................
House: 20th day of session for personal bills; 36th day of session for all committees; beyond that only privileged cmtes. Senate: 12th day of session for personal bills; 36th day of session for all committees; beyond that only privileged cmtes.
House and Senate: speaker/president pro tempore may designate any standing committee to serve as a privileged committee temporarily.
Illinois..............................
House: determined by speaker. Senate: determined by senate president.
House: the speaker may set deadlines for any action on any category of legislative measure, including deadlines for introduction of bills. Senate: At any time, the president may set alternative deadlines for any legislative action with written notice filed with the secretary.
Indiana.............................
House: Mid-January. Senate: Date specificâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;set in Rules, different for long and short session. Mid-January
House: 2/3 vote. Senate: If date falls on weekend/Holiday - extended to next day. Sine die deadline set by statute, does not change.
Iowa..................................
House: Friday of 6th week of 1st regular session; Friday of 2nd week of 2nd regular session. Senate: Friday of 7th week of 1st regular session; Friday of 2nd week of 2nd regular session.
Constitutional majority.
Kansas..............................
Actual dates established in the Joint Rules of the House and Senate every two years when the joint rules are adopted.
Resolution adopted by majority of members of either house may make specific exceptions to deadlines.
Kentucky..........................
House: No introductions during the last 14 L days of odd-year session, during last 22 L days of even-year session. Senate: No introductions during the last 14 L days of odd-year session, during last 20 L days of even-year session.
None.
Louisiana.........................
House: 10th C day of odd year sessions and 23rd C day of even-year sessions. Senate:10th C day of odd year sessions and 23rd C day of even-year sessions.
None.
Maine...............................
House: Cloture dates established by the Legislative Council. Cloture for 1st session of 124th legislature was January 16, 2009 Senate: Cloture dates established by the Legislative Council. Cloture for 1st session of 124th legislature was January 16, 2009
House: Bills filed after cloture date must be approved by a majority of the Legislative Council. Senate: Appeals heard by Legislative Council. Six votes required to allow introduction of legislation.
Existence of an emergency reasonably compelling consideration notwithstanding the deadline.
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 137
STATE LEGISLATURES
TIME LIMITS ON BILL INTRODUCTION—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Time limit on introduction of bills
Procedures for granting exception to time limits
Maryland..........................
House and Senate: No introductions during the last 35 days of regular session, unless 2/3 of the elected members of a chamber vote yes. Additional limitations involve committee action. Senate bills introduced after the 24th calendar day must be referred to the Senate Rules Committee and also Senate bills introduced after the 10th calendar day on behalf of the administration, i.e. the governor, must be referred to the Senate Rules Committee. House bills introduced during the last 59 calendar days (after the 31st day) are referred to the House Rules Committee. The Senate Rules and House Rules contain further provisions concerning the requirements for forcing legislation out of these committees.
House: 2/3 vote of elected members of each house.
Massachusetts..................
1st Wednesday in December even-numbered years, 1st Wednesday in November odd-numbered years.
2/3 vote of members present and voting.
Michigan..........................
No limit.
Minnesota........................
No limit.
Mississippi........................
14th C day in 90 day session; 49th C day in 125 day session (e).
2/3 vote of members present and voting.
Missouri...........................
House: 60th L day of regular session. Senate: March 1.
Majority vote of elected members each house; governor’s request for consideration of bill by special message.
Montana...........................
General bills & resolutions: 10th L day; revenue bills: 17th L day; committee bills and resolutions: 36th L day; committee bills implementing provisions of a general appropriation act: 75th L day; committee revenue bills: 62nd L day; interim study resolutions:
2/3 vote of members.
Nebraska..........................
75th L day (c).
3/5 vote of elected membership
Nevada.............................
10th L day of any session (f). Actual dates established at start of session.
Waiver granted by majority leader of the Senate and speaker of the Assembly acting jointly.
New Hampshire..............
Determined by rules.
2/3 vote of members present.
New Jersey.......................
No limit.
New Mexico.....................
House: 15 days in short session/even years, 30 days in long session/odd years. Senate: 15 days in short session/even years, 30 days in long session/odd years.
None. Statutory limit for legislators; governor not limited and can send bill with message.
New York.........................
Assembly: for unlimited introduction of bills, the final day is the last Tuesday in May of the 2nd year of the legislative term; for introduction of 10 or fewer bills, last Tuesday in May. Senate: 1st Tuesday in March.
Assembly: By unanimous consent or by introduction by Rules Cmte. or by message from the Senate. Senate: Exceptions are granted by the president pro tem or by introduction by Rules Cmte. or by message from Assembly.
North Carolina................
Actual dates established during session.
Senate: 2/3 vote of membership present and voting shall be required.
North Dakota..................
Proposed limits for 2009 session; House: January 19. Senate: January 26.
2/3 vote of the floor or by approval of Delayed Bills Committee.
Ohio..................................
No limit.
Oklahoma........................
Time limit set in rules.
2/3 vote of membership.
Oregon.............................
House: 50th C day of session. Senate: 50th C day of session. Rules adopted every 2 years.
House: Bills approved by the speaker:appropriation or fiscal measures sponsored by the Cmte. on Ways and Means; measures drafted by the Legislative Counsel and introduced as members’ priority drafting requests Senate: Measures approved by the senate president: appropriation or fiscal measures sponsored by the Committee on Ways and Means; measures drafted by the Legislative Counsel and introduced as members’ priority drafting requests.
Pennsylvania....................
No limit.
See footnotes at end of table.
138 The Book of the States 2010
STATE LEGISLATURES
TIME LIMITS ON BILL INTRODUCTION—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Time limit on introduction of bills
Procedures for granting exception to time limits
Rhode Island...................
Second week of February for Public Bills.
Sponsor must give one legislative day’s notice.
South Carolina................
House: Prior to April 15 of the 2nd yr. of a two-yr. legislative session; May 1 for bills first introduced in Senate. Rule 5.12 Senate: May 1 of regular session for bills originating in House. Rule 47
House: 2/3 vote of members present and voting. Senate: 2/3 vote of membership.
South Dakota..................
Individual bills: 40-day session: 15th L day; 35-day session: 10th L day. Committee bills: 40-day session: 16th L day; 35-day session: 11th L day.
2/3 approval of members-elect.
Tennessee.........................
General bills, 10th L day of regular session (g).
Unanimous approval by Delayed Bills Committee.
Texas.................................
60th C day of regular session.
4/5 vote of members present and voting.
Utah..................................
12 p.m. on 11th day of session.
Motion for request must be approved by a constitutional majority vote.
Vermont...........................
House: 1st session—last day of February; 2nd session—last day of January. Senate: 1st session—53 C day; 2nd session—25 C days before start of session.
Approval by Rules Committee.
Virginia............................
Set by joint procedural resolution adopted at the beginning of the session (usually the second Friday of the session is the last day to introduce legislation that does not have any earlier deadline).
As provided in the joint procedural resolution (usually unanimous consent or at written request of the governor).
Washington......................
Until 10 days before the end of session unless 2/3 vote of elected members of each house.
2/3 vote of elected members of each house.
West Virginia...................
House: 45th C day. Senate: 41st C day.
2/3 vote of members present.
Wisconsin.........................
No limit.
Wyoming..........................
House: 15th L day of session. Senate: 12th L day of session.
American Samoa............
House: After the 25th L day of the fourth Regular Session Senate: After the 15th L day.
Guam................................
Public hearing on bill must be held no more than 120 days after date of bill introduction.
Puerto Rico.....................
1st session—within first 125 days; 2nd session—within first 60 days.
U.S. Virgin Islands..........
No limit.
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Key: C — Calendar L — Legislative (a) Not applicable to local bills, advertised or otherwise. (b) Specific dates set in Joint Rules. (c) Not applicable to appropriations bills. (d) Not applicable to local bills and joint resolutions. Florida: Not applicable to local bills (which have no deadline) or claim bills (deadline
2/3 vote of elected members.
None.
is August 1 of the year preceding consideration or within 60 days of a senator’s election). (e) Except Appropriation and Revenue bills (51st/86th C day) and Local & Private bills (83rd/118th C day). (f) Except appropriations bills and bills introduced at the request of the governor, bills can be introduced during the first 10 legislative days of the session. Appropriation bills and bills introduced at the request of the governor can be introduced at any time during the session. (g) Local bills have no cutoff.
The Council of State Governments 139
140 The Book of the States 2010
H (l) H H . . . H
H (r) H H (r) . . . H H H
H H H (w) H H H H H H H . . . . . . H H H . . . H H
Colorado ������������������������� Connecticut �������������������� Delaware ������������������������� Florida ����������������������������� Georgia ���������������������������
Hawaii (q) ����������������������� Idaho ������������������������������� Illinois ����������������������������� Indiana ���������������������������� Iowa ���������������������������������
Kansas ����������������������������� Kentucky �������������������������
Louisiana (q) ������������������ Maine ������������������������������ Maryland ������������������������
Massachusetts ���������������� Michigan ������������������������� Minnesota ����������������������� Mississippi ���������������������� Missouri ��������������������������
Montana (q) ������������������� Nebraska �������������������������
Nevada ���������������������������� New Hampshire ������������� New Jersey ����������������������
New Mexico ������������������� New York ������������������������ North Carolina ��������������� North Dakota ����������������� Ohio ���������������������������������
See footnotes at end of table.
H (e) H H H H (i)
Alabama ������������������������� Alaska ����������������������������� Arizona ��������������������������� Arkansas ������������������������� California ������������������������
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . .
H . . .
H H (i) . . . . . .
H . . . H
H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
Governor may item veto appropriation bills State or other jurisdiction Amount Other (b) Bill dies unless signed
After session Bill becomes law unless vetoed
10P 90A
45A (s)(p) (p) 10P 60 (m) 7P 30A
30A (m) 15P (o) 10P 30A 15P (m) 40A
25A (m) 5A, 5P (ff)
3 (hh) 10 (ii) 10 3 10
20A (ii) 30A 30A 15A 10P 10A
5 (gg) 10A (gg) 5 5P 45
10 (m) 5
10 10P 10A 14 14P 3P 14A, 3P 3A, 14P 5 15P (dd) 15 45A
10 (m) 20P (m) 10 (v) 6 (x) 30P (y) (z)
10 (m) 10
10 (s) 5 60 (m) 7 3
10 (m) 5 10 7 (m)(p) . . .
6 (f) 10A 15 20P 5 10A 5 20A 12 (j) 30A
Bill becomes law unless vetoed
During session
Days allowed governor to consider bill (a)
Table 3.16 ENACTING LEGISLATION: VETO, VETO OVERRIDE AND EFFECTIVE DATE
2/3 present 2/3 votes in each house 3/5 elected 2/3 elected 3/5 elected (kk)
2/3 elected 2/3 present 2/3 elected
2/3 present 3/5 elected
2/3 present 2/3 elected and serving 2/3 elected—90 House; 45 Senate 2/3 elected 2/3 elected
2/3 elected 2/3 elected 3/5 elected (aa)
2/3 membership Majority elected
2/3 elected 2/3 present 3/5 elected (g) Majority elected 2/3 elected
2/3 elected 2/3 elected 3/5 elected 2/3 present 2/3 elected
Majority of elected body 2/3 elected (g) 2/3 elected (h) Majority elected 2/3 elected
Votes required in each house to pass bills or items over veto (c)
Effective date of enacted legislation (d)
90 days after adjournment unless other date specified. 20 days after enactment 60 days after adjournment (jj) 91st day after filing with secretary of state. (ll)
Oct. 1 (cc) 90 days following adjournment sine die. Unless bill contains an emergency clause. Oct. 1, unless measure stipulates a different date. 60 days after enactment, unless otherwise noted. Dates usually specified
90 days after enactment 90 days after adjournment Aug. 1 (cc) July 1 unless specified otherwise. Aug. 28 (ee)
Upon publication or specified date after publication 90 days after adjournment sine die. Unless the bill contains an emergency clause or special effective date. Aug. 15 90 days after adjournment unless enacted as an emergency. June 1 (bb)
Immediately July 1 Usually Jan. 1 of next year (t) (u) July 1 (t)
90 days after adjournment (n) Oct. 1, unless otherwise specified. Immediately 60 days after adjournment Unless other date specified, July 1 for generals, date signed by governor for locals.
Date signed by governor, unless otherwise specified. 90 days after enactment 90 days after adjournment 91st day after adjournment (k)
STATE LEGISLATURES
H H H H . . . H H . . . H H
H H H H H (ccc)
South Dakota ����������������� Tennessee ����������������������� Texas �������������������������������� Utah ��������������������������������� Vermont ��������������������������
Virginia ��������������������������� Washington ��������������������� West Virginia ������������������ Wisconsin ������������������������ Wyoming �������������������������
American Samoa ����������� Guam ������������������������������ No. Mariana Islands ������ Puerto Rico �������������������� U.S. Virgin Islands ��������� . . . H . . . . . . H (ccc)
H (tt) H (i) . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
15A (mm) 30A (s) 30A, 10P 10P (oo) (oo) (qq)
Bill dies unless signed
After session Bill becomes law unless vetoed
30A (uu) 20A 15A (xx) 6P 15A
10 30A 10 10P 30P (zz) 40 (m)(aaa) 10 30P 10 10P 30A
7 (m) 5 5 6 3
5 (rr) 15P (rr) 10 (ss) 10 20A 10P 20A 5 3A
5 (mm) 5 30 6 5
Bill becomes law unless vetoed
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Key: H — Yes . . . — No A — Days after adjournment of legislature. P — Days after presentation to governor. (a) Sundays excluded, unless otherwise indicated. (b) Includes language in appropriations bill. (c) Bill returned to house of origin with governor’s objections. (d) Effective date may be established by the law itself or may be otherwise changed by vote of the legislature. Special or emergency acts are usually effective immediately. (e) The governor may line item distinct items or item veto amounts in appropriation bills, if returned prior to final adjournment. (f) Except bills presented within five days of final adjournment, Sundays are included. (g) Different number of votes required for revenue and appropriations bills. Alaska—3/4 elected. Illinois— 3/5ths members elected to override any gubernatorial change except a reduction in an item, which a majority of the members elected to each house can restore to its original amount. (h) Several specific requirements of 3/4 majority. (i) Line item veto. (j) For a bill to become law during session, if 12th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the period is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.
H H H . . . H
Oklahoma ��������������������� Oregon ���������������������������� Pennsylvania ������������������ Rhode Island ������������������ South Carolina ���������������
Governor may item veto appropriation bills State or other jurisdiction Amount Other (b)
During session
Days allowed governor to consider bill (a)
Effective date of enacted legislation (d)
60 days after adjournment (yy) Immediately (bbb) Immediately Specified in act Immediately
July 1 (ww) 90 days after adjournment 90 days after enactment Day after publication date unless otherwise specified Specified in act
July 1 40 days after enactment unless otherwise specified 90 days after adjournment 60 days after adjournment of the session at which it passed. July 1
90 days after adjournment unless specified in the bill. Jan. 1st of following year. (nn) 60 days after signed by governor Immediately (pp) Date of signature
(k) For legislation enacted in regular sessions: January 1 of the following year. Urgency legislation: immediately upon chaptering by Secretary of State. Legislation enacted in Special Session: 91st day after adjournment of the special session at which the bill was passed. (l) Must veto entire amount of any item; an item is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. (m) Sundays included. (n) An act takes effect on the date stated in the act, or if no date is stated in the act, then upon signature of the governor. If no safety clause on a bill, the bill takes effect 90 days after sine die if no referendum petition has been filed. The state constitution allows for a 90 day period following adjournment when petitions may be filed for bills that do not contain a safety clause. (o) Bill enacted if not signed /vetoed within time frames. (p) The governor must notify the legislature 10 days before the 45th day of his intent to veto a measure on that day. The legislature may convene on the 45th day after adjournment to consider the vetoed measures. If the legislature fails to reconvene, the bill does not become law. If the legislature reconvenes, it may pass the measure over the governor’s veto or it may amend the law to meet the governor’s objections. If the law is amended, the governor must sign the bill within 10 days after it is presented to him in order for it to become law. (q) Constitution withholds right to veto constitutional amendments. (r) Governor can also reduce amounts in appropriations bills. In Hawaii, governor can reduce items in executive appropriations measures, but cannot reduce or item veto amounts appropriated for the judicial or legislative branches.
2/3 elected 10 votes to override 2/3 elected 2/3 elected 2/3 elected
2/3 present (vv) 2/3 present Majority elected 2/3 present 2/3 elected
2/3 elected Constitutional majority 2/3 elected 2/3 elected 2/3 present
2/3 elected 2/3 present Majority 3/5 present 2/3 elected
Votes required in each house to pass bills or items over veto (c)
ENACTING LEGISLATION: VETO, VETO OVERRIDE AND EFFECTIVE DATE—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 141
(s) Except Sundays and legal holidays. In Hawaii, except Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and any days in which the legislature is in recess prior to its adjournment. In Oregon, if the governor does not sign the bill within 30 days after adjournment, it becomes law without the governor’s signature, Saturdays and Sundays are excluded. (t) Effective date for bills which become law on or after July 1. Illinois—Unless specified in the act. Exception: An act enacted by a bill passed after May 31 cannot take effect before June 1 of the following year unless it was passed by 3/5ths of the members elected to each house. (u) Varies with date of the veto. (v) “If the bill or resolution shall not be returned by the governor within 10 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to the Governor, it shall have the same force and effect as if the Governor had signed it unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall have such force and effect, unless returned within 3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill or resolution; if there is no such next meeting of the Legislature which enacted the bill or resolution, the bill or resolution shall not be a law.” (excerpted from Article IV, Part Third, Section 2 of the Constitution of Maine). (w) The governor cannot veto the budget bill but may exercise a total veto or item veto on a supplementary appropriations bill. In practice this means the governor may strike items in the annual general capital loan bill. Occasionally the governor will also veto a bond bill or a portion of a bond bill. (x) If a bill is presented to the governor in the first 83 days of session, the governor has only six days (not including Sunday) to act before the bill automatically becomes law. (y) All bills passed at regular or special sessions must be presented to the governor no later than 20 days after adjournment. The governor has a limited time to sign or veto a bill after it is presented. If the governor does not act within that time, the bill becomes law automatically; there is no pocket veto. The time limit depends on when the presentment is made. Any bill presented in the last 7 days of the 90-day session or after adjournment must be acted on within 30 days after presentment. Bills vetoed after adjournment are returned to the legislature for reconsideration at the next meeting of the same General Assembly. (z) The governor has a limited time to sign or veto a bill after it is presented. If the governor does not act within that time, the bill becomes law automatically; there is no pocket veto. The time limit depends on when the presentment is made. (aa) Vetoed bills are returned to the house of origin immediately after that house has organized at the next regular or special session. When a new General Assembly is elected and sworn in, bills vetoed from the previous session are not returned. These vetoed bills are not subject to any further legislative action. (bb) Unless otherwise provided, June 1 is the effective date for bond bills, July 1 for budget, tax and revenue bills. By custom October 1 is the usual effective date for other legislation. If the bill is an emergency measure, it may take effect immediately upon approval by the governor or at a specified date prior to June 1. For vetoed legislation, 30 days after the veto is overridden or on the date specified in the bill, whichever is later. An emergency bill passed over the governor’s veto takes effect immediately. (cc) Different date for fiscal legislation. Minnesota, Montana—July 1. (dd) Bills vetoed after adjournment are returned to the legislature for reconsideration. Mississippi— returned within three days after the beginning of the next session. (ee) If bill has an emergency clause, it becomes effective upon governor’s signature.
(ff) Bills are carried over from the 90-day session beginning in the odd-numbered year to the 60-day session, which begins in even-numbered years. Bills that have not passed by the last day of the 60-day session are all indefinitely postponed by motion on the last day of the session. (gg) The day of delivery and Sundays are not counted for purposes of calculating these periods. (hh) Except bills going up in the last three days of session, for which the governor has 20 days. (ii) If the legislature adjourns during the governor’s consideration of a 10-day bill, the bill shall not become law without the governor’s approval. (jj) August 1 after filing with the secretary of state. Appropriations and tax bills July 1 after filing with secretary of state, or date set in legislation by Legislative Assembly, or by date established by emergency clause. (kk) The exception covers such matters as emergency measures and court bills that originally required a 2/3 majority for passage. In those cases, the same extraordinary majority vote is required to override a veto. (ll) Emergency, current appropriation, and tax legislation effective immediately. The General Assembly may also enact an uncodified section of law specifying a desired effective date that is after the constitutionally established effective date. (mm) During session the governor has 5 days (except Sunday) to sign or veto a bill or it becomes law automatically. After Session a bill becomes a pocket veto if not signed 15 days after sine die. (nn) Unless emergency declared or date specific in text of measure. (oo) Bills become effective without signature if not signed or vetoed. (pp) Date signed, date received by Secretary of State if effective without signature, date that veto is overridden, or other specified date. (qq) Two days after the next meeting. (rr) During a session, a bill becomes law if a governor signs it or does not act on it within five days. If the legislature has adjourned or recessed or is within 5 days of a recess or an adjournment, the governor has 15 days to act on the bill. If he does not act the bill becomes law. (ss) Adjournment of the legislature is irrelevant; the governor has 10 days to act on a bill after it is presented to him or it becomes law without his signature. (tt) If part of the item. (uu) The governor has thirty days after adjournment of the legislature to act on any bills. The Constitution of Virginia provides that : “If the governor does not act on any bill, it shall become law without his signature.” (vv) Must include majority of elected members. (ww) Unless a different date is stated in the bill. Special sessions—first day of fourth month after adjournment. (xx) Five days for supplemental appropriation bills. (yy) Laws required to be approved only by the governor. An act required to be approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior only after it is vetoed by the governor and so approved takes effect 40 days after it is returned to the governor by the secretary. (zz) After Legislature adjourns sine die at end of two-year term. (aaa) Twenty days for appropriations bills. (bbb) U.S. Congress may annul. (ccc) May item veto language or amounts in a bill that contains two or more appropriations.
ENACTING LEGISLATION: VETO, VETO OVERRIDE AND EFFECTIVE DATE—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
142 The Book of the States 2010
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.17 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS: BUDGET DOCUMENTS AND BILLS Budget document submission
Budget bill introduction
Submission date relative to convening Not Within Within Within Over Same time until committee Legal source of deadline State or other Prior to one two one one as budget Another review of jurisdiction Constitutional Statutory session week weeks month month document time budget document Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California....................
H H . . . . . . H
H H H H . . .
(a) . . . H H . . .
. . . (a) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . H (b)
Colorado...................... . . . H H (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connecticut................. . . . H . . . . . . . . . (a) . . . H Delaware..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florida......................... H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgia........................ H . . . . . . (a) . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... H H ...
76th day by rule . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... H ...
Hawaii......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa.............................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
30 days . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . (a)
. . . . . . H (a) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H (c) H . . .
... H ... ... H (d)
Kansas......................... Kentucky..................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland.....................
. . . H . . . . . . H
H . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . (f) . . . . . .
. . . . . . (f) (a) H (e)
H (e) (a) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H (g) H H (h)
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Massachusetts............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi................... Missouri.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H H H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H (a) . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
... ... H ... H
Montana...................... Nebraska..................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey..................
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H . . . H H
H . . . (a) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (a) . . .
. . . H (i) . . . H . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... H ... H
New Mexico................ New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio.............................
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . (k) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H (a) . . . . . . . . .
(a) . . . . . . . . . H (d)(e)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . H
H H (j) . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... H ...
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania............... Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H (l) H H . . .
H H (m) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
... ... H ... H (n)
South Dakota.............. Tennessee.................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . (a) . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H (p) . . . H (q) . . . . . .
... ... ... ... H
Virginia........................ Washington................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin.................... Wyoming.....................
. . . H (t) H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H H
Dec. 20 Dec. 20 (u) . . . . . . Dec. 1
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H (v) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... H
American Samoa........ Guam........................... No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H . . . (a) . . . May 30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H (w) . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . (v) . . . H
... ... H H ...
. . . . . . . . . H (o) . . . H (a)(e) H (a)(e) . . . 6th day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (s) . . . . . . . . .
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 143
STATE LEGISLATURES
LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS: BUDGET DOCUMENTS AND BILLS—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Key: H — Yes . . . — No (a) Specific time limitations: Alabama—five days; Alaska—December 15, 4th legislative day; Connecticut— not later than the first session day following the third day in February, in each odd numbered year; Colorado— presented by November 1 to the Joint Budget Committee; Georgia—first five days of session; Illinois— Third Wednesday in February; Iowa—no later than February 1; Kentucky—10th legislative day; Maine—The Governor shall transmit the budget document to the Legislature not later than the Friday following the first Monday in January of the first regular legislative session . . . A Governor-elect elected to a first term of office shall transmit the budget document to the Legislature not later than the Friday following the first Monday in February of the first regular legislative session (Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, Chapter 149, Section 1666); Minnesota—by the 4th Tuesday in January each odd-numbered year; Nevada—no later than 14 days before commencement of regular session; New Hampshire—by February 15; New Mexico—by January 1 each year; New York—The executive budget must be submitted by the governor to the legislature by the 2nd Tuesday following the opening of session (or February 1 for the first session following a gubernatorial election); Tennessee—on or before February 1 for sitting governor; Utah— Must submit to the legislature by the calendared floor time on the first day of the annual session; No. Mariana Islands—no later than 6 months before the beginning of the fiscal year. (b) Budget and Budget Bill are annual—to be submitted within the first 10 days of each calendar year. (c) Deadlines for introducing bills in general are set by Senate president and House speaker. (d) Executive budget bill is introduced and used as a working tool for committee. (e) Later for first session of a new governor; Kansas—21 days; Maryland—10 days after; New Jersey—February 15; Ohio—by March 15; Tennessee—March 1. (f) The governor shall submit his executive budget to the Joint Legislative Committee on the budget no later than 45 days prior to each regular session; except that in the first year of each term, the executive budget shall be submitted no later than 30 days prior to the regular session. Copies shall be made
144 The Book of the States 2010
available to the entire legislature on the first day of each regular session. (g) Bills appropriating monies for the general operating budget and ancillary appropriations, bills appropriating funds for the expenses of the legislature and the judiciary must be submitted to the legislature for introduction no later than 45 days prior to each regular session, except that in the first year of each term, such appropriation bills shall be submitted no later than 30 days prior to the regular session. (h) Appropriations bill other than the budget bill (supplementary) may be introduced at any time. They must provide their own tax source and may not be enacted until the budget bill is enacted. (i) Governor’s budget bill is introduced and serves as a working document for the Appropriations Committee. The governor must submit the budget proposal by January 15 of each odd-numbered year. (Neb. Rev. Stat. sec. 81–125). The statute extends this deadline to February 1 for a governor who is in his first year of office. (j) Submission of the governor’s budget bills to the legislature occurs with submission of the executive budget. (k) Legislative Council’s Budget Section hears the executive budget recommendations during legislature’s December organizational session. (l) By December 1st of even-numbered year unless new governor is elected; if new governor is elected, then February 1st of odd-numbered year. (m) Legislature often introduces other budget bills during legislative session that are not part of the governor’s recommended budget. (n) The Ways and Means Committee introduces the Budget Bill within five days after the beginning of the session (S.C. Code 11-11-70). (o) It is usually over a month. The budget must be delivered to the Legislature not later than the first Tuesday after the first Monday in December. (p) It must be introduced no later than the 16th legislative day. (q) Within first 30 days of session. (r) Legislative rules require budget bills to be introduced by the 43rd day of the session. (s) No official submission dates. Occurs by custom early in the session. (t) And Rules. (u) For fiscal period other than biennium, 20 days prior to first day of session. (v) Last Tuesday in January. A later submission date may be requested by the governor. (w) Usually January before end of current fiscal year.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.18 FISCAL NOTES: CONTENT AND DISTRIBUTION Content
Distribution Legislators
Appropriations Proposed Fiscal Committee Intent or Projected source impact on Available Executive State or other purpose Cost future of local on Bill Chair Fiscal budget jurisdiction of bill involved cost revenue government Other All request sponsor Members only staff staff Alabama.................. Alaska...................... Arizona.................... Arkansas (b)........... California.................
H . . . H . . . H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H H . . . H
H . . . H H H
H (a) . . . H H . . .
. . . H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . ... . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
... H H ... H
Colorado.................. Connecticut............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia....................
H H . . . H . . .
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H (c) H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii...................... Idaho........................ Illinois...................... Indiana..................... Iowa........................
. . . H . . . H H
. . . H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H (d) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) (e) (f) H H . . . . . . . . . ... H . . . . . . . . . . . . H H ..................................................... (g).....................................................
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana................. Maine....................... Maryland.................
H H . . . . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . H (j)
H . . . H . . . . . .
Massachusetts......... Michigan.................. Minnesota................ Mississippi............... Missouri...................
. . . H H . . . H
H (l) H H H H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . H H . . . H
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada..................... New Hampshire...... New Jersey...............
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
. . . H H H H
New Mexico............ New York................. North Carolina........ North Dakota . ....... Ohio..........................
H . . . . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H H H
Oklahoma . ............. Oregon..................... Pennsylvania........... Rhode Island........... South Carolina........
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H (i) . . .
H H . . . H H (k)
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H (h) . . . ...
H H . . . H . . .
H ... ... H ...
H H H (m) H (n) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H H (o) H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
... ... H ... H
H H H H H
H (p) . . . H . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . ... . . . . . .
H H ... H H
H H ... H H
H . . . . . . H H
H H H H H
. . . H (r) H H (t) . . .
. . . . . . (s) (u) (v)
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(q) H . . . H ...
(q) ... ... H ...
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H (w)
H . . . H . . . ...
H H H H H
... H ... H H
. . . H H H . . .
H H H H H
. . . H H H . . .
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
... ... H H ...
(bb) H . . . (ee) H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H (cc) H H . . . . . . . . . (ee) . . . . . .
South Dakota.......... . . . H H H H . . . Tennessee................ H H H . . . H . . . Texas......................... . . . H H H H H (x) Utah.......................... . . . H H H H H (y) Vermont................... . ................................................(z).................................................. Virginia.................... Washington.............. West Virginia........... Wisconsin................. Wyoming..................
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H (aa) H (dd) . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Guam....................... . . . H . . . . . . H H (ff) H . . . . . . H H H ... No. Mariana Islands................... H H H H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . H H H Puerto Rico............. . .....................................................................................................(gg)..................................................................................................................... U.S. Virgin Islands... H H ... H . . . . . . H ... ... ... ... ... ... See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 145
STATE LEGISLATURES
FISCAL NOTES: CONTENT AND DISTRIBUTION—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Note: A fiscal note is a summary of the fiscal effects of a bill on government revenues, expenditures and liabilities. Key: H — Yes . . .—No (a) Fiscal notes included on final passage calendar. (b) Only retirement, corrections, revenue, tax and local government bills require fiscal notes. During the past session, fiscal notes were provided for education. (c) The fiscal notes are printed with the bills favorably reported by the committees. (d) Statement of purpose. (e) Attached to bill, so available to both fiscal and executive budget staff. (f) A summary of each fiscal note is attached to the summary of its bill in the printed Legislative Synopsis and Digest, and on the General Assembly’s Web site. Fiscal notes are prepared for the sponsor and attached to the bill on file with the House Clerk or Senate Secretary. (g) Fiscal notes are available to everyone. (h) Prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Office when a state agency is involved and prepared by Legislative Auditor’s office when a local board or commission is involved; copies sent to House and Senate staff offices respectively. (i) Distributed to members of the committee of reference; also available on the Legislature’s Web site. (j) A fiscal note is now known as a fiscal and policy note to better reflect the contents. Fiscal and policy notes also identify any mandate on local government and include analyses of the economic impact on small businesses. (k) In practice fiscal and policy notes are prepared on all bills and resolutions prior to a public hearing on the bills/resolutions. After initial hard copy distribution to sponsor and committee, the note is released to member computer system and thereafter to the legislative Web site. (l) Fiscal notes are prepared only if cost exceeds $100,000 or matter has not been acted upon by the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. (m) Other relevant data. (n) At present, fiscal information is part of the bill analysis on the legislative Web site. (o) And committee to which bill referred. (p) Mechanical defects in bill. (q) Fiscal impact statements prepared by Legislative Finance Committee
146 The Book of the States 2010
staff are available to anyone on request and on the legislature’s Web site. (r) Bills impacting workers compensation benefits must have an actuarial impact statement; bills proposing changes in state or local government retirement systems must have an actuarial note. (s) Fiscal notes are posted on the Internet and available to all members. (t) Notes required only if impact is $5,000 or more. Bills impacting workforce safety and insurance benefits or premiums have actuarial statements as do bills proposing changes in state and local retirement systems. (u) Fiscal notes are available online to anyone from the legislative branch Web site. (v) Fiscal notes are prepared for bills before being voted on in any standing committee or floor session. Upon distribution to the legislators preparing to vote, the fiscal notes are made public. (w) Fiscal impact statements on proposed legislation are prepared by the Office of State Budget and sent to the House or Senate standing committee that requested the impact. All fiscal impacts are posted on the OSB Web page. (x) Equalized education funding impact statement and criminal justice policy impact statement. (y) Fiscal notes are to include cost estimates on all proposed bills that anticipate direct expenditures by any Utah resident and the cost to the overall Utah resident population. (z) Fiscal notes are not mandatory and their content will vary. (aa) Technical amendments, if needed. Fiscal notes do not provide statements or interpretations of legislative intent for legal purposes. A summary of the stated objective, effect, and impact may be included. (bb) Fiscal impact statements are widely available because they are also posted on the Internet shortly after they are distributed. The Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission (JLARC) also prepares a review of the fiscal impact statement if requested by a standing committee chair. The review statement is also available on the Internet. (cc) Legislative budget directors. (dd) Impact on private sector (ee) The fiscal estimate is printed as an appendix to the bill; anyone that has a copy of the bill has a copy of the fiscal estimate. (ff) Fiscal impact on local economy. (gg) The Legislature of Puerto Rico does not prepare fiscal notes, but upon request the economics unit could prepare one. The Department of Treasury has the duty to analyze and prepare fiscal notes.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.19 BILL AND RESOLUTION INTRODUCTIONS AND ENACTMENTS: 2009 REGULAR SESSIONS Introductions Enactments/Adoptions State Duration of session** Bills Resolutions* Bills Resolutions*
Measures vetoed by governor
Length of session
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California (d)..............
Feb. 3 – May 15, 2009 Jan. 20 – Apr. 19, 2009 Jan. 12 – Jun. 30, 2009 Jan. 12 – May 1, 2009 Feb. 1, 2008 – (e)
1,622 549 1,234 2,285 2,423
1,207 115 101 127 309
413 61 213 1,501 893
395 44 12 87 125
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware..................... Florida......................... Georgia........................
Jan. 7 – May 6, 2009 Jan. 7 – Jun. 3, 2009 Jan. 12 – Jun. 30, 2009 Mar. 3 – May 8, 2009 (f) Jan. 12 – Apr. 3, 2009
802 2,886 456 2,160 1,160
116 260 95 209 1,876
463 257 214 253 337
105 N.A. N.A. 157 1,670
4 (c) 19 (a) 1 9 (c) 16 (c)
120C 106C 41L 67C 40L
Hawaii......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa.............................
Jan. 21 – May 8, 2009 Jan. 12 – May 8, 2009 Jan. 14 – Oct. 30, 2009 Jan. 7 – Apr. 29, 2009 (h) Jan. 12 – Apr. 25, 2009
3,523 624 7,242 1,318 1,315
948 52 1,500 464 103
198 342 856 184 252
288 48 1249 N.A. 2
57 (a) 36 12 (a)(c) 0 0 (c)
62L 117C (b)(g) 114C 104C
Kansas......................... Kentucky..................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland.....................
Jan. 12 – May 9, 2009 Jan. 6 – Mar. 26, 2009 Apr. 27 – Jun. 25, 2009 Dec. 3, 2008 – Jun. 13, 2009 Jan. 14 – Apr. 13, 2009
746 734 1,230 1,496 2,654
174 546 702 30 21
144 105 696 630 754
138 N.A. 618 30 1
6 (c) 0 (c) 15(c) 1 48
88C 80C 45L/60C 58L 90C
Massachusetts............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi................... Missouri.......................
Jan. 7, 2009 – Jan. 4, 2010 Jan. 14 – Dec. 31, 2009 Jan. 6 – May 18, 2009 Jan. 6 – Jun. 30, 2009 Jan. 17 – May 29, 2009
6,846 2,787 4,573 3,180 1,752
N.A. (i) 187 (j) 578 62 (k)
204 242 149 316 164
N.A. N.A. 46 (j) 450 1(k)
Montana...................... Nebraska (U).............. Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey..................
Jan. 5 – Apr. 28, 2009 Jan. 7 – Apr. 29, 2009 Feb. 2 – Jun. 2, 2009 Jan. 7 – Jul. 1, 2009 (l) Jan 1, 2009 – Jan. 12, 2010 (m)
1,193 681 1,000 741 1,515 (n)
126 264 105 N.A. 107 (n)
499 236 527 332 339
80 122 79 N.A. 16
10 0 (a) 48 (a) 9 (c)
90L 87L 120C 177C (l) (b)
New Mexico................ New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio (q).......................
Jan. 20 – Mar. 21, 2009 Jan. 7, 2009 – Jan. 5, 2010 Jan. 28 – Aug. 11, 2009 Jan. 6 – May 5, 2009 Jan. 5 – Dec. 30, 2009
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania (r).......... Rhode Island............... South Carolina (t)......
16 (a) 0 (c) 22 (a)(c) 0 241
N.A. 0 (c) 22(c) 7 23 (c)
30L 90C 169C 88C (b)
362C (b) 58L 149C 75L
1,609 15,980 2,692 1,128 624
56 (o) 75 104 77
323 507 577 630 17
8 3,862 33 64 10
34 (c) 79 1 0 (c) 0 (c)
60C 364C (p) 196C 79L (b)
Feb. 2 – May 27, 2009 Jan. 12 – Jun. 29, 2009 Jan. 6, 2009 – Nov. 30, 2010 Jan. 6, 2009 – Jan. 5, 2010 Jan. 13 – Jun. 4, 2009
1,249 1,299 3,605 2,432 1,844
77 131 952 N.A. 1,031
242 909 55 488 137
24 47 (s) 376 N.A.
8 18 (c) 42 (a) 15 (a)(c)
67L 170C (b) 65L 143C
South Dakota.............. Tennessee.................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont.......................
Jan. 13 – Mar. 30, 2009 Jan. 13 – Jun. 18, 2009 Jan. 13 – Jun. 1, 2009 Jan. 26 – Mar. 12, 2009 Jan. 7 – May 9, 2009
504 4,798 7,419 630 604
36 1,754 532 74 334
274 645 1,459 398 76
25 (u) 267 51 263
2 (a) 2 (a) 38 (c) 2 (c) 2 (a)
40L 45L 140C 45C (b)
Virginia........................ Washington................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin.................... Wyoming.....................
Jan. 14 – Feb. 28, 2009 Jan. 12 – Apr. 26, 2009 Feb. 11 – May 31, 2009 Jan. 13, 2009 – Apr. 2010 Jan. 13 – Mar. 6, 2009
1,850 2,578 2,113 1,594 202
670 83 354 216 12
886 583 226 189 121
558 16 151 125 N.A.
14 (a)(c) 5 (c) 20 3 3 (c)
46C 105C 60C N.A. 20L
Guam...........................
Jan. 12 – Dec. 1, 2009
364
319
156
269
17
N.A.
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 147
STATE LEGISLATURES
BILL AND RESOLUTION INTRODUCTIONS AND ENACTMENTS: 2009 REGULAR SESSIONS—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of legislative agencies and state Web sites, April 2010. *Includes Joint and Concurrent resolutions. **Actual adjournment dates are listed regardless of constitutional or statutory limitations. For more information on provisions, see Table 3.2, “Legislative Sessions: Legal Provisions.” Key: C—Calendar day. L—Legislative day (in some states, called a session or workday; definition may vary slightly; however, it generally refers to any day on which either chamber of the legislature is in session). U—Unicameral legislature N.A.—Not available. (a) Number of vetoes overridden: Alabama—7; Arizona—1; Connecticut—7; Hawaii—4; Illinois—22; Nebraska—1; Nevada—25; Rhode Island 29; South Carolina—13; South Dakota—1; Tennessee—1; Vermont—1; Virginia—2; Wisconsin—1. (b) Length of session: California—Senate 145L and Assembly 138L; Illinois—Senate 71L and House 82L; Michigan— Senate 107L and House 113L; New Jersey—Joint: 2L, Senate 28L and Assembly 30L; Ohio—Senate 133L and House 123L; Pennsylvania—Senate 95L and House 137L (the House had 50 nonvoting session days); Vermont—Senate 50L and House 70L (A special session was held from June 2-3, 2009 and all totals, except for session days, reflect both sessions. (c) Line item or partial vetoes. Alaska—4 ; Arizona—2; Colorado— 1 ; Florida—1; Georgia—3; Illinois—55; Iowa—7; Kansas—12; Kentucky—1; Louisiana—9; Michigan—9; Minnesota— 28 is the total number of lines vetoed. 8 is the number of bill with line vetoes in them; Missouri—12; New Jersey—conditional veto: 8; line item veto: 2; New Mexico—5; North Dakota—5; Ohio—3; Pennsylvania—18; South Carolina—49 vetoes and 28 overrides; Texas—1; Utah—1; Virginia—3; Washington—42 partial vetoes; Wisconsin—2 partial vetoes; Wyoming—1. (d) California has a 2-year legislative session. Statistics have been
148 The Book of the States 2010
provided for the first half of the 2009–2010 Regular and Extraordinary Legislative Sessions. (e) Assembly adjourned December 10, 2009 with 138L in session; Senate, December 17, 2009 with 145L in session. (f) The 60-day regular session was extended by one week to pass the budget. (g) Total number of days in session includes veto session. (h) The Indiana Senate convenes in November for a one day organization day, then adjourns until January. In 2009, members convened on 11/18/08 and then returned on 1/7/09. The total days in the session listed above includes all calendar days between reconvening in January and adjourning sine die, plus one additional day for Organization Day. (i) Michigan introduced 17 SJR and 43 HJR. (j) Information is available for the total biennium not an individual year. For the biennium so far, the House has 20 resolutions introduced and 12 adopted. The Senate has 167 introduced and 34 adopted. (k) These are Joint Resolutions. Joint Resolutions amend the constitution. (l) Organizational session on Dec 1, 2008 (m) This was the second year of a two-year term. (n) Bills introduced: 732 Senate and 783 Assembly. Resolutions: 57 Assembly, Joint/Concurrent and 50 Senate, Joint/Concurrent. (o) There are no official statistics for resolution introductions. (p) Total working days: Assembly, 69; Senate, 70; Total legislative days: Assembly, 168; Senate, 162; Total session days: Assembly, 237; Senate, 232 (q) All statistics are for the first year of the biennium. 2010 is the second year. (r) This is a two year session and Pennsylvania does not compile bills annually. (s) Pennsylvania does not track the number of resolutions that have been passed. In general, resolutions are chamber based and highlight a day or honor a person. (t) This is the first of a two year session and statistics are not complete. (u) Tennessee does not track the number of adopted resolutions.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.20 BILL AND RESOLUTION INTRODUCTIONS AND ENACTMENTS: 2009 SPECIAL SESSIONS
Introductions Enactments/adoptions State or other jurisdiction Duration of session** Bills Resolutions* Bills Resolutions*
Measures vetoed by governor
Length of session
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California....................
Aug. 10 – Aug. 14, 2009 32 71 9 21 0 5L Aug. 10, 2009 0 0 0 0 (a) 1C Jan. 28 – Jan. 31, 2009 6 1 0 0 0 3L May 21 – May 27, 2009 1 0 1 0 0 7L Jul. 6 – Aug. 25, 2009 15 0 12 0 (b) 51L Nov. 17 – Nov. 23, 2009 4 0 0 0 0 7L Dec. 17 – Dec. 19, 2009 2 0 0 0 0 3L –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Dec. 2, 2008 – Dec. 18, 2008 (c) 28 5 16 0 15 (c) Dec. 2, 2008 – Mar. 3, 2009 (d) 24 5 13 0 0 (d) Jan. 5 – Nov. 30, 2009 (e) 143 4 34 0 2 (f) (e) Jul. 2 – Nov. 30, 2009 (g) 68 2 22 0 0 (g) Aug. 27, 2009 – Jan. 12, 2010 (h) 12 2 4 0 0 (h) Oct. 14, 2009 – (i) 17 1 0 0 0 (i) Oct. 14 – Nov. 4, 2009 (j) 23 2 6 0 0 (j)
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware..................... Florida......................... Georgia........................
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Jan. 2 – Oct. 29, 2009 3 7 3 0 1 (k) N.A. Jun. 19 – Jun. 25, 2009 2 5 2 0 0 7C Sept. 23 – Oct. 29, 2009 10 4 10 0 2 N.A. Dec. 15 – Dec. 22, 2009 2 5 2 0 2 8C Sept. 22, 2009 (l) 0 0 0 0 0 1C Jan. 5 – Jan. 14, 2009 52 2 17 0 0 (m) 9C Dec. 3 – Dec. 8, 2009 6 1 1 0 0 5C –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hawaii......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa.............................
Jul. 15, 2009 0 5 0 5 (n) 1L Aug. 18 – Aug. 19, 2009 (o) 0 1 0 1 0 2L Nov. 19 – Nov. 20, 2009 (p) 0 1 0 1 0 2L –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Jun. 23 – Jun. 30, 2009 7 8 5 8 0 (m) (q) Jul. 15 – Jul. 15, 2009 4 6 3 6 1 2L Jun. 11 – Jun. 30, 2009 17 12 1 0 0 20C –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Kansas......................... Kentucky..................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland.....................
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Jun. 15 – Jun. 22, 2009 8 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 57 2 57 0 7C No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Massachusetts............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi................... Missouri.......................
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– May 7 – May 13, 2009 4 Jun. 28 – Jul. 13, 2009 133 Jul. 10 – Jul. 13, 2009 3 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– N.A. 1 0 N.A. 7C 33 140 0 N.A. 16C 8 9 0 N.A. 4C No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Montana...................... Nebraska (U).............. Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey..................
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Jan. 4 – Jan. 20, 2009 16 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 31 5 15 15 12L No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
New Mexico................ New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio.............................
Oct. 17 – Oct. 23, 2009 78 1 8 0 1 (r) 7C –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (s)–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania............... Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 149
STATE LEGISLATURES
BILL AND RESOLUTION INTRODUCTIONS AND ENACTMENTS: 2009 SPECIAL SESSIONS—Continued
Introductions Enactments/adoptions State or other jurisdiction Duration of session** Bills Resolutions* Bills Resolutions*
Measures vetoed by governor
Length of session
South Dakota.............. Tennessee.................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont.......................
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Jul. 1 – Jul. 2, 2009 24 11 0 4 0 2C May 20, 2009 7 0 7 0 0 1C Jun. 2 – Jun. 3, 2009 (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) 2C
Virginia........................ Washington................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin.................... Wyoming.....................
Aug. 19, 2009 14 5 4 3 0 1C –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– May 31 – Jun. 2, 2009 28 4 15 4 0 3C Jun. 15 – Jun. 17, 2009 12 4 6 4 0 3C Aug. 11 – Aug. 12, 2009 8 4 2 4 0 2C Nov. 17 – Nov. 20, 2009 22 11 10 11 0 4C Jun. 24 – Jun. 27, 2009 1 0 0 0 0 3C Dec. 16, 2009 2 0 0 0 0 1C –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
American Samoa........ Guam........................... No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state legislative agencies, March 2010. * Includes Joint and Concurrrent resolutions. ** Actual adjournment dates are listed regardless of constitutional or statutory limitations. For more information on provisions, see Table 3.2, “Legislative Sessions: Legal Provisions.” Key: N.A. — Not available C — Calendar day. L — Legislative day (in some states, called a session or workday; definition may vary slightly; U — Unicameral legislature. (a) One partial veto overridden by the legislature. (b) Two partial or line item vetoes. (c) The First Extraordinary Session convened on Dec. 2, 2008 (Senate) and Dec. 8, 2008 (Assembly) and adjourned on Dec. 18 for a total of 5L days for the Senate and 2L days for the Assembly. (d) The Second Extraordinary Session convened on Dec. 2, 2008 (Senate) and Dec. 8, 2008 (Assembly) and adjourned on Feb. 19, 2009 (Assembly); March 3, 2009 (Senate) for a total of 12L (Assembly); 13L (Senate) (e) The Third Extraordinary Session convened on Jan. 5, 2009 (both Assembly and Senate) and adjourned Oct. 26, 2009 (Assembly); Nov. 30, 2009 (Senate) for a total of 64L (Assembly); 59L (Senate) days. (f) Three partial or line-item vetoes. (g) The Fourth Extraordinary Session convened on July 2, 2009 (Assembly); July 6, 2009 (Senate) and adjourned on July 24, 2009 (Assembly); Nov. 30, 2009 (Senate) for a total of 9L (Assembly); 6L (Senate) days. (h) The Fifth Extraordinary Session convened on Aug. 31, 2009 (Assembly); Aug. 27, 2009 (Senate) and adjourned on Jan. 11, 2010 (Assembly);
150 The Book of the States 2010
No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No special session in 2009– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Jan 12, 2010 (Senate) for a total of 11L (Assembly); 14L (Senate) days. (i) The Sixth Extraordinary Session convened Oct. 26, 2009 (Assembly); Oct. 14, 2009 (Senate) and was not adjourned on March 17, 2010. The total number of days through April 2010 is 13L (Assembly); 17L (Senate). (j) The Seventh Extraordinary Session convened on Oct. 26, 2009 (Assembly); Oct. 14, 2009 (Senate) and adjourned on Nov. 4, 2009 (Assembly); Nov. 30, 2009 (Senate) for a total of 7L (Assembly); 6L (Senate) days. (k) One partial veto or line item veto. One bill was initially line item vetoed by the Governor, but that was challenged and eventually it become law without Governor’s signature. (l) Senate only. Nominations & confirmations. (m) One partial or line item veto. (n) The legislature convened to address those bills which were vetoed by the governor in the 2009 regular session. 34 vetoes were overridden. (o) The Senate convened to discuss the Governor’s nominee for the Intermediate Court of Appeals (p) The Senate convened to discuss the Governor’s nominee for the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. (q) Senate 3L and House 4L. (r) Three partial or line item vetoes. (s) Owing to the unusual nature of the 2009 session, both regular and extraordinary business was often conducted on the same day; it is not possible to distinguish which bills were introduced during which time. The Senate was in Extraordinary Session for 44 days (24 working days and 20 legislative days). The Assembly was in Extraordinary Session for 30 days (6 working days and 24 legislative days). (t) All totals based on a combination of both the 2009 Regular and 2009 Special Session which is the method being used for official reporting of the two sessions. See Table 3.19 for totals.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.21 STAFF FOR INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS Senate
State or other jurisdiction
House/Assembly
Capitol Personal
Capitol Shared
District
Personal
Shared
District
Alabama...................................... Alaska (b).................................... Arizona........................................ Arkansas...................................... California.....................................
. . . YR/SO YR (c) . . . YR
Colorado...................................... Connecticut (f)............................ Delaware...................................... Florida.......................................... Georgia........................................
(e) (e) . . . (e) (e) ... YR/36 . . . . . . . . . YR/38 ... ........................................................................................... (g).................................................................................................... YR (h) . . . YR (h) YR (h) . . . YR (h) . . . YR/3, SO/68 . . . . . . YR/25, SO/113 ...
Hawaii.......................................... Idaho............................................ Illinois.......................................... Indiana......................................... Iowa..............................................
YR . . . . . . . . . SO
. . . SO, YR (i) YR/1 (j) YR/2 (k) . . .
. . . . . . YR (j) . . . . . .
YR . . . YR . . . SO
. . . SO, YR (i) YR/2 (j) YR . . .
... ... YR (j) ... ...
Kansas.......................................... Kentucky...................................... Louisiana..................................... Maine........................................... Maryland......................................
SO/1 . . . (n) YR,SO (p) YR, SO (r)
. . . YR (m) YR (o) YR/27, SO/7 ...
. . . . . . YR (n) YR YR (r)
(l) . . . (n) . . . YR (r)
SO/3 YR (m) YR (o) YR (q) SO (r)
... ... YR (n) ... YR (r)
Massachusetts.............................. Michigan...................................... Minnesota.................................... Mississippi.................................... Missouri.......................................
YR YR (s) YR (t) . . . YR
. . . . . . Varies YR YR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
YR YR/2 (s) YR/3 . . . YR
. . . . . . Varies YR YR
... ... ... ... ...
Montana....................................... Nebraska................................... Nevada......................................... New Hampshire.......................... New Jersey...................................
. . . YR (u) SO (v) . . . YR (h)
SO . . . YR YR . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . YR (h)
. . . SO ... ............................... Unicameral................................ SO (s)(v) YR ... . . . YR ... YR (h) . . . YR (h)
New Mexico . .............................. New York..................................... North Carolina............................ North Dakota.............................. Ohio..............................................
SO (w) YR (x) YR (y) . . . YR/2 (z)
. . . . . . YR SO (v) . . .
. . . YR (x) . . . . . . (aa)
. . . YR (x) YR (y) . . . YR/1 (bb)
SO/2 . . . YR SO (v) . . .
... YR (x) ... ... (aa)
Oklahoma.................................... Oregon......................................... Pennsylvania................................ Rhode Island............................... South Carolina............................
YR/1(cc) YR (dd) YR . . . . . .
YR (cc) YR . . . YR (ff) YR/2
. . . YR (ee) YR . . . . . .
YR (cc) YR (dd) YR . . . YR/4
YR/1 (cc) YR . . . YR (ff) . . .
... YR (ee) YR ... ...
South Dakota.............................. Tennessee..................................... Texas............................................. Utah.............................................. Vermont.......................................
(gg) YR/1 YR/6 (ii) (jj) YR/1 (kk)
(gg) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(gg) (hh) YR/3 (ii) (jj) YR/1 (kk)
(gg) YR/1 . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Virginia........................................ Washington.................................. West Virginia............................... Wisconsin..................................... Wyoming......................................
SO/1 (ll) YR/1 SO YR (mm) . . .
. . . . . . . . . YR . . .
(ll) YR/1 . . . YR (mm) . . .
SO (ll) YR/1 . . . YR (mm) . . .
SO/2 . . . SO/17 YR . . .
(ll) YR/1 ... YR (mm) ...
American Samoa........................ Guam......................................... No. Mariana Islands................... Puerto Rico................................. U.S. Virgin Islands....................
. . . . . . YR (nn) YR (nn) YR (nn)
. . . . . . (nn) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ... ............................... Unicameral................................ YR (nn) (nn) (mm) YR (nn) . . . ... ............................... Unicameral................................
YR/2 . . . . . . YR . . .
(a) YR . . . . . . YR
. . . YR/SO . . . . . . YR
YR/10 . . . YR (c) YR (d) . . .
(a) YR ... ... YR
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 151
STATE LEGISLATURES
STAFF FOR INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009. Note: For entries under column heading “Shared,” figures after slash indicate approximate number of legislators per staff person, where available. Key: . . . — Staff not provided for individual legislators. YR — Year-round. SO — Session only. IO — Interim only. (a) Six counties have local delegation offices with shared staff. (b)The number of staff per legislator varies depending on their position. (c) Representatives share a secretary with another legislator; however, House leadership and committee chairs usually have their own secretarial staff. All legislators share professional research staff. (d) The legislators share 21 staff people; 4.76 legislators per staff person. (e) Senate: has 17 session only staff and 18 year round staff. There are no district staffers, and since the entire staff works for multiple senators, they are not listed as shared. There are five session only staff in the bill room who are jointly managed by the Colorado Senate and House. House: year-round staff consists of five majority caucus staff; four minority caucus staff; 6 chief clerk non-partisan staff. The Colorado session only staff consists of three majority caucus staff; two minority caucus staff; 23 chief clerk non-partisan staff. The Colorado House of Representatives may have up to 65 legislative aides who serve as the legislator’s personal staff. The legislative aides are employed for a total of 330 hours per legislator during the session only and they can work only in the capitol, and not in the district office. All of the legislators may hire an aide. (f) The numbers are for staff assigned to specific legislators. There is additional staff working in the leadership offices that also support the rank and file members. (g) Staffers are a combination of full time, part time, shared, personal, etc. and their assignments change throughout the year. (h) Personal and district staff are the same. In Florida, two out of the three district employees may travel to the capitol for sessions. (i) Idaho has 2 year round full-time, 3 part-time year round employees and 32 session only employees in the Senate. The House has 2 full time and 1 part time person year round and 37 additional people during session . (j) The only staff working for individual rank-and-file legislators are (1) one secretary in the Capitol complex for each two members and (1-2) district staff, whom legislators select and pay from a separate allowance for that purpose. Partisan staffers help individual legislators with many issues in addition to staffing committees. (k) Leadership has one legislative assistant. During session, college interns are hired to provide additional staff—one for every two members. Leadership has one intern. (l) One clerical staff person for three individual House members is the norm. Chairpersons are provided their own individual clerical staff person. (m) The General Assembly is provided professional and clerical staff services by a centralized, non-partisan staff, with the exception of House and Senate leadership which employs partisan staff. No district staff provided. (n) Each legislator may hire as many assistants as desired, but pay from public funds ranges from $2,000 to $3,000 per month per legislator. Assistant(s) generally work in the district office but may also work at the capitol during the session. (o) The six caucuses are assigned one full-time position each (potentially
152 The Book of the States 2010
24 legislators per one staff person). (p) President’s office: six year round; Majority office: 7 year round, 1 session only; Secretary’s office: nine year round, five session only. (q) The 151 House members do not have individual staff. There are 21 people who work year round in the two partisan offices, 12 of whom are legislative aides who primarily work directly with legislators. (r) Senators have one year round administrative aide and one session only secretary. Delegates have one part-time year round administrative aide and a shared session only secretary. Legislators may increase staff and also hire student interns if their district office funds are used. (s) Senate—majority, 5 staff per legislator; minority, 3 staff per legislator. House—2 staff per legislator. (t) One to two staff persons per legislator. (u) Two to five staff persons per legislator. (v) Secretarial staff; in North Dakota, leadership only. (w) One plus; clerical plus attendant or analyst. (x) House/party leaders determine allowances/funds for members once allocations are made. Members have considerable independence in hiring personal and committee staffs. (y) Part time during interim. (z) Some leadership offices have more. (aa) Some legislators maintain district offices at their own expense. (bb) Some offices have more. (cc) Senate; Pro Tem—5 staff persons; House: year round one to five, majority party only; minority party one staff person per legislator. Committee, fiscal and legal staffs are available to legislators on a year round. (dd) Two staff persons per legislator during session. (ee) Senate—Equivalent of one full-time staff. House—1 during interim. (ff) The General Assembly has a total of 280 full time positions, 267 full-time shared staff and additional 13 full-time positions for the House. (gg) The non-partisan Legislative Research Council serves all members of both houses year round. Committee secretaries and legislative interns and pages provide support during the sessions. (hh) Several House members have year-round personal staff. It depends on seniority, duties (such as committee chairs), and committee assignments. (ii) Average staff numbers are from staff member totals from each chamber. (jj) Most legislators are assigned student interns during session who are temporarily employed by OLRGC. Some legislators provide their own personal interns (volunteer/financial arrangements made between them). (kk) No personal staff except one administrative assistant for the Speaker and one for the Senate Pro Tempore. (ll) Senate—One administrative assistant (secretary) provided to the members during the session by the Clerk’s offices. Members also receive a set dollar allowance to hire additional legislative assistants who may serve year round at the capitol and in the district. House—Members also receive a set dollar allowance to hire additional legislative assistants who may serve year round at the capitol and in the district. (mm) Staffing levels vary according to majority/minority status and leadership or committee responsibilities. Members may assign staff to work in the district office. (nn) Individual staffing and staff pool arrangements are at the discretion of the individual legislator.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.22 STAFF FOR LEGISLATIVE STANDING COMMITTEES Source of staff services ** Committee staff assistance Senate House/Assembly State or other jurisdiction Prof. Cler. Prof. Cler. Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California....................
l
Chamber agency (b)
Caucus or leadership
Committee or committee chair
Prof.
Cler.
Prof.
Cler.
Prof.
Cler.
Prof.
Cler.
H H H H
H H H H H
B B B B B
B B B B B
B . . . B B B
B . . . B B B
. . . . . . B . . . B
. . . ... B . . . B
... B B . . . B
... B B ... B
. . . H H H H
H . . . l H l
. . . H H H H
B B B B B
. . . . . . . . . B B
B . . . B B B
B . . . . . . B B
B . . . B B B
B (c) B . . . B B
. . . . . . . . . B B
... B B B ...
H H H . . . . . .
H . . . H l H
H H H . . . . . .
B B (d) . . . . . . B
B B (d) . . . . . . . . .
B . . . B S (f)
B . . . B . . . B
B . . . B S B
B B (e) B . . . . . .
B ... . . . ... . . .
B ... ... ... ...
H H H H (k) H (l)
H H H (i) H (k) H (l)
H H H H (k) H (l)
B B B B B
B (g) B B B B
B . . . B B . . .
B . . . B B . . .
B B (h) B B . . .
B B (h) B B . . .
B . . . B (j) . . . . . .
B ... B (j) B ..
H H H H
H H H H H
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware..................... Florida......................... Georgia........................
H . . . l H l
Hawaii......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana ....................... Iowa.............................
l . . . H H H
Kansas......................... H Kentucky..................... H Louisiana..................... H (i) Maine........................... H (k) Maryland..................... H (l)
Joint central agency (a)
l
Massachusetts............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi................... Missouri.......................
H H H l H
H H H H . . .
H H H l H
H H H H . . .
. . . B . . . . . . B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . B B B
. . . H S B . . .
. . . B B . . . S
. . . . . . S . . . S
. . . . . . B B B
... S B B ...
Montana...................... Nebraska..................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey..................
H H H l H
H H H H H
H U H H H
H U H H H
B (m) B B B
. . . . . . . . . B B
. . . (m) . . . B B
B . . . B B B
. . . (m) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . (m) . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... H ...
New Mexico................ New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio.............................
H H H l H
H H H (n) H H
H H H l H
H H H (n) H H
. . . B B B B
. . . B . . . B . . .
B B . . . . . . . . .
B B . . . . . . . . .
. . . B . . . . . . B
. . . B . . . . . . . . .
. . . B . . . . . . B
... B B (n) ... B
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania............... Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
H H H l H
H H H H H
H H H l H
H H H H H
. . . B B B B
. . . B B B B
B B B . . . B
B B B B B
. . . B B . . . B
. . . B B . . . B
B B B B B
B B B ... B
South Dakota.............. Tennessee.................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont.......................
H H H H H
H H H H (r) l
H H H H H
H H H H (r) l
B B B B B
. . . . . . B B B
. . . B . . . . . . . . .
(l) B B B . . .
. . . . . . . . . B (s) . . .
(l) . . . . . . B . . .
. . . . . . B . . . . . .
(l) B B ... ...
Virginia........................ Washington................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin.................... Wyoming.....................
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
B . . . B B . . .
. . . . . . B . . . . . .
B B B . . . . . .
B B B . . . B
. . . B B . . . . . .
. . . B B . . . . . .
(o) B B (p) . . .
(o) B B B ...
American Samoa........ Guam .......................... No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
l H H H H
H H H H H
l U H H U
H U H H U
B . . . B (q) B (q) S (q)
B . . . B (q) B (q) S (q)
B S B (q) B (q) S (q)
B S B (q) B (q) S (q)
. . . . . . B (q) B (q) S (q)
. . . . . . B (q) B (q) S (q)
B . . . B (q) B (q) S (q)
... ... B (q) B (q) S (q)
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 153
STATE LEGISLATURES
STAFF FOR LEGISLATIVE STANDING COMMITTEES—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2010 ** — Multiple entries reflect a combination of organizations and location of services. Key: H — All committees l — Some committees . . . — Services not provided B — Both chambers H — House S — Senate U — Unicameral (a) Includes legislative council or service agency or central management agency. (b) Includes chamber management agency, office of clerk or secretary and House or Senate research office. (c) Senate—there is secretarial staff for both majority and minority offices for the Senate in the Capitol. Most of the clerical work is done by caucus staff. House—the clerical and secretarial staff for the House is more centralized and is supervised by the Clerk of the House. (d) Professional staff and clerical support is provided via the Legislative Services Office, a non-partisan office serving all members on a year round basis. (e) Leadership in each party hire their respective support staff. (f) The Senate secretary and House clerk maintain supervision of committee clerks. (g) Senators and House chairpersons select their secretaries and notify the central administrative services agency; all administrative employee matters handled by the agency.
154 The Book of the States 2010
(h) Leadership employs partisan staff to provide professional and clerical services. However, all members, including leadership are also served by the centralized, non-partisan staff. (i) House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees have Legislative Fiscal Office staff at their hearings. (j) Staff are assigned to each committee but work under the direction of the chair. (k) Standing committees are joint House and Senate committees. (l) The clerical support comes from employees who are hired to work only during the legislative sessions. They are employees of either the House or the Senate, and are not part of the central agency. (m) Professional services are not provided, except that the staff of the Legislative Fiscal Office serves the Appropriations Committee. Individual senators are responsible for the process of hiring their own staff. (n) Member’s personal secretary serves as a clerk to the committee or subcommittee that the member chairs. (o) The House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committees have their own staff. The staff members work under the direction of the chair. (p) Standing committees are staffed by subject specialist from the Joint Legislative Council. (q) In general, the legislative service agency provides legal and staff assistance for legislative meetings and provides associated materials. Individual legislators hire personal or committee staff as their budgets provide and at their own discretion. (r) Clerical staff not assigned to Rules Cmtes. (s) Refers only to Chief Deputy of the Senate and Chief of Staff in the House.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.23 STANDING COMMITTEES: APPOINTMENT AND NUMBER
State or other jurisdiction
Committee members appointed by: Senate
House/Assembly
Committee chairpersons appointed by: Senate
House/Assembly
Number of standing committees during regular 2009 session Senate
House/Assembly
Joint
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
CC CC P (a) CR
S CC S (b) S
CC CC P (a) CR
S CC S S S
25 10 15 12 24
25 10 15 13 30
... 4 ... 5 5
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
MjL CC PT P CC
S CC S S S
MjL CC PT P CC
S CC S S S
11 (c) 25 26 25
12 (c) 25 25 35
14 21 (c) 3 6 2
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
P PT (f) P, MnL PT MjL, MnL
(e) S S, MnL S S
P PT P PT MjL
(d) S S S S
14 10 29 20 19
16 14 55 23 20
... 3 1 ... 7
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
(g) P P P P
S S S (h) S S
(g) P P P P
S S S S S
17 14 17 5 6
30 19 17 5 7
16 ... 2 17 (i) 18
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
P MjL CR P PT (j)
S S S S S
P MjL MjL P PT
S S S S S
7 19 22 42 18
9 24 35 47 42
28 3 ... 1 22
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey....................... New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio.................................. Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
CC CC MjL P (k) CC CC PT CC CC P (m) PT P PT P (o)
S U S S (k) CC S S CC CC S (m) S S S S S
CC E MjL P (k) CC CC PT CC MjL P (m) PT P PT P (p)
S U S S (k) CC S S CC MjL S (m) S S S S E
17 14 9 14 13 9 (l) 32 20 11 15 15 11 21 11 15
17 U 11 28 22 15 (l) 37 33 12 (n) 27 18 15 27 11 11
... U ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 6 2 5 ... 4 ...
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
PT S P P CC
S S S (q) S S
PT S P P CC
S S S S S
13 13 19 11 10
13 15 35 15 14
1 15 8 2 10
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
E P(s) P MjL P
S S S S S
(r) E (t) P MjL P
S S S S S
11 15 18 19 12
14 25 18 36 12
... 4 ... 9 11
Dist. of Columbia............ American Samoa............ Guam................................ No. Mariana Islands....... Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands..........
(u) P (v) P P U
U S U S S E
(u) E (v) P P E
U S U S S U
14 16 12 9 23 10
U 20 U 7 30 U
U ... ... ... ... U
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 155
STATE LEGISLATURES
STANDING COMMITTEES: APPOINTMENT AND NUMBER—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey January 2009 and The Council of State Governments State Directory II, 2009. Key: CC — Committee on Committees CR — Committee on Rules E — Election MjL — Majority Leader MnL — Minority Leader P — President PT — President pro tempore S — Speaker U — Unicameral Legislature . . .— None reported. (a) Selection process based on seniority. (b) Members of the standing committees shall be selected by House District Caucuses with each caucus selecting five members for each “A” standing committee and five members for each “B” standing committee. (c) Substantive standing committees are joint committees. Connecticut, 21 (there are also three statutory and four select committees for the House and the Senate); (d) By resolution with members of majority party designating the chair, vice-chairs and majority party members of committees, and members of minority party designating minority party members. (e) By resolution, with members of majority party designating the chair, vice-chairs and majority party members of committees, and members of minority party designating minority party members. (f) Committee members appointed by the Senate leadership under the direction of the president pro tempore, by and with the Senate’s consent. (g) Committee on Organization, Calendar and Rules.
156 The Book of the States 2010
(h) Speaker appoints only 12 of the 19 members of the Committee on Appropriations. (i) There are currently 17 Joint Standing Committees, two Joint Select Committees, and a joint Government Oversight Committee. (j) Senate minority committee members chosen by minority caucus, but appointed by president pro tempore. (k) Senate president and House speaker consult with minority leaders. (l) Senate: includes eight substantive committees and one procedural committee. House: includes 12 substantive committees and three procedural committees. (m) The minority leader may recommend for consideration minority party members for each committee. (n)The House had a Constitutional Revision Committee. (o) Appointment based on seniority (Senate Rule 19D). (p) Appointed by seniority which is determined by tenure within the committee rather than tenure within the Senate. Also, chair is based on the majority party within the committee (Senate Rule 19E). (q) For each standing substantive committee of the House, except for the appropriations committee, a maximum of one-half of the membership, exclusive of chair and vice-chair, is determined by seniority; the remaining membership of the committee is determined by the speaker. (r) Senior member of the majority party on the committee is the chair. (s) Lieutenant governor is president of the Senate. (t) Recommended by the Committee on Committees, approved by the president, then confirmed by the Senate. (u) Chair of the Council. (v) Members are appointed by the Chairperson; Chairperson is elected during majority caucus prior to inauguration.
★
Georgia.....................
See footnotes at end of table.
★
★
Colorado...................
Florida......................
★
California.................
★
★
Arkansas...................
Delaware..................
★
Arizona.....................
★
. . .
Alaska.......................
Connecticut..............
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
Committee meetings Constitution permits open to public* each legislative body to determine House/ its own rules Senate Assembly
Alabama...................
State or other jurisdiction Specific, advance notice provisions for committee meetings or hearings
Senate: a list of committee meetings shall be posted by 10 a.m. the preceding Friday House: none
Senate: during session—3 hours notice for first 50 days, 4 hours thereafter House: two days.
Senate: agenda released one day before meetings House: agenda for meetings released four days before meetings
Senate: one day notice for meetings, five days notice for hearings. House: one day notice for meetings, five days notice for hearings.
Senate: final action on a measure is prohibited unless notice is posted one calendar day prior to its consideration. The prohibition does not apply if the action receives a majority vote of the committee. House: Meeting publicly announced while the House is in actual session as much in advance as possible.
Senate: advance notice provisions exist. House: advance notice provisions exist.
Senate: 2 days House: 18 hours (2 hours with 2/3’s vote of the committee)
Senate: Written agenda for each regular and special meeting containing all bills, memorials and resolutions to be considered shall be distributed to each member of the committee and to the Secretary of the Senate at least five days prior to the committee meeting House: The committee chair shall prepare an agenda and distribute copies to committee members, the Information Desk and the Chief Clerk’s Office by 4 p.m. each Wednesday for all standing committees meeting on Monday of the following week and 4 p.m. each Thursday for all standing committees meeting on any day except Monday of the following week.
For meetings, by 4 p.m. on the preceding Thurs.; for first hearings on bills, 5 days
Senate: 4 hours, if possible House: 24 hours, except Rules & Local Legislations Committee. Exceptions after 27th legislative day and special sessions.
Table 3.24 RULES ADOPTION AND STANDING COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE
Senate: bills can be voted out by voice vote or roll call. House: bills can be voted out by voice vote or roll call.
Senate: vote on final passage is recorded. House: vote on final passage is recorded.
Senate: results of all committee reports are recorded. House: results of all committee reports are recorded.
Senate: roll call required. House: roll call required.
Senate: final action by recorded roll call vote. House: final action by recorded roll call vote.
Senate: roll call. House: roll call.
Senate: roll call votes are recorded. House: report of committee recommendation signed by committee chair.
Senate: roll call vote. House: roll call vote.
Roll call vote on any measure taken upon request by any member of either house.
Senate: final vote on a bill is recorded. House: recorded vote if requested by member of committee and sustained by one additional committee member.
Voting/roll call provisions to report a bill to floor
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 157
158 The Book of the States 2010 ★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
Idaho.........................
Illinois.......................
Indiana......................
Iowa..........................
Kansas......................
Kentucky..................
Louisiana..................
Maine........................
Maryland..................
Massachusetts..........
Michigan...................
Minnesota.................
See footnotes at end of table.
★
★
★
★
★
★
★(a)
★
★
★
★
★(b)
★(a)
★(a)
★
★
★
★
★
★(a)
★
★
★
★
★(b)
★(a)
★(a)
Committee meetings Constitution permits open to public* each legislative body to determine House/ its own rules Senate Assembly
Hawaii......................
State or other jurisdiction
Senate: 3 days House: 3 days
Senate and House: Notice shall be published in the journal in advance of a hearing. Notice of a special meeting shall be posted at least 18 hours before a meeting. Special provisions for conference committees.
Senate: 48 hours for public hearings House: 48 hours for public hearings
Senate: none (c) House: none (c)
Senate: must be advertised two weekends in advance. House: must be advertised two weekends in advance.
Senate: no later than 1 p.m. the preceding day House: no later than 4 p.m. the preceding day
Senate: none House: none
Senate: none House: none
Senate: none House: none
Senate: 48 hours House: prior to adjournment of the meeting day next preceding the meeting or announced during session
Senate: 6 days House: 6 days
Senate: none House: per rule; chair provides notice of next meeting dates and times to clerk to be read prior to adjournment each day of session.
Senate: 72 hours before 1st referral committee meetings, 48 hours before subsequent referral committee House: 48 hours
Specific, advance notice provisions for committee meetings or hearings
RULES ADOPTION AND STANDING COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE—Continued
Senate: not needed. House: not needed.
Senate: committee reports include the vote of each member on any bill. House: the daily journal reports the roll call on all motions to report bills.
Senate: voice vote or recorded roll call vote at the request of 2 committee members. House: recorded vote upon request by a member.
Senate: the final vote on any bill is recorded. House: the final vote on any bill is recorded.
Senate: recorded vote is required to report a bill out of committee. House: recorded vote is required to report a bill out of committee.
Senate: any motion to report an instrument is decided by a roll call vote. House: any motion to report an instrument is decided by a roll call vote.
Senate: each member’s vote recorded on each bill. House: each member’s vote recorded on each bill.
Senate: vote recorded upon request of member. House: total for and against actions recorded.
Senate: final action by roll call. House: committee reports include roll call on final disposition.
Senate: committee reports—do pass; do pass amended, reported out without recommendation. House: majority of quorum; vote can be by roll call or consent.
Senate: votes on all legislative measures acted upon are recorded. House: votes on all legislative matters acted upon are recorded.
Senate: bills can be voted out by voice vote or roll call. House: bills can be voted out by voice vote or roll call.
Senate: A quorum of committee members must be present before voting. House: A quorum of committee members must be present before voting.
Voting/roll call provisions to report a bill to floor
STATE LEGISLATURES
★
★
New Jersey...............
New Mexico.............
See footnotes at end of table.
★
★
New Hampshire.......
North Dakota...........
★
Nevada......................
(f)
★
Nebraska..................
North Carolina.........
★
Montana...................
★
★
Missouri....................
New York..................
★
★
★
★(a)
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★(a)
★
★
★
★
U
★
★
★
Committee meetings Constitution permits open to public* each legislative body to determine House/ its own rules Senate Assembly
Mississippi................
State or other jurisdiction
Senate: hearing schedule printed Friday mornings. House: hearing schedule printed Friday mornings.
Senate: none (e) House: none (e)
Senate: Rules require that notice be given for public hearings, but the Rules are silent as to how long. House: 1 week for hearings, Thursday of prior week for meetings.
Senate: none House: none
Senate: 5 days House: 5 days
Senate: 4 days House: no less than 4 days
Senate: by rule—“adequate notice” shall be provided. (d) House: by rule—“adequate notice” shall be provided. (d)
Seven calendar days notice before hearing a bill.
Senate: 3 legislative days House: none
Senate: 24 hours House: 24 hours
Senate: none House: none
Specific, advance notice provisions for committee meetings or hearings
RULES ADOPTION AND STANDING COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE—Continued
Senate: included with minutes from standing committee. House: included with minutes from standing committee.
Senate: no roll call vote may be taken in any committee. House: roll call vote taken on any question when requested by member & sustained by one-fifth of members present.
Senate: majority vote required House: majority vote required
Senate: vote on the final report of the committee taken by yeas and nays. Roll call vote upon request. House: vote on the final report of the committee taken by yeas and nays. Roll call vote upon request.
Senate: the chair reports the vote of each member present on a motion to report a bill. House: the chair reports the vote of each member present on motions with respect to bills.
Senate: committees may report a bill out by voice or recorded roll call vote. House: committees may report a bill out by voice or recorded roll call vote.
Senate: recorded vote is taken upon final committee action on bills. House: recorded vote is taken upon final committee action on bills.
House: every vote of each member is recorded and made public. In executive session, majority of the committee must vote in favor of the motion made.
House: bills are reported out by a recorded roll call vote. Senate: every vote of each member is recorded and made public.
House: bills are reported out by voice vote or recorded roll call vote. Senate: yeas and nays are reported in journal.
House: recorded roll call vote upon request by a member. Senate: bills are reported out by voice vote or recorded roll call vote.
Voting/roll call provisions to report a bill to floor
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 159
160 The Book of the States 2010 ★
★
★
★
★
★
★
Oklahoma.................
Oregon......................
Pennsylvania............
Rhode Island............
South Carolina.........
South Dakota...........
Tennessee.................
See footnotes at end of table.
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
Committee meetings Constitution permits open to public* each legislative body to determine House/ its own rules Senate Assembly
Ohio..........................
State or other jurisdiction
Senate: 6 days House: 72 hours
Senate and House: at least one legislative day must intervene between the date of posting and the date of consideration in both houses.
Senate: 24 hours House: 24 hours
Senate: notice required. House: notice required.
Senate: written notice to members containing date, time, place and agenda House: written notice to members containing date, time, place and agenda
Senate: At least 48 hrs. notice except at the end of session when President invokes 1 hr. notice when adjournment sine die is imminent. House: First public hearing on a measure must have at least 72 hours notice, all other meetings at least 48 hours notice except in case of emergency.
Senate: 3 day notice. House: 3 day notice.
Senate: 2 days. In a case of necessity, the notice of hearing may be given in a shorter period by such reasonable method as prescribed by the Committee on Rules. House: 5 days. If an emergency requires consideration of a matter at a meeting not announced on notice, the chair may revise or supplement the notice at any time before or during the meeting to include the matter.
Specific, advance notice provisions for committee meetings or hearings
RULES ADOPTION AND STANDING COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE—Continued
Senate: majority referral to Calendar and Rules Committee, majority of Calendar and Rules Committee referral to floor. House: majority referral to Calendar and Rules Committee, majority of Calendar and Rules Committee referral to floor.
Senate and House: a majority vote of the members-elect taken by roll call is needed for final disposition on a bill. This applies to both houses.
Senate: before the expiration of five days from the date of reference, any bill, may be recalled from committee by the vote of three-fourths of the Senators present and voting House: favorable report out of committee (majority of committee members voting in favor).
Senate: majority vote of the members present. House: majority vote of the members present.
Senate: a majority vote of committee members. House: a majority vote of committee members.
Senate: affirmative roll call vote of majority of members of committee and recorded in committee minutes. House: affirmative roll call vote of majority of members of committee and recorded in committee minutes.
Senate: roll call vote. House: roll call vote.
Senate: the affirmative votes of a majority of all members of a committee shall be necessary to report or to postpone further consideration of bills or resolutions. Every member present shall vote, unless excused by the chair. At discretion of chair the roll call may be continued for a vote by any member who was present at the prior meeting, but no later than 10 a.m. of next calendar day. House: the affirmative votes of a majority of all members of a committee shall be necessary to report or to postpone further consideration of bills or resolutions. Every member present shall vote, unless excused by the chair. At discretion of chair the roll call may be continued for a vote by any member who was present at the prior meeting, but no later than 12 noon one day following the meeting. Members must be present in order to vote on amendment.
Voting/roll call provisions to report a bill to floor
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governments 161 ★
U.S. Virgin Islands....
See footnotes at end of table.
★
Puerto Rico..............
★
Wisconsin.................
★
★
West Virginia............
Guam........................
★
Washington..............
★
★
Virginia.....................
American Samoa.....
★
Vermont....................
★
★
Utah..........................
Wyoming..................
★
★
★
★
★(g)
★
★
★
★
★(a)
★
★
★
U
★
U
★(g)
★
★
★
★
★(a)
★
★
★
Committee meetings Constitution permits open to public* each legislative body to determine House/ its own rules Senate Assembly
Texas.........................
State or other jurisdiction
Seven calendar days.
Senate: Must be notified every Thurs., one week in advance. House: 24 hours advanced notice, no later than 4 p.m. previous day
Five days prior to public hearings.
Senate: At least 3 calendar days in advance. House: At least 3 calendar days in advance.
Senate: by 3 p.m. of previous day House: by 3 p.m. of previous day
Senate: Monday noon of the preceding week. House: Monday noon of the preceding week.
Senate: none House: none
Senate: 5 days House: 5 days
Senate: none House: none
Senate: none House: none
Senate: Not less than 24 hours public notice. House: Not less than 24 hours public notice.
Senate: 24 hours House: The House requires five calendar days notice before a public hearing at which testimony will be taken, and two hours notice or an announcement from the floor before a formal meeting (testimony cannot be taken at a formal meeting). 24 hour advance notice is required during special session
Specific, advance notice provisions for committee meetings or hearings
RULES ADOPTION AND STANDING COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE—Continued
Bills must be reported to floor by Rules Committee.
Senate: bills reported from a committee carry a majority vote House: bills reported from a committee carry a majority vote by referendum or in an ordinary meeting.
Majority vote of committee members.
Senate/House: There are four methods of ascertaining the decision upon any matter: by raising of hands; by secret ballot, when authorized by law; by rising; and by call of the members and recorded by the Clerk of the vote of each.
Senate: bills are reported out by recorded roll call vote. House: bills are reported out by recorded roll call vote.
Senate: number of ayes and noes, and members absent or not voting are reported. House: number of ayes and noes are recorded.
Senate: majority of committee members voting. House: majority of committee members voting.
Senate: bills reported from a committee carry a majority report which must be signed by a majority of the committee. House: every vote to report a bill out of committee is by yeas and nays; the names of the members voting are recorded in the report.
Senate: recorded vote, except resolutions that do not have a specific vote requirement under the Rules. In these cases, a voice vote is sufficient. House: vote of each member is taken and recorded for each measure.
Senate: vote is recorded for each committee member for every bill considered. House: vote is recorded for each committee member for every bill considered.
Senate: Voice vote accepting the recommendation of the committee. House: Voice vote accepting the recommendation of the committee.
Senate: bills are reported by recorded roll call vote. House: committee reports include the record vote by which the report was adopted, including the vote of each member.
Voting/roll call provisions to report a bill to floor
STATE LEGISLATURES
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009 with update August 2009. Key: H — Yes * — Notice of committee meetings may also be subject to state open meetings laws; in some cases, listed times may be subject to suspension or enforceable only to the extent “feasible” or “whenever possible.” U — Unicameral. (a) Certain matters may be discussed in executive session. (Other states permit meetings to be closed for various reasons, but their rules do not specifically mention “executive session.”) (b) A session of a house or one of its committees can be closed to the public if two-thirds of the members elected to that house determine that the public interest so requires. A meeting of a joint committee or commission can be closed if two-thirds of the members of both houses so vote.
RULES ADOPTION AND STANDING COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE—Continued (c) General directive in the Senate and House rules to the Department of Legislative Services to compile a list of the meetings and to arrange for distribution which in practice is done on a regular basis. (d) Senate: This rule may be suspended for emergencies by a two thirds vote of appointed committee members. House: This rule may be suspended for emergencies by a two thirds vote of appointed committee members. In the Assembly this rule does not apply to committee meetings held on the floor during recess or conference committee meetings. (e) If public hearing, five calendar days. (f) Not referenced specifically, but each body publishes rules. (g) Unless privileged information is being discussed with counsel or the security of the territory is involved.
STATE LEGISLATURES
162 The Book of the States 2010
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.25 Legislative Review of administrative regulations: structures and procedures
State or other jurisdiction Type of reviewing committee
Rules reviewed
Time limits in review process
Alabama.....................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P
If not approved or disapproved within 35 days of filing, rule is approved. If disapproved by committee, rule suspended until adjournment, next regular session or until legislature by resolution revokes suspension. Rule takes effect upon final adjournment unless committee’s disapproval is sustained by legislature. The committee may approve a rule.
Alaska.........................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee and Legislative Affairs Agency review of proposed regulations.
P,E
...
Arizona.......................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
...
Arkansas.....................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
...
California...................
...
P,E
Regulation review conducted by independent executive branch agency. The only existing rules that are reviewed are emergency regulations—all others are reviewed prior to implementation.
Colorado.....................
Joint bipartisan
E
Rules continue unless the annual legislative Rule Reviews Bill discontinues a rule. The Rule Reviews Bill is effective upon the governor’s signature.
Connecticut................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P
Delaware....................
Attorney General review
P
Submittal of proposed regulation shall be on the first Tuesday of month; after first submittal committee has 65 days after date of submission. Second submittal: 35 days for committee to review/take action on revised regulation.
Florida........................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
...
Georgia.......................
Standing committee
P
The agency notifies the Legislative Counsel 30 days prior to the effective dates of proposed rules.
Hawaii........................
Legislative agency
P,E
In Hawaii, the legislative reference bureau assists agencies to comply with a uniform format of style. This does not affect the status of rules.
Idaho...........................
Germane joint subcommittees
P
Germane joint subcommittees vote to object or not object to a rule. They cannot reject a proposed rule directly, only advise an agency which may choose to adopt a rule subject to review by the full legislature. The legislature as a whole reviews rules during the first three weeks of session to determine if they comport with state law. The Senate and House may reject rules via resolution adopted by both. Rules imposing fees must be approved or are deemed approved unless rejected. Temporary rules expire at the end of session unless extended by concurrent resolution.
Illinois.........................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
An agency proposing non-emergency regulations must allow 45 days for public comment. At least five days after any public hearing on the proposal, the agency must give notice of the proposal to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, and allow it 45 days to approve or object to the proposed regulations.
Indiana........................
Joint bipartisan
P
...
Iowa............................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
...
Kansas........................
Joint bipartisan
P
Agencies must give a 60-day notice to the public and the Joint Committee of their intent to adopt or amend specific rules and regulations, a copy of which must be provided to the committee. Within the 60-day comment period, the Joint Committee must review and comment, if it feels necessary, on the proposals. Final rules and regulations are resubmitted to the committee to determine whether further expression of concern is necessary.
Kentucky....................
Joint bipartisan statutory committee
P,E
45 days.
The attorney general shall review any rule or regulation promulgated by any state agency and inform the issuing agency in writing as to the potential of the rule or regulation to result in a taking of private property before the rule or regulation may become effective.
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 163
STATE LEGISLATURES
Legislative Review of administrative regulations: structures and procedures—Continued
State or other jurisdiction Type of reviewing committee
Rules reviewed
Time limits in review process
Louisiana (b)..............
Standing committee
P
All proposed rules and fees are submitted to designated standing committees of the legislature. If a rule or fee is unacceptable, the committee sends a written report to the governor. The governor has 10 days to disapprove the committee report. If both Senate and House committees fail to find the rule unacceptable, or if the governor disapproves the action of a committee within 10 days, the agency may adopt the rule change. (d)
Maine..........................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P
One legislative session.
Maryland....................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
Proposed regulations are submitted for review at least 15 days before publication. Publication triggers 45 day review period which may be extended by the committee, but if agreement cannot be reached, the governor may instruct the agency to modify or withdraw the regulation, or may approve its adoption.
Massachusetts (b)......
Public hearing by agency
P
In Massachusetts, the General Court (Legislature) may by statute authorize an administrative agency to promulgate regulations. The promulgation of such regulations are then governed by Chapter 30A of the Massachusetts General Laws. Chapter 30A requires 21 day notice to the public of a public hearing on a proposed regulation. After public hearing the proposed regulation is filed with the state secretary who approves it if it is in conformity with Chapter 30A. The state secretary maintains a register entitled “Massachusetts Register” and the regulation does not become effective until published in the register. The agency may promulgate amendments to the regulations following the same process.
Michigan.....................
Joint bipartisan
P
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) has 15 session days in which to consider the rule and to object to the rule by filing a notice of objection. If no objection is made, the rules may be filed and go into effect. If JCAR does formally object , bills to block the rules are introduced in both houses of the legislature simultaneously by the committee chair and placed directly on the Senate and House calendars for action. If the bills are not enacted by the legislature and presented to the governor within 15 session days, the rules may go into effect. Between legislative sessions the committee can meet and suspend rules promulgated during the interim between sessions.
Minnesota...................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P,E
Minnesota Statute Sec. 3.842, subd. 4a
Mississippi..................
................................................................................................. (a)..................................................................................................
Missouri......................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P,E
The committee must disapprove a final order of rulemaking within 30 days upon receipt or the order of rulemaking is deemed approved.
Montana.....................
Germane joint bipartisan committees
P
Prior to adoption.
Nebraska....................
Standing committee
P
If an agency proposes to repeal, adopt or amend a rule or regulation, it is required to provide the Executive Board Chair with the proposal at least 30 days prior to the public hearing, as required by law. The Executive Board Chair shall provide to the appropriate standing committee of the legislature, the agency proposal for comment.
Nevada........................
Ongoing statutory committee (Legislative Commission)
P
Proposed regulations are either reviewed at the Legislative Commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting (if the regulation is received more than three working days before the meeting), or they are referred to the Commission’s Subcommittee to Review Regulations. If there is no objection to the regulation, then the Commission will “promptly” file the approved regulation with the secretary of state. If the Commission or its subcommittee objects to a regulation, then the Commission will “promptly” return the regulation to the agency for revision. Within 60 days of receiving the written notice of objection to the regulation, the agency must revise the regulation and return it to the Legislative Counsel. If the Commission or its subcommittee objects to the revised regulation, the agency shall continue to revise and resubmit it to the Commission or subcommittee within 30 days after receiving the written notice of objection to the revised regulation.
See footnotes at end of table.
164 The Book of the States 2010
STATE LEGISLATURES
Legislative Review of administrative regulations: structures and procedures—Continued
State or other jurisdiction Type of reviewing committee
Rules reviewed
Time limits in review process
New Hampshire.........
Joint bipartisan
P
Under APA, for regular rulemaking, the joint committee of administrative rules has 45 days to review a final proposed rule from an agency, Otherwise the rule is automatically approved. If JLCAR makes a preliminary or revised objection, the agency has 45 days to respond, and JLCAR has another 50 days to decide to vote to sponsor a joint resolution, which suspends the adoption process. JLCAR may also, or instead, make a final objection, which shifts the burden of proof in court to the agency. There is no time limit on making a final objection. If no JLCAR action in the 50 days to vote to sponsor a joint resolution, the agency may adopt the rule.
New Jersey.................
Joint bipartisan
...
...
New Mexico...............
................................................................................................. (g)..................................................................................................
New York....................
Joint bipartisan commission
P,E
...
North Carolina...........
Rules Review Commission; Public membership appointed by legislature
P,E
The Rules Review Commission must review a permanent rule submitted to it on or before the 20th of the month by the last day of the next month. The commission must review a permanent rule submitted to it after the 20th of the month by the last day of the second subsequent month.
North Dakota.............
Interim committee
E
The Administrative Rules Committee meets in each calendar quarter to consider rules filed in previous 90 days.
Ohio............................
Joint bipartisan
P,E (h) The committee’s jurisdiction is 65 days from date of original filing plus an additional 30 days from date of re-filing. Rules filed with no changes, pursuant to the five-year review, are under a 90 day jurisdiction.
Oklahoma...................
Standing committee (c)
P,E
The legislature has 30 legislative days to review proposed rules.
Oregon........................
Office of Legislative Counsel
E
Agencies must copy Legislative Counsel within 10 days of rule adoption.
Pennsylvania..............
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
E
Time limits decided by the president pro tempore and speaker of the House.
Rhode Island..............
................................................................................................. (a)..................................................................................................
South Carolina...........
Standing committee (e)
P
General Assembly has 120 days to approve or disapprove. If not disapproved by joint resolution before 120 days, regulation is automatically approved. It can be approved during 120 day review period by joint resolution.
South Dakota.............
Joint bipartisan
P
Rules must be adopted within 75 days of the commencement of the public hearing; emergency rules must be adopted within 30 days of the date of the publication of the notice of intent. Many other deadlines exist; see SDCL 1-26-4 for further details.
Tennessee...................
Joint bipartisan
P
All permanent rules take effect 165 days after filing with the secretary of state. Emergency rules take effect upon filing with the secretary of state.
Texas...........................
Standing committee
P
No time limit.
Utah............................
(f)
P,E
Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), every agency rule that is in effect on February 28 of any calendar year expires May 1 of that year unless it has been reauthorized by the legislature. (UCA 63G-3-502)
Vermont......................
Joint bipartisan
P
The Joint Legislative Committee on Rules must review a proposed rule within 30 days of submission to the committee.
Virginia.......................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P
Standing committees and the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules may object to a proposed or final adopted rule before it becomes effective. This delays the process for 21 days and the agency must respond to the objection. In addition or as an alternative, standing committees and the Commission may suspend the effective date of all or a part of a final regulation until the end of the next regular session, with the concurrence of the Governor.
Washington................
Joint bipartisan
P,E
If the committee determines that a proposed rule does not comply with legislative intent, it notifies the agency, which must schedule a public hearing within 30 days of notification. The agency notifies the committee of its action within seven days after the hearing. If a hearing is not held or the agency does not amend the rule, the objection may be filed in the state register and referenced in the state code. The committee’s powers, other than publication of its objections, are advisory.
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 165
STATE LEGISLATURES
Legislative Review of administrative regulations: structures and procedures—Continued
State or other jurisdiction Type of reviewing committee
Rules reviewed
Time limits in review process
West Virginia..............
Joint bipartisan
P,E
...
Wisconsin...................
Joint bipartisan, standing committee
P,E
The standing committee in each house has 30 days to conduct its review for a proposed rule. If either objects the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules has 30 days to introduce legislation in each house overturning the rules. After 40 days the bills are placed on the calendar. If either bill passes, the rules are overturned. If they fail to pass, the rules go into effect.
Wyoming....................
Joint bipartisan
E
An agency shall submit copies of adopted, amended or repealed rules to the legislative service office for review within five days after the date of the agency’s final action adopting, amending or repealing those rules. The legislature makes its recommendations to the governor who within 15 days after receiving any recommendation, shall either order that the rule be amended or rescinded in accordance with the recommendation or file in writing his objections to the recommendation.
American Samoa.......
Standing committee
P
...
Guam..........................
Standing committee
Puerto Rico................
................................................................................................. (a)..................................................................................................
U.S. Virgin Islands.....
................................................................................................. (a)..................................................................................................
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, February 2009 with update August 2009. Key: P — Proposed rules E — Existing rules . . . — No formal time limits (a) No formal rule review is performed by both legislative and executive branches. (b) Review of rules is performed by both legislative and executive branches. (c) House has a standing committee to which all rules are generally sent for review. In the Senate rules are sent to standing committee which
166 The Book of the States 2010
45 Calendar days
deals with that specific agency. (d) If the committees of both houses fail to find a fee unacceptable, it can be adopted. Committee action on proposed rules must be taken within 5 to 30 days after the agency reports to the committee on its public hearing (if any) and whether it is making changes on proposed rules. (e) Submitted by General Assembly for approval. (f) Created by statute (63G-3-501). (g) No formal review is performed by legislature. Periodic review and report to legislative finance committee is required of certain agencies. (h) The Committee reviews proposed new, amended, and rescinded rules. The Committee participates in a five-year review of every existing rule.
STATE LEGISLATURES
Table 3.26 Legislative Review of administrative rules/regulations: powers Reviewing committee’s powers
State or other jurisdiction
Legislative powers
Advisory powers No objection constitutes Committee may only (a) approval of proposed rule suspend rule
Method of legislative veto of rules
Alabama ��������������������
. . .
Alaska ������������������������
H
Arizona ����������������������
H
Arkansas ��������������������
H
. . .
. . .
...
California ������������������
...
H
H
...
Colorado ��������������������
. . .
H
. . .
Rules that the General Assembly has determined should not be continued are listed as exceptions to the continuation.
H
If not approved or disapproved within 35 days of filing, rule is approved. If disapproved by committee, rule suspended until adjournment, next regular session or until legislature by resolution revokes suspension. Rule takes effect upon final adjournment unless committee’s disapproval is sustained by legislature. The committee may approve a rule.
. . .
(b)
Statute
N.A.
N.A.
H
N.A.
Connecticut ���������������
. . .
H
. . .
Delaware �������������������
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Florida �����������������������
H
...
. . .
Statute
Georgia ����������������������
. . .
H
. . .
Resolution (d)
Hawaii �����������������������
H
...
...
...
Idaho ��������������������������
. . .
H
. . .
Concurrent resolution. All rules are terminated one year after adoption unless the legislature reauthorizes the rule.
Illinois ������������������������
. . .
(e)
H(f)
(f)
Indiana �����������������������
H
. . .
. . .
(g)
Iowa ���������������������������
. . .
. . .
(h)
E-mail legislation
Kansas �����������������������
H
. . .
. . .
Statute
Kentucky �������������������
. . .
H
H
Enacting legislation to void.
Louisiana �������������������
. . .
H
(i)
Concurrent resolution to suspend, amend or repeal adopted rules or fees. For proposed rules and emergency rules, see footnote (i). (j)
Statute CGS 4-170 (d) and 4-171; see footnote (c) N.A.
Maine �������������������������
. . .
H
. . .
Maryland �������������������
H(k)
. . .
. . .
...
Massachusetts �����������
. . .
. . .
. . .
The legislature may pass a bill which would supersede a regulation if signed into law by the governor.
Michigan ��������������������
. . .
. . .
(l)
Joint Committee on Rules has 15 session days to approve the filing of a notice of objection. The filing of the notice of objection starts another 15 day session period that stays the rules and causes committee members to introduce legislation in both houses of the legislature for enactment and presentment to the governor. Any member of the legislature, pursuant to statute, can introduce a bill at a session, which in effect amends or rescinds a rule.
H
. . .
. . .
(m)
Minnesota ������������������ Mississippi..................
.......................................................................................................(n)............................................................................................................
Missouri ���������������������
. . .
H
H
Montana ��������������������
. . .
. . .
H(o)
Nebraska �������������������
H
H
. . .
...
Nevada �����������������������
N.A.
H
H
Proposed regulations are either reviewed at the Legislative Commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting (if the regulation is received more than three working days before the meeting), or they are referred to the Commission’s Subcommittee to Review Regulations. If there is no objection to the regulation, then the Commission will “promptly” file the approved regulation with the Secretary of State. If the Commission or its subcommittee objects to a regulation, then the Commission will “promptly” return the regulation to the agency for revision. Within 60 days of receiving the written notice of objection to the regulation, the agency must revise the regulation and return it to the Legislative Counsel. If the Commission or its subcommittee objects to the revised regulation, the agency shall continue to revise and resubmit it to the Commission or subcommittee within 30 days after receiving the written notice of objection to the revised regulation.
New Hampshire ��������
H
(q)
. . .
(r)
Concurrent resolution passed by both houses of the General Assembly. Statute
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 167
STATE LEGISLATURES
Legislative Review of administrative rules/regulations: powers—Continued Reviewing committee’s powers
State or other jurisdiction
Legislative powers
Advisory powers No objection constitutes Committee may only (a) approval of proposed rule suspend rule
Method of legislative veto of rules
New Jersey ����������������
H
H
H
New Mexico ��������������
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
No formal mechanism exists for legislative review of administrative rules.
New York �������������������
H
. . .
. . .
Reviewing commission’s powers are advisory; it may, via its chair, introduce legislation with regard to agency rulemaking.
(s)
North Carolina ����������
H
H
H
...
North Dakota ������������
. . .
H(t)
. . .
The Administrative Rules Committee can void a rule.
Ohio ���������������������������
H
. . .
. . .
Concurrent resolution. Committee recommends to the General Assembly that a rule be invalidated. The General Assembly invalidates a rule through adoption of concurrent resolution.
Oklahoma ������������������
H
H(p)
H(p)
The legislature may disapprove (veto) proposed rules by concurrent or joint resolution. A concurrent resolution does not require the governor’s signature. Existing rules may be disapproved by joint resolution. A committee may not disapprove; only the full legislature may do so. Failure of the legislature to disapprove constitutes approval.
Oregon �����������������������
H
H
H
...
Pennsylvania �������������
. . .
H
H
Written or oral.
Rhode Island..............
.......................................................................................................(n)............................................................................................................
South Carolina ����������
. . .
H
. . .
...
South Dakota ������������
. . .
H
H
The Interim Rules Review Committee may, by statute, suspend rules that have not become effective yet by an affirmative vote of the majority of the committee,
Tennessee ������������������
. . .
. . .
H
Bill approved by Constitutional majority of both hoses declaring rule invalid.
Texas ��������������������������
H
. . .
. . .
N.A.
Utah ���������������������������
H
. . .
. . .
All rules must be reauthorized by the legislature annually. This is done by omnibus legislation, which also provides for the sunsetting of specific rules listed in the bill.
Vermont......................
...............................................(u)......................................................
Virginia ���������������������
. . .
Washington ���������������
H
West Virginia �������������
H
Wisconsin ������������������
. . .
Wyoming �������������������
H
. . .
Statute
(v)
The General Assembly must pass a bill enacted into law to directly negate the administrative rule.
H
H
N.A.
. . .
...
(w)
H
H
The standing committee in each house has 30 days to conduct its review for a proposed rule. If either objects the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules has 30 days to introduce legislation in each house overturning the rules. After 40 days the bills are placed on the calendar. If either bill passes, the rules are overturned. If they fail to pass, the rules go into effect.
H
. . .
Action must be taken by legislative order adopted by both houses before the end of the next succeeding legislative session to nullify a rule.
American Samoa ������
The enacting clause of all bills shall be: Be it by the Legislature of American Samoa, and no law shall be except by bill. Bills may originate in either house, and may be amended or rejected by the other. The Governor may submit proposed legislation to the Legislature for consideration by it. He may designate any such proposed legislation as urgent, if he so considers it.
Guam �������������������������
Legislation to disapprove rules and regulations.
U.S. Virgin Islands.....
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
.......................................................................................................(n)............................................................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
168 The Book of the States 2010
STATE LEGISLATURES
Legislative Review of administrative rules/regulations: powers—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009 with update August 2009. Key: H — Yes . . . — No N.A. — Not applicable (a) This column is defined by those legislatures or legislative committees that can only recommend changes to rules but have no power to enforce a change. (b) Authorized, although constitutionally questionable. (c) Disapproval of proposed regulations may be sustained, or reversed by action of the General Assembly in the ensuing session. The General Assembly may by resolution sustain or reverse a vote of disapproval. (d) The reviewing committee must introduce a resolution to override a rule within the first 30 days of the next regular session of the General Assembly. If the resolution passes by less than a two-thirds majority of either house, the governor has final authority to affirm or veto the resolution. (e) The Administrative Procedure Act is not clear on this point, but implies that the Joint Committee should either object or issue a statement of no objections. (f) Joint Committee on Administrative Rules can send objections to issuing agency. If it does, the agency has 90 days from then to withdraw, change, or refuse to change the proposed regulations. If the Joint Committee determines that proposed regulations would seriously threaten the public good, it can block their adoption. Within 180 days the Joint Cmte., or both houses of the General Assembly, can “unblock” those regulations; if that does not happen, the regulations are dead. (g) None—except by passing statute. (h) Committee may delay rules. (i) If the committee determines that a proposed rule is unacceptable, it submits a report to the governor who then has 10 days to accept or reject the report. If the governor rejects the report, the rule change may be adopted by the agency. If the governor accepts the report, the agency may not adopt the rule. Emergency rules become effective upon adoption or up to 60 days after adoption as provided in the rule, but a standing committee or governor may void the rule by finding it unacceptable within 2 to 61 days after adoption and reporting such finding to agency within four days. (j) No veto allowed. Legislation must be enacted to prohibit agency from adopting objectionable rules.
(k) Except for emergency regulations which require committee approval for adoption. (l) Committee can suspend rules during interim. (m) The Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules (LCRAR) ceased operating, effective July 1, 1996. The Legislative Coordinating Commission (LCC) may review a proposed or adopted rule. Contact the LCC for more information. See Minn. Stat. 3.842, subd. 4a. (n) No formal mechanism for legislative review of administrative rules. In Virginia, legislative review is optional. (o) A rule disapproved by the reviewing committee is reinstated at the end of the next session if a joint resolution in the legislature fails to sustain committee action. (p) Full legislature may suspend rules. (q) Failure to object or approve within 45 days of agency filing of final proposal constitutes approval. (r) The legislature may permanently block rules through legislation. The vote to sponsor a joint resolution suspends the adoption of a proposed rule for a limited time so that the full legislature may act on the resolution, which would then be subject to governor’s veto and override. (s) Article V, Section IV of the Constitution, as amended in 1992, says the legislature may review any rule or regulation to determine whether the rule or regulation is consistent with legislative intent. The legislature transmits its objections to existing or proposed rules or regulations to the governor and relevant agency via concurrent resolutions. The legislature may invalidate or prohibit an existing or proposed rule from taking effect by a majority vote of the authorized membership of each house. (t) Unless formal objections are made or the rule is declared void, rules are considered approved. (u) JLCAR may recommend that an agency amend or withdraw a proposal. A vote opposing rule does not prohibit its adoption but assigns the burden of proof in any legal challenge to the agency. (v) Standing committees and The Joint Commission on Administrative Rules may suspend the effective date of all or a part of a final regulation until the end of the next regular legislative session with the concurrence of the governor. (w) State agencies have no power to promulgate rules without first submitting proposed rules to the legislature which must enact a statute authorizing the agency to promulgate the rule. If the legislature during a regular session disapproves all or part of any legislative rule, the agency may not issue the rule nor take action to implement all or part of the rule unless authorized to do so. However, the agency may resubmit the same or a similar proposed rule to the committee.
The Council of State Governments 169
170â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
C
D
S
R
S
C
C
R
Arizona.....................
Arkansas...................
California.................
Colorado...................
Connecticut..............
Delaware..................
Florida......................
Georgia.....................
See footnotes at end of table.
C
Alaska.......................
Dept. of Audits
Cmte. charged with oversight of the subject area.
Agencies under review submit reports to Del. Sunset Comm. based on criteria for review and set forth in statute. Comm. staff conducts separate review.
Legis. Program Review & Investigations Cmte.
Dept. of Regulatory Agencies
St. Legis. Sunset Review Cmte. (a)
...
Legislative staff
Budget & Audit Cmte.
Dept. of Examiners of Public Accounts
C
Alabama...................
Standing Cmtes.
Jt. cmte. charged with oversight of the subject area.
...
...
Legis. Cmtes. of Reference
...
...
Joint Cmte.
...
Standing Cmte.
Preliminary evaluation conducted by Other legislative review
State Scope
Table 3.27 Summary of Sunset legislation
Perf. audit
...
Perf. audit
Programs or entities must be affirmatively re-established by legislature.
Bills need adoption by the legislature.
Perf. eval.
...
...
...
Perf. audit
Other oversight mechanisms in law
...
4â&#x20AC;&#x201C;6/y
Dec. 31 of next succeeding calendar year
1/y (b)
1/y
...
...
6/m
1/y
No later than Oct. 1 of the year following the regular session or a time as may be specified in the Sunset bill.
Phase-out period
Established by the legislature
...
10
4
5 years
Varies up to 15
...
10
...
(Usually 4)
Life of each agency (in years)
A performance audit of each regulatory agency must be conducted upon the request of the Senate or House standing committee to which an agency has been assigned for oversight and review. (d)
...
Yearly sunset review schedules must include at least nine agencies. If the number automatically scheduled for review or added by the General Assembly is less than a full schedule, additional agencies shall be added in order of their appearance in the Del. Code to complete the review schedule.
(c)
State law provides certain criteria that are used to determine whether a public need exists for an entity or function to continue and that its regulation is the least restrictive regulation consistent with the public interest.
...
...
...
...
Schedules of licensing boards and other enumerated agencies are repealed according to specified time tables.
Other provisions
STATE LEGISLATURES
S
Illinois.......................
Indiana......................
The Council of State Governments 171
S(e)
Minnesota.................
See footnotes at end of table.
(e)
Michigan...................
Massachusetts..........
R
Maryland..................
C
Louisiana..................
S
R
Kentucky..................
Maine........................
(h)
Kansas......................
Iowa.........................
(e)
R,S (f)
Idaho.........................
R
Hawaii......................
State Scope
Interim cmte. formed to review
Cmte. charged with reenacting law
...
Standing Cmtes.
...
(g)
...
Perf. eval.
Other oversight mechanisms in law
...
...
...
None
Phase-out period
...
...
Usually 10
...
Life of each agency (in years)
Smaller program review process now in place after about a dozen years of formal sunset program.
...
...
Schedules various professional and vocational licensing programs for repeal. Proposed new regulatory measures must be referred to the Auditor for sunrise analysis.
Other provisions
Standing Cmtes.
Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability
...
Joint committee with subject matter jurisdiction
...
Perf. eval.
None
Perf. eval.
...
...
...
...
1/y
...
...
Varies (usually 10)
Generally 10
Up to 6
...
...
...
...
Act provides for termination of a department and all offices in a department. Also permits committees to select particular agencies or offices for more extensive evaluation. Provides for review by Jt. Legis. Cmte. on Budget of programs that were not funded during the prior fiscal year for possible repeal.
...
...
...
... ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Program--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dept. of Legislative Services
Joint standing cmte. of jurisdiction.
Standing cmtes. of the two houses with subject matter jurisdiction.
Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee
...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Program--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-partisan staff units
Governor’s Office of Mgmt. and Budget
...
Legis. Auditor
Preliminary evaluation conducted by Other legislative review
Summary of Sunset legislation—Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
172â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
R
(e)
D(e)(j)
(e)
(k)
(e)
S
(e)
(l)
Missouri....................
Montana...................
Nebraska..................
Nevada......................
New Hampshire.......
New Jersey...............
New Mexico.............
New York..................
North Carolina.........
S, D
D(o)
R
(p)
Oklahoma.................
Oregon......................
Pennsylvania............
Rhode Island............
See footnotes at end of table.
C(m)
Ohio..........................
North Dakota..........
(i)
Mississippi................
State Scope
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Public hearing before termination
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Other oversight mechanisms in law
...
...
1/y
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Phase-out period
... ... ...
... ... ...
...
...
6
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
6, not to exceed total of 12
...
...
...
Life of each agency (in years)
Other provisions
...
Leadership Cmte.
...
Jt. Cmtes. with jurisdiction over sunset bills
Sunset Review Cmte.
No
...
(o)
Appropriations and Budget Cmte.
...
...
...
Perf. eval.
...
Perf. eval.
...
...
1/y
1/y
(n)
...
Varies
...
6
4
...
...
...
...
...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Program--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
...
Legis. Finance Cmte.
...
...
...
...
...
Oversight Division of Cmte. on Legislative Research
...
Preliminary evaluation conducted by Other legislative review
Summary of Sunset legislationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
STATE LEGISLATURES
S
(s)
S(e)
D
S
Utah..........................
Vermont....................
Virginia.....................
Washington..............
West Virginia............
See footnotes at end of table.
D(t)
S
Texas.........................
Wyoming..................
C
Tennessee.................
(e)
(r)
South Dakota...........
Wisconsin.................
(q)
South Carolina.........
State Scope
Program evaluation staff who work for Management Audit Cmte.
...
Jt. Cmte. on Govt. Operations
...
...
Legis. Council staff
Interim cmtes.
Sunset Advisory Commission staff
Office of the Comptroller
...
...
...
...
Performance Evaluation and Research Division
...
...
Legis. Council staff
Standing cmtes. as amendments may be made to bill
...
Government Operations Committees
...
...
Preliminary evaluation conducted by Other legislative review
Summary of Sunset legislationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
Perf. eval. (u)
...
Perf. audit
Perf. Eval.
...
Senate and House Government Operations Cmtes.
...
...
...
...
...
Other oversight mechanisms in law
...
...
1/y
1/y
...
...
(v)
1/y
1/y
...
...
Phase-out period
...
...
6
...
...
...
(v)
12
Up to 6 years
...
...
Life of each agency (in years)
...
...
Jt. Cmte. on Govt. Operations composed of five House members, five Senate members and five citizens appointed by governor. Agencies may be reviewed more frequently.
...
Sunset provisions vary in length. The only standard sunset required by law is on bills that create a new advisory board or commission in the executive branch of government. The legislation introduced for these boards and commissions must contain a sunset provision to expire the entity after three years.
...
...
...
...
...
...
Other provisions
STATE LEGISLATURES
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 173
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2009 with updates August 2009. Key: C — Comprehensive R — Regulatory S — Selective D — Discretionary d — day m — month y — year . . . — Not applicable (a) Review by the Jt. Legislative Sunset Review Cmte. of professional and vocational licensing boards terminated on January 1, 2004. Sunset clauses are included in other selected programs and legislation. (b) Upon termination a program shall continue for one year to conclude its affairs. (c) Since the sunset law was enacted in 1977, only one five-year cycle has been carried out. P.A. 01-160 enacted the last sunset postponement. Per that legislation, 28 entities or programs are scheduled for termination on July 1, 2008, the first year of a five-year cycle, unless affirmatively reestablished by the legislature. This termination date means that 28 entities or programs will be the subjects of PRI performance audits during calendar 2007 in order for the committee to meet its obligation under the Connecticut sunset law. H.B. 6997 (P.A. 07-33) was enacted to postpone the sunset cycle until 2010 to allow for this study. (d) The automatic sunsetting of an agency every six years was eliminated in 1992. The legislature must pass a bill in order to sunset a specific agency. (e) While they have not enacted sunset legislation in the same sense as the other states with detailed information in this table, the legislatures in Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin have included sunset clauses in selected programs or legislation. (f) Many tax laws provide that tax breaks enacted since 1994 will last only five years after taking effect unless the laws creating those breaks establish other sunset periods. (g) Governor is to read GOMB report and make recommendations to the General Assembly every
Summary of Sunset legislation—Continued even-numbered year. (h) Sunset legislation terminated July 1992. Legislative oversight of designated state agencies, consisting of audit, review and evaluation, continues. (i) Sunset Act terminated December 31, 1984. (j) Sunset legislation is discretionary, meaning that senators are free to offer sunset legislation or attach termination dates to legislative proposals. There is no formal sunset commission. Nebraska. Revised Statutes section 50-1303 directs the Legislature’s Government, Military and Veteran’s Committee to conduct an evaluation of any board, commission, or similar state entity. The review must include, among other things, a recommendation as to whether the board, commission, or entity should be terminated, continued or modified. (k) New Hampshire’s Sunset Committee was repealed July 1, 1986. (l) North Carolina’s sunset law terminated on July 30, 1981. Successor vehicle, the Legislative Committee on Agency Review, operated until June 30, 1983. (m) There are statutory exceptions. (n) Authority for latest review (HB 548 of the 123rd General Assembly) expired December 31, 2004. H.B. 516 of the 125 General Assembly re-established the Sunset Review Cmte, but postpones its operation until the 128th General Assembly. The bill terminates the Sunset Review Law on December 31, 2010. (o) Sunset legislation was repealed in 1993. No general law sunsetting rules or agencies. (p) No standing sunset statutes or procedures at this time. (q) Law repealed by 1998 Act 419, Part II, Sect. 35E. (r) South Dakota suspended sunset legislation in 1979. Under current law, the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council is directed to establish one or more interim committees each year to review state agencies so that each state agency is reviewed once every ten years. (s) Sunsets are at the legislature’s discretion. Their structure will vary on an individual basis. (t) Wyoming repealed sunset legislation in 1988. (u) The program evaluation process evolved out of the sunset process, but Wyoming currently does not have a scheduled sunset of programs. (v) Default is ten years, although years may be decreased by legislative decisions.
STATE LEGISLATURES
174 The Book of the States 2010
Chapter Four
STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
governors
The State of the States: Governors Focus on Performance in Time of Deficits By Katherine Willoughby States are experiencing the full force of the most dramatic economic downturn since the Great Depression. In 2010, governors have come up with novel ways to present their budget managing strategies they believe are required for survival in this environment—from elaborate analogy to elementary comparisons with neighboring states. In general, though, governors paint a dark fiscal picture for residents; most push no new taxes and lots of credits to spur job growth. It is not surprising, then, that these state leaders advocate spending down reserves and advancing performance and efficiency measures along with continued state retrenchment back to core functions. This research examines the governors’ 2010 state of the state addresses to understand how they are coping in the current economy and how their collective attention has changed over the last few years.1 Findings indicate contradictions. For example, while the governors are much more likely than last year to talk about performance, accountability and even ethics reform, they are much less likely than in 2009 to bring up transparency. The Politics By 2010, 54 percent of state chief executives are Democrats. Thirty-seven gubernatorial elections will be held this year and in 14 of those, the incumbent is running for another term. The other 23 elections include either governors who have run up against term limits and cannot run again or are part of the more than one-third who could run again, but have decided not to or, for various reasons, been pressured to throw in the towel. As Craig Ruff, public policy consultant and former gubernatorial adviser, aptly noted regarding the race for governor in Michigan, “I don’t think Polly anna is going to fly this year. There’s just too much reality.”2 For example, governors in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin could seek the office again, but have chosen not to run. New York Gov. David Paterson was beginning to ramp up his campaign for a second term as chief executive when it was derailed by his alleged role in a case of domestic violence against one of his aides. Undoubtedly, the continuing and highly charged battles raging across the nation regarding health care reform, federal stimulus funds, the direction of the war on terror and other policy issues, will make battles for state gubernatorial seats very contentious later this year. State legislatures do remain heavily Democratic, though Republicans have made inroads. Overall, state houses are predominantly Democratic (67 percent) as are state senate bodies (58 percent). And, both houses of the legislature are majority
Democratic in 27 states and in 14 states both houses are majority Republican, unchanged since last year. Six states have split legislatures in which the house and senate have different party majorities, down from eight states so split in 2009 and a dozen such states in 2008. Democrats lost one state house since last year—32 state houses are majority Democratic while 16 are majority Republican. Montana’s House of Representatives is now evenly split. On the senate side, Democrats lost one state senate since last year—28 are majority Democratic while 20 remain majority Republican in 2009. Alaska’s Senate is now evenly split. (Nebraska has a unicameral, nonpartisan legislature.) Sixteen states are majority Democratic with a Democratic governor and majority Democratic legislature, down one from last year; nine states are Republican, up one from 2009. The states break down in terms of party control accordingly: Nine with Republican governor and legislature One with Republican governor and unicameral legislature One with Republican governor, Republican House and split Senate One with Republican governor and split legislature 11 with Republican governor and Democratic legislature Five with Democratic governor and Republican legislature
The Council of State Governments 177
Governors Five with Democratic governor and split legislature One with Democratic governor, split House and Republican Senate 16 with Democratic governor and legislature
The Fiscal Picture Many consider the U.S. to be in the middle of a second Great Depression. The lagged effects of the national recession on state and local governments directly contribute to the ongoing freefall of the own source revenues of these governments. This fiscal stress is also exacerbated as unemployment continues to hover around 10 percent nationally. In the last two years alone, state and local governments have purged more than 110,000 jobs.3 And since the official start of the current economic downturn in December 2007, states have grappled with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget gaps. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, budget gaps for the 2009 fiscal year (following budget enactment) totaled more than $47 billion. And, for the 2010 fiscal year, states anticipate more than $84 billion in budget gaps. Some of the most egregious gaps in 2010 include: Nevada’s estimated $1 billion gap is 38 percent of the general fund budget; Arizona’s estimated $3 billion gap is 28 percent of the general fund budget; New York’s estimated $13 billion gap is 24 percent of the general fund budget; and California’s estimated $24 billion gap is 22 percent of the general fund budget.4 Given this bruising economy, abrupt resizing and restructuring of state governments have become more commonplace. The Pew Center on the States paints the picture of slimmed and streamlined governments. States are experimenting with fourday workweeks and virtual meetings, drastically paring down and eliminating travel and continuing education budgets, recentralizing procurement operations, and squeezing several agencies into one.5 Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons noted when discussing necessary layoffs in his state, “Society is changing. State government must change with it. We must focus on the important services which ensure life, health, education and public safety. We will have to eliminate programs and services which make some people feel good, but which we simply can no longer afford.” And, although some pundits believe the “end of the Great Recession” occurred
178 The Book of the States 2010
sometime around September 2009, others contend real economic recovery will not happen until 2012 or beyond—and this assumes no further cataclysmic events that would shock the economy going forward.6
What’s on the Agenda?7 Last year, governors were fairly direct about faltering budgets, calling for sacrifices and thrift in the next fiscal year. Many matched initiatives with those of new President Barack Obama—especially emphasizing government transparency, performance accountability and the functional areas of health, education and especially, transportation and infrastructure, all areas front and center to the funding specified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that passed February 2009. This year, a few governors used analogies, personal reflections, or even state comparisons to help citizens comprehend the enormity of the problems right now. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels provided some comparisons to make residents feel a bit more comfortable by pointing to the “49 other addresses being given, almost all under conditions far more grim than those we confront.” He revealed a study that says, “our budget problem is one of the smallest in the nation. Illinois’ fiscal problem is four times larger than ours. Arizona’s, five times. California’s, six times. Out there, the governor recently exclaimed in desperation, ‘How could we let something like that happen?’ So far at least, no one in this room has to ask that question.” In Kansas, Gov. Mark Parkinson told a very personal story to sell education investments. “… we got married in our second year of law school. Not smart, but we were in love and had big dreams. We lived in a mobile home and had no money, but we didn’t care. We had each other and a future that we hoped for. … Stacy and I have lived the American dream and we have lived it without ever leaving Kansas. I tell you this not to boast of our good fortune; I tell you this because I want to make sure that future generations of Kansans have the same opportunities as Stacy and me. We are able to live this life because legislators and governors decades ago decided that building great public schools and universities was the right thing to do. We are able to live this life because in Kansas, you didn’t have to be rich to go to a good school or go to college.”
governors California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger presented an Aesop’s fable-like analogy of the necessary teamwork to wrestle his state’s budget woes with the following: “Now, I want to begin with a true story from which we can draw a worthwhile lesson. As you might guess, the Schwarzenegger household is something of a menagerie … and in recent years we added a miniature pony and a pot-bellied pig. Now, it’s not unusual for me to look up from working on the budget or something and to find the pig and the pony standing right there in front of me and staring at me. Now, the dog’s food, which we keep in a canister with a screwed-on lid, sits on the top of the dog’s kennel. And the pony has now learned how to knock the canister off the top of the kennel and then he and the pig wedge it into the corner. Now, there’s this ridge on the lid of the canister and the pig with his snout pushes this ridge around and around until it loosens up and then they roll the canister around on the floor until the food spills all out. And then, of course, they go to town and they eat it. Now, I have no idea how they ever figured all of this out, to tell you the truth. I mean, it’s like humans figuring out how to create fire. But it is the greatest example of teamwork and I love it. It’s about teamwork. So one lesson to draw from the pig and the pony story is what we can accomplish when we work together.” Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm called for a “good dose of Mom’s common sense. My mom can pinch pennies with the best of them, but she also taught me not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish … common sense dictates that we shouldn’t leave money on the table in Washington for roads and infrastructure that would create jobs in Michigan.” Likewise, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen asked residents to understand “the state budget as a ‘family budget.’ It’s nothing more than the common sense idea that we’re going to adjust our expenses to match our income, and we’re going to be very careful about using money from our savings account.” On the other hand, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue gave a speech so devoid of budget and policy focus that many were left wondering if it indeed was his state of the state address. In some respects, his speech was more sermon than strategic vision. He began with “the challenge we face is very real. But we can rest in the knowledge that America has seen these times before,” and then provided a history lesson spanning from the Revolution-
ary to Vietnam wars. Interspersing his speech with quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville and the reflections of Thomas Paine, Perdue said, “These times demand that we worry less about bringing home the pork, and more about empowering our people to grow their own hogs.” He followed that with, “Governing is a team sport and we are all on Team Georgia.” Agenda items teased out from this speech include implementing teacher pay linked to student performance and specific investment for the mentally challenged and developmentally disabled. Perdue also expressed interest in making “Georgia an ‘employer of choice’ that can attract and retain top talent going forward.” Table A presents content analysis for governors’ 2010 addresses and compares gubernatorial budget and policy agendas for the last several years. In 2010, the largest percentage of governors—nearly 80 percent—than in any of the previous years recognized their military service personnel and/ or veterans in state of state addresses. Certainly, much of the uptick in this recognition by governors of military service and troop engagements surrounds relief efforts to the Haitians following the devastating earthquake that occurred on Jan. 12, 2010. This year, most governors paid tribute to the work of their military and residents in support of Haiti, as well as that of military personnel and veterans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Table A results show for every year since the official start of the Great Recession, at least half the state chief executives discuss issues surrounding core functions of state governments—education, health and welfare, transportation, public safety and economic development. On the other hand, these findings illustrate some dramatic changes in gubernatorial focus across years, and especially from 2009 to today. For example, there are pronounced differences from 2009 to 2010 in gubernatorial discussion of state rainy day funds, reserves and/or deficits, performance and accountability, health care, transparency, taxes and revenues, and transportation. Undoubtedly, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds supporting health care and transportation-related programs and infrastructure, as well as continued debate at the federal level over health care reform shunted these issues to the back burner of gubernatorial budget and policy agendas this year.
Hitting the Reserves The greatest leap to the top of gubernatorial agendas in 2010 regards current budget gaps and the use
The Council of State Governments 179
Governors
Table A: Issues Expressed by Governors in State of the State Addresses, 2007–2010 Issue expressed by governors Education
2007 percentage of governors mentioning issue (N=43) 100.0%
2008 percentage of governors mentioning issue (N=42)
2009 percentage of governors mentioning issue (N=44)
2010 percentage of governors mentioning issue (N=42)
90.5%
86.4%
90.5%
Economic development/tourism
79.5
81.0
79.5
88.1
Tax/revenue initiative
84.1
59.5
65.9
83.3
Military troops/Veteran recognition
68.2
73.8
63.6
78.6
Surplus/deficit/rainy day funds/reserves
70.5
54.8
45.5
78.6
Natural resources/energy
84.1
71.4
79.5
73.8
Performance/accountability
72.7
42.9
52.3
73.8
Health care
86.4
83.3
79.5
57.1
Safety/corrections
75.0
59.5
50.0
54.8
Transportation/roads/bridges
52.3
59.5
65.9
50.0
Ethics reform
13.6
11.9
15.9
26.2
Pensions/OPEBs
36.4
21.4
18.2
19.0
Transparency
20.5
14.3
31.8
14.3
Local government
52.3
35.7
20.5
11.9
Borders/illegal immigrants
11.4
16.7
6.8
4.8
Debt reduction
13.6
9.5
4.5
0
Source: Content analysis of 2007–2008 State of the State Addresses from Table C of Katherine G. Willoughby, 2008, “The State of the States: Governors Keep Agendas Short,” The Book of the States, Vol. 40 (Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments): 157–64; Content analysis of 2009 State of State Addresses conducted by Tanya Smilley, MPA candidate and Soyoung Park, Ph.D. candidate, Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, GSU; Content analysis of 2010 State of State Addresses conducted by Soyoung Park, Ph.D. candidate, Public Policy and Scott Allen, MPA candidate, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
or need for rainy day funds and/or reserve funds. This year, governors were more likely to target use of rainy day funds, advancing program efficiencies, spending cuts, layoffs and furloughs rather than bring up tax increases. For example, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer asked residents to support a legal “limitation on the future growth of government and to save more, for a rainy day.” Schwarzenegger pressed for legislation in California that includes “performance-based budgeting, applying one-time spikes in revenues to one-time uses, such as debt reduction, infrastructure and creating a rainy day fund.” Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell proposed that “any bond authorization that has been on the books for five years or more without being allocated by the State Bond Commission will automatically be canceled. … Also, I am offering a proposal (for) an automatic requirement that half of any budget surplus declared by the comptroller be automatically deposited into the state’s rainy day fund.” Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle also supports a constitutional amendment, but to replace the state’s rainy day fund with a fiscal stabilization fund to be replen-
180 The Book of the States 2010
ished when tax revenues are increasing rather than granting currently mandated refunds to taxpayers. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is asking for “a constitutional amendment to require that future spending commitments not exceed revenues currently collected.” Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry pointed out to residents that “for the first time in history, the rainy day fund is full, preserved for its intended purpose: a rainy day. And ladies and gentlemen, it is raining. This budget crisis is precisely the kind of emergency that citizens envisioned 25 years ago when they voted to create the rainy day fund. Now is the time to use our reserve dollars to preserve crucial services. This year, I ask for your support in raising the cap on rainy day fund deposits from 10 percent to 15 percent of general revenue collections.” In Kansas, Parkinson called on the legislature to pass the “Vratil-Kelly Constitutional Amendment that would require us to set a portion of state revenue aside to create an emergency fund. In years of declining revenue we would tap into the fund and avoid the situation we are currently in. It is
governors time that we put our fiscal house in order and lay the foundation for a solid financial future for this state.” Other governors presented different ideas about a reserve strategy. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford seeks “passage of a bill that limits government’s growth to population plus inflation, and then allocates everything beyond this to first paying down our state’s huge unfunded liabilities.” Tennessee’s Bredesen seems generous in his explanation of the use of reserves in that state “to fund the continuation of a number of programs for a two-year period. The reason for funding for two years instead of one was to give a new governor some breathing room at the beginning of his or her term, and to give additional time for the economy to recover and perhaps make the cuts a moot point.” Governors in both Indiana and Maryland emphasized their states’ triple A credit ratings as reasons to reach and maintain budget balance through prudent management of reserves along with other resources. Interestingly, Wyoming Gov. David Freudenthal is hesitant to spend down reserves. “I would encourage you when people say, ‘All right, the government needs to spend the reserves,’ ask them how they’re managing their own finances and if they are prepared to bet their house, their savings, their livelihood on the very gamble that they’re asking us to take with the state’s money. I encourage you not to go into the Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account. Stay out of that.” And, even in the current fiscal climate, Alaska and Alabama governors presented “no cut” budgets. For example, Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama emphasized that, “In fact, there is the potential for them to receive an increase of up to 4 percent. And in the education budget, that budget will increase funding for schools by over $400 million.” Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell presented a balanced budget to the legislature and “left a surplus of revenue. We do not spend everything on the table.” Perhaps not surprisingly, debt reduction, which was on the minds of about 14 percent of governors in 2007, was not mentioned by one governor this year.
Hiking Performance and Efficiencies Despite the depressed economy, the greatest proportion of governors in the last four years discussed performance and accountability in their speeches. Approximately 74 percent of governors in 2010 talked about efficiency measures to ensure core state services, up from 52 percent of gover-
nors discussing this issue in 2009. Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, pressed that, “We must live within our means.” His budget “eliminates more than 400 positions throughout state government—including about 375 that now are vacant—and consolidates some agency operations. He is also proposing a hold back of an “additional $40 million from all state agencies and operations—including public schools.” Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons also called for “laying off several hundred state workers,” while Tennessee’s Bredesen noted the possibility of laying off more than 1,300 state workers and eliminating more than 450 unfilled positions. Delaware Gov. Jack Markell outlined the elimination of 1,000 state positions, the consolidation of numerous state commissions and boards (Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire mentioned eliminating 73 of these and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called for similar consolidations), modernizing vendor payments, eliminating numerous printing of state documents (like budget books), renegotiating real estate leases and conducting a tax amnesty program. In Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels talked about saving $70 million with new economies of scale: “The largest of these would permit us to manage our two pension funds under one administration.” Other governors asked for greater flexibility to cut departments and budgets up to 10 percent (Mississippi); to make permanent cuts or “eliminate stalled capital outlay projects and end the practice of double dipping” (New Mexico); structural changes to reduce spending at the municipal level (Rhode Island); and program redesigns to support single point of entry and flexible options (Vermont). Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell began closing that state’s $4 billion budget gap in his office: “I will return a portion of my salary. Members of my cabinet and senior staff are taking a pay cut. My secretaries will reduce the size of their staffs and budgets.” He is also asking for reform of the state’s budget cycle to realize cost savings. Similarly, Michigan’s Granholm hawked a constitutional amendment requiring the budget be passed by the start of the fiscal year or the pay of elected officials in the state will be docked, “for every day we don’t get the job done.”
No New Taxes Governors were 17 percent more likely to discuss tax and revenue issues this year than in 2009. Most mention of taxes by these state leaders was to emphatically support no new ones, or reductions to or no increases of present ones. For example, Con-
The Council of State Governments 181
Governors necticut’s Rell explained that, “We need to recognize that not every service, not every program, not every function is absolutely essential. We need to acknowledge that higher taxes are not the solution to our problems.” Other governors followed suit, “Number one, we must not raise taxes” (Idaho’s Otter); “I will not support a tax increase to balance this budget” (Maine Gov. John Baldacci); “Whether it’s a special session or a regular legislative session, I will oppose any attempt to increase income or sales taxes” (Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman); “As long as I serve as your governor, I will not raise taxes” (Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons); “I strongly believe the best thing we can do for our State, our citizens, and our economic recovery is to exercise continued fiscal restraint and to not raise taxes” (Utah Gov. Gary Herbert); “The single most consequential action we can take to encourage a healthy economy is to address the crushing weight of Vermont’s tax burden” (Gov. Jim Douglas); “And if you pass a budget embedded with those same tax increases, I will not approve it” (Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell). Along with such commitment, the greatest proportion of governors (88 percent) since 2007 mapped out economic development plans that often included tax credits or exemptions. Most held firm to a tax cut approach to advance business development and job creation in the poor economy.
Ethics Reform State chief executives in 2010 were more than 10 percent more likely than last year to discuss ethics reform in their addresses to residents. Table B presents public officials federally prosecuted by case status for those at the federal, state and local
levels (and others) in the U.S., in 1990 and 2007. During this period, the proportion of federal officials charged and convicted of offenses declined, while the proportions of state and local officials charged and convicted increased. No doubt, such trends, and in light of several very high profile state official corruption scandals over the last year in particular, ethics reform has become a top flight issue among citizens and elected officials alike. Riley of Alabama asks for reforms that “will make government even more accountable and more transparent—limits on gifts, full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, subpoena power for an ethics commission. These are all long-overdue changes that will make state government and each one of us more accountable.” In complimenting the legislature for recent ethics reform, Daniels in Indiana pushes for a number of other reform applications, “While you’re at it, please respond to the plea of mayors of both parties and all parts of our state, and end the egregious conflicts of interest that occur when public employees sit on city and county councils, voting on their own salaries and overriding the decisions of their own management.” Also according to Daniels, “The worst examples of gerrymandering and politician protection can be found in other states, but a glance at Indiana’s current lines shows that they are nothing to be proud of. Let’s commit to the kind of principles that assure Hoosiers that in our state, voters will pick their officeholders and not vice versa.” Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has a four point plan for ethics reform: “1) Stop the sneaky, back-door donations from committee-to-committee; 2) Ban one officeholder from working as a political consultant for another officeholder; 3) Shut the
Table B: Federal Prosecutions of Public Corruption: Proportion of Total Officials Prosecuted, by Prosecution Status Prosecution Status 1990 Federal officials State officials Local officials Others involved
Charged 52.3% 8.2 21.9 17.7
Convicted 53.8% 7.3 20.8 18.2
2007 Awaiting Trial 34.3% 9.3 32.7 23.7
Charged 37.3% 11.2 24.9 26.6
Convicted 39.9% 8.4 27.1 24.6
Awaiting Trial 23.8% 13.3 26.1 36.8
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section; annual. Table 327 Federal Prosecutions of Public Corruption. Accessed on February 27, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/ statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons.html.
182 The Book of the States 2010
governors revolving door between the legislature and lobbyists, for good; and 4) most importantly, set strict limits on campaign contributions.” In New Mexico, Richardson presented a list of “vital” reforms he envisions to keep officials clean, including whistleblower protections and conflict of interest disclosure by contractors; bans on candidates conducting taxpayer-funded public service announcements; an end to the revolving door of legislators and lobbyists; and bans on campaign contributions by corporations, state contractors or lobbyists. He is also asking for the creation of “an independent, bipartisan, citizen-led ethics commission to investigate, discipline, fine or censure, not just public officials or state employees, but also contractors and lobbyists.” Governors in Pennsylvania and Utah are asking for some similar reforms, while West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin is pushing ethics reforms specific to the state judiciary, “to relieve judges from the burden of political fundraising and to reduce the potential for appearance of bias as a result of campaign donations.” Ironically, Paterson in New York mapped out “comprehensive ethics reform—not driven by the illegal acts of any one person, but instead by what is legal and rampant in our entire system of government.” He was later under the microscope himself for allegedly interfering in a domestic violence charge against one of his aides and accepting sporting tickets. His “Reform Albany” agenda will address campaign contributions and campaign finance; transparency; retract the pensions of officials who commit felonies; and push for a constitutional amendment defining term limits on New York’s elected officials. According to Paterson, “The inevitable goal of this legislation is to bring fairness and openness to government, which has very little of either. The moneyed interests, many of them here today as guests, have got to understand that their days of influence in this capitol are numbered.”
Conclusion Governors are severely constrained this year; the Great Recession has meant a “back to the basics” retrenchment in states. But, since the official start to this recession, at least half of the governors have focused on the core services and functions of state governments in their annual state of the state speeches. State leaders continue to advocate tax cuts, credits and exemptions, primarily to promote stronger economies and job growth. The results of such policies, at least in the short term, however,
are lost revenues that contribute to fiscal stress. On the other hand, these leaders must be given credit for continuing to push for better performance, economies of scale and greater efficiencies among state operations, services and programs, in spite of the fact that direct spending cuts like layoffs and program shuttering can work against such advancements.
Notes 1 Chief executives of state governments report annually or biennially to their legislatures regarding the fiscal condition of their state, commonwealth or territory. Governors often use their address to lay out their policy and budget agendas for their upcoming or continuing administration. The 2010 state of the state addresses were accessed from January through February 25, 2010 via www.stateline.org or using the state government’s homepage. This research considers those 42 states with transcripts available at this site as of February 25, 2010. Speeches not available by this date included those from Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas. All quotes and data presented here are from the addresses accessed on these websites, unless otherwise noted. 2 Melissa Maynard, Lukewarm about Lansing, Stateline. org (February 23, 2010). Accessed on February 25, 2010 at http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId= 462624. 3 Matt Sherman and Nathan Lane, Cut Loose: State and Local Layoffs of Public Employees in the Current Recession, (Center for Economic and Policy Research), September 2009. Accessed on February 25, 2010 at: http:// www.cepr.net/documents/publications/layoffs-2009-09.pdf. 4 National Conference of State Legislatures, Update on State Budget Gaps: FY 2009 & FY 2010, (February 20, 2009). Accessed February 25, 2010 at: http://www.ncsl.org/ Portals/1/documents/pubs/statebudgetgaps.pdf. 5 The Pew Center on the States, How the Recession Might Change States, (February 2010). Accessed on February 25, 2010 at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ uploadedFiles/State_of_the_States_2010.pdf?n=5899. 6 Dan Burrows, Dan, “Bernanke says the recession is likely over—but it won’t feel like it,” Daily Finance (September 15, 2009). Accessed on February 25, 2010 at: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bernanke-says-therecession-is-likely-over-but-it-wont-feel/19162447/#. and Sam Gustin, “Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz predicts recession’s end: not now, but 2012,” Daily Finance (September 17, 2009). Accessed on February 25, 2010 at: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/exclusive-nobel-winner-joseph-stiglitz-predicts-recessions-end/19163654/. 7 To conduct a content analysis of governors’ state of the state addresses, as in the past, topics were considered addressed if the chief executive specifically discussed them as relevant to state operations and the budget going forward. The governor needed to relay that the function, activity or issue is an important item in the 2011 fiscal year
The Council of State Governments 183
Governors budget and policy direction. Just mentioning a state function or policy area like economic development in a speech did not classify the issue as an agenda item addressed by a governor. Further, a review by the governor of past accomplishments alone in any particular issue area did not count in this content analysis. The only deviation from this protocol regards mention by a governor of military troops, family and veterans. A governor recognizing service on the part of these individuals and/or indicating thanks for this service, with or without recommending some future support to such personnel, is indicated for this issue in the results.
About the Author Katherine Willoughby is professor of public management and policy in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University in Atlanta. Her research concentrates on state and local government budgeting and financial management, public policy development and public organization theory. She has conducted extensive research in the area of state budgeting practices, with a concentration on performance measurement applicability at this level of government in the United States.
184â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
governors
Gubernatorial Elections, Campaign Costs and Powers By Thad Beyle Governors still remain in the forefront of activity moving into the 21st century. While the governorship was not the stepping stone to the presidency for President Barack Obama as it was for our two previous presidents, Democratic Gov. Bill Clinton from Arkansas (1993– 2001) and Republican Gov. George W. Bush from Texas (2001–2009), the governors are in the middle of the problems facing our country’s weak economy. The demands on governors to propose state budgets and then keep them in balance in recent recessions have increased greatly during the current recession or depression in over the last half century. Proposed and adopted budgets have fallen victim to severe revenue shortfalls in almost every state, which has put severe limits on the states to address the many growing needs of people trying to live through these tough times. And politically, this has begun to lead to some political fallout from unhappy voters on election days as they vent their anger and frustration on elected leaders. 2009 Gubernatorial Politics Only two governorships were contested and decided in the elections of 2009—those in New Jersey and Virginia. In New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine lost his bid for a second term by 3.6 percentage points to Republican Chris Christie, a former U.S. attorney. In Virginia, which still has a one-term limit on governors, Republican Robert McDonnell, a former attorney general, won the open seat race by more than 17 points. So, one year after the Democratic presidential win, both gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. While many attribute this to the voters’ reaction to the current economic times facing the country under President Obama’s first year in office, it is interesting to look at the pattern in these two states over recent years. Up until the mid-1980s the gubernatorial wins in these two states were often split with no tie to the party that had won the previous presidential year’s election. Then in 1989, the Democratic candidates won both races in the year after Republican Vice President George H.W. Bush won the presidency in 1988.1 The exception is the 1992 election, in which Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidency; in 1993, Democratic candidates won both of these states’ races.2 After President Clinton won re-election in 1996, both states elected Republican governors in 1997.3 Then, after Republican George W. Bush won his first presidential election in 2000, both states elected Democratic governors in 2001.4 And after Bush won re-election in 2004, both states elected Democratic governors in 2005.5 So, the 2008–2009 pattern follows what’s seen over the past more than two decades with just one exception.
In 2009, there were also four other gubernatorial changes that occurred but were not tied to gubernatorial elections. In January 2009, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a Republican, succeeded to the governorship upon the resignation of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, who was appointed and then confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration. In April 2009, Kansas Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, succeeded to the governorship upon the resignation of Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who was appointed and then confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration. In August 2009, Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, succeeded to the governorship upon the resignation of Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was nominated and then confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to China in the Obama administration. And as noted in the 2009 edition of The Book of the States, in January 2009 Illinois Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, a Democrat, succeeded to the governorship after Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, was impeached and removed from office that month.6 Since Blagojevich was impeached, no other governors were forced to exit office by a recall vote or an impeachment process. In South Carolina, however, Gov. Mark Sanford faced a great deal of turmoil in the last two years of his second and final term in office. Questions arose about a trip he took in June 2009 to Argentina, after he told staff he was taking a week’s vacation to hike the Appalachian Trail. While Sanford used state funds for the Argentina trip, he repaid the state with
The Council of State Governments 185
governors
Table A: Gubernatorial Elections: 1970–2009 Number of incumbent governors
ear Y 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Totals: Number Percent
Lost Democratic Eligible to run Actually ran Won winner Number In general of races Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent In primary election 35 3 18 2 35 3 14 2 36 3 13 2 36 3 13 2 36 3 12 2 36 3 12 2 36 3 11 2 36 3 11 2 36 4 (ii) 11 2 36 3 11 2 535 100
22 3 11 1 27 (f) 3 9 1 21 2 6 1 27 3 5 1 19 3 5 2 19 (w) 2 8 0 11 (bb) 1 7 0 11 (ee) 2 8 2 14 1 6 2 20 1 7 0
63 100 61 50 77 100 64 50 58 67 46 50 75 100 38 50 53 100 42 100 53 67 67 0 31 33 64 0 31 67 73 100 39 25 55 100 56 33 64 0
293 54.8
29 0 15 1 29 2 12 1 29 0 12 0 33 1 9 1 24 2 9 0 33 2 9 1 30 2 9 1 27 2 7 0 22 2 11 1 31 3 9 1
83 . . . 83 50 83 66 86 50 81 . . . 92 . . . 92 33 69 50 67 67 75 . . . 92 67 75 50 83 67 82 50 75 67 88 . . . 61 50 100 50 86 100 82 50
412 77.0
24 . . . 11 1 22 2 8 1 23 . . . 12 . . . 25 1 6 1 18 1 9 . . . 23 2 4 1 23 1 7 1 25 2 6 . . . 16 2 8 . . . 27 2 8 1
83 . . . 73 100 76 100 67 100 79 . . . 100 . . . 76 100 67 100 75 50 100 . . . 70 100 44 100 77 50 78 100 93 100 86 . . . 73 100 73 . . . 87 67 89 100
324 78.6
16 . . . 7 . . . 17 2 5 1 16 . . . 7 . . . 19 . . . 4 1 15 . . . 8 . . . 17 . . . 4 . . . 17 1 7 1 23 2 5 . . . 12 . . . 4 . . . 25 1 8 . . .
64 . . . 64 . . . 77 100 63 100 73 . . . 58 . . . 76 . . . 67 100 83 . . . 89 . . . 74 . . . 100 . . . 74 100 100 100 92 100 83 . . . 75 . . . 50 . . . 93 50 100 . . .
245 75.9
8 . . . 4 1 5 . . . 3 . . . 7 . . . 5 . . . 6 1 2 . . . 3 1 1 . . . 6 2 . . . 1 6 . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . 4 2 4 . . . 2 1 . . . 1
36 . . . 36 100 24 . . . 33 . . . 30 . . . 42 . . . 24 100 33 . . . 18 100 11 . . . 26 100 . . . 100 26 . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . 17 . . . 25 100 50 . . . 7 50 . . . 100
79 24.4
1 (a) . . . 2 (c) 1 (e) 1 (g) . . . 1 (i) . . . 2 (k) . . . 2 (m) . . . 1 (o) 1 (q) . . . . . . 1 (s) 1 (u) . . . . . . . . . 1 (y) . . . . . . 2 (cc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (kk) . . . 1 (mm) . . . . . . . . .
7 (b) ... 2 (d) ... 4 (h) ... 2 (j) ... 5 (l) ... 3 (n) ... 5 (p) ... 2 (r) ... 2 (t) ... 1 (v) ... 6 (x) 1 (z) ... 1 (aa) 4 (dd) ... ... ... 2 (ff) ... 1 (gg) ... 4 (hh) 2 (jj) 2 (ll) ... 1 (nn) 1 (oo) ... 1 (pp)
20 25.6
59 75.6
See footnotes on the next page.
campaign funds left over from his 2006 gubernatorial campaign, although that was a questionable use of these funds. Sanford later admitted having an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina. So entering 2010, there are 26 Democratic and 24 Republican governors serving.
Gubernatorial Elections As seen in Table A, incumbents were eligible to seek another term in 412 of the 535 gubernatorial contests held between 1970 and 2009 (77 percent). In those contests, 324 eligible incumbents sought
186 The Book of the States 2010
re-election (78.6 percent), and 245 of them succeeded (75.9 percent). Those who were defeated were more likely to lose in the general election than in their own party primary by a 3-to-1 ratio, and the 2009 loss was in the general election. Not since 1994 has an incumbent governor been defeated in his or her own party’s primary. Democratic candidates held a winning edge in the 535 elections held from 1970 to 2009 (54.8 percent). In 206 of the races (38.5 percent), the results led to a party shift in which the candidate from a party other that the incumbent’s party won. But
governors
Table A: Gubernatorial Elections: 1970–2009, Footnotes Source: The Council of State Governments, The Book of the States, 2009, (Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2009), 170, updated. Key: (a) Albert Brewer, D-Ala. (b) Keith Miller, R-Alaska; Winthrop Rockefeller, R-Ark.; Claude Kirk, R-Fla.; Don Samuelson, R-Idaho; Norbert Tieman, R-Neb.; Dewey Bartlett, R-Okla.; Frank Farrar, R-S.D. (c) Walter Peterson, R-N.H.; Preston Smith, D-Texas. (d) Russell Peterson, R-Del.; Richard Ogilvie, R-Ill. (e) William Cahill, R-N.J. (f) One independent candidate won: James Longley of Maine. (g) David Hall, D-Okla. (h) John Vanderhoof, R-Colo.; Francis Sargent, R-Mass.; Malcolm Wilson, R-N.Y.; John Gilligan, D-Ohio. (i) Dan Walker, D-Ill. (j) Sherman Tribbitt, D-Del.; Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo. (k) Michael Dukakis, D-Mass.; Dolph Briscoe, D-Texas. (l) Robert F. Bennett, R-Kan.; Rudolph G. Perpich, D-Minn.; Meldrim Thompson, R-N.H.; Robert Straub, D-Oreg.; Martin J. Schreiber, D-Wis. (m) Thomas L. Judge, D-Mont.; Dixy Lee Ray, D-Wash. (n) Bill Clinton, D-Ark.; Joseph P. Teasdale, D-Mo.; Arthur A. Link, D-N.D. (o) Edward J. King, D-Mass. (p) Frank D. White, R-Ark.; Charles Thone, R-Neb.; Robert F. List, R-Nev.; Hugh J. Gallen, D-N.H.; William P. Clements, R-Texas. (q) David Treen, R-La. (r) Allen I. Olson, R-N.D.; John D. Spellman, R-Wash. (s) Bill Sheffield, D-Alaska. (t) Mark White, D-Texas; Anthony S. Earl, D-Wis. (u) Edwin Edwards, D-La.
these party shifts have evened out over the years so that neither of the two major parties has an edge. But there have been some interesting patterns in the shifts over the past 39 years of gubernatorial elections. Between 1970 and 1992, Democrats won 200 of the 324 races for governor (62 percent). Then beginning in 1993 to 2003, Republicans leveled the playing field by winning 85 of the 145 races for governor (59 percent). From 2004 to 2009 Democrats won 36 of the 65 contests for governor (55.4 percent). Another factor in determining how many governors have served in the states is the number of newly elected governors who are truly new to the office and the number who are returning after complying with constitutional term limits or after holding other positions. Of new governors taking office over a decade, states dropped from a rate of 2.3 new governors per state in the 1950s to 1.9 in the 1970s and to 1.1 in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the rate began to move up a bit to 1.4 new governors per state.
(v) Arch A. Moore, R-W.Va. (w) Two Independent candidates won: Walter Hickel (Alaska) and Lowell Weiker (Conn.). Both were former statewide Republican office holders. (x) Bob Martinez, R-Fla.; Mike Hayden, R-Kan.; James Blanchard, D-Mich.; Rudy Perpich, DFL-Minn.; Kay Orr, R-Neb.; Edward DiPrete, R-R.I. (y) Buddy Roemer, R-La. (z) Ray Mabus, D-Miss. (aa) James Florio, D-N.J. (bb) One Independent candidate won: Angus King of Maine. (cc) Bruce Sundlun, D-R.I.; Walter Dean Miller, R-S.D. (dd) James E. Folsom Jr., D-Ala.; Bruce King, D-N.M.; Mario Cuomo, D-N.Y.; Ann Richards, D-Texas. (ee) Two Independent candidates won: Angus King of Maine and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota. (ff) Fob James, R-Ala.; David Beasley, R-S.C. (gg) Cecil Underwood, R-W.Va. (hh) Don Siegelman, D-Ala.; Roy Barnes, D-Ga., Jim Hodges, D-S.C.; and Scott McCallum, R-Wis. (ii) The California recall election and replacement vote of 2003 is included in the 2003 election totals and as a general election for the last column. (jj) Gray Davis, D-Calif.; Ronnie Musgrove, D-Miss. (kk) Bob Holden, D-Mo.; Olene Walker, R-Utah, lost in the preprimary convention. (ll) Joe Kernan, D-Ind.; Craig Benson, R-N.H. (mm) Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska. (nn) Robert Ehrlich, R-Md. (oo) Ernie Fletcher, R-Ky. (pp) Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
Into the first decade of the 21st century, there are new faces in the governor’s offices. New governors were elected in 63 of the 118 elections held from 2000 to 2009 (53.4 percent). And two other governors succeeded to the office in 2004 followed by one each in 2005, 2006 and 2008. In 2009, as noted earlier, four other governors succeeded to office. So, in 2010, 23 of the governors will be serving their first term (46 percent), while 25 will be serving their second term (50 percent), and two others in New Hampshire and Vermont, will be in their third and fourth two-year terms (4 percent). The beginning of the 21st century certainly has proved to be a time of change in the governor’s offices across the states. And with the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial elections in 37 states already under way, now only 13 incumbent governors are seeking re-election, so there are now 24 open seat races (65 percent). This is due to term limits on 16 governors and another eight governors who have indicated they are either retiring or will not seek re-election.7
The Council of State Governments 187
governors
The New Governors Over the 2005–2009 cycle of gubernatorial elections and resignations, there were several different routes to the governor’s chair by the elected governors and by those governors who have ascended to the office. Nineteen new governors had previously held statewide office. These include: Eight lieutenant governors: Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (who served as lieutenant governor from 1983–1987), Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, New York Gov. David Paterson, North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert; Four attorneys general: Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon and Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell; Two secretaries of state: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Iowa Gov. Chet Culver; One state treasurer: Delaware Gov. Jack Markell. Four governors were members or former members of Congress who returned to work within their state. These include U.S. congressmen: Idaho Gov. L.C. “Butch” Otter, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley was the former mayor of Baltimore, Md. Finally, three new governors followed a unique path compared to their counterparts: Bill Ritter, former Denver district attorney, became governor of Colorado; Deval Patrick, head of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in the Clinton administration, became the governor of Massachusetts; and Christopher Christie, former U.S. attorney in New Jersey, became governor of that state. In the 425 gubernatorial races between 1977 and 2009, among the candidates were 110 lieutenant governors (31 won), 93 attorneys general (26 won), 30 secretaries of state (eight won), 27 state treasurers (seven won), and 16 auditors or comptrollers (three won). Looking at these numbers from a bettor’s point of view, the odds of a lieutenant governor winning were 3.5 to 1, an attorney general winning was 3.6 to 1, a secretary of state winning was 4.2 to 1, a state treasurer winning was 4.5 to 1 and a state auditor or comptroller winning was 5.3 to 1. One other unique aspect about the current governors is that six women will be serving as governor into 2010—three less than in the last half of 2004, which was the all-time high for women governors
188 The Book of the States 2010
serving at one time. Five were elected in their own right: Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who as the lieutenant governor succeeded to the governorship in 2004 when Gov. John Rowland resigned and then in 2006 was elected to a full term to continue her service. In 2009, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer as secretary of state succeeded to the office upon the resignation of Gov. Janet Napolitano. Women continue to hold their own in gubernatorial races. From 2004 to 2009, 10 of the 18 women running either as the incumbent or as the candidate of a major party won—a 55.6 percent success rate. There will undoubtedly be more soon.
Cost of Gubernatorial Elections Table B presents data on the total cost of gubernatorial elections from 1977 to 2008. As shown, there are two very clear patterns in this table. First is the very rhythm of gubernatorial elections in each fouryear cycle. In the odd year following a presidential election only two states hold their gubernatorial elections; in the mid-year between presidential elections 36 states hold their elections; in the year before a presidential election three states hold their elections; and during a presidential election year 13 and now 11 states hold their elections.8 The second pattern is consistent growth in the amount of money spent in these gubernatorial elections over the period with only a few drops between comparable years in a cycle. These drops were usually tied to uncontested races when an incumbent was successful in being re-elected. Table C presents data on the costs of the most recent elections from 2005 through 2008. There is a great range in how much these races cost, from the 2006 race in California ($132.6 million in 2008 dollars) to the low-cost 2008 race in Utah ($ 917,000). Both races saw an incumbent Republican governor win re-election—Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Jon Huntsman Jr. in Utah. But looking at how much was spent by the candidates per general election vote, a slightly different picture evolves. In 2005, the New Jersey gubernatorial race was the most expensive at $39.42 per vote, followed by the 2007 Louisiana race at $32.48 per vote and the 2007 Kentucky race at $31.91 per vote. The New Jersey and Louisiana races were for an open seat while the Kentucky race saw an incumbent governor defeated in the general election. The least expensive gubernatorial races in the
governors
Table B: Total Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1977–2008 (in thousands of dollars) Year
Total campaign costs Number of races Actual $ 2008$ (a)
Average cost per state (2008$)
Percent change in similar elections (b)
1977 1978 1979 1980
2 36 3 13
12,312 102,342 32,744 35,634
43,742 337,948 97,104 93,104
21,871 9,387 32,368 7,162
N.A. N.A. (c) N.A. N.A.
1981 1982 1983 1984
2 36 3 13
24,648 181,832 39,966 47,156
58,380 405,683 86,133 97,716
29,190 11,269 28,711 7,517
+33 +20 (d) -11 +5
1985 1986 1987 1988
2 36 3 12 (e)
18,859 270,605 40,212 52,208
37,736 531,581 76,212 95,016
18,868 14,766 25,404 7,918
-35 +31 -12 +5
1989 1990 1991 1992
2 36 3 12
47,902 345,493 34,564 60,278
83,172 569,125 54,638 92,501
41,586 15,809 18,213 7,708
+120 +7 -28 -3
1993 1994 1995 1996
2 36 3 11 (f)
36,195 417,873 35,693 68,610
53,929 607,072 50,425 94,147
26,965 16,863 16,808 8,559
-35 +7 -8 +11
1997 1998 1999 2000
2 36 3 11
44,823 470,326 16,276 97,098
60,127 621,234 21,034 121,401
30,064 17,257 7,011 11,036
+12 +2 -58 +29
2001 2002 2003 2004
2 36 3 11
70,400 841,427 69,939 112,625
88,585 1,007,241 81,836 128,365
42,793 27,979 27,279 11,670
+42 +62 +289 +6
2005 2006 2007 2008
2 36 3 11
131,996 727,552 93,803 118,912
145,513 776,994 97,423 118,912
72,757 21,583 32,474 10,810
+70 -23 +19 -7
Source: Thad Beyle. Key: N.A. — Not available. (a) Developed from the Table, “Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U),” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Each year’s actual expenditures are converted to the 2008$ value of the dollar to control for the effect of inflation over the period. (b) This represents the percent increase or decrease in 2008$ over the last bank of similar elections, i.e., 1977 v. 1981, 1978 v. 1982, 1979 v. 1983, etc. (c) The data for 1978 are a particular problem as the two sources compiling data on this year’s elections did so in differing ways that excluded some candidates. The result is that the numbers for
1978 under-represent the actual costs of these elections by some unknown amount. The sources are: Rhodes Cook and Stacy West, “1978 Advantage,” CQ Weekly Report, (1979): 1757–1758, and The Great Louisiana Spendathon (Baton Rouge: Public Affairs Research Council, March 1980). (d) This particular comparison with 1978 is not what it would appear to be for the reasons given in note (c). The amount spent in 1978 was more than indicated here so the increase is really not as great as it appears. (e) As of the 1986 election, Arkansas switched to a four-year term for the governor, hence the drop from 13 to 12 for this off-year. (f) As of the 1994 election, Rhode Island switched to a four-year term for the governor, hence the drop from 12 to 11 for this off-year.
The Council of State Governments 189
governors
Table C: Cost of Gubernatorial Campaigns, Most Recent Elections, 2005–2008 Total campaign expenditures Winner State Year Winner
Point margin
All candidates Cost per vote Percent of all Vote (2008$) (2008$) Spent (2008$) expenditures percent
Alabama................ Alaska.................... Arizona.................. Arkansas................ California..............
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006
R★ R★★ D★ D# R★
+15.8 +7.4 +27.2 +14.4 +16.9
$19,057,119 5,211,390 3,812,538 10,229,307 132,606,809
$15.24 21.87 2.49 13.64 15.28
$12,402,864 1,364,641 1,658,332 6,653,165 47,165,436
65.1 26.2 43.5 65.0 35.6
57.4 48.3 62.6 55.4 55.9
Colorado................ Connecticut........... Delaware............... Florida................... Georgia..................
2006 2006 2008 2006 2006
D# R★ D# R# R★
+16.8 +27.8 +35.5 +7.1 +19.7
7,992,782 14,663,006 10,281,051 43,111,786 29,875,586
5.13 13.05 26.01 8.93 14.08
4,391,539 4,299,122 7,979,992 20,435,625 13,307,665
54.9 29.3 77.6 47.4 44.5
57.0 63.2 67.5 52.2 57.9
Hawaii................... Idaho...................... Illinois.................... Indiana................... Iowa.......................
2006 2006 2006 2008 2006
R★ R# D★ R★ D#
+27.1 +8.6 +10.6 +17.8 +9.5
7,155,914 3,714,999 49,805,734 36,178,240 17,115,172
20.78 8.24 14.29 13.83 16.33
6,672,826 2,006,150 27,001,018 27,714,139 7,763,362
93.2 54.0 54.2 76.6 45.4
62.5 52.7 49.8 57.8 54.0
Kansas................... Kentucky............... Louisiana............... Maine..................... Maryland...............
2006 2007 2007 2006 2006
D★ D★★★ R# D★ D★★★
+17.5 +17.4 +36.4 +7.9 +6.5
6,592,408 33,676,869 42,149,344 5,126,069 29,742,547
7.76 31.91 32.48 9.30 16.63
4,887,199 9,418,836 11,227,661 1,240,526 14,467,478
74.1 28.0 26.6 24.2 48.6
57.9 58.7 53.9 38.1 52.7
Massachusetts....... Michigan................ Minnesota.............. Mississippi............. Missouri.................
2006 2006 2006 2007 2008
D# D★ R★ R★ D#
+20 +14 +0.96 +15.8 +18.9
43,487,885 54,281,847 8,910,606 17,976,455 1,177,256
19.38 14.28 4.05 24.16 0.41
9,130,132 11,513,932 4,039,499 12,952,035 845,500
21.0 21.2 45.3 72.0 71.8
55.0 56.3 46.7 57.9 58.4
Montana................ Nebraska............... Nevada................... New Hampshire.... New Jersey............
2008 2006 2006 2008 2005
D★ R★ R# D★ D#
+33.0 +48.9 +4 +42.6 +10.5
1,523,187 5,350,636 15,270,089 1,323,536 90,272,548
3.13 9.01 26.23 1.95 39.42
784,206 2,794,576 5,835,879 1,206,868 47,333,191
51.5 55.6 38.2 91.2 52.4
65.5 73.4 47.9 70.2 53.5
New Mexico.......... New York............... North Carolina...... North Dakota........ Ohio.......................
2006 2006 2008 2008 2006
D★ D# D# R★ D#
+37.6 +40.9 +3.3 +50.9 +23.9
8,662,008 47,387,405 36,163,392 2,172,052 30,168,499
15.49 10.68 8.47 6.88 7.50
8,014,472 34,305,945 15,792,926 1,832,157 16,234,126
92.5 72.4 43.7 84.4 53.8
68.8 69.6 50.3 74.4 60.5
Oklahoma.............. Oregon................... Pennsylvania......... Rhode Island......... South Carolina......
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006
D★ D★ D★ R★ R★
+33 +8 +20.8 +2 +10.3
7,528,773 14,562,556 42,131,096 4,592,752 12,923,101
8.13 10.55 10.30 11.87 11.84
4,103,380 4,402,997 31,465,509 2,351,598 7,458,111
54.5 30.2 74.7 51.2 57.7
66.5 50.7 60.4 51.0 55.1
South Dakota........ Tennessee.............. Texas...................... Utah....................... Vermont.................
2006 2006 2006 2008 2008
R★ D★ R★ R★ R★
+25.6 +38.9 +9.2 +58.0 +31.6
1,331,669 7,236,365 35,506,572 917,602 1,609,465
3.97 4.00 8.07 0.97 5.30
304,055 5,604,264 23,439,111 825,684 967,402
22.8 77.4 66.0 90.0 60.1
61.7 68.6 39.0 77.7 53.4
Virginia.................. Washington........... West Virginia......... Wisconsin.............. Wyoming...............
2005 2008 2008 2006 2006
D# D★ D# D★ D★
+5.7 +5.5 +49.1 +7.4 +39.9
49,850,389 25,290,293 2,275,782 17,088,822 1,423,120
25.13 8.42 3.22 7.90 7.34
21,970,325 13,661,703 2,217,271 9,502,630 1,010,475
44.1 54.0 97.4 55.6 71.0
51.7 53.2 69.8 52.7 69.9
Source: Thad Beyle, www.unc.edu/~beyle. Note: Using the 2008 CPI Index which was 2.153 of the 1982–84 Index = 1.00, the actual 2005 expenditures were based on a 1.953 value or .907 of the 2008$ index, the actual 2006 expenditures were based on a 2.016 index value or .936 of the 2008$ index, the 2007 expenditures were based on a 2.073 index value or .963 of the 2008$ index, and the 2008 expenditures were the exact dollars spent in that election year. Then the actual expenditures of each state’s governor’s race were divided by the .9 value for that year to get the equivalent 2008$ value of those expenditures.
190 The Book of the States 2010
Key: D — Democrat I — Independent R — Republican # — Open seat ★ — Incumbent ran and won. ★★ — Incumbent ran and lost in party primary. ★★★ — Incumbent ran and lost in general election.
governors
Figure A: Gubernatorial Elections Expenditures (by millions) 1,400
$1,306
2008 Dollars (in millions)
1,200
$1,139
1,000 800 600
$741 $572
$799
$806
1989–1992
1993–1996
$824
$648
400 200 0
1977–1980
1981–1984
1985–1988
1997–2000 2001–2004 2005–2008
Source: Thad Beyle.
2005–2008 cycle were the 2008 races in Missouri at 41 cents per vote and in Utah at 97 cents per vote. The Missouri race was for an open seat while in the Utah race an incumbent won his second term. In Figure A, by converting the actual dollars spent each year into the equivalent 2008 dollars, the cost of these elections has increased over time. Since 1981, the costs of each four-year cycle of elections can be compared with the previous and subsequent cycle of elections. In the 54 gubernatorial elections held from 1977 to 1980, total expenditures were $572 million in equivalent 2008 dollars. In the 52 elections held from 2005 to 2008—nearly three decades later— total expenditures were $1.1 billion in 2008 dollars, an increase of 99 percent. There will be 37 gubernatorial elections in 2010 with 13 incumbents seeking another term and 24 open seat races. Among the 13 incumbents running will be four governors who succeeded to the governorship after the resignation of the state’s governors in Alaska, Arizona and Utah, and the impeachment and removal of the governor in Illinois. In the Utah race, Gov. Gary Herbert will be seeking to be
elected to fill out the rest of the term former Gov. Jon Huntsman was elected to in 2008—hence the increase in the number of elections in this even year between presidential elections. Eight of the open seat races are in states where the elected governor is retiring and won’t be seeking another term, or the succeeding governor will not seek to win his own elected term, while the other 16 open seat races are tied to term limits placed on governors. Based on these projections on the 37 gubernatorial races in 2010, there may be an increase in just how much money is spent in these elections compared to the 36 races in 2006. This is tied to the comparison between the 2002 and 2006 elections data. In 2002, there were 20 open-seat races compared to only nine in the 2006 elections. Openseat races with no incumbent seeking another term generally attract more candidates who are willing and able to raise and then spend a lot of money to win the governorship as they have so few opportunities to win the office. A caveat to this is the current condition of the economy and how that might affect the amount of money put into gubernatorial races by both candidates and donors.
The Council of State Governments 191
governors
Table D: Women Governors in the States Governor State
Year elected How woman or succeeded became Previous to office governor Tenure of service offices held
Last elected position held before governorship
Phase I—From initial statehood to adoption of the 19th Amendment to U.S. Constitution (1920) No women elected or served as governor Phase II—Wives of former governors elected governor, 1924 –1966 Nellie Tayloe Ross (D) Wyoming 1924 E Miriam “Ma” Ferguson (D) Texas 1924 E Lurleen Wallace (D) Alabama 1966 E
1/1925 –1/1927 1/1925 –1/1927 1/1933 –1/1935 1/1967–5/1968
F F
... ...
F
...
Phase III—Women who became governor on their own merit, 1970 to date Ella Grasso (D) Connecticut 1974 E Dixy Lee Ray (D) Washington 1976 E Vesta M. Roy (R) New Hampshire 1982 S (c) Martha Layne Collins (D) Kentucky 1983 E Madeleine M. Kunin (D) Vermont 1984 E Kay A. Orr (R) Nebraska 1986 E Rose Mofford (D) Arizona 1988 S (f) Joan Finney (D) Kansas 1990 E Barbara Roberts (D) Oregon 1990 E Ann Richards (D) Texas 1990 E Christy Whitman (R) New Jersey 1993 E Jeanne Shaheen (D) New Hampshire 1996 E Jane Dee Hull (R) Arizona 1997 S (i) Nancy P. Hollister (R) Ohio 1998 S (k) Ruth Ann Minner (D) Delaware 2000 E Judy Martz (R) Montana 2000 E Sila Calderón (Pop D) Puerto Rico 2000 E Jane Swift (R) Massachusetts 2001 S (l) Janet Napolitano (D) Arizona 2002 E Linda Lingle (R) Hawaii 2002 E Kathleen Sebelius (D) Kansas 2002 E Jennifer Granholm (D) Michigan 2002 E Olene Walker (R) Utah 2003 S (q) Kathleen Blanco (D) Louisiana 2003 E M. Jodi Rell (R) Connecticut 2004 S (r) Christine Gregoire (D) Washington 2004 E Sarah Palin (R) Alaska 2006 E Beverly Perdue (D) North Carolina 2008 E Jan Brewer (R) Arizona 2009 S (t)
1/1975 –12/1980 1/1977–1/1981 12/1982 –1/1983 12/1983 –12/1987 1/1985 –1/1991 1/1987–1/1991 4/1988 –1/1991 1/1991–1/1995 1/1991–1/1995 1/1991–1/1995 1/1994 –1/2001 1/1997–1/2003 9/1997–1/2003 12/1998 –1/1999 1/2001–1/2009 1/2001–1/2005 1/2001–1/2005 4/2001–1/2003 1/2003 –1/2009 12/2002 – 1/2003 – 4/2009 1/2003– 11/2003 –1/2005 1/2004 –1/2008 7/2004 – 1/2005 – 1/2007–7/2009 1/2009 – 1/2009 –
SH, SOS, (a) (b) (d) (e), LG SH, LG T SOS T (g), C, SH, SOS C, T (h) (d) (j), SOS LG SH, SS, LG LG M SS, LG (m), AG C, M (n) SH, (o) (p), AG SH, LG SH, LG SH, LG AG M (s) SH, SS, LG C, SH, SS, SOS
(a) ... (d) LG LG T SOS T SOS T (h) (d) SOS LG LG LG M LG AG M (o) AG LG LG LG AG M LG SOS
Sources: National Governors Association Web site, www.nga.org, and individual state government Web sites. Key: S — Succeeded to office upon death, resignation or removal of the incumbent governor. AG — Attorney general M — Mayor C — City council or SH — State House member county commission E — Elected governor SOS — Secretary of state F — Former first lady SS — State Senate member LG — Lieutenant governor T — State treasurer (a) Congresswoman. (b) Ray served on the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1972 to 1975 and was chair of the AEC from 1973 to 1975. (c) Roy as state Senate president succeeded to office upon the death of Gov. Hugh Gallen. (d) State Senate president. (e) State Supreme Court clerk. (f) Mofford as secretary of state became acting governor in February 1988 and governor in April 1988 upon the impeachment and removal of Gov. Evan Mecham. (g) Local school board member. (h) Whitman was a former state utilities official. (i) Hull as secretary of state became acting governor when Gov. Fife Symington resigned. Elected to full term in 1998.
192 The Book of the States 2010
(j) Speaker of the state House. (k) Hollister as lieutenant governor became governor when Gov. George Voinovich stepped down to serve in the U.S. Senate. (l) Swift as lieutenant governor succeeded Gov. Paul Celluci who resigned after being appointed ambassador to Canada. Was the first governor to give birth while serving in office. (m) U.S. attorney. (n) Lingle was mayor of Maui for two terms, elected in 1990 and 1996. (o) Insurance commissioner. (p) Federal prosecutor. (q) Walker as lieutenant governor succeeded to the governorship upon the resignation of Gov. Mike Leavitt in 2003. (r) Rell as lieutenant governor succeeded to the governorship upon the resignation of Gov. John Rowland in 2004. (s) Palin was a two-term Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and had unsuccessfully sought the lieutenant governor’s office in 2002. In 2008, Palin was nominated to be the vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket with U.S. Sen. John McCain. (t) Brewer as secretary of state succeeded to the governorship upon the resignation of Gov. Janet Napolitano in January 2009 after her confirmation as head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
governors The rising costs of these elections continue to reflect the current style of campaigning for governor, with the candidates developing their own personal party organization by using outside consultants, opinion polls, media ads and buys, and extensive fundraising efforts to pay for all this. This style reaches into all states and air-war campaigns now replace the older style of ground-war campaigns across the states.
Changes in Gubernatorial Elections The cost of gubernatorial elections aside, Table F, “New Governors Elected Each Four-Year Period, 1970–2009,” examines the shifts in gubernatorial elections. The four-year periods were created to capture the elections in all 50 states that had either four-year or two-year terms for their governors when elected. In the four-year periods over the past four decades, the number of gubernatorial elections in each period dropped from 58 in the first 1970–1973 period to 52 in the most recent period, 2006–2009. This shift occurred as the number of states with two-year terms for their elected governors decreased. In 1970, eight states—Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas and Vermont had two-year terms for elected governors. By 2009, only two states— New Hampshire and Vermont—retained a twoyear term. Most states changed their rules to fall into the four-year term pattern. In 2003, a special recall and replacement election held in California removed incumbent Democrat Gov. Gray Davis, just re-elected in 2002, from office and installed Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who ran and won in a field of 135 candidates. In the upcoming four-year period, 2010–2013, 53 gubernatorial elections are projected, with one special gubernatorial election to be held in Utah in 2010 for succeeding Republican Gov. Gary Herbert to receive electoral approval to fill out the remainder of his current term. As lieutenant governor, Herbert succeeded to the governorship in August 2009 when newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was re-elected in 2008, resigned to become the new U.S. ambassador to China, appointed by President Obama. In the past four decades of gubernatorial elections, 323 incumbent governors sought re-election to the office and 245 were successful (75.9 percent). A growing pattern is evident in those who lost their bids for another term. In the first 1970–1973 period, 13 governors lost their bids;
that dropped to eight who lost their bids in 1974– 1977. In 1978–1981, 12 governors lost their bids; that dropped to nine who lost in 1982–1985, and then dropped to five who lost in 1986–1989. There was another swing in the 1990–1993 period as nine lost their bids, followed by a drop to six who lost in 1994–1997, and another drop to three who lost in 1998–2001. Then, still another swing as 10 lost their bids in 2002–2005, followed by three who lost in 2006–2009. In the past four decades of gubernatorial elections, 289 new governors were elected to office (54 percent). Another pattern emerges when considering when these new governors won their races. In the first 1970–1973 period, 35 new governors won their seats (60.3 percent of the races). Then five periods followed in which the number of newly elected governors varied between 29 and 32, not too great a shift in the periods between 1974 and 1993. In the next 1994–1997 period only 26 new governors were elected, followed by a drop to 22 new governors elected in the 1998–2001 elections. Then, in the 2002–2005 elections, 36 new governors were elected, followed by a drop to only 18 new governors elected in the 2006–2009 elections. The impact of the changes in gubernatorial terms is growing clearer from these results in gubernatorial elections over the past four decades. Incumbent governors seeking a second or additional term in office have about a 3-to-1 chance of winning. And those seeking election to the office for the first time have a better chance of winning in years in which there is an open seat due to term limits on incumbent governors rather than in years in which the incumbent is seeking re-election. Based on the most recent four-year periods of these elections, the pattern in place now is for there to be an eightyear period in which incumbent governors win and continue to hold office, then a rise in newly elected governors in the next four-year period of elections. This suggests that in the 2010–2013 elections, more new governors will be elected than in the most recent 2006–2009 elections. As noted earlier, in 2010 there will be 24 open seat races among the 37 races held, as 16 incumbents are term-limited and eight others have announced their retirement and decision not to seek another term, so only 13 are seeking re-election to another term. In the three 2011 races, there will probably be only one open seat race due to a term limit on the incumbent governor in Mississippi, while incumbent Govs. Steve Beshear of Kentucky and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are eligible for re-election. In
The Council of State Governments 193
governors
Table E: Impeachments and Removals of Governors Name, party and state
Year
Charles Robinson (R-Kan.) Harrison Reed (R-Fla.) William Holden (R-N.C.) Powell Clayton (R-Ark.) David Butler (R-Neb.) Henry Warmouth (R-La.) Harrison Reed (R-Fla.) Adelbert Ames (R-Miss.) William P. Kellogg (R-La.) Wiliam Sulzer (D-N.Y.) James “Pa” Ferguson (D-Texas) John C. Walton (D-Okla.) Henry S. Johnston (D-Okla.) Henry S. Johnston (D-Okla.) Huey P. Long (D-La.) Henry Horton (D-Tenn.) Richard Leche (D-La.) Evan Mecham (R-Ariz.) John Rowland (R-Conn.) Rod R. Blagojevich (D-Ill.)
1862 1868 1871 1871 1871 1872 1872 1876 1876 1913 1917 1923 1928 1929 1929 1931 1939 1988 2004 2009
Process of impeachment and outcome Impeached Acquitted Impeached Acquitted Impeached Convicted Impeached Acquitted Impeached Convicted Impeached Impeached Acquitted Impeached Impeached Acquitted Impeached Convicted Impeached Convicted Impeached Convicted Impeached Acquitted Impeached Convicted Impeached Acquitted Impeached Acquitted Threatened Impeached Convicted Threatened Impeached Convicted
Removed Removed Term ended Resigned Removed Resigned Removed Removed
Resigned Removed Resigned Removed
Other removals of incumbent governors John A. Quitman (D-Miss.) 1851 Rufus Brown (R-Ga.) 1871 Lynn J. Frazier (R-N.D.) 1921 Warren T. McCray (R-Ind.) 1924 William Langer (I-N.D.) 1934 Thomas L. Moodie (D-N.D.) 1935 J. Howard Pyle (R-Ariz.) 1955 Marvin Mandel (D-Md.) 1977 Ray Blanton (D-Tenn.) 1979 Evan Mecham (R-Ariz.) 1987 H. Guy Hunt (R-Ala.) 1993 Jim Guy Tucker Jr. (D-Ark.) 1996 J. Fife Symington (R-Ariz.) 1997 Gray Davis (D-Calif.) 2003 James McGreevey (D-N.J.) 2004 Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.) 2008 Sources: Thad Beyle and The Council of State Governments, National Governors Association database, and Eric Kelderman, “Spitzer, 22nd disgraced gov to leave office,” www.stateline.org (March 12, 2008).
the 11 races in 2012, there will probably be only four open seat races due to term limits on the incumbent governors in Indiana, Montana, Washington and West Virginia. In the two races in 2013, there will probably be only one opening due to the term limit on the incumbent governor in Virginia. So based on gubernatorial term limits and early decisions not to seek another term, there will be at
194 The Book of the States 2010
Resigned after federal criminal indictment. Resigned while under criminal investigation. Recalled by voters during third term. Resigned after federal criminal conviction. Removed by North Dakota Supreme Court. Removed by North Dakota Supreme Court. Recall petition certified, but term ended before date set for recall election. Removed after federal criminal conviction. Term shortened in bipartisan agreement (a). Recall petition certified, but impeached, convicted and removed from office before the date set for the recall election. Removed after state criminal conviction. Resigned after federal criminal conviction. Resigned after federal criminal conviction. Recalled by voters during second term. Resigned due to personal reasons. Resigned after being linked to a prostitution ring. Key: (a) See Lamar Alexander, Steps Along the War: A Governor’s Scrapbook (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 21–9 for a discussion of this unique transition between governors.
least 30 new governors elected in the 2010–2013 elections. But with some potential retirements by some of those eligible to seek another term and the losses by incumbents seeking another term, the number of new governors elected could rise even higher. We may be in for a new generation of elected governors.
governors
Table F: New Governors Elected Each 4-Year Period, 1970–2009 (a) 4-Year period
Number of gubernatorial elections
Won
Percent
Number
Won
Lost
Percent Lost
1970–1973
58
35
60.3
36
23
13
36.1
1974–1977
54
29
53.7
33
25
8
24.2
1978–1981
54
31
57.4
35
23
12
34.3
1982–1985
54
30
55.5
33
24
9
27.3
1986–1989
53
30
56.6
28
23
5
17.9
1990–1993
53
32
60.4
30
21
9
30.0
1994–1997
52
26
50.0
32
26
6
18.8
1998–2001
52
22
43.3
33
30
3
9.1
2002–2005
53 (b)
36
67.9
26
16
10
38.5
52
18
34.6
39
34
3
7.7
535
289
54.0
323
245
78
24.1
2006–2009 Totals
New Governors
Key: (a) Table A: Gubernatorial Elections: 1970 –2008, The Book of the States, 2009 (Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2009): 170.
Incumbents Running
(b) In 2003, there was a recall and replacement election vote in California in which the incumbent Gov. Gray Davis-D was recalled and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected as his replacement.
Notes
About the Author
Jim Florio, D in NJ and Douglas Wilder, D in VA. 2 Jim Florio, D in NJ and George Allen, D in VA. 3 Christine Whitman, R in NJ and James Gilmore, R in VA. 4 James McGreevey, D in NJ and Mark Warner, D in VA. 5 Jon Corzine, D in NJ and Thomas Kaine, D in VA. 6 Thad Beyle, “Gubernatorial Elections, Campaign Costs and Powers,” The Book of the States, 2009, vol. 41 (Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments, 2009): 177. 7 2010 gubernatorial election states with term limited governors are: AL, CA, GA, HI, ME, MI, MN, NM, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, WY. 2010 election states with retiring governors are: CO, CT, FL, KS, NV, NY, VT, WI. 2010 election states with incumbent governors running for re-election: AK, AZ, AR, IL, IA, MD, MA, NE, NH, ND, OH, TX, UT. 8 In this set of election cycles, two states changed the length of their gubernatorial terms from two years to four years. This eliminated the gubernatorial elections being held during presidential election years beginning in 1988 in Arkansas and in 1996 in Rhode Island.
Thad Beyle is a professor-emeritus of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A Syracuse University A.B. and A.M., he received his Ph.D. at the University of Illinois. He spent a year in the North Carolina governor’s office in the mid-1960s followed by two years with Terry Sanford’s “A Study of American States” project at Duke University, and has worked with the National Governors Association in several capacities on gubernatorial transitions.
1
The Council of State Governments 195
196 The Book of the States 2010 Bill Ritter (D) M. Jodi Rell (R) Jack Markell (D) Charlie Crist (R) Sonny Perdue (R) Linda Lingle (R) C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) Patrick Quinn (D) Mitch Daniels (R) Chet Culver (D) Mark Parkinson (D) Steven L. Beshear (D) Bobby Jindal (R) John E. Baldacci (D) Martin O’Malley (D) Deval L. Patrick (D) Jennifer Granholm (D) Tim Pawlenty (R) Haley Barbour (R) Jay Nixon (D) Brian Schweitzer (D) Dave Heineman (R) James A. Gibbons (R) John Lynch (D) Christopher J. Christie (R) Bill Richardson (D) David A. Paterson (D) Beverly Perdue (D) John Hoeven (R) Ted Strickland (D) Brad Henry (D) Ted Kulongoski (D) Edward G. Rendell (D) Don Carcieri (R) Mark Sanford (R)
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
See footnotes at end of table.
Bob Riley (R) Sean Parnell (R) Jan Brewer (R) Mike Beebe (D) Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 2 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
1/2003 1/2003 1/2003 1/2003 1/2003
1/2003 3/2008 (m) 1/2009 12/2000 1/2007
1/2005 1/2005 (l) 1/2007 1/2005 1/2010
1/2007 1/2003 1/2003 1/2004 1/2009
4/2009 (i) 12/2007 1/2008 1/2003 1/2007
12/2002 1/2007 1/2009 (g) 1/2005 1/2007
1/2007 7/2004 (f) 1/2009 1/2007 1/2003
1/2003 7/2009 (b) 1/2009 (c) 1/2007 11/2003 (e)
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011
1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 12/2012 1/2011
1/2013 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2014
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2012 1/2013
1/2011 12/2011 1/2012 1/2011 1/2011
12/2010 1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 1/2011
1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
1/2011 12/2010 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011
1 1 1 1 1
1 . . . . . . 2 . . .
1 1 (l) . . . 2 . . .
. . . 1 1 1 . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
1 . . . . . . 1 . . .
. . . 1 (f) . . . . . . 1
1 . . . . . . . . . 1 (e)
2 2 2 2 2
2 . . . 2 . . . 2 (h)
2 (k) 2 (h) 2 . . . 2
. . . 2 (j) . . . 2 2
2 2 2 2 2
2 ... . . . 2 (h) . . .
2 . . . 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2
No (d) Yes No No
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Yes Yes No (d) Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes No (d) Yes
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Yes No
No Yes (d) No No
Maximum Joint election of Length of Number of consecutive governor and State or other regular term Date of Present previous terms allowed lieutenant jurisdiction Name and party in years first service term ends terms by constitution governor (a)
Table 4.1 THE GOVERNORS, 2010
LG SS LG LG LG
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG PS LG
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG PS LG
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG SS LG LG
Official who succeeds governor
6/10/63 11/5/40 1/5/44 12/16/42 5/28/60
11/15/47 5/20/54 1/14/47 3/13/57 8/4/41
9/4/55 5/12/48 12/16/44 11/25/52 9/6/62
7/31/56 2/5/59 11/27/60 10/22/47 2/13/56
6/24/57 9/21/44 6/10/71 1/30/55 1/18/63
6/4/53 5/3/42 12/16/48 4/7/49 1/25/66
9/6/56 6/16/46 11/26/60 7/24/56 12/20/46
10/3/44 11/19/62 9/26/44 12/28/46 7/30/47
Birthdate
OK MO NY RI FL
CA NY VA ND OH
MT NE NV MA NJ
IL BC MN MS MO
KS KY LA ME MD
MO ID IL PA DC
CO VA DE PA GA
AL CA CA AR Aus.
Birthplace
GOVERNORS
Robert McDonnell (R) Christine Gregoire (D) Joe Manchin III (D) Jim Doyle (D) Dave Freudenthal (D)
Togiola Tulafono (D) Felix P. Camacho (R) Benigno Fitial (C) Luis G. Fortuño (R) (NPP) John deJongh Jr. (D)
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
American Samoa................ Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands.............. 4 4 4 (s) 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 2
4/2003 (r) 1/2003 1/2006 1/2009 1/2007
1/2010 1/2005 1/2005 1/2003 1/2003
1/2003 1/2003 12/2000 (o) 8/2009 1/2003
2 1 1 ... . . .
. . . 1 1 1 1
1 1 2 . . . 3
2 2 2 (j) . . . 2 (h)
(q) . . . 2 . . . 2
2 2 . . . . . . . . .
Yes Yes Yes (d) Yes
No No (d) Yes (d)
Yes No No Yes No
LG LG LG SS LG
LG LG PS (n) LG SS
LG SpS (n) LG LG LG
Official who succeeds governor
2/28/47 10/30/57 11/27/45 10/31/60 11/13/57
6/15/54 3/24/57 8/24/47 11/23/45 10/12/50
10/24/54 11/21/43 3/4/50 5/7/47 6/21/51
Birthdate
AS Japan CNMI PR USVI
PA WA WV DC WY
SD NJ TX UT MA
Birthplace
was removed from office. (h) After two consecutive terms as Governor, the candidate must wait four years before becoming eligible to run again. (i) Lieutenant Governor Parkinson, on April 28, 2009, assumed the office of governor when Governor Sebelius was appointed U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. (j) Absolute two-term limitation, but terms need not be consecutive. (k) Absolute limit of eight years of service out of every 16 years. (l) Governor Heineman, as lieutenant governor, was sworn-in as Nebraska’s governor on Friday, January 21, 2005 after Governor Johanns resigned on January 20, 2005 upon being confirmed as the United States Secretary of Agriculture. (m) Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson was sworn in as governor on March 17, 2008 after Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned. (n) Official bears the additional title of “ lieutenant governor.” (o) Lt. Gov. Perry was sworn in on December 21, 2000 to complete President George W. Bush’s term as governor of Texas. (p) Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert was sworn in as Governor on August 10, 2009 after Governor Huntsman resigned to accept President Obama’s appointment as Ambassador to China. Utah law states that a replacement Governor elevated in a term’s first year will face a special election at the next regularly scheduled general election, November 2010, instead of serving the remainder of the term. Utah’s next regular scheduled gubernatorial election will be held in Nov. 2012. (q) Governor cannot serve immediate successive terms, but may be elected to non-consecutive terms. (r) Governor Tulafono, as lieutenant governor, became Governor in April 2003 after Governor Sunia’s death. (s) The current governor will serve a 5 year term to change future CNMI elections to even-numbered years. The next election will occur in November 2014.
1/2013 1/2011 1/2015 (s) 1/2013 1/2011
1/2014 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 (p) 1/2011
Sources: The Council of State Governments, January 2010. Key: C — Covenant D — Democrat NPP — New Progressive Party R — Republican LG — Lieutenant Governor SS — Secretary of State PS — President of the Senate SpS — Speaker of the Senate . . . — Not applicable (a) The following also choose candidates for governor and lieutenant governor through a joint nomination process: Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, American Samoa, Guam, No. Mariana Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands. (b) Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell was sworn in as Governor on July 26, 2009 after Governor Palin resigned. (c) Secretary of State Jan Brewer succeeded to the office of governor on January 21, 2009, upon Governor Napolitano’s appointment as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. (d) No lieutenant governor. (e) Governor Schwarzenegger was sworn in on November 17, 2003 after winning the replacement election following the recall vote that removed Governor Gray Davis from office in the same election. (f) Lieutenant Governor Rell was sworn in as governor on July 1, 2004 after Governor John Rowland resigned. (g) Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn became governor on January 29, 2009 after Governor Blagojevich
Mike Rounds (R) Phil Bredesen (D) Rick Perry (R) Gary Herbert (R) Jim Douglas (R)
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
Maximum Joint election of Length of Number of consecutive governor and State or other regular term Date of Present previous terms allowed lieutenant jurisdiction Name and party in years first service term ends terms by constitution governor (a)
THE GOVERNORS, 2010—Continued
GOVERNORS
The Council of State Governments 197
GOVERNORS
Table 4.2 THE GOVERNORS: Qualifications for office
State or other jurisdiction Minimum age
State citizen (years)
U.S. citizen (years) (a)
State resident (years) (b)
Qualified voter (years)
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
30 30 25 30 18
. . . H 5 H . . .
10 7 10 H 5
7 7 . . . 7 5
H H ... H H
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
30 30 30 30 30
. . . (c) . . . H . . .
H H 12 . . . 15
2 H 6 7 6
... (c) ... 7 ...
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
30 30 25 30 30
. . . 2 3 . . . 2
5 H H 5 2
5 2 3 5 2
H ... H H H
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
. . . 30 25 30 30
. . . 6 5 . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 15 (d)
. . . 6 5 5 5
... ... H ... 5
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
. . . 30 25 30 30
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . H H 20 15
7 H 1 5 10
... 4 H H ...
Montana ....................... Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
25 30 25 30 30
H 5 2 . . . . . .
H 5 2 . . . 20
2 5 2 7 7
H ... H ... ...
New Mexico................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
30 30 30 30 18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H 5 H H
5 5 2 5 H
H ... H H H
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island . .............. South Carolina..............
31 30 30 18 30
. . . . . . H 30 days 5
10 H H 30 days 5
10 3 7 30 days 5
10 ... H 30 days ...
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
18 30 30 30 18
H 7 . . . 5 1
H H H 3 . . .
H . . . 5 5 4
H ... ... H H
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
30 18 30 18 30
H . . . 5 H H
H H H H H
H H 1 H 5
5 H H H H
American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
35 30 35 35 30
. . . . . . . . . 5 . . .
H 5 H 5 5
5 5 10 5 5
... H H ... H
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of governor’s offices, December 2009. Key: H — Formal provision; number of years not specified. . . . — No formal provision. (a) In some states you must be a U.S. citizen to be an elector, and must be an elector to run.
198 The Book of the States 2010
(b) In some states you must be a state resident to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (c) Must be an elector of the state, not a state citizen. (d) Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections 243 Md. 555, 221A.2d431 (1966)—opinion rendered indicated that U.S. citizenship was, by necessity, a requirement for office.
governors
Table 4.3 the governors: Compensation, staff, travel and residence Access to state transportation State or other Governorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction Salary office staff (a) Automobile Airplane Helicopter Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California...................
$112,895 125,000 95,000 87,352 173,987 (c)
Receives travel allowance
Reimbursed for travel expenses
Official residence
60 71 34 67 185
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . (b)
. . . H (b) H (b) H (d)
H H ... H (e)
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia.......................
90,000 150,000 171,000 130,273 139,339
50 37 32 325 (f) 56 (f)
H H H H H
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H (b) . . .
H (e) H H H
Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................
117,312 115,348 177,500 95,000 130,000
67 22 130 34 32
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H . . . H H . . .
H H (b) H H (b) . . .
H H (b) (d) H (b) H
H (e) H H H
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
110,707 145,885 (c) 130,000 70,000 150,000
24 65 93 (f) 19 85 (f)
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
. . . H . . . H (b)
H . . . H H (b)
H H H H H
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
140,535 177,000 (c) 120,303 122,160 133,821
70 92 43 46 38
H H (h) H H H
. . . H (i) H H H
H . . . H . . . . . .
H (b) (b) . . . . . . (b)
H (b) (b) H H (d)
... H (e) H H H
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey.................
100,121 105,000 141,000 113,834 175,000
65 (f) 9 21 (f) 23 125
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . H (b) (b) . . .
H (b) H . . . (d) H (b)
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio............................
110,000 179,000 139,590 105,036 144,269
39.3 180 68 17 60
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . H (b) . . . (b)
. . . H H (b) H (d)
H H H H H
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
147,000 93,600 174,914 117,817 106,078
H H H H H
H . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H (b) H (b) . . . . . . . . .
H (b) H (b) H (b) H H
H H H ... H
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont......................
115,331 170,340 (c) 150,000 109,900 142,542 (c)
21.5 32 266 16 12
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
. . . H H H . . .
. . . H (b) . . . . . . H
H H (b) H H . . .
H H H H ...
Virginia....................... Washington................ West Virginia.............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
175,000 166,891 95,000 137,092 105,000
44 36 49 25 22
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H . . . . . .
. . . (b) (b) . . . ...
H (d) (d) (d) H (b)
H H H H H
American Samoa....... Guam.......................... No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands.....
50,000 90,000 70,000 70,000 80,000
23 42 16 28 86
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . (g) . . .
. . . . . . . . . (g) . . .
(b) $218/day (b) . . . . . .
. . . ... ... H H
H H H H H
30 65 (f) 68 46 29
H H H H (e) H
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 199
Governors
the governors: Compensation, staff, travel and residence—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2010. Key: H —Yes . . . —No N.A. —Not available. (a) Definitions of “governor’s office staff” vary across the states–from general office support to staffing for various operations within the executive office. (b) Travel expenses. Alaska—$60/day per diem plus actual lodging expenses. American Samoa—$105,000. Amount includes travel allowance for entire staff. Arizona—The rate depends on the location and the date. The default $34/day for meals and $60/day lodging. California –$145,000 in state; $36,000 out of state. Florida—State can reimburse. Reimbursed at same rate as other state officials: in-state, choice between $80 per diem ($20/per quarter of a day) or actual hotel expenses, meals, transportation; out-of-state, same as in state. Foreign travel: actual transportation, per diem and meals based on Federal reimbursement rates. Idaho—Travel allowance included in office budget. The Governor is reimbursed for actual travel expenses, but he must turn in travel vouchers with appropriate receipts. Indiana–Statute allows $12,000 but due to budget cuts the amount has been reduced to $9,800 and reimbursed for actual expenses for travel/ lodging. Maryland—Travel allowance included in office budget. Massachusetts–As necessary. Michigan—The Governor is provided a $60,000 annual expense allowance, as determined by the State Officers Compensation Commission in 2000. “Expense allowance” is for normal, reimbursable personal expenses such as food, lodging, and travel costs incurred by an individual in carrying out the responsibilities of state office. Montana—Statutory rate applicable to all state employees. Missouri—Amount includes travel allowance for entire staff. Amount not available. Nevada—Amount includes travel allowance for entire staff. The following figures include travel expenses for governor and staff, $45,750 in state; $32,800 out of state. New Hampshire—Travel allowance included in office budget. New Jersey—Reimbursement may be provided for necessary expenses. North Carolina—Travel allowance—receives $11,500, expense allowance, not just travel. Reimbursed for actual out-of-state travel expenses. Northern Mariana Islands—Travel allowance included in office budget. Governor has a “contingency account” that can be used for travel expenses and expenses in other departments or other projects. Ohio—Set administratively. Oklahoma–Reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses.
200 The Book of the States 2010
Oregon—$1,000 a month for expenses, not specific to travel. Reimbursed for actual travel expenses. Pennsylvania—Reimbursed for reasonable expenses. Tennessee—Travel allowance included in office budget. Washington—Travel allowance included in office budget. West Virginia—Included in general expense account. Wyoming —$99/day or actual. (c) Governor’s salary: California—Governor Schwarzenegger waives his salary. Michigan—Governor Granholm returns 5 percent of her salary to the general fund. Kentucky—Reflects a voluntary 10 percent salary reduction. Tennessee—Governor Bredesen returns his salary to the state. Tennessee statute mandates the governor and the chief justice of t he Supreme Court receive the same salary, currently, $170,340. (d) Information not provided. (e) Governor’s residence: California—provided by Governor’s Residence Foundation, a non-profit organization which provides a residence for the governor of California. No rent is charged; maintenance and operational costs are provided by California Department of General Services. Connecticut—maintained by the Department of Public Works. Idaho—J.R. and Esther Simplot donated their home to the state of Idaho in December 2004 for use as the future Governor’s residence. Efforts are underway to raise private monies for renovation. Michigan—Constitution mandates official residence in Lansing. New Hampshire—The current governor does not occupy the official residence. (f) Governor’s staff: Florida—The Governor’s office budget includes the following staff for the Executive Office: 116 Drug Control, 7 Office of Tourism, 21 Trade and Economic Dev., 48 System Design, 105 Office of Policy and Budget, 14 Energy Office and 14 the Agency for Enterprise Information Technology (a Cabinet Agency administratively housed in the EOG). Georgia—Full-time employees—56 and 2 part-time employees. Louisiana—Full-time employees—93, part-time (non-student)—21, students—25. Maryland—Full-time employees—85 and 1 part-time employee. Montana—Including 20 employees in the Office of Budget and Program Planning. Oregon—Of this total, 45 are true Governor’s staff and 20 are on loan for agency staff. Vermont—Voluntary 5 percent salary reduction. (g) The Governor’s office pays for access to an airplane or helicopter with a corporate credit card and requests a refund of those expenses with the corresponding documentation to the Dept. of Treasury. (h) Provided for security reasons as determined by the state police. (i) When not in use by other state agencies.
Item veto power
H H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . H(b) . . . H . . . (e) . . . H . . . H . . . H(b) . . . . . . H . . . H H . . .
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
. . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . H H . . . . . .
Montana.............................. H Nebraska............................. . . . Nevada................................. H New Hampshire.................. H (b) New Jersey.......................... H (b) H . . . . . . H H . . . H . . . H H . . . . . . H . . . H
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
See footnotes at end of table.
. . . . . . H H (k) . . .
Massachusetts..................... H Michigan.............................. H(i) Minnesota............................ . . . Mississippi........................... . . . Missouri............................... H (b)
H (e) H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
Alabama.............................. H (b) Alaska.................................. H Arizona................................ H (b) Arkansas.............................. . . . California............................ H (b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
H . . . . . . H H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H (f) H . . . H
H H(f) H H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H . . . H H
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
H H . . . H H
H(l) H(n) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H H (c)
. . . H H . . . H
H(g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H (g)
H(g) H(g) H(g) . . . . . .
. . . H H(g) H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . (c) H . . .
Item veto— Budget making power Governor has Governor has 2/3 legislators present Item veto— State or other Full Shares item veto power item veto power on Governor has no or 3/5 elected majority legislators jurisdiction responsibility responsibility on all bills appropriations only item veto power to override elected to override
Table 4.4 THE GOVERNORS: powers
... H ... ... ...
... ... H (p) H ...
H (m) ... ... ... H (o)
H(d) H H(j) H H
H H H(h) ... H
H H H H H
H ... H H H
... H ... H H(d)
Authorization for reorganization through executive order (a)
GOVERNORS
The Council of State Governments 201
Item veto power
202 The Book of the States 2010 H H H H(b) . . . . . . H . . . . . . H
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
American Samoa................ Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands.............. H . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . H H H . . . H H H H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . H H H H
H(q) H H H H
H(q) . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H H H H(t) H
H ... ... ... ...
H H H H H
Authorization for reorganization through executive order (a)
(l) If the Legislature is not in session when the Governor vetoes a bill, the Secretary of State must poll the Legislature as to the question of an override but only if the bill had passed by a vote of 2/3 of the members present. (m) The office of the governor shall continuously study and evaluate the organizational structure, management practices, and functions of the executive branch and each agency. The governor shall, by executive order or other means within his authority, take action to improve the manageability of the executive branch. The Governor may not, however, create an agency of state government by administrative action, except that the Governor may establish advisory councils and must approve the internal organizational structures of departments. (n) 3/5 majority required to override line item veto. (o) Executive reorganization plans can be disapproved by majority vote in both houses of the legislature. (p) Executive Order must be approved by the legislature if changes affect existing law. (q) Requires 2/3 of legislators present to override. (r) Governor has veto power of selections for nonappropriations and item veto in appropriations. (s) In Wisconsin, governor has “partial” veto over appropriation bills. The partial veto is broader than item veto. (t) Only if it is not prohibited by law.
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H H (r) . . . . . . H . . . H(s) H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of governor’s offices, December 2009. Key: H — Yes; provision for. . . . — No; not applicable. (a) For additional information on executive orders, see Table 4.5. (b) Full responsibility to propose; legislature adopts or revises and governor signs or vetoes. (c) 2/3 of members to which each house is entitled required to override veto. (d) Authorization for reorganization provided for in state constitution. (e) The Legislature has full responsibility with regard to setting the State’s budget. (f) Governor may veto any distinct item or items appropriating money in any appropriations bill. (g) 2/3 of elected legislators of each house to override. (h) Only for agencies and offices within the Governor’s Office. (i) Governor has sole authority to propose annual budget. No money may be paid out of state treasury except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. (j) Statute provides for reorganization by the Commissioner of Administration with the approval of the governor. (k) Governor has the responsibility of presenting a balanced budget. The budget is based on revenue estimated by the Governor’s office and the Legislative Budget Committee.
H . . . . . . . . . H
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
Item veto— Budget making power Governor has Governor has 2/3 legislators present Item veto— State or other Full Shares item veto power item veto power on Governor has no or 3/5 elected majority legislators jurisdiction responsibility responsibility on all bills appropriations only item veto power to override elected to override
THE GOVERNORS: powers—Continued
GOVERNORS
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 203
S, I, Case Law C I S, I, Common Law I C C, S C C,S S,I (d) C S C,S C,S, Case Law (f) C,S C,S C,S (m) I C,S
C, S C, S, I S C, S C, S,Common Law
S, I, Common Law C,S S,I S C,S,I C,S C,S C,S S,I S,I (z) C,S I C,S I, Case Law S
Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California...................
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia.......................
Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey.................
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio............................
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
See footnotes at end of table.
Authorization for executive orders
State or other jurisdiction
Civil defense disasters, public emergencies H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H (a) H H
Energy emergencies and conservation H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H (a) H
H H H (q) H I
H H H H H
H I H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H (a) H H
Other emergencies
H . . . H H H
. . . H . . . H H
Executive branch reorganization plans and agency creation (aa) . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . H . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H (p) H H H
H H H . . . H
H . . . H H (limited) H
H H H (n)(bb)(cc)(dd) H H
H H H H H
H H I H H
H H H H H
H H (i) H H H
H I H . . . H
. . . H H H H
H . . . H(a) H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H I H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
Create advisory, coordinating, study or investigative committees/ commissions
Provisions Respond to federal programs and requirements H H H H H
. . . . . . H . . . H
H . . . . . . H H
. . . H H H H
. . . H H H H
H I H H H
H . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
State personnel administration H H . . . H . . .
H . . . H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
H . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
Other administration . . . . . . H (dd) . . . H
. . . . . . H (l)(r)(u)(w)(x)(y) . . .
H . . . I H (k) H(u)
H H (r) . . . H
H H(j)(k)(l) . . . . . . H (n)
. . . . . . H . . . (g)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
Filing and publication procedures H . . . H(b)(bb) H H
H H H . . . H
H H . . . H H
H H (p) H (b) (s) H(o)
. . . H (b) H . . . H
H (b)(e) H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H (b) . . . . . .
Procedures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H (s) . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
H . . . H . . . H
H H . . . H(c) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subject to administrative procedure act
Table 4.5 GUBERNATORIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS: AUTHORIZATION, PROVISIONS, PROCEDURES
Subject to legislative review ... ... ... ... ...
... ... H(v) ... ...
... ... ... ... ...
... ... H(o) ... H(o)(t)
(h) H ... ... H(o)
H ... H ... H
... ... ... ... ...
... H ... ... ...
GOVERNORS
204 The Book of the States 2010 C S I S, I S,I S S C,S S (gg)
C,S C C C, S, I, Case Law C
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont......................
Virginia....................... Washington................ West Virginia.............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
American Samoa....... Guam.......................... No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands.....
Civil defense disasters, public emergencies H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
Energy emergencies and conservation H H I H H
H . . . H H . . .
H H H H H
Other emergencies H . . . H H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H . . .
H (ii) C H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H (ee)
Executive branch reorganization plans and agency creation
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, December 2009. Key: C — Constitutional S — Statutory I — Implied H — Formal provision. . . . — No formal provision. (a) Broad interpretation of gubernatorial authority. (b) Executive orders must be filed with secretary of state or other designated officer. In Idaho, must also be published in state general circulation newspaper. (c) Under some circumstances the Cabinet must approve before an order becomes law. The Joint Administrative Procedure Committee must make sure agency rules have legislative authority to do so. (d) Implied from Constitution. (e) Some implied. (f) Constitution, statute, implied, case law, common law. (g) Executive clemency. (h) Only for EROs. When an ERO is submitted the legislature has 30 days to veto the ERO or it becomes law. (i) To give immediate effect to state regulation in emergencies. (j) To control administration of state contracts and procedures. (k) To impound or freeze certain state matching funds. (l) To reduce state expenditures in revenue shortfall. (m) Inherent. (n) To control procedures for dealing with public. (o) Reorganization plans and agency creation.
Authorization for executive orders
State or other jurisdiction
Respond to federal programs and requirements H H S H H
H . . . H H . . .
H H H H H
State personnel administration H H . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
Other administration H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
Filing and publication procedures H (hh) H S (jj) H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H H (b) . . . . . . . . .
Procedures
H (hh) . . . I . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... H ...
... ... ... ... H(ff)
Subject to legislative review
(p) Executive reorganizations not effective if rejected by both houses of legislature within 60 calendar days. Executive orders reducing appropriations not effective unless approved by appropriations committees of both houses of legislature. (q) If an energy emergency is declared by the state’s Executive Council or legislature. (r) To assign duties to lieutenant governor, issue writ of special election. (s) Governor is exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act and filing and administrative procedures Miss. Code Ann. § 25-43-102 (1972). (t) Reorganization plans and agency creation and for meeting federal program requirements. (u) To administer and govern the armed forces of the state. (v) Must submit to the Secretary of State who must compile, index and publish Executive Orders. Copies must also be sent to President of the Senate, Speaker of House and Principal Clerk of each chamber (w) To suspend certain officials and/or other civil actions. (x)To designate game and wildlife areas or other public areas. (y) Appointive powers. (z) Executive authority implied except for emergencies which are established by statute. (aa) Limited authority in executive branch reorganization/agency creation. (bb) Filing. (cc) For fire emergencies. (dd) To transfer funds in an emergency. (ee) Subject to legislative approval. (ff) Only if reorganization order filed with the legislature. (gg) No specific authorization granted, general authority only. (hh) If executive order fits definition of rule. (ii) Can reorganize, but not create. (jj) Executive Orders are filed in the Department of State.
H H S,I H H
H . . . H H . . .
H H H H H
Create advisory, coordinating, study or investigative committees/ commissions
Provisions
Subject to administrative procedure act
GUBERNATORIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS: AUTHORIZATION, PROVISIONS, PROCEDURES—Continued
GOVERNORS
governors
Table 4.6 state cabinet systems
Quarterly Gov.’s discretion Monthly Monthly Every two weeks
... H (b) ... ... ...
Elected to specified office (a)
25 19 38 47 11
Appointed to specific office (a)
. . . . . . H . . . H
Tradition in state
Open cabinet meetings
Governor created
Frequency of cabinet meetings
State constitution
Number of members in cabinet (including governor)
State or other jurisdiction
State statute
Gubernatorial appointment regardless of office
Authorization for cabinet system Criteria for membership
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
H . . . H . . . . . . . . . H 21 Monthly ... H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H 27 Gov.’s discretion ... H . . . . . . . . . H . . . H 16 Gov.’s discretion ... . . . H . . . . . . . . . H . . . 4 Semi-weekly H ..........................................................................................(d)..................................................................................................
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
. . . H . . . . . . H . . . H ............................................ (d)............................................ H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . H H . . . H H H . . . . . .
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
H H H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . H . . .
22 43 18 16 30
Monthly Gov.’s discretion N.A. Bi-monthly (c)
... ... ... ... ...
14 15 16 16 25
Bi-weekly Weekly Monthly Weekly Every other week
... ... ... ... ...
Massachusetts.............. H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . 10 Bi-weekly ... Michigan...................... . . . ... H H ... ... (e) 18 Bi-weekly and ... Gov.’s discretion Minnesota.................... . . . . . . H . . . H . . . . . . 24 Regularly ... Mississippi.................... ..........................................................................................(d).................................................................................................. Missouri....................... . . . H . . . H H . . . . . . 17 Gov.’s discretion ... Montana....................... H H . . . . . . H . . . . . . 21 Weekly H Nebraska...................... . . . . . . H H H . . . H 30 Monthly ... Nevada......................... ............................................ (d)............................................ 23 At call of the governor ... New Hampshire.......... ..........................................................................................(d).................................................................................................. New Jersey................... H H . . . . . . H . . . . . . 24 Gov.’s discretion ... New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina (f)...... North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
H . . . . . . . . . H
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H 16 (h) Monthly ... ..........................................................................................(d).................................................................................................. H H H . . . H(i) . . . H 28 Gov.’s discretion H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . H 20 Bi-monthly ... H . . . . . . . . . H(i) . . . . . . 16 Monthly H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H H . . .
25 75 10 18 24
Gov.’s discretion Gov.’s discretion Weekly (g) Monthly Gov.’s discretion
... ... ... H H
South Dakota.............. H H . . . . . . H . . . . . . 19 Monthly ... Tennessee..................... H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . 28 Monthly ... Texas............................. ..........................................................................................(d).................................................................................................. Utah.............................. H . . . H . . . H . . . . . . 21 Monthly, weekly during ... legislative session Vermont....................... H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . 7 Gov.’s discretion ... Virginia........................ H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H(j) 14 Washington.................. . . . . . . H . . . H . . . . . . 28 H . . . . . . 9 West Virginia............... . . . . . . H H Wisconsin..................... H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . 16 Wyoming...................... . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . H 20
Weekly Bi-weekly, weekly during legislative session Weekly Gov.’s discretion Monthly
... ...
American Samoa........ Guam............................ No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
Gov.’s discretion Bi-monthly Gov.’s discretion Every 6 weeks Monthly
H ... H ... H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H . . .
16 55 16 10 (k) 21
... H ...
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 205
governors
state cabinet systems—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2010. Key: H — Yes . . . — No N.A.— Not available (a) Individual is a member by virtue of election or appointment to a cabinet-level position. (b) Except when in executive session. (c) Every other month, and every month during session. (d) No formal cabinet system. In Idaho, however, sub-cabinets have been formed, by executive order; the chairs report to the governor. (e) Membership determined by governor. Some officers formally designated as cabinet member by executive order. (f) There is a Council of State Elected Officials created by the state
206 The Book of the States 2010
Constitution: Lieutenant Governor; Treasurer; Secretary of State; Labor; Auditor: Attorney General; Agriculture; Public Instruction; and Insurance. A few statutes mention Cabinet secretaries or agencies, but the Cabinet is not specifically authorized by statute. Cabinet members are appointed by the Governor. Cabinet agencies are as follows: Transportation; Environment And Natural Resources; Commerce; Correction; Health and Human Services; Revenue; Administration; Crime Control and Public Safety; Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and Cultural Resources. (g) Frequency of meetings may fluctuate with Governor’s schedule. (h) Maximum of 16. (i) With the consent of the senate. (j) Appointed by the governor and confirmed by each house. (k) The Constitutional Cabinet has 10 members including the governor. There are other members of the Cabinet provided by statute.
governors
Table 4.7 the governors: provisions and procedures for transition Provision for: Gov-elect’s Office space Legislation participation Gov-elect to State personnel in buildings pertaining to Appropriation in state budget hire staff to to be made to be made State or other gubernatorial available to for coming assist during available to available to jurisdiction transition gov-elect ($) fiscal year transition assist gov-elect gov-elect
Acquainting gov-elect staff with office Transfer of procedures and information routine office (files, functions records, etc.)
Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California...................
. . . ● . . . ● H
. . . H (a) ... 10,000 450,000
H ... H . . . H
. . . . . . H
● . . . H
● . . . H
● . . . ●
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia.......................
H H H H H
10,000 H 15,000 2,500,000 (b) 50,000
H H ● ● ●
H H H H H
H H ● ● H
H H ● H(b) H
●
H ● ● ●
Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................
H H . . . H ●
50,000 15,000 . . . 40,000 100,000
H H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . ●
● H . . . . . . ●
H H H H ●
● H H H ●
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
H H H ● H
150,000 (c) H(d) ● 65,000 5,000 ●
H H H H . . .
H H H ● H
H H . . . ● H
H H H ● H
H H . . . ● H
H
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
● ● H ● H
● ● (e) H(f) 100,000
● ● H H H
. . . ● H H H
● ● H H ●
● ● H H H
●
H
●
●
●
H ●
H H ● (g)
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey.................
H H H H H
H . . . Reasonable amount 75,000 H(j)
H H H H ●
H . . . . . . H H
H H . . . H H
H H . . . H H
● H . . . H ●
● (h) H H (i) ... H
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio............................
H . . . H ● H
(k) . . . H(l) 10,000 Unspecified (o)
H . . . . . . (m) ●
H . . . H (n) H
H H ● ● ●
H H H . . . . . .
H H H ● ●
H H H H H
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
● H H H . . .
● H . . . 500,000 ●
H H . . . . . . ●
● H H H ●
● H ● H ●
H H ● H ●
● H ● ● ●
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont......................
H H ● H . . .
. . . H ● H(p) H(q)
. . . ● ● H . . .
. . . H ● H . . .
. . . H ● H . . .
. . . H ● H . . .
. . . ● ● H . . .
...
Virginia....................... Washington................ West Virginia.............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
H H . . . H ●
H(r) H ● Unspecified . . .
H ● . . . H ●
H H ● H ●
H ● . . . H ●
H H ● H ●
H ● ● H ●
H
American Samoa....... Guam.......................... No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands.....
. . . H H H H
Unspecified (t) Unspecified . . . 100,000
H(s) . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . H H H
●
●
H H H H
H H H H
H H H H H
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
H ●
... ●
H H ● ●
H ●
H H H H H H ● ●
●
H ... ● ●
● ●
H ... ● ●
H ● ●
... H H H
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 207
Governors
the governors: provisions and procedures for transition—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2010. Key: . . . — No provisions or procedures. H — Formal provisions or procedures. ● — No formal provisions, occurs informally. N.A. — Not applicable. (a) Varies. (b) There is a budget for the governor-elect to use during transition. Very specific procedures including legislative review to access the funds. Some of these funds may be shared with Cabinet transitions: CFO and Commissioner of Agriculture. Transition information is available with no formal provisions. Budget allows for space, etc., but actual office space determined by availability at the time. (c) Transition funds are used by both the incoming and outgoing administrations. (d) Amount to be determined. (e) 1.5% of amount appropriated for the fiscal year to the Governor’s office. (f) Miss. Code Ann.§ 7-1-101 provides as follows: the governor’s office of general services shall provide a governor-elect with office space and office equipment for the period between the election and inauguration. A special appropriation to the governor’s office of general services is hereby authorized to defray the expenses of providing necessary staff employees and for the operation of the office of governor-elect during the period
208 The Book of the States 2010
between the election and inauguration. The state fiscal management board shall make available to a governor-elect and his designated representatives information on the following: (a) all information and reports used in the preparation of the budget report; and (b) all information and reports on projected income and revenue estimates for the state. (g) Activity is traditional and routine, although there is no specific statutory provision. (h) In addition to the informal transfer of information, by statute, a successor department head has full access to all agency records prior to assuming office. (i) As determined in budget. (j) No specific amount - necessary services and facilities. (k) Legislature required to make appropriation; no dollar amount stated in legislation. (l) Governor receives $80,000 and lieutenant governor receives $10,000. (m) Responsible for submitting budget for coming biennium. (n) Governor usually hires several incoming key staff during transition. (o) Determined in budget. (p) Appropriated by legislature at the time of transition. (q) Governor-elect entitled to 70% of Governor’s salary. (r) Determined every 4 years. (s) Can submit reprogramming or supplemental appropriation measure for current fiscal year. (t) Appropriations given upon the request of governor-elect.
H H H H (l) H H H H H H H H H H H H H H (d) H H H H H H(d) H
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
See footnotes at end of table.
H H H H H
H S (v) H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H S H H H
maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs.
2/3 mbrs. maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. . . . maj. mbrs.
maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs.(o) maj. mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. present . . .
(m) . . . (n) . . . maj. mbrs.
2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs.(k) 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. maj. mbrs.
maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. . . .
maj. mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. . . .
S S S S S
S (w) S S S
S S S S (t)
S S S S S
S S S S S
S S S S S
S H S S S
Legislative body which holds Legislative body power of Vote required which conducts impeachment for impeachment impeachment trial
H(p) H H(x) H . . .
H (w) H H H
. . . H(p) . . . H(r) (t)
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H(f) H H(g) H (e)
H (c) H (e) H . . .
2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. present 2/3 mbrs. present 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. present
2/3 mbrs. (w) 2/3 mbrs. . . . 2/3 mbrs.
. . . 2/3 mbrs.(q) 2/3 mbrs. present 2/3 mbrs. present (s) (t)
2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. present (n) 2/3 mbrs. present 2/3 mbrs.
2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. majority of elected mbrs.
2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. must be present 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. present (h) 2/3 mbrs.
majority of elected mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs.
Chief justice presides at impeachment Vote required trial (a) for conviction
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG PS LG
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG PS LG
LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG LG (i) . . .
LG LG SS LG LG
Official who serves as acting governor if governor impeached (b)
H H H ... ...
H ... ... ... H
H ... ... (u) ...
... ... H ... ...
H ... H ... H
... H ... H H (j)
H H H ... ...
Legislature may call special session for impeachment
H H maj. mbrs. S H 2/3 mbrs. present LG H . ................................................................................................................................. (y)........................................................................................................................................... H H . . . S . . . 2/3 maj. mbrs. LG H H H 2/3 maj. mbrs. S H 2/3 maj. mbrs. LG H H H 2/3 mbrs. S H 2/3 mbrs. LG ...
H H H H H
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
H H H (d) H H
Governor and other state executive and judicial officers subject to impeachment
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
State or other jurisdiction
Table 4.8 IMPEACHMENT PROVISIONS IN THE STATES
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 209
210 The Book of the States 2010 LG LG PS LG SS
H H H ... H
Senate shall remain in session until such trial is completed. (k) No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of there senators elected. When the governor is impeached, the chief justice shall preside. (l) Judges not included. (m) No statute, simple majority is the assumption. (n) Concurrence of 2/3 of the elected senators. (o) A majority of the members of the House elected and serving is necessary to direct an impeachment. (p) Only if governor or lieutenant governor is on trial. (q) Must have concurrence of two-thirds members of Senate elected and serving. (r) When the governor is tried; if Chief Justice is unable to preside, the next longest serving justice shall preside. (s) No person shall be convicted without concurrence of 2/3 of all senators present. Miss Const. 1890 Art. IV § 52. (t) All impeachments are tried before the state Supreme Court, except that the governor or a member of the Supreme Court is tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the Senate. A vote of 5/7 of the court of special commission is necessary to convict. (u) It is implied but not addressed directly in Miss Const. 1890 Art. IV §§ 49-53. (v) Unicameral legislature; members use the title “senator”. (w) Court of impeachment is composed of chief justice and supreme court. A vote of 2/3 present of the court is necessary to convict. (x) Chief Justice presides if it is the Governor or Lieutenant Governor; otherwise , the President of the Senate presides. (y) No provision for impeachment. Public officers may be tried for incompetence, corruption, malfeasance, or delinquency in office in same manner as criminal offenses. (z) Vote of 2/3 of members sworn to try the officer impeached. (aa) Removal of elected officials by recall procedure only. (bb) Governor, lieutenant governor.
2/3 mbrs. present 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs.
H H ... H ...
. ................................................................................................................................ (aa)..........................................................................................................................................
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey December 2009. Key: H — Yes; provision for. . . . — Not specified, or no provision for. H — House or Assembly (lower chamber). S — Senate. LG — Lieutenant Governor PS — President or Speaker of the Senate SS — Secretary of state. (a) Presiding justice of state court of last resort. In many states, provision indicates that chief justice presides only on occasion of impeachment of governor. (b) For provisions on official next in line of succession if governor is convicted and removed from office, refer to Chapter 4, “The Governors.” (c) An appointed Supreme Court justice presides. (d) With exception of certain judicial officers. In Arizona and Washington—justices of courts not of record. In Nevada—justices of the peace. In North Dakota—county judges, justices of the peace, and police magistrates. (e) Should the Chief Justice be on trial, or otherwise disqualified, the Senate shall elect a judge of the Supreme Court to preside. (f) Only if Governor is on trial. (g) Except in a trial of the chief justice, in which case the governor shall preside. (h) An officer impeached by the house of representatives shall be disqualified from performing any official duties until acquitted by the senate, and, unless impeached, the governor may by appointment fill the office until completion of the trial. (i) Governor may appoint someone to serve until the impeachment procedures are final. (j) Special sessions of the General Assembly shall be limited to a period of 40 days unless extended by 3/5 vote of each house and approved by the Governor or unless at the expiration of such period an impeachment trial of some officer of state government is pending, in which event the House shall adjourn and the
. . . H H . . . H
LG PS LG LG LG
U.S. Virgin Islands........
S S S S S
2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. (z) 2/3 mbrs. present 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs.
. ................................................................................................................................ (aa).......................................................................................................................................... (bb) H 2/3 mbrs. S H 2/3 mbrs. . . . ... . ................................................................................................................................ (aa).......................................................................................................................................... H H 2/3 mbrs. S . . . 2/3 mbrs. LG ... H H 2/3 mbrs. S H 3/4 mbrs. SS H
maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. . . . maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs.
H H . . . H . . .
Legislature may call special session for impeachment
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico...................
H H H H H
S S S S S
Official who serves as acting governor if governor impeached (b)
H H (d) H H H
maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. maj. mbrs. 2/3 mbrs. 2/3 mbrs.
Chief justice presides at impeachment Vote required trial (a) for conviction
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
H H H H H
Legislative body which holds Legislative body power of Vote required which conducts impeachment for impeachment impeachment trial
H H H H H
Governor and other state executive and judicial officers subject to impeachment
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
State or other jurisdiction
IMPEACHMENT PROVISIONS IN THE STATES—Continued
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
State or other jurisdiction
Governor
Lt. Governor
Secretary of state
Attorney general
Treasurer
Auditor
Comptroller
Education
Agriculture
Labor
Insurance
Table 4.9 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS (All terms are four years unless otherwise noted)
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
2 2 2 (c) 2 (c) 2
2 2 (d) 2 2
2 (a) 2 2 2
2 . . . 2 2 2
2 (b) 2 2 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . 2 ... 2
2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
2 N 2 (f) (c) 2 2
2 N 2 2 N
2 N . . . ... N
2 N N 2 N
2 N N 2 (g) (e) . . .
. . . . . . N . . . . . .
. . . N . . . 2 . . .
. . . . . . . . . N N
. . . . . . . . . N N
. . . . . . . . . . . . N
... ... N (g) (e) N
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
2 N N 2 (h) N
2 N N 2 N
(a) N N 2 N
. . . N N . . . N
. . . N N (f) N
. . . . . . . . . . . . N
. . . 2 N 2 (g) . . .
. . . N . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
2 2 2 (h) 2 2 (h)
2 2 N (i) 2
N 2 N (j) . . .
N 2 N (j) N
. . . 2 N (j) . . .
. . . 2 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . N
. . . . . . N . . . . . .
. . . 2 N . . . . . .
. . . 2 . . . . . . . . .
... ... N ... ...
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
N 2 N 2 2
N 2 N 2 (h) N
N 2 N N N
2 2 N N N
N . . . (k) N 2 (c)
N . . . N N N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... (l) ... ...
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
2 (m) 2 (h) 2 (t) 2
2 (m) 2 (h) 2 (i) 2
2 (m) N 2 . . . . . .
2 (m) N 2 . . . . . .
. . . 2 (h) 2 . . . . . .
N N . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 2 . . . . . .
2 (m) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
2 N 2 N 2 (h)
2 (h) N 2 N 2
2 (h) . . . N N (n) 2
2 (h) N N N (n) 2
2 (h) . . . N N 2
2 (h) N (p) N N 2
. . . N . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . N N . . .
. . . . . . N N (n)(o) . . .
. . . . . . N N (n) . . .
... ... N N ...
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
2 (h) 2 (f) 2 2 2 (h)
N (q) 2 2(h) 2
. . . 2 (f) . . . 2 (h) N
N N 2 2 (h) N
N 2 (f) 2 (r) 2 (h) N
N . . . 2 (h) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . N
2 (h) . . . . . . . . . N
. . . . . . ... . . . N
2 (h) . . . ... . . . . . .
N ... ... ... ...
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
2 2 (h) N N (t)
2 (h) (i) N N (t)
2 (h) . . . . . . (a) (t)
2 (h) (s) N N (t)
2 (h) . . . (p) N (t)
. . . . . . . . . N (t)
2 . . . N . . . . . .
. . . ... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
(v) N 2 N 2 (m)
(u) N N (i) N (q)
. . . N N N N
(u) N N N . . .
. . . N N N 2
. . . N . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . N . . . 2
. . . N . . . N N
. . . . . . N . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico...................
N (w) 2 2 2 (f) (h)
2 2 2 2 (d)
. . . (a) (a) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 2 1
. . . (x) (y) (x) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... (l) ...
U.S. Virgin Islands........
2 (h)
2
(p)
. . .
(d)
. . .
(d)
. . .
. . .
. . .
(a)
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 211
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS—Continued (All terms are four years unless otherwise noted) Source: The Council of State Governments January 2010. Note: All terms last four years unless otherwise noted. Footnotes specify if a position’s functions are performed by an appointed official under a different title. Key: N — No provision specifying number of terms allowed. . . . — Position is appointed or elected by governmental entity (not chosen by the electorate). (a) Lieutenant Governor performs this function. (b) Deputy Commissioner of Department of Revenue performs function. (c) Absolute two-term limitation, but not necessarily consecutive. (d) Finance Administrator performs function. (e) Chief Financial Officer performs this function as of January 2003. (f) Eligible for eight out of any period of twelve years. (g) State auditor performs this function. (h) After two consecutive terms, must wait four years and/or one full term before being eligible again. (i) President or Speaker of the Senate is next in line of succession to the governorship. In Tennessee and West Virginia, Speaker of the Senate has the statutory title “ Lieutenant Governor”. (j) Serves 2 year term and is eligible to serve 4 terms. (k) Office of the State Treasurer was abolished on the first Monday in January 2003. (l) Commerce administrator performs this function.
212 The Book of the States 2010
(m) Eligible for eight out of sixteen years. Due to a recent Wyoming Supreme Court ruling, term limits may be unconstitutional. (n) The terms of the office of the elected officials are four years except that in 2004 the agricultural commissioner, attorney general, secretary of state and the tax commissioner were elected to a term of two years. (o) Constitution provides for a secretary of agriculture and labor. However, the legislature was given constitutional authority to provide for (and has provided for) a department of labor distinct from agriculture, and a commissioner of labor distinct from the commissioner of agriculture. (p) Comptroller performs this function. (q) Secretary of State is next in line to the governorship. (r) Treasurer must wait four years before being eligible for the office of auditor general. (s) Term is for eight years and official is appointed by judges of the State Supreme Court. (t) Serves two-year term, no provision specifying the number of terms allowed. (u) Provision specifying individual may hold office for an unlimited number of terms. (v) Cannot serve consecutive terms, but after 4 year respite can seek re-election. (w) Mayor. (x) State treasurer performs this function. (y) General services administrator performs function.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Table 4.10 SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION
State or other Lieutenant Secretary Attorney Adjutant jurisdiction Governor governor of state general Treasurer general
Administration Agriculture Auditor Banking
Alabama............................ Alaska................................ Arizona.............................. Arkansas............................ California...........................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE (a-2) CE CE
CE (a-1) CE CE CE
CE GB CE CE CE
CE AG CE CE CE
GS GB GS G GS
G GB GS G . . .
SE AG GS G G
CE L L CE GB
GS AG GS GS GS
Colorado............................ Connecticut....................... Delaware............................ Florida................................ Georgia..............................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE GS GS CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE (b) B
GS GE GS G G
GS GE (c) GS G
GS GE GS CE CE
L L CE L (d)
CS GE GS (b) G
Hawaii................................ Idaho.................................. Illinois................................ Indiana............................... Iowa....................................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
. . . CE CE CE CE
GS CE CE SE CE
GS CE CE CE CE
GS GS GS G GS
(e) GS GS G GS
GS GS GS LG CE
CL . . . SL CE CE
AG GS B G GS
Kansas................................ Kentucky............................ Louisiana........................... Maine................................. Maryland...........................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE (g) CE
CE CE CE CL GS
CE CE CE CL CE
CE CE CE CL CL
GS G GS GLS G
GS . . . GS GLS GS
GS CE CE GLS GS
. . . CE G L N.A.
GS G GLS GLS AG
Massachusetts................... Michigan............................ Minnesota.......................... Mississippi......................... Missouri.............................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE GS (a-24) CE CE
G GS GS GE G
G GS GS GS GS
CG B GS SE GS
CE CL CE CE CE
G GS A GS ...
Montana............................. Nebraska............................ Nevada............................... New Hampshire................ New Jersey.........................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE (g) CE
CE CE CE CL GS (f)
CE CE CE GC GS
(a-6) CE CE CL GS
GS GS G GC GS
GS GS G GC . . .
G GS BG GC BG
CE CE . . . . . . (h)
A GS A GC GS
New Mexico...................... New York........................... North Carolina.................. North Dakota.................... Ohio....................................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE GS CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE A CE CE CE
G G A G G
(a-26) . . . G . . . GS
B GS CE CE GS
CE (a-14) CE CE CE
G GS G GS A
Oklahoma.......................... Oregon............................... Pennsylvania..................... Rhode Island..................... South Carolina..................
CE CE CE SE CE
CE (a-2) CE SE CE
GS CE GS CE CE
CE SE CE SE CE
CE CE CE SE CE
GS G GS GS CE
GS GS G GS (m) B
GS GS GS GS CE
CE SS CE LS B
GS ... GS GS A
South Dakota.................... Tennessee.......................... Texas................................... Utah.................................... Vermont.............................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CL (g) CE CE CE
CE CL G (a-1) CE
CE CT CE CE SE
CE CL (a-14) CE CE
GS G G GS CL
GS G A GS GS
GS G SE GS GS
L (a-14) L CE CE
A G B GS GS
Virginia.............................. Washington........................ West Virginia..................... Wisconsin........................... Wyoming............................
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE (g) CE (a-2)
GB CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE G
GB CE CE CE CE
GB G GS G G
GB G GS GS GS
GB G CE GS GS
SL CE CE LS CE
B G GS A A
American Samoa.............. Guam................................. No. Mariana Islands......... U.S. Virgin Islands............
CE CE CE SE
CE CE CE SE
(a-1) . . . . . . (a-1)
GB CE GS GS
GB CS CS GS
N.A. GS . . . GS
GB GS G GS
GB GS . . . GS
N.A. CE GB GS
N.A. GS C LG
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state personnel agencies and state Web sites, March 2010. Key: N.A. — Not available. . . . — No specific chief administrative official or agency in charge of function. CE — Constitutional, elected by public. CL — Constitutional, elected by legislature. SE — Statutory, elected by public. SL — Statutory, elected by legislature. L — Selected by legislature or one of its organs CT — Constitutional, elected by state court of last resort. CP — Competitive process. Appointed by: G — Governor GS — Governor, approved by Senate (in Nebraska, unicameral legislature)
GB — Governor, approved by both houses GE — Governor, approved by either house GC — Governor, approved by Council GD — Governor, approved by departmental board GLS — Governor, approved by appropriate legislative committee & Senate GOC — Governor & Council or cabinet LG — Lieutenant Governor LGS — Lieutenant Governor, approved by Senate AT — Attorney General ATS — Attorney General, approved by Senate SS — Secretary of State C — Cabinet Secretary CG — Cabinet Secretary, approved by Governor A — Agency head AB — Agency head, approved by Board AG — Agency head, approved by Governor
The Council of State Governments 213
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION—Continued
State or other Civil Community Consumer Economic Election jurisdiction Budget rights Commerce affairs Comptroller affairs Corrections development Education admin.
Alabama............................ Alaska................................ Arizona.............................. Arkansas............................ California...........................
CS G L A (a-24)
. . . GB AT . . . . . .
G GB GS (a-17) . . .
G (a-12) AT N.A. GS
CS AG A G CE
CS (a-12) AT A G
G GB GS B GS
(a-13) (a-12) GS GS . . .
B GD CE BG CE
CS AG (a-2) (i) G
Colorado............................ Connecticut....................... Delaware............................ Florida................................ Georgia..............................
G CS GS G G
A GE CG AB G
. . . GE (a-2) G B
A GE . . . GS B
A CE CG CE (b) CE
AT GE AT A G
GS GE GS GS GD
G GE GS G B
AB BG GS GS CE
CS CS GS A A
Hawaii................................ Idaho.................................. Illinois................................ Indiana............................... Iowa....................................
GS GS G G GS
B B GS G GS
GS GS GS G GS
. . . . . . (a-12) G A
GS CE CE (a-8) . . .
A (a-3) (a-3) AT ATS
GS B GS G GS
GS GS (a-12) G GS
B CE B CE GS
B CE B (j) SS
Kansas................................ Kentucky............................ Louisiana........................... Maine................................. Maryland...........................
(a-6) G A A GS
B B B B G
GS G GS (a-17) GS
A G G (a-17) . . .
C CG GS A CE
AT AT AG GLS A
GS G GS GLS AGS
C GC GS GLS GS
B B BG GLS B
(k) B A SS B
Massachusetts................... Michigan............................ Minnesota.......................... Mississippi......................... Missouri.............................
CG GS (a-24) GS AGS
G GS GS . . . AGS
G GS GS SE GS
G . . . (a-17) A A
G CS (a-24) (a-6) A
G . . . A A CE
CG GS GS GS GS
G . . . GS GS GS
B B GS BS BG
CE (l) (a-2) A SS
Montana............................. Nebraska............................ Nevada............................... New Hampshire................ New Jersey.........................
G A (a-5) GC GS
CP B G CS A
GS GS G GC (a-17)
CP A . . . G GS
CP A CE AGC GS
CP (a-3) A AGC A
GS GS G GC GS
G GS GD AGC G
CE B B B GS
SS A (n) CL A
New Mexico...................... New York........................... North Carolina.................. North Dakota.................... Ohio....................................
G G (a-24) A GS
G GS A G B
(a-17) GS G G GS
G (a-2) A . . . A
ALS CE G A GS
G GS (i) AT A
GS GS G G GS
GS GS A N.A. GS
B B CE CE B
G B G SS (a-2)
Oklahoma.......................... Oregon............................... Pennsylvania..................... Rhode Island..................... South Carolina..................
A A G AG A
B A B B B
GS GS GS GS GS
(i) G AG … N.A.
A A G A CE
B GS AT (a-3) B
B GS GS GS GS
GS GS GS GS (ee) (a-12)
CE SE GS B CE
L A C B B
South Dakota.................... Tennessee.......................... Texas................................... Utah.................................... Vermont.............................
(a-24) A G G CG
N.A. G B A AT
(a-44) G G GS GS
(a-48) G G GS CG
(a-40) SL CE AG CG
N.A. A (a-3) GS AT
GS G B GS CG
(a-48) G G A CG
GS G B B BG
SS A (o) A CE
Virginia.............................. Washington........................ West Virginia..................... Wisconsin........................... Wyoming............................
GB G CS A A
G B GS A A
GB G GS GS G
GB (a-12) B . . . G
GB (a-10) (a-8) A (a-8)
A CE AT A G
GB G GS GS GS
B (a-12) (a-13) CS (a-12)
GB CE B CE CE
GB (a-2) (a-2) B A
American Samoa.............. Guam................................. No. Mariana Islands......... U.S. Virgin Islands............
GB GS G GS
N.A. GS A GS
GB GS GS GS
(a-12) . . . GS GS
(a-4) CS C (a-24)
(a-3) CS GS GS
A GS C GS
(a-12) B C GS
GB GS B GS
G GS B B
AGC — Agency head, approved by Governor & Council AGS Agency head, approved by Senate ALS — Agency head, approved by appropriate legislative committee ASH — Agency head, approved by Senate president & House speaker B — Board or commission BG — Board, approved by Governor BGS — Board, approved by Governor & Senate BS — Board or commission, approved by Senate BA — Board or commission, approved by agency head CS — Civil Service LS — Legislative Committee, approved by Senate (a) Chief administrative official or agency in charge of function: (a-1) Lieutenant governor. (a-2) Secretary of state. (a-3) Attorney general. (a-4) Treasurer. (a-5) Adjutant general
214 The Book of the States 2010
(a-6) Administration. (a-7) Agriculture (a-8) Auditor (a-9) Banking (a-10) Budget. (a-11) Civil rights (a-12) Commerce. (a-13) Community affairs. (a-14) Comptroller. (a-15) Consumer affairs. (a-16) Corrections (a-17) Economic development. (a-18) Education (chief state school officer). (a-19) Election administration (a-20) Emergency management (a-21) Employment Services (a-22) Energy.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Emergency Employment Environmental Fish & General Higher management services Energy protection Finance wildlife services Health education Highways
Alabama............................ Alaska................................ Arizona.............................. Arkansas............................ California...........................
G AG G GS GS
CS AG A G GS
CS B . . . A G
B GB GS BG/BS GS
G AG (a-14) (a-6) G
CS GB B (i) G
CS AG A A GS
B AG GS BG GS (p)
B B B BG B (q)
G GB A (a-49) (a-49)
Colorado............................ Connecticut....................... Delaware............................ Florida................................ Georgia..............................
A GE CG GS G
A A CG GS A
G A A AG CE
A GE (a-35) GS BG
A GE GS CE (b) G
A CS (r) CG GS A
A GE CG GS A
GS GE CG GS A
GS BG B B B
GS (a-49) (a-49) GOC B
Hawaii................................ Idaho.................................. Illinois................................ Indiana............................... Iowa....................................
A A GS G G
CS GS GS G GS
CS A (a-12) LG GS
CS GS GS G A
(s) GS (a-10) (a-10) A
CS B (a-35) A A
(a-14) . . . (a-6) (a-6) A
GS GS GS G GS
B B B G . . .
CS (a-49) (a-49) (a-49) A
Kansas................................ Kentucky............................ Louisiana........................... Maine................................. Maryland............................
(t) AG GS A AG
GS AG A A A
B AG CS (a-38) G
C G GS GLS GS
. . . G GS (a-6) GS
CS G GS GLS . . .
(a-6) . . . GS A (a-6)
C CG GS GLS GS
B B B N.A. G
(a-49) CG GS (a-49) AG
Massachusetts.................... Michigan............................ Minnesota.......................... Mississippi.......................... Missouri.............................
G CS GS GS A
CG CS A GS A
CG (i) A A . . .
CG GS GS GS A
G (a-10) GS (a-6) AGS
CG (u) A GS (v)
G . . . (a-6) . . . A
CG GS GS BS GS
B CS B BS B
G (a-49) GS (a-49) (a-49)
Montana............................. Nebraska............................ Nevada............................... New Hampshire................ New Jersey.........................
CP A A G GS
CP A A GC A
CP A G G A
GS GS A GC GS
CP (w) (a-14) (a-6) GS
GS (x) GD BGC B
CP A . . . GC (z)
(a-45) GS (y) AGC GS
CP B B B B
(a-49) (a-49) (a-49) (a-49) A
New Mexico....................... New York........................... North Carolina.................. North Dakota.................... Ohio....................................
G G G A AG
(a-32) (a-32) G G GS
GS B A A A
GS GS G A GS
GS (a-14) G A A (aa)
G GS G G A
GS G G G A
GS GS G G GS
B (a-18) B B B
GS (a-49) A (a-49) GS
Oklahoma.......................... Oregon............................... Pennsylvania...................... Rhode Island..................... South Carolina..................
GS AG G G A
B GS AG GS B
GS G AG GS A
B B GS GS B
GS (a-4) G (a-44) B
B B B (a-23) B
GS (a-6) GS (a-6) A
B A GS GS GS
B B AG B (yy) B
B A AG GS B
South Dakota.................... Tennessee........................... Texas................................... Utah.................................... Vermont.............................
A A A A CG
(a-37) G B GS GS
(a-48) A . . . A GS
(a-35) G B GS CG
GS G (a-14) AG CG
GS B B A CG
(a-6) G B A CG
GS G BG GS CG
B B B B . . .
(a-47) (a-49) (a-49) (a-49) (a-49)
Virginia.............................. Washington........................ West Virginia..................... Wisconsin........................... Wyoming............................
GB A GS A G
GB G GS GS GS
A (a-23) GS A A
GB G (a-22) A GS
GB (a-10) (a-6) A (a-8)
B B CS A B
GB (a-6) C (a-6) A
GB G GS A GS
B N.A. B (aaa) N.A. B
GB (a-49) GS A GS
American Samoa.............. Guam.................................. No. Mariana Islands......... U.S. Virgin Islands............
G GS G GS
A GS C GS
GB G C GS
GB GS G GS
(a-4) GS GS GS
GB GS C GS
G CS GS GS
GB GS GS GS
(a-18) B B GS
(a-49) GS C GS
(a-23) Environmental protection (a-24) Finance (a-25) Fish and wildlife (a-26 ) General services (a-27) Health (a-28) Higher education (a-29) Highways (a-30) Information systems (a-31) Insurance (a-32) Labor (a-33) Licensing (a-34) Mental Health (a-35) Natural resources (a-36) Parks and recreation (a-37) Personnel (a-38) Planning (a-39) Post audit
(a-40) Pre-audit (a-41) Public library development (a-42) Public utility regulation (a-43) Purchasing (a-44) Revenue (a-45) Social services (a-46) Solid waste management (a-47) State police (a-48) Tourism (a-49) Transportation (a-50) Welfare (b) Effective Jan. 1, 2003 the positions of Commissioner & Treasurer, Banking, Comptroller, Finance, Insurance, Post audit, and Pre-audit merged into one Chief Financial Officer. (c) Department abolished July 1, 2005; responsibilities transferred to office of Management and Budget, General Services and Department of State. (d) Appointed by the House and approved by the Senate.
The Council of State Governments 215
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Information Mental health Natural Parks & Post systems Insurance Labor Licensing & retardation resources recreation Personnel Planning audit
Alabama............................ Alaska................................ Arizona.............................. Arkansas............................ California...........................
G AG A GS G
G AG GS GS CE
G GB B GS AG
. . . AG . . . . . . G
G AG G A (bb)
G GB GS A GS
CS AG B GS GS
B AG A A GS
(a-13) . . . (a-10) . . . . . .
LS (a-8) ... L ...
Colorado............................ Connecticut....................... Delaware............................ Florida................................ Georgia..............................
G GE GS A GD
BA GE CE CE (b) CE
GS GE GS GS CE
A CS CG A A
A GE(cc) CG (dd) A BG
GS CS GS GS BG
A CS CG A A
A GE CG A GS
G A CG GS G
(a-8) (a-8) (a-8) CE (b) (a-8)
Hawaii................................ Idaho.................................. Illinois................................ Indiana............................... Iowa....................................
CS GS (a-6) G A
AG GS (a-9) G GS
GS GS GS G GS
CS GS GS G . . .
(ff) . . . (a-45) A A
GS B GS G GS
CS B (a-35) A CS
GS GS (a-6) G A
CS . . . . . . . . . . . .
CS (a-14) (a-8) G ...
Kansas................................ Kentucky............................ Louisiana........................... Maine................................. Maryland............................
C G A A A
SE G CE GLS GS
GS G GS GLS GS
B . . . . . . A A
(gg) CG GS (a-45) A (hh)
GS G GS GLS GS
CS CG LGS (a-35) A
C G B A A
. . . G CS G GS
L (a-8) CL ... N.A.
Massachusetts.................... Michigan............................ Minnesota.......................... Mississippi.......................... Missouri.............................
C GS GS BS A
G GS A SE GS
G (a-12) GS . . . GS
G CS A . . . A
CG (ii) CS GS (jj) B A
CG GS GS GS GS
CG CS A GS A
CG CS (a-24) B G
G . . . N.A A AGS
CE CL (a-8) (a-8) (a-8)
Montana............................. Nebraska............................ Nevada............................... New Hampshire................ New Jersey.........................
A GS G GC A
CE GS A GC GS
GS GS A GC GS
CP A . . . GC …
CP A (kk) AGC A (ll)
GS GS G GC A
CP B A AGC A
CP A G AGC GS
G GS ... . . . A
L (a-8) ... (a-14) ...
New Mexico....................... New York........................... North Carolina.................. North Dakota.................... Ohio....................................
G G G G G
G GS CE CE GS
GS GS CE G A
G (mm) . . . . . . . . .
G (nn) A A GS (oo)
GS (a-23) G . . . GS
G GS A G A
G GS G A A
N.A. (a-17) N.A. . . . LG
(a-8) (a-14) (a-8) A CE
Oklahoma.......................... Oregon............................... Pennsylvania...................... Rhode Island..................... South Carolina..................
A A G AG A
CE GS GS A GS
CE SE GS GS GS
. . . GS AG CS GS
B A AG GS B (pp)
(a-48) GOC GS GS B
(a-48) B A GS GS
GS A G A A
. . . . . . G A AB
... SS (a-8) N.A. B
South Dakota.................... Tennessee........................... Texas................................... Utah.................................... Vermont.............................
GS A B GS CG
A G G GS GS
GS G B GS GS
. . . A B AG SS
GS G B AB CG
GS G B GS GS
A A B AG CG
GS G A GS CG
. . . A G G . . .
(a-8) (a-14) L (a-8) (a-8)
Virginia.............................. Washington........................ West Virginia..................... Wisconsin........................... Wyoming............................
B G C A G
B CE GS GS G
GB G GS GS A
GB G . . . GS A
GB (a-45) GS A A
GB CE GS GS G
GB G GS A GS
GB G C GS A
(a-10) (a-10) (a-17) . . . G
(a-8) N.A. LS (a-8) (a-8)
American Samoa.............. Guam.................................. No. Mariana Islands......... U.S. Virgin Islands............
(a-49) GS C G
G GS CS SE
N.A. GS C GS
N.A. GS B GS
(a-45) GS C GS
AG GS GS GS
GB GS C GS
A GS GS GS
(a-12) GS G G
G CE GS L
(e) Responsibilities shared between Director of Budget and Finance, (GS): Director of Human Resource Development, (GS) and the Comptroller, (GS). (f) The Governor has assigned the role of Secretary of State (GS) to the Lieutenant Governor. (g) In Maine, New Hampshire, Tennessee and West Virginia, the Presidents (or Speakers) of the Senate are next in line of succession to the Governorship. In Tennessee and West Virginia, the Speaker of the Senate bears the statutory title of Lieutenant Governor. (h)The auditor is a Constitutional office, but is appointed by the Senate and General Assembly in joint meeting as mandated in the New Jersey Constitution. (i) Method not specified. (j) Responsibilities shared between Co-Directors in Election Commission (G); appointed by the Governor, subject to approval by the Chairs of the State Republican/Democratic parties. (k) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of the State (CE); and
216 The Book of the States 2010
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (SS). (l) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State (CE); and Director, Bureau of Elections (CS). (m) This employee serves a dual role as Director of Administration and Director of Department of Revenue. (n) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State (CE); Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, Office of Secretary of State (SS); and Chief Deputy Secretary of State, same office (A). (o) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State (G); and Division Director of Elections, Elections Division, Secretary of State (A). (p) Responsibilities shared between Director of Health Care Services and Director of Public Health, both (GS). (q) Responsibilities shared between Chancellor of California Community Colleges (B) and California Postsecondary Education Commission (B). (r) Responsibilities shared between Director of Wildlife, Director of Inland Fisheries and Director of Marine Fisheries (CS). (s) Responsibilities shared between Director of Budget and Finance (GS)
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION—Continued Public Public Solid State or other library utility Social waste State jurisdiction Pre-audit development regulation Purchasing Revenue services mgmt. police Tourism Transportation Welfare Alabama...................... (a-14) Alaska.......................... . . . Arizona........................ (a-14) Arkansas...................... N.A. California..................... (a-14)
B AG B B . . .
SE GB B A GS
CS AG A A (a-26)
G GB GS A BS
B GB GS GS GS
CS AG A N.A. G
G AG GS G GS
G AG GS GS . . .
(a-29) GB GS BS GS
(a-45) AG GS (a-45) AG
Colorado...................... (a-14) Connecticut................. (a-14) Delaware...................... (a-8) Florida.......................... CE(b) Georgia........................ (a-8)
BA CS CG A AB
CS GB CG L CE
CS CS (a-26) A A
GS GE CG GOC GS
GS GE GS (qq) GS GD
CS CS B A A
A GE CG A BG
CS GE CG G A
GS GE GS GS (a-29)
CS GE CG A A
Hawaii.......................... CS Idaho............................ (a-14) Illinois.......................... (a-14) Indiana......................... CE Iowa.............................. CS
B B SS G B
GS GS GS G GS
GS GS (a-6) A CS
GS GS GS G GS
GS GS GS G GS
CS . . . GS A CS
. . . GS GS G GS
B A (a-12) LG CS
GS B GS G GS
CS A GS (a-45) (a-45)
Kansas.......................... CS Kentucky...................... G Louisiana..................... CS Maine........................... (a-14) Maryland...................... A
GS G BGS B A
B G BS G GS
C G A CS A
GS G GS A A
GS G GS GLS GS
C AG GS CS A
GS G GS GLS GS
C (a-45) GS (a-45) (a-45)
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
CE . . . (a-8) (a-8) A
B CL N.A. B B
G GS G (rr) GS GS
CG CS A A A
CG CS GS GS GS
CG GS GS (jj) GS GS
CG CS GS A A
CG GS A GS GS
CG . . . A A A
G GS GS B B
CG (a-45) GS (jj) GS A
Montana....................... L Nebraska...................... A Nevada......................... . . . New Hampshire.......... (a-14) New Jersey................... . . .
CP B (ss) AGC . . .
CE B G GC GS
CP A A CS GS
GS GS G GC A
GS GS G GC GS
GS A . . . AGC A
CP GS G AGC GS
CP A GD AGC A
GS GS B GC GS
(a-45) GS (tt) AGC A
New Mexico................. N.A. New York..................... (a-14) North Carolina............ (a-8) North Dakota.............. . . . Ohio.............................. GS
G (a-18) A . . . B
G GS G CE BG
G (a-26) A A A
GS GS G CE GS
G GS A G (uu)
(i) (a-23) A A A
GS G G G GS
GS (a-17) A G LG
GS GS G G A
GS (a-45) A G GS
B B G A B
(vv) GS GS GS B
A A A A A
GS GS GS GS GS
GS GS GS GS (zz) GS
A B A (ww) A
A GS GS G GS
B A G N.A. GS
B GS GS GS G
GS GS GS (a-45) GS
South Dakota.............. CE Tennessee..................... A Texas............................. (a-14) Utah.............................. AG Vermont....................... (a-24)
A A A A CG
CE SE B A BG
A A A A CG
GS G (a-14) BS CG
GS G (i) GS GS
A A A A CG
A G B A GS
GS G A A CG
GS G B GS GS
(a-45) G BG GS CG
Virginia........................ (a-14) Washington.................. (a-4) West Virginia............... (a-8) Wisconsin..................... A Wyoming...................... (a-8)
B (a-2) B A A
(xx) (i) GS GS G
A (a-6) CS A A
GB G GS GS G
GB G C A GS
(a-23) G B A A
GB G GS A A
G N.A. GS GS A
GB G (a-29) GS (a-29)
(a-45) (a-34) GS A (a-45)
American Samoa........ Guam............................ No. Mariana Islands... U.S. Virgin Islands......
(a-18) (i) B GS
N.A. N.A. B G
A CS C GS
(a-4) GS C GS
GB GS C G
GB GS A GS
GB GS GS GS
(a-12) CS GB GS
(a-29) GS CS GS
N.A. GS A GS
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
(a-14) (a-10) (a-4) (a-14) (a-14)
(a-4) CE G GS
and the Comptroller (GS). (t) Responsibilities shared between Adjutant General (GS) and Deputy Director (C) (u) Responsibilities shared between Director (GS), Chief of Fisheries (CS) and Chief of Wildlife (CS). (v) Responsibilities shared between Administrator, Division of Fisheries, Department of Conservation; Administrator, Division of Wildlife, same department (AB). (w) Responsibilities shared between State Tax Commissioner, Department of Revenue (GS); Administrator, Budget Division (A) and the Auditor of Public Accounts (CE). (x) Responsibilities shared between Director, Game and Parks Commission (B), Division Administrator, Wildlife Division, Game & Parks Commission (A) and Assistant Director of Fish and Wildlife (A). (y) Responsibilities shared between Director of Health and Human Services (G) and Division Administrator, Health (AG).
GS C G G GS LGS A/GLS (a-17) GS A
(z) Responsibilities shared between Director, Division of Purchase and Property, Dept. of Treasury (GS), and Director, Division of Property Management and Construction, Dept. of the Treasury (A). (aa) Responsibilities shared between Assistant Director, Office of Budget and Management (A) and Deputy Director same office (A). (bb) Responsibilities shared between Director of Mental Health (GS) and Director of Developmental Services (GS). (cc) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner of Mental Health (GE) and Commissioner of Retardation (GE). (dd) Responsibilities shared between Director, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Department of Health and Social Services (CG); and Director , Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, same department (CG). (ee) The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation is a quasipublic agency. (ff) Responsibilities shared between Deputy Director of Mental Health
The Council of State Governments 217
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTIONâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued (G) and Deputy Director of Retardation (G). (gg) Responsibilities shared between Director of Mental Health (C) and Director of Community Support (C). (hh) Responsibilities shared between Executive Director, Mental Hygiene Administration (A); and Director, Developmental Disabilities Administration, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (A). (ii) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner, Department of Mental Retardation (CG); and Commissioner, Department of Mental Health, Executive Office of Human Services (CG). (jj) Human/Social Services, Mental Health and Retardation and Welfare are under the Commissioner of Human Services (GS). (kk) Responsibilities shared between Director of Health and Human Services (G) and Division Administrator,MHDS (G). (ll) Responsibilities shared between Director, Division of Mental Health Services, Dept. of Human Services (A) and Director, Division of Developmental Disabilities, Dept. of Human Services (A). (mm) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State (GS) and Commissioner of State Education Department (B). (nn) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner, Office of Mental Health, and Commissioner, Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, both (GS). (oo) Responsibilities shared between Director, Dept. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (GS) and Director, Department of Mental Health (GS). (pp) Responsibilities shared between Director of Disabilities and Special Needs (B) and Director of Mental Health (B). (qq) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of Health and Social Services (GS) ; and Secretary , Department of Services of Children, Youth
218â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
and their Families (GS). (rr) Responsibilities shared between the five Public Utility Commissioners (G). (ss) Responsibilities shared between Director, Dept. of Cultural Affairs (G) and Division Administrator of Library and Archives (A). (tt) Responsibilities shared between Director of Health and Human Services (G) and Division Administrator,Welfare and Support Services (AG). (uu) Responsibilities shared between Director, OH Dept. of Job and Family Services (GS), Superintendent of Dept. of Education (B), Executive Director of Rehabilitation Services Commission (B), Director of Dept. of Aging (GS). (vv) Responsibilities shared between General Administrator Public Utility Division, Corporation Commission (B); and 3 Commissioners, Corporation Commission (CE). (ww) Solid waste is managed by the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RRIRRC). Although not a department of the state government, RRIRRC is a public corporation and a component of the State of Rhode Island for financial reporting purposes. To be financially selfsufficient, the agency earns revenue through the sale of recyclable products, methane gas royalties and fees for it services. (xx) No single position. Functions are shared between Communication, Energy Regulation and Utility and Railroad Safety, all (B). (yy) This employee serves in a dual role as Commissioner of Higher Education and as the President of the Community College of Rhode Island. (zz) This employees serves in a dual role as Director of Human Services and as Commissioner , Office of Health and Human Services. (aaa) Responsibilities shares between Community and Technical (B) and Higher Education Policy Commissioner (B).
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Table 4.11 SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES BY REGION
State or other jurisdiction Governor
Eastern Region Connecticut.................... $150,000 Delaware (e).................. 171,000 Maine.............................. 70,000 Maryland (f)................... 150,000 Massachusetts................ 140,535 New Hampshire**........ 113,834 New Jersey..................... 175,000 New York**................... 179,000 Pennsylvania (g)............ 174,914 Rhode Island (h)........... 117,817 Vermont (i).................... 142,542*
Lieutenant Secretary Attorney governor of state general Treasurer $110,000 74,345 (d) 125,000 124,920 (d) 141,000 151,500 146,926 99,214 60,507*
$110,000 120,755 83,844 87,500 130,916 104,364 (a-1) 120,800 125,939 99,214 90,376*
$110,000 $110,000 137,425 107,300 92,248 83,844 125,000 125,000 133,644 130,916 110,114 104,364 141,000 141,000 151,500 127,000 145,529 145,529 105,416 99,214 108,202* 90,376*
Adjutant general
Admin.
Agriculture Auditor
$162,617 $138,624 $120,200 115,295 . . . 112,660 102,689 102,689 102,689 130,560 (b) 138,374 (b) 130,050 (b) 151,347 150,000 120,000 104,364 116,170 93,812 141,000 . . . 141,000 120,800 . . . 120,800 125,939 142,847 125,939 94,769 143,011 (a-23) 87,090 115,606 109,387
Banking
(c) $128,935 102,715 105,445 96,782 96,553 . . . 117,751 (b) 138,117 123,204 . . . 104,364 139,000 130,625 151,500 127,000 145,529 125,939 196,124 101,598 90,376* 96,054
Midwestern Region Illinois............................. Indiana............................ Iowa................................. Kansas............................. Michigan......................... Minnesota....................... Nebraska........................ North Dakota................ Ohio................................ South Dakota................. Wisconsin........................
177,500 95,000 130,000 110,707 177,000 120,303 105,000 105,036 144,269 115,331 137,092
135,700 79,192 103,212 100,000 123,900 78,197 75,000 81,540 142,501 17,699 (j) 72,394
156,600 68,772 103,212 86,003 124,900 90,227 85,000 83,556 109,554 78,363 65,079
156,600 82,734 123,669 98,901 124,900 114,288 95,000 91,716 109,554 97,928 133,033
130,800 68,772 103,212 82,563 174,204 (a-24) 85,000 78,900 109,554 78,363 65,079
115,700 129,293 142,695 106,394 139,522 157,268 95,000 159,672 108,930 103,000 115,502
142,400 105,386 121,511 114,199 N.A. 108,388 96,067 . . . 125,008 103,000 136,944
133,300 99,001 103,212 100,000 135,000 108,388 102,278 85,836 111,072 103,000 123,248
139,800 68,772 103,212 . . . 152,274 102,257 85,000 83,556 109,554 98,345 121,973
135,100 104,562 108,338 94,095 112,199 94,795 100,693 99,468 100,984 99,740 103,325
Southern Region Alabama......................... Arkansas......................... Florida............................. Georgia........................... Kentucky (k).................. Louisiana........................ Mississippi...................... Missouri.......................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma....................... South Carolina............... Tennessee....................... Texas................................ Virginia........................... West Virginia..................
112,895 87,352 130,273 139,339 145,885* 130,000 122,160 133,821 139,590 147,000 106,078 170,340 (l) 150,000 175,000 150,000
73,488 42,219 124,851 91,609 108,720* 115,000 61,714 86,484 123,198 114,713 100,000 57,027 (d) 7,200 (m) 36,321 (d)
79,580 54,594 120,000 123,636 108,720 115,000 90,000 107,746 123,198 94,500 92,007 180,000 125,880 152,793 95,000
168,003 72,794 128,972 137,791 108,720 115,000 108,960 116,437 123,198 132,850 92,007 165,336 150,000 150,000 95,000
79,580 54,594 128,972 130,927 108,720 115,000 90,000 107,746 123,198 114,713 92,007 180,000 (a-14) 149,761 95,000
91,014 103,862 157,252 162,598 139,456 180,294 124,443 90,112 103,657 162,598 92,007 135,000 139,140 131,903 92,500
159,002 141,602 120,000 162,162 . . . 204,402 124,000 123,967 120,363 90,451 173,380 180,000 N.A. 152,793 95,000
79,026 102,784 128,972 121,556 108,720 115,000 90,000 120,000 123,198 87,005 92,007 135,000 137,500 137,280 95,000
79,580 54,594 135,000 152,160 108,720 132,620 90,000 107,744 123,198 114,713 N.A. 180,000 198,000 159,907 95,000
159,060 123,605 (a-4) 133,204 120,000 115,024 133,721 ... 123,198 137,239 101,101 135,000 180,000 (n) 142,425 75,000
Western Region Alaska............................. Arizona........................... California........................ Colorado......................... Hawaii............................. Idaho............................... Montana......................... Nevada**........................ New Mexico................... Oregon............................ Utah................................ Washington.................... Wyoming........................
125,000 95,000 173,987 (o) 90,000 117,312 115,348 100,121 141,000 110,000 93,600 109,900 166,891 105,000
100,000 (a-2) 130,490 68,500 114,420 30,400 79,007 60,000 85,000 (a-2) 104,405 93,948 (a-2)
(a-1) 70,000 130,490 68,500 . . . 93,756 79,129 97,000 85,000 72,000 (a-1) 116,950 92,000
135,000 90,000 151,127 80,000 114,420 103,984 89,602 133,000 95,000 77,200 104,405 151,718 137,150
123,456 70,000 139,189 68,500 108,972 93,756 (a-6) 97,000 85,000 72,000 104,405 116,950 92,000
135,000 134,000 214,522 146,040 190,116 134,118 106,358 117,030 163,571 167,160 101,999 162,598 118,930
135,000 140,000 . . . 146,040 (p) (q) 96,967 115,847 109,531 150,252 116,803 120,587 142,771
103,116 102,260 175,000 146,040 103,512 106,620 96,972 107,465 160,064 136,320 101,999 122,478 107,588
118,992 128,785 175,000 145,147 120,444 . . . 82,420 . . . 85,000 140,964 104,405 116,950 92,000
110,844 105,000 150,112 N.A. 100,248 102,731 97,576 97,901 94,045 ... 113,671 120,579 100,002
. . . . . . (a-1)
101,237 80,000 76,500
68,152 . . . 85,000
88,915 54,000 76,500
Guam.............................. No. Mariana Islands**.... U.S. Virgin Islands**.....
90,000 70,000 80,000
85,000 65,000 75,000
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state personnel agencies and state Web sites March 2010. Note: **The data for New Hampshire, New York and Nevada are from 2009. The data for Northern Mariana Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands are from 2007, except for the USVI Elections Administration that was updated in January 2010. Key: N.A.— Not available. . . .— No specific chief administrative official or agency in charge of function. (a) Chief administrative official or agency in charge of function: (a-1) Lieutenant governor. (a-2) Secretary of state.
50,717 40,800 (b) 76,500
60,850 100,000 40,800 (b) 80,000 76,500 76,500
88,915 40,800 (b) 75,000
(a-3) Attorney general. (a-4) Treasurer. (a-5) Adjutant general (a-6) Administration. (a-7) Agriculture (a-8) Auditor (a-9) Banking (a-10) Budget. (a-11) Civil rights (a-12) Commerce. (a-13) Community affairs. (a-14) Comptroller. (a-15) Consumer affairs.
The Council of State Governments 219
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES BY REGIONâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
State or other jurisdiction Budget
Eastern Region Connecticut.................... $139,026 Delaware (e).................. 139,475 Maine............................. 90,355 Maryland (f)................... 166,082 (b) Massachusetts................ 130,592 New Hampshire**........ 104,364 New Jersey..................... 133,507 New York**.................. 178,000 Pennsylvania (g)............ 148,011 Rhode Island (h)........... 156,027 Vermont (i).................... (a-24)
Civil Community Consumer Economic Election rights Commerce affairs Comptroller affairs Corrections development Education admin. $118,450 75,000 69,409 110,699 (b) 113,850 79,774 124,000 109,800 120,744 76,692 87,901
$144,283 (a-2) (a-17) 155,000 (b) 150,000 112,861 (a-17) 120,800 132,934 (a-9) 104,499
$163,910 . . . (a-17) . . . 140,000 . . . 141,000 120,800 115,345 N.A. 79,227
$110,000 139,474 90,355 125000 (b) 154,669 104,364 141,000 151,500 N.A. 112,492 (a-24)
$127,307 104,319 96,553 121,005 (b) 135,000 86,229 126,000 (s) 101,600 112,548 (a-3) 87,901
$116,573 (r) $144,283 $180,353 $128,931 139,475 120,755 151,565 76,780 102,689 102,689 102,689 83,574 92,640 (b) 155,000 (b) 195,000 109,372 (b) 143,986 150,000 154,500 130,916 116,170 86,131 112,861 (a-2) 141,000 186,600 141,000 115,000 136,000 120,800 170,165 (t) 139,931 132,934 139,931 76,010 145,644 185,000 (u) 203,000 129,676 98,550 79,227 113,402 (a-2)
Midwestern Region Illinois............................. Indiana........................... Iowa................................ Kansas............................ Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Nebraska........................ North Dakota................ Ohio................................ South Dakota................ Wisconsin.......................
137,832 134,244 103,730 (a-6) 125,100 (a-24) 128,816 114,478 126,402 (a-24) 122,973
111,892 88,000 97,460 76,476 136,000 108,388 N.A. 79,596 96,408 N.A. 96,543
142,400 (a-17) 111,458 103,000 153,000 108,388 109,167 139,392 115,690 (a-44) 121,000
(a-12) 115,267 100,672 69,000 . . . (a-17) 66,123 . . . 98,342 (a-48) . . .
135,700 (a-8) . . . 97,375 124,964 (a-24) 112,341 114,478 126,401 (a-40) 114,385
(a-3) 92,000 128,877 85,000 . . . 107,135 (a-3) 94,140 99,486 63,654 85,782
150,300 101,000 127,895 124,611 145,000 108,388 121,328 99,000 119,454 113,455 123,628
(a-12) 150,000 115,981 101,592 . . . 108,388 109,167 104,136 142,500 (a-48) 99,447
189,996 82,734 148,526 160,000 183,945 108,388 207,500 95,112 194,501 110,000 109,587
129,840 N.A. 102,294 (v) (w) (a-2) 78,204 40,920 109,554 56,650 101,000
Southern Region Alabama......................... Arkansas........................ Florida............................ Georgia.......................... Kentucky (k).................. Louisiana........................ Mississippi...................... Missouri.......................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma...................... South Carolina............... Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Virginia........................... West Virginia.................
177,266 116,427 138,600 124,000 148,719 180,000 (a-6) 102,000 (a-24) 74,000 124,331 106,620 142,800 150,000 97,416
. . . . . . 93,000 105,202 116,655 82,347 . . . 67,078 67,252 64,386 91,947 84,996 83,933 73,090 55,000
198,028 (a-17) 200,000 123,600 137,865* 320,000 90,000 120,000 120,363 112,500 152,000 180,000 . . . 152,793 95,000
91,014 N.A. 120,000 146,795 113,474 85,000 130,000 93,787 95,374 N.A. N.A. (a-17) 129,250 118,414 95,000
122,265 98,472 (a-4) N.A. 105,101 204,402 (a-6) 95,288 153,319 90,000 92,007 180,000 150,000 133,972 (a-8)
78,803 113,366 98,532 114,280 86,067 88,400 82,000 (a-3) N.A. 61,337 101,295 69,780 108,516 94,587 N.A.
119,543 134,944 128,750 130,000 93,324 136,719 132,761 120,000 120,363 132,309 144,746 150,000 186,300 147,321 80,000
(a-13) 124,696 (a-12) 156,817 250,000 320,000 176,500 120,000 101,702 112,500 (a-12) 180,000 . . . 220,000 (a-13)
197,965 219,999 275,000 123,269 225,000 341,458 307,125 185,400 123,198 124,373 92,007 180,000 186,300 167,111 175,000
67,375 81,996 95,000 90,000 119,924 109,803 80,000 65,196 117,397 97,815 84,375 115,008 (x) 104,000 (a-2)
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California....................... Colorado........................ Hawaii............................ Idaho.............................. Montana......................... Nevada**....................... New Mexico................... Oregon........................... Utah................................ Washington.................... Wyoming........................
129,756 140,000 (a-24) 156,468 108,972 115,918 99,999 (a-6) 120,421 127,884 141,232 (a-24) 113,568
133,237 127,685 . . . 124,572 97,776 63,294 72,391 87,773 85,153 100,380 84,355 95,000 72,023
135,000 130,543 . . . . . . 108,972 87,568 96,984 115,847 133,280 150,252 120,018 147,000 147,145
(a-12) 128,525 136,156 137,280 . . . . . . 86,545 . . . 72,656 136,320 110,643 (a-12) (a-12)
114,996 117,702 139,189 126,540 108,972 93,756 87,213 97,000 117,664 127,884 123,317 (a-24) (a-8)
(a-12) 128,525 175,000 124,728 97,644 (a-3) 65,980 97,901 80,642 150,252 120,018 (a-3) (a-12)
135,000 145,985 225,000 146,040 103,512 123,676 98,426 108,850 111,746 164,928 116,803 147,000 135,319
(a-12) 130,543 . . . 146,040 103,512 87,568 99,999 117,030 133,280 150,252 126,700 (a-12) (a-12)
135,000 85,000 151,127 223,860 150,000 93,756 104,635 113,295 173,859 72,000 178,503 121,618 92,000
103,116 (a-2) 130,284 110,400 N,A. 93,756 68,950 (y) 85,000 110,556 79,908 (a-2) 98,134
Guam.............................. No. Mariana Islands**... U.S. Virgin Islands**....
88,915 54,000 76,500
. . . 49,000 60,000
75,208 52,000 76,500
. . . 52,000 (z)
82,025 45,000 85,000
82,025 80,000 76,500
61,939 53,000 135,000
(a-16) Corrections (a-17) Economic development. (a-18) Education (chief state school officer). (a-19) Election administration (a-20) Emergency administration (a-21) Employment services (a-22) Energy ( a-23) Environmental protection. (a-24) Finance (a-25) Fish and wildlife (a-26 ) General services (a-27) Health (a-28) Higher education
220â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
80,959 40,800 (b) 76,500
53,470 52,000 76,500
67,150 40,800 (b) 76,500
(a-29) Highways (a-30) Information systems (a-31) Insurance (a-32) Labor (a-33) Licensing (a-34) Mental health (a-35) Natural resources. (a-36) Parks and recreation. (a-37) Personnel. (a-38) Planning (a-39) Post audit. (a-40) Pre-audit. (a-41) Public library development
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES BY REGION—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Emergency Employment mgmt. services Energy
Eastern Region Connecticut.................... Delaware (e).................. Maine.............................. Maryland (f)................... Massachusetts................ New Hampshire**......... New Jersey..................... New York**................... Pennsylvania (g)............ Rhode Island (h)........... Vermont (i)....................
Environ. protection Finance
$154,000 $132,613 $121,146 78,050 90,920 54,395 72,800 86,902 (a-38) 127,500 (b) $115,000 (b) 130,050 (b) 124,659 150,000 120,000 104,364 104,364 79,774 132,300 124,020 100,000 140,864 127,000 120,800 121,428 122,446 106,015 87,350 127,440 108,528 79,186 93,870 96,283
Fish & wildlife
$130,000 $163,910 (aa) (a-35) 139,475 93,260 102,689 (a-6) 98,737 135,252 (b) 166,082 (b) . . . 130,000 150,000 123,000 112,861 (a-10) 98,691 141,000 133,507 105,783 136,000 151,500 136,000 139,931 148,011 118,084 130,152 (a-6) (a-23) 82,992 89,669 79,290
General services Health
Higher education
$138,624 81,266 90,355 (a-6) 118,671 (a-6) (bb) 136,000 132,934 (a-6) 89,357
$182,126 $169,745 93,526 (a-49) N.A. (a-49) 154,194 (b) 159,858 206,000 125,658 72,852 (a-49) 86,793 124,110 170,165 136,000 121,917 129,311 265,000 (cc) (a-49) . . . (a-49)
$162,617 160,875 145,620 166,082 (b) 138,216 98,691 141,000 136,000 139,931 134,975 115,523
Highways
Midwestern Region Illinois............................. Indiana........................... Iowa................................ Kansas............................ Michigan......................... Minnesota...................... Nebraska........................ North Dakota................ Ohio................................ South Dakota................. Wisconsin.......................
129,000 101,500 108,084 (ee) 130,975 108,388 84,621 87,720 100,901 73,181 99,445
142,400 104,559 145,811 (a-32) 118,470 104,358 96,527 93,132 141,981 (a-37) 104,287
(a-12) 83,212 123,616 72,962 153,000 108,388 84,999 102,588 81,266 (a-48) 97,501
133,300 115,006 117,728 105,019 140,000 108,388 114,315 96,756 125,008 (a-35) 130,623
(a-10) (a-10) 117,728 . . . (a-10) 108,388 (gg) 105,672 (ii) 139,668 122,973
(a-35) 77,000 117,728 73,330 (ff) 108,367 (hh) 102,216 98,155 115,607 130,623
(a-6) (a-6) 117,728 (a-6) . . . (a-6) 100,687 131,700 105,123 (a-6) 136,944
150,300 (dd) 115,188 170,019 145,000 108,388 142,923 162,876 154,378 116,531 123,233
191,100 155,000 . . . 193,000 . . . 360,000 160,865 208,000 186,701 323,502 414,593
N.A. (a-49) 150,405 (a-49) (a-49) 108,388 (a-49) (a-49) 120,016 (a-47) (a-47)
Southern Region Alabama......................... Arkansas........................ Florida............................ Georgia........................... Kentucky (k).................. Louisiana........................ Mississippi...................... Missouri.......................... North Carolina............... Oklahoma...................... South Carolina............... Tennessee....................... Texas.............................. Virginia........................... West Virginia.................
73,297 88,160 100,000 122,003 78,750 165,000 107,868 95,004 97,284 75,705 97,292 90,576 147,500 114,650 65,000
139,259 133,922 120,000 88,455 N.A. 108,000 122,000 103,860 120,363 93,190 N.A. 135,000 140,000 124,741 75,000
102,408 101,088 115,000 116,452 137,865* 118,872 137,996 . . . 92,647 90,000 N.A. 103,260 . . . 88,000 95,000
134,410 116,254 123,295 155,000 102,900 137,197 120,386 95,108 113,410 99,922 151,942 135,000 145,200 150,218 (a-22)
159,002 (a-6) (a-4) 148,000 137,865* (a-6) (a-6) 100,450 153,000 108,045 (a-6) 180,000 (a-14) 152,793 (a-6)
117,142 120,768 129,430 107,732 134,352 123,614 120,636 (jj) 105,000 123,033 121,380 135,000 143,000 124,740 77,772
95,359 117,665 120,000 N.A. . . . (a-6) . . . 95,288 120,363 90,451 120,154 135,000 126,500 141,231 78,492
248,889 190,633 120,000 169,729 155,335 236,000 200,000 120,000 211,251 194,244 144,746 153,540 183,750 191,906 95,000
185,952 184,999 225,000 425,000 400,000 377,000 341,250 155,004 477,148 394,983 154,840 183,792 180,000 234,000 (kk)
91,013 (a-49) 128,000 182,504 N.A. (a-49) (a-49) (a-49) 154,388 (a-49) 143,000 (a-49) (a-49) 189,280 99,999
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona........................... California....................... Colorado........................ Hawaii............................ Idaho.............................. Montana......................... Nevada**....................... New Mexico................... Oregon........................... Utah................................ Washington.................... Wyoming........................ Guam.............................. No. Mariana Islands**.. U.S. Virgin Islands**.....
110,844 90,685 175,000 131,208 90,048 119,204 63,072 86,757 122,190 95,628 69,760 126,204 86,742 68,152 45,000 71,250
114,996 110,002 150,112 124,500 83,040 (b) 111,945 95,776 127,721 105,000 150,252 130,187 141,549 128,013 73,020 40,800 (b) 76,500
140,000 . . . 132,396 126,000 83,040 (b) 101,982 88,157 99,397 133,280 123,660 126,700 (a-23) 73,042 55,303 45,000 69,350
135,000 N.A. 175,000 N.A. N.A. 112,340 96,967 112,275 115,908 136,320 107,678 141,549 119,892 60,850 58,000 76,500
119,304 (a-14) 175,000 126,540 (nn) 102,731 87,213 (a-14) 150,528 (a-4) 123,317 163,056 (a-8) 88,915 54,000 76,500
135,000 160,000 150,112 144,876 83,040 (b) 129,043 96,963 117,030 93,101 136,320 116,803 141,000 138,249 60,850 40,800 (b) 76,500
(a-43) 106,982 150,112 130,404 (a-14) . . . 88,951 . . . 109,531 (a-6) 107,678 (a-6) 110,047 54,475 54,000 76,500
135,000 116,788 (ll) 146,040 108,972 141,710 (a-45) (oo) 184,396 178,668 195,562 141,549 206,798 74,096 80,000 76,500
300,000 184,000 (mm) 146,040 427,512 110,011 211,201 23,660 (pp) 173,859 219,504 130,187 N.A. 129,796 174,787 80,000 76,500
118,992 121,025 (a-49) 135,840 90,792 (b) (a-49) (a-49) (a-49) N.A. 127,884 (a-49) (a-49) 125,417 88,915 40,800 (b) 65,000
(a-42) Public utility regulation. (a-43) Purchasing. (a-44) Revenue. (a-45) Social services. (a-46) Solid waste management (a-47) State police (a-48) Tourism. (a-49) Transportation. (a-50) Welfare. (b) Salary ranges, top figure in ranges follow: Alabama: Employment Services, $109,642 Hawaii: Employment Services, $118,212; Energy, $118,212; Fish and Wildlife, $118,212; Highways, $129,180; Information Systems, $118,212;
Parks and Recreation,$118,212; Planning,$125,436; Post-Audit, $118,212; Pre-Audit, $118,212; Solid Waste Management, $112,596; Welfare, $118,212. Maryland: Corrections (top figure in range), $123,708; Purchasing (top figure in range), $106,940. For these positions in Maryland the salary in the chart is the actual salary and the following are the salary ranges: Adjutant General, $107,196—$143,270; Administration, $107,196—$143,270; Agriculture, $107,196—$143,270; Banking, $73,341—$117,751; Budget, $124, 175—$166,082; Civil Rights, $86,161—$115,000; Commerce, $124,175— $166,082; Consumer Affairs, $78,233—$125,743; Economic Development, $124,175—$166,082; Elections Administration, $86,161—$115,000; Emergency Management, $99,637—$133,112; Workforce Development, $86,161—$115,000; Environmental Protection, $115,356—$154,235; Finance, $124,175—$166,082; Health, $124,175—$166,082; Higher Edu-
The Council of State Governments 221
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES BY REGION—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Info. systems Insurance Labor Licensing
Eastern Region Connecticut...................... $158,446 $143,222 $132,613 Delaware (e).................... 151,565 102,715 112,660 Maine................................ 96,553 96,553 102,689 Maryland (f)..................... 166,082 (b) 156,060 (b) 143,270 (b) Massachusetts.................. 135,000 94,548 125,000 New Hampshire**........... 106,496 104,364 104,364 New Jersey....................... 130,380 130,000 141,000 New York**..................... 169,214 127,000 127,000 Pennsylvania (g).............. 130,015 125,939 139,931 Rhode Island (h)............. 129,705 109,613 (a-21) Vermont (i)...................... 87,776 96,054 93,870
$104,954 92,480 98,737 100,581 (b) 107,332 104,364 . . . (vv) 115,521 (xx) 75,005
Mental health
Natural resources
Parks & recreation Personnel Planning
(qq) (rr) (a-45) (b)(ss) (tt) 104,364 (uu) (ww) 122,211 136,696 99,008
$138,123 $138,123 $138,624 120,755 93,940 106,129 89,523 (a-35) 90,355 148,7787 (b) 115,000 (b) 117,416 (b) 150,000 135,000 137,988 112,861 90,605 88,933 123,600 N.A. 141,000 136,000 127,000 120,800 132,934 115,521 126,066 (a-23) (a-23) 137,944 104,499 81,494 94,931
Post audit
$121,146 (a-8) 90,054 (a-8) 90,355 N.A. 124,848 (b) N.A. 150,000 138,117 . . . (a-14) 66,000 (s) ... 120,800 151,500 143,062 (a-8) 109,238 N.A. . . . (a-8)
Midwestern Region Illinois............................... Indiana............................. Iowa.................................. Kansas.............................. Michigan........................... Minnesota........................ Nebraska.......................... North Dakota.................. Ohio.................................. South Dakota................... Wisconsin.........................
(a-6) 110,909 129,293 100,000 140,000 120,000 125,387 115,488 105,123 137,060 118,104
(a-9) 90,500 104,533 86,003 112,199 97,217 110,228 83,544 128,564 83,015 117,980
124,100 99,180 112,069 107,990 140,000 108,388 118,000 79,596 87,547 113,448 106,031
(a-9) 96,393 . . . 58,938 123,727 78,571 98,810 . . . (zz) N.A 111,121
(a-45) 105,000 117,728 (yy) 130,978 (a-45) 120,083 90,684 (aaa) 105,583 109,534
133,300 105,000 106,090 111,490 140,000 108,388 107,532 . . . 128,003 116,531 130,623
(a-35) 79,878 102,294 73,320 117,166 108,367 124,097 89,568 100,589 82,995 91,279
(a-6) 111,657 117,728 92,319 143,948 (a-24) 99,031 88,848 104,998 107,468 104,287
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N.A. 96,067 . . . 128,357 N.A. . . .
(a-8) 98,717 ... 115,296 (a-8) (a-8) (a-8) 94,980 (a-8) (a-8) (a-8)
Southern Region Alabama........................... Arkansas.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................. Kentucky (k).................... Louisiana.......................... Mississippi........................ Missouri............................ North Carolina................. Oklahoma........................ South Carolina................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................ Virginia............................. West Virginia...................
164,419 126,021 120,000 122,850 112,500 167,000 160,047 110,000 153,227 101,500 137,500 150,000 175,000 191,906 109,999
103,810 117,899 133,158 120,394 99,225 115,000 90,000 103,860 123,198 126,713 112,407 135,000 163,800 142,425 92,500
91,013 115,007 120,000 121,570 137,865* 137,000 . . . 120,000 123,198 105,053 116,797 135,000 140,000 125,759 70,000
. . . . . . 78,000 100,000 . . . . . . . . . 37,500 . . . . . . 116,797 92,832 135,000 127,124 . . .
155,534 106,918 105,594 225,000 99,000 236,000 164,357 113,878 129,011 133,455 (bbb) 135,000 163,200 189,280 95,000
91,013 101,579 123,295 141,103 95,445 129,210 120,386 120,000 120,363 86,310 121,380 135,000 145,200 152,793 75,000
110,810 111,176 109,279 111,420 116,655 115,627 120,636 N.A. 106,974 86,310 112,504 83,628 143,000 128,004 78,636
162,135 100,394 100,000 152,250 137,865* 104,000 111,143 95,288 120,363 80,955 116,984 135,000 . . . 137,955 70,000
(a-13) . . . 120,000 124,000 148,719 100,713 96,303 102,000 N.A. . . . N.A. N.A. 142,800 (a-10) (a-17)
241,695 154,899 (a-4) (a-8) 108,720 N.A. (a-8) (a-8) (a-8) ... 94,730 (a-14) (a-8) (a-8) 67,000
Western Region Alaska.............................. Arizona............................. California......................... Colorado.......................... Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Montana........................... Nevada**......................... New Mexico..................... Oregon............................. Utah.................................. Washington...................... Wyoming..........................
114,996 117,903 175,000 132,000 83,040 (b) (q) 111,623 123,783 107,800 134,220 130,187 147,000 194,400
114,996 115,650 139,189 110,388 100,248 97,323 79,134 117,030 110,388 150,252 107,678 116,950 101,567
135,000 126,069 175,000 146,040 103,512 111,945 96,967 88,799 105,000 72,000 101,999 139,320 88,439
103,116 . . . 150,112 126,516 N.A. 74,609 88,016 . . . 110,388 N.A. 96,612 120,579 72,176
75,588 94,183 (ccc) 114,948 (ddd) . . . 95,449 (eee) . . . 140,964 101,999 (a-45) 100,200
135,000 131,500 175,000 146,040 103,512 112,798 96,967 127,721 133,280 127,884 126,700 121,618 43,842
106,824 110,844 142,812 117,702 150,112 150,112 144,876 N.A. 83,040 (b) 103,512 86,320 115,918 77,578 91,502 107,465 97,474 96,396 105,369 136,320 110,556 110,643 126,700 120,579 141,549 100,883 109,824
. . . 140,000 . . . 156,468 88,128 (b) . . . 99,999 . . . 73,245 . . . (a-10) (a-24) 100,000
(a-8) ... ... (a-8) 83,040 (b) (a-14) 119,326 ... 85,000 140,964 (a-8) N.A. (a-8)
74,096 73,020 40,800 (b) 45,000 75,000 76,500
74,096 45,360 76,500
60,850 52,000 76,500
60,850 88,915 40,800 (b) 60,000 76,500 76,500
Guam................................ 88,915 No. Mariana Islands**.... 45, 000 U.S. Virgin Islands**....... 71,250
cation, $ 115,356—$154,235; Information Services, $124,175—$166,082; Insurance, $124,175—$166,082; Labor, $107,196—$143,270; Licensing, $86,161—$115,000; Mental Health shared duties, $143,767—$237,562 and $92,640—$123-708; Natural Resources, $ $115,356—$154,235; Parks and Recreation, $86,161—$115,000; Personnel, $99,637—$133,112; Planning $107,196—$143,270: Pre-Audit $92,640—$123,708; Public Library, $86,161—$115,000; Purchasing $80,160—$106,940; Revenue, $92,460— $123,708; Social Services, $124,175—$166,082; Solid Waste Management, $86,161—$115,000; State Police, $124,175—$166,082; Tourism, $92,640— $123,708; Transportation, $124,175—$166,082; Welfare, $124,175—$166,082. Northern Mariana Islands: $49,266 top of range applies to the following positions: Treasurer, Banking, Comptroller, Corrections, , Employment Services, Fish and Wildlife, Highways, Insurance, Mental Health and
222 The Book of the States 2010
67,150 40,800 (b) 70,000
75,208 45,000 76,500
100,000 80,000 55,000
Retardation, Parks and Recreation, Purchasing, Social/Human Services, Transportation. (c) Responsibilities shared between Kevin P. Johnston, $189,770 and Robert G. Jaekle, $189,770. (d) In Maine, New Hampshire, Tennessee and West Virginia, the presidents (or speakers) of the Senate are next in line of succession to the governorship. In Tennessee and West Virginia, the speaker of the Senate bears the statutory title of lieutenant governor. (e) Per the FY 2010 Budget Act, most salaries were reduced in FY32010 by ~2.5% (f) The salaries provided are regular (non-reduced), however all of these positions, with the exception of the statutory officers (governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES BY REGIONâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued State or other Pre- jurisdiction audit
Public library dvpmt.
Public utility Social reg. Purchasing Revenue services
Eastern Region Connecticut......................... (a-14) $113,525 $137,686 Delaware (e)....................... (a-8) 79,315 90,920 Maine................................... (a-14) 87,172 117,104 Maryland (f)........................ 110,000 (b) 115,000 (b) 150,000 Massachusetts..................... 138,117 104,020 (hhh) New Hampshire**.............. (a-14) 90,606 110,036 New Jersey.......................... . . . . . . 141,000 New York**........................ 151,500 170,165 127,000 Pennsylvania (g)................. (a-4) 115,795 135,434 Rhode Island (h)................. (a-14) 117,278 112,716 Vermont (i)......................... (a-24) 83,990 116,688 Midwestern Region Illinois................................... Indiana................................. Iowa...................................... Kansas.................................. Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Nebraska.............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio..................................... South Dakota...................... Wisconsin.............................
Solid waste mgmt.
State police Tourism
Transportation
Welfare
$124,537 $167,169 $119,353 (fff) $127,707 $155,953 $118,450 $169,745 $119,353 (fff) (a-26) 117,925 (ggg) 155,000 138,695 87,750 130,600 108,860 74,297 96,553 114,670 74,297 96,553 (a-17) 102,689 (a-45) 80,160 (b) 120,026 (b) 159,000 (b) 114,167 (b) 166,082 (b) 114,444 (b) 166,082 (b) (a-45) 118,671 142,939 136,619 130,000 157,469 108,248 150,000 137,000 72,852 116,170 120,095 98,691 104,364 90,606 116,170 90,606 130,000 (s) 124,765 (iii) N.A. 132,300 N.A. 141,000 127,200 136,000 127,000 136,000 136,000 121,860 120,800 136,000 136,000 120,001 132,934 139,931 81,194 132,934 115,345 139,931 139,931 136,407 (a-6) 135,662 (jjj) (kkk) 148,937 N.A. 130,000 (a-45) 89,357 93,912 121,763 82,992 106,912 79,227 115,606 100,714
(a-14) 68,772 102,294 76,960 . . . (a-8) 112,341 . . . 126,401 78,363 (a-8)
93,804 93,620 129,293 81,976 . . . N.A. 92,951 . . . N.A. 70,298 109,981
110,772 109,262 125,008 91,416 113,612 (lll) 118,387 85,824 109,595 91,390 113,502
(a-6) 91,507 102,294 83,640 N.A. 104,358 100,687 68,964 105,123 63,194 95,426
142,400 115,006 133,673 107,990 137,523 108,388 139,437 90,684 126,401 110,303 121,144
134,000 130,520 136,806 112,743 150,000 (a-34) 155,000 141,384 (mmm) 116,531 121,200
N.A. 92,712 102,294 76,960 130,975 108,388 67,059 76,572 89,794 83,843 106,887
132,600 130,682 112,668 107,990 129,842 108,388 106,808 85,176 128,544 92,855 106,722
(a-12) 85,401 102,294 82,961 . . . 108,388 59,482 97,140 87,984 134,698 108,501
150,300 118,000 147,909 107,990 140,000 108,388 135,000 122,076 98,300 103,000 126,412
142,400 (a-45) (a-45) 76,150 (a-45) (a-34) (a-45) (a-45) 141,980 (a-45) 92,000
Southern Region Alabama.............................. (a-14) Arkansas.............................. N.A. Florida.................................. (a-4) Georgia................................ (a-8) Kentucky (k)....................... . . . Louisiana............................. 108,950 Mississippi............................ (a-8) Missouri............................... 95,288 North Carolina.................... (a-8) Oklahoma............................ (a-14) South Carolina.................... (a-14) Tennessee............................ 105,588 Texas.................................... (a-14) Virginia................................ (a-14) West Virginia...................... (a-8)
107,737 97,928 95,545 N.A. 91,057 107,000 108,000 84,072 106,787 77,805 N.A. 120,000 104,500 132,890 72,000
96,609 111,482 125,000 116,452 127,260 130,000 141,505 88,267 123,936 (nnn) 160,272 150,000 115,500 (ppp) 90,000
131,633 98,472 97,531 141,625 89,250 146,400 79,633 95,288 101,517 78,296 109,323 70,296 116,748 128,447 98,928
91,008 125,450 120,000 159,786 121,632 124,446 108,185 120,000 120,363 111,933 130,063 150,000 (a-14) 136,806 92,500
148,899 144,433 120,640 171,600 111,353 129,995 130,000 120,000 117,193 162,750 144,746 150,000 168,000 143,450 81,204
113,479 N.A. 95,000 105,088 79,739 102,000 78,008 72,000 110,105 98,793 151,942 86,880 N.A. 150,218 78,264
65,529 108,082 133,875 132,863 111,352 134,351 138,115 107,184 117,406 101,030 145,000 135,000 162,000 145,787 85,000
102,142 86,542 120,000 138,545 111,353 130,000 85,748 N.A. 111,872 86,310 112,504 135,000 N.A. 164,000 70,000
(a-29) 149,058 120,000 (a-29) 125,332* 125,000 144,354 158,244 120,363 133,200 146,000 150,000 192,500 152,793 99,999
(a-45) (a-45) 113,300 134,000 (a-45) 105,000 130,000 97,300 89,882 162,750 (a-45) 150,000 210,000 143,450 95,000
Western Region Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ California............................. Colorado.............................. Hawaii.................................. Idaho.................................... Montana.............................. Nevada**............................. New Mexico........................ Oregon................................. Utah..................................... Washington......................... Wyoming............................. Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands**....... U.S. Virgin Islands**..........
103,116 123,352 . . . 112,548 105,000 93,808 91,962 (ooo) 72,253 N.A. 110,643 (a-2) 97,738 55,303 45,000 53,350
100,116 130,000 137,100 114,948 90,060 92,167 88,528 112,275 90,000 143,136 101,999 128,000 115,712 N.A. 80,000 54,500
128,424 135,000 103,464 139,971 (a-26) 150,112 114,948 146,040 85,524 108,972 (q) 85,447 88,951 98,421 88,799 115,847 92,874 140,494 100,380 150,252 107,678 116,677 (a-6) 141,549 86,112 116,457 54,475 74,096 40,800 (b) 45,000 76,500 76,500
(a-27) 165,000 165,000 146,040 103,512 141,710 96,967 115,847 137,205 165,624 130,187 163,056 117,144 74,096 40,800 (b) 76,500
114,996 96,510 126,588 114,948 79,104 (b) . . . 96,967 (a-23) 76,841 N.A. 116,803 (a-23) 106,787 88,915 54,000 76,500
135,000 139,549 186,336 135,000 . . . 112,008 88,400 115,847 122,190 150,252 110,643 141,549 112,124 74,096 54,000 76,500
82,908 102,190 . . . 84,084 204,576 63,400 83,682 117,030 132,300 N.A. 103,794 N.A. 111,266 55,303 70,000 76,500
135,000 110,844 130,000 165,000 150,112 175,000 146,040 N.A. 108,972 83,040 (b) 165,000 104,400 96,968 (a-45) 115,847 (oo) 112,701 N.A. 165,276 165,624 160,839 130,187 163,056 (a-45) (a-29) (a-45) 88,915 74,096 40,800 (b) 52,000 65,000 76,500
. . . (a-14) (a-14) (a-14) 83,040 (b) (a-14) 119,326 . . . 79,200 (a-10) (a-24) (a-4) (a-8) 100,000 54,000 76,500
and superintendent of education) are currently under a mandatory salary reduction plan. (g) A management pay freeze has been instituted. (h) A number of the employees receive a stipend for their length of service to the State (known as a longevity payment). This amount can vary significantly among employees and, depending on state turnover, can show dramatic changes in actual salaries from year-to-year. (i) As part of a budget rescission the Governor imposed a five percent pay cut for all non-elected Executive Branch exempt employees making over $60,000 per annum on January 15, 2009. This pay cut became permanent on July 5, 2009. All of the salaries represented in this table were affected. The officials who voluntarily took the five percent reduction are marked with an *.
(j) Annual salary for duties as presiding officer of the Senate. (k) Positions with asterisk have taken a 10 percent salary reduction in the reported salary upon request of the Governor in recognition of budget problems. (l) Governor Bredesen returns his salary to the state. (m) Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst receives additional pay when serving as acting governor. (n) This agency is now a self-directed state agency. (o) Governor Schwarzenegger waives his salary. (p) There is no one single agency for Administration. The functions are divided amongst the Director of Budget and Finance, $108,972; Director of Human Resources Development, $103,512; and the Comptroller, $108,972.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 223
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES BY REGION—Continued (q) Does not draw a salary. (r) Retired commissioner holding position at reduced salary until permanent replacement named. Prior salary as full-time commissioner was $167,496. (s) Acting salary. (t) The statutory salary for each of the four members of the Board of Elections is $25,000, including the two co-chairs, Douglas A. Kellner and James A. Walsh. (u) The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation is a quasipublic agency. (v) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State, $86,003 and Deputy Secretary of State, $78,770. (w) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State, $124,900 and Bureau Director, $118,470. (x) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State, $125,880; and Division Director, $112,151. (y) Responsibilities shared between Secretary of State, $87,982; Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, $97,474 and Chief Deputy Secretary of State, $106,150. (z) Responsibilities for St. Thomas, $74,400; St. Croix, $76,500; St. John, $74,400. (aa) Responsibilities shared between Director of Wildlife, $123,973 Director of Inland Fisheries, $127,707 and Director of Marine Fisheries, $121,133. (bb) Responsibilities shared between Acting Director, Division of Purchase and Property, Dept. of the Treasury, $130,000 (acting) and Director, Division of Property Management and Construction, Dept. of the Treasury, $120,000. (cc) Serves a dual role as Commissioner of Higher Education and as the President of the Community College of Rhode Island. (dd) Contractual. (ee) Responsibilities shared between Adjutant General, $106,394 and deputy director, $72,000. (ff) Responsibilities shared between Director, Dept. of Natural Resources, $140,000 and Chief, Fish, $118,470 and Chief, Wildlife, $104,283. (gg) Responsibilities shared between, Auditor of P u b l i c Accounts—$85,000; Director of Administration—$128,816 and State Tax Commissioner—$139,437. (hh) Responsibilities shared between Game & Parks Director—$124,097; Fish & Wildlife Asst Dir.—$95,580; Wildlife Division Administrator—$86,950. (ii) Responsibilities shared between Assistant Director of Budget and Management, $99,757 and Deputy Director, Accounting, Office of Budget and Management, $113,859. (jj) Responsibilities shared between Administrator, Division of Fisheries, Department of Conservation, $92,688; Administrator, Division of Wildlife, same department, $87,408. (kk) Responsibilities shared between Community and Technical, $134,000 and Higher Education Policy Commission, $167,500. (ll) Responsibilities shared between Director of Health Care Services, $165,000 and Director Department of Public Health $222,000. (mm) Responsibilities shared between Chancellor of California Community Colleges, $198,504 and California Post Secondary Education Commission $168,300. (nn) Responsibilities shared between Director of Budget and Finance, $108,972 and Comptroller, $108,972. (oo) Responsibilities shared between Director, Health and Human Services, $115,847 and Division Administrator, $106,150. (pp) The Chancellor elected to receive a lower wage than authorized. (qq) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner, Mental Health: $144,999 and Commissioner, Retardation: $167,496. (rr) Responsibilities shared between Director, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health, Department of Health and Social Services, $136,015 and Director, Division of Developmental Disabilities Service, same department, $108,760.
224 The Book of the States 2010
(ss) Responsibilities shared between Executive Director of Mental Hygiene Administration,$211,632 and Director of Developmental Disabilities Administration,$120,870. (tt) Responsibilities shared between Commissioners Barbara Leadholm, $136,000 and Elin M. Howe, $135,000. (uu) Responsibilities shared between Acting Director, Division of Mental Health Services, Dept. of Human Services, $124,693 and Director, Division of Developmental Disabilities, Dept. of Human Services, $131,040. (vv) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner, State Education Department, $170,165; Secretary of State, Department of State, $120,800. (ww) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner of Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, $136,000 and Commissioner of Office of Mental Health, $136,000. (xx) Varies by department. (yy) Responsibilities shared between Director of Mental Health, $79,097 and Director of Community Support, $74,064. (zz) Numerous licensing boards, no central agency. (aaa) Responsibilities shared between Director of Dept. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, $126,089 and Director, Dept. of Mental Health, $126,006. (bbb) Responsibilities shared between Director for Disabilities and Special Needs, $81,305 and Director of Mental Health, $155,787. (ccc) Responsibilities shared between Director of Mental Health, $165,000 and Director of Developmental Services, $165,000. (ddd) Responsibilities shared between Deputy Director of Mental Health, $100,248 and Deputy Director of Retardation, position vacant at press time. (eee) Responsibilities shared between Director, Health and Human Services, $115,847 and Division Administrator, $112,275 (fff) Retired commissioner holding position at reduced salary until permanent replacement named. Prior salary as full-time commissioner was $159,137. (ggg) Function split between two cabinet positions: Secretary, Dept. of Health and Social Services : $139,475 (if incumbent holds a medical license, amount is increased by $12,000; if board-certified physician, a supplement of $3,000 is added) and Secretary, Dept. of Svcs. for Children, Youth and their Families, $125,630. (hhh)Responsibilities shared by Chairman Paul Hibbard $115,360 and Commissioner Geoffrey Why, $116,575 (iii) Responsibilities shared between Commissioner, Department of Human Services, $141,000 and Commissioner, Department of Children and Families, $141,000. (jjj) Serves in a dual role as Director, Department of Human Services and as Commissioner, Office of Health and Human Services. (kkk) Solid waste is managed by the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RRIRRC). Although not a department of the state government, RRIRRC is a public corporation and a component of the State of Rhode Island for financial reporting purposes. To be financially selfsufficient, the agency earns revenue through the sale of recyclable products, methane gas royalties and fees for it services. (lll) Responsibilities shared between five commissioner’s with salaries of $88,448 for each. (mmm) Responsibilities shared between Director, Dept. of Job and Family Services, $141,980; Superintendent of Dept. of Education, $194,500; Executive Director of Rehabilitation Services Commission, $120,328 and Director of Dept. of Aging, $105,684. (nnn) Responsibilities shared between three Commissioners, $114,713, $114,713 and $111,250 and General Administrator, $96,000. (ooo) Responsibilities shared between Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, $ $106,150 and Division Administrator, Library and Archives, $97,474. (ppp) Function split between three agencies: Communications—$142,425; Energy Regulation—$139,762; Utility and Railroad Safety—$128,438.
Lieutenant Governors
Office of Lieutenant Governor: Unheralded but Critical Leadership By Julia Hurst Occupants of the office of lieutenant governor provide unheralded but critical leadership, as demonstrated across the past decade. This often overlooked office steadily performs its function, providing quiet, stable leadership, even in times of crisis. From the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks through the Great Recession, lieutenant governors led at critical junctures both individually and through use of their collective voice. Events demonstrate this office continues to grow in its critical leadership role in states and territories. Introduction The 2000s were a transformational decade of “100-megaton events” that reshaped the U.S. physically and psychologically, according to Barry Horstman of The Cincinnati Enquirer. He notes terrorist attacks, two wars, $4-a-gallon gas, a tanking economy, the 2000 presidential election resolved not by voters but by the U.S. Supreme Court, the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia during re-entry, the Virginia Tech massacre, worries from Y2K to H1N1, global warming, Katrina and other natural disasters of massive scope here and abroad. Amidst a decade of nation-changing events, every event had as a core underpinning the participation and quiet leadership of a lieutenant governor.
Elections To start the decade, the 2000 presidential election contest between Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore resulted in a month of uncertainty about the succession of the nation’s top elected leader in the country known as the seat of world democracy. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately resolved the dispute, but the enormity of this election issue resulted in an intensive review of elections process in nearly every state and territory. In seven states and territories, the same official serves as head of elections and first in line of gubernatorial succession. By law, the lieutenant governors of Alaska and Utah oversee elections. By gubernatorial appointment, New Jersey Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno will serve dually as secretary of state certifying elections. In Arizona, Oregon, Wyoming and Puerto Rico, the secretaries of state oversee elections and serve as first in line of gubernatorial succession, i.e. serve as lieutenant governor. Still other lieutenant governors have shaped the futures of international
elections this decade. Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton served on the board of directors of the International Foundation for Election Systems in 2003–04, contributing leadership to efforts to assist Afghanistan as it prepared for its first free presidential elections. In March 2008, Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, who later became governor by succession, and former Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury led all the nation’s lieutenant governors in adding voice to national debate on elections. The members of the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) unanimously endorsed the Rotating Regional Presidential Primaries plan. Lieutenant governors collectively stated they endorsed a Regional Primary concept designed to ensure each state and region of the nation has an opportunity to influence presidential primaries and to prevent the front loading of the national primary system.
Technology Horstman also noted with irony that the decade which began with unfounded Y2K worries about a massive computer crash ended with technological advances of unprecedented scale. YouTube, iPods, Facebook, Twitter, BlackBerrys and high-def TV are fixtures of daily life in 2010. The decade’s explosive leapfrog of technology had enormous impact for both state government and the policies its officials set or promote. Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy chairs the state Information Technology Commission overseeing technology investments in government, education, health care and more. Connecticut Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele is co-chair of the Judicial Information Technology System task force and part of the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative.
The Council of State Governments 225
Lieutenant Governors With leadership from Kentucky Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, a physician, NLGA members have taken a collective position in support of health information technology systems. Former Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who later became governor by succession, sponsored an NLGA-passed resolution to bridge the digital divide in bringing broadband to rural and remote areas. Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder chaired that state’s Rural High-Speed Internet Task Force, while more than a half-dozen lieutenant governors submitted testimony to the Federal Communications Commission in 2009 as part of the FCC work to devise a 2010 strategy to deploy broadband.
Homeland Security and Defense A defining moment of American history occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. On that day, the words “homeland security” entered the nation’s daily lexicon and states were faced with yet another significant, immediate leadership and policy need. Emergency plans for leadership succession, which had become often overlooked, now became a critical state management item. The one shared duty of every lieutenant governor is to become governor should a vacancy in the office occur. Lieutenant governors are called on to lead daily, always preparing for tomorrow, to provide a seamless transition in time of need, often during a crisis. The office of lieutenant governor itself is a critical element of homeland security emergency management planning. Many governors and states tapped this official to take the lead on homeland security issues. Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge and Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy are their state’s respective homeland security directors. The lieutenant governors of Indiana, Utah and Vermont were named chair of their state’s respective homeland security or counterterrorism commissions. The terrorist attack on the United States led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and Guam Lt. Gov. Michael Cruz are Bronze Star recipients for service in the conflicts. On April 3, 2003, days after the U.S. entered Iraq, lieutenant governors were the first group of state officials to pass a resolution in support of the men and women of the armed forces. Lieutenant governors continue in leadership support of the military. Initiated by Quinn of Illinois, NLGA was the first association of its type to endorse and urge states to pass military family relief funds.
226 The Book of the States 2010
The Congressional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process of 2005 saw more than a half-dozen lieutenant governors tapped to lead state efforts to retain bases. North Carolina Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, later elected governor, established the state Military Foundation, a public-privatemilitary sector effort to bolster the state’s military economy. Brown enters this decade leading Maryland’s preparation for the influx of military, which will occur as a result of BRAC.
Energy A Northeast power blackout on Aug. 14, 2003, left 50 million people in eight states and two Canadian provinces in the dark and cost $6 billion, according to the state Energy Infrastructure Special Task Force, chaired by Quinn. The early part of the decade also saw a Western U.S. energy crisis and an emergency order and rolling blackouts in California. People also suffered as gasoline prices spiraled up to $4 a gallon in 2008. Again, lieutenant governors provided underlying leadership, bringing both some stability and daily and long-term planning on the decade’s most challenging issues. Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who is now governor, was the chief negotiator and spokesman regarding the establishment of a gasoline pipeline, which had potential to impact not only his state, but also the lower 48. Lieutenant governors also contributed to implementing energy conservation programs and the production of renewable energy. Kansas Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, who later became governor through succession, chaired the state’s Wind Working Group. As governor, he noted the state beat the goal of 10 percent renewable energy by 2010. Kansas has continued building additional wind farms and Parkinson brokered an end to a two-year stalemate over construction of a new coal-fired power plant. Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton led a series of proposals in a Green Economy Agenda, which included the Energy Star tax holiday legislation and the Energy Star School Challenge, as well as leading passage of a 2004 NLGA resolution on energy. Likewise, Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki leads energy efforts as a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force and as Economic Development Task Force Commission Chair.
Aerospace The disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia during re-entry on Feb. 1, 2003, caused Americans to look heavenward. America’s status as a world
Lieutenant Governors space leader and a significant engine of the nation’s economy seemed in crisis. The auto and aerospace industries are the spines of American manufac turing. As far back as 1989, the nation’s lieutenant governors publicly recognized the vital role of aerospace to the states’ economies. From then until now, dozens of lieutenant governors have assumed leadership mantles within the aerospace industries. Lieutenant governors in Oklahoma and Colorado have long-standing roles as leaders in annual state aerospace conventions. Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie helped found his state’s Aerospace and Aviation Association. Florida Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp is chairman of the board of Space Florida, while Hawaii Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona spearheads a myriad of state aerospace and robotics efforts. More than a half-dozen current and former lieutenant governors from New Mexico, Florida and Virginia have actively supported spaceports. Through NLGA, lieutenant governors have passed bipartisan resolutions noting aerospace as an economic development engine, supporting NASA and various objectives, and resolving to assist in helping the U.S. remain the world’s leader in space development.
Disaster Response and Emergency Preparedness Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans in August 2005, causing massive levee failures and flooding approximately 80 percent of the city. In Mississippi, CBS News reported that officials calculated 90 percent of the structures within half a mile of the Gulf coastline were completely destroyed. Effects also were felt in Alabama and Florida. More than 1,800 people lost their lives in the hurricane and subsequent floods, and damage estimates exceeded $100 billion. Louisiana Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu is a member of the Unified Command Group in the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness and has served as a key member of this leadership group during four major hurricanes. Statutorily charged to be head of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Landrieu engaged in activities to help restore New Orleans’ tourism base. He oversaw the Hurricane Recovery Grants for Historic Properties program, which processed 2,000 applications in just 45 days without controversy. In June 2008, storms caused hundreds of square miles in Iowa to flood, impacting a third of the state and generating an economic toll in excess of
$5 billion. Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, who serves as the state’s Homeland Security director, is in charge of flood recovery efforts. On Sept. 29, 2009, an earthquake triggered a tsunami in American Samoa. Lt. Gov. Aito Sunia led initial recovery efforts as acting governor while the governor was out of the territory. In addition to homeland security and disaster recovery roles, lieutenant governors work on emergency preparedness, which have taken on new importance in the past decade. The Rhode Island lieutenant governor is statutorily the chair of the Emergency Management Planning commission, a similar role held by the Pennsylvania lieutenant governor. In these various roles, lieutenant governors have lent important leadership to government planning and response to bird flu, H1N1 and pandemic planning.
Crisis Leadership Many lieutenant governors automatically become acting governor when a governor leaves the state. Still others assume the post under a variety of crisis circumstances, and others as necessary. On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech suffered the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history when 33 people were killed by a lone gunman. The governor was out of the country, and Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling led early and immediate state government response. On Aug. 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge in Minnesota collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145. Seventy-five local, state and federal agencies were involved in the three week rescue and recovery effort. Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau led response efforts in her role as Transportation Department commissioner. Her appointment to that role was made by the governor, but legislatures can act statutorily to place a lieutenant governor in a role of departmental leader.
Economic Development and Recovery The nation ended the decade with a recession marked by, among other things, a mortgage and housing collapse, bank failures, rising unemployment and a drop in international trade. Lieutenant governors in several states led efforts to keep residents in their homes as foreclosure rates spiraled in the country. Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Tim Murray is chair of the Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness, while Florida Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp chaired the Governor’s Home Ownership Council. Former Delaware Lt. Gov. John Carney chaired a foreclosure council and Montana Lt. Gov. John
The Council of State Governments 227
Lieutenant Governors Bohlinger chairs a Homelessness Council, while Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder sits on the state housing commission. Lieutenant governors play significant economic development roles across the country. Two Ohio lieutenant governors this decade were Development Department directors, while the lieutenant governors of Louisiana and Nevada lead tourism efforts in their states. North Dakota Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple serves as chair of the state’s International Trade Commission. During his November 2009 investment mission, Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry secured a deal to locate an Israeli water technology company in the state. The Washington lieutenant governor is statutorily chair of the joint Legislative Committee on Economic Development and International Relations. In 2010, Bolling in Virginia begins his role as chief job creation officer for the governor, and Guadagno will head the Partnership for Action, a new economic development group in New Jersey. The U.S. Agency for International Development is in partnership with NLGA to engage lieutenant governors in economic development relations with officials in Mexico.
Personal Initiative The daily role of a lieutenant governor permits transformative leadership through personal initiative and action as well. More than half the NLGA membership preside over state senates. In North Carolina, former Lt. Gov. Perdue’s tie-breaking vote created a North Carolina state lottery. In the summer of 2009, a New York gubernatorial succession left the office of lieutenant governor vacant. The absence of the tie-breaking vote of that official ultimately led to a 31-day senate shutdown caused by a tie-vote stalemate on leadership. Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter championed passage of legislation allowing voters to create a state lottery funding college scholarship. The office of lieutenant governor itself saw another transformation as New Jersey passed a constitutional amendment creating the office for the first time in history, electing its first as the decade closed.
Gubernatorial Succession Twenty gubernatorial successions occurred during the past 10 years. At the end of the decade, the majority of the nation’s largest states were led by former lieutenant governors. Five lieutenant governors succeeded in 2009 alone. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer both succeeded in January of 2009, while Kansas
228 The Book of the States 2010
Gov. Mark Parkinson succeeded on April 29, 2009, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell succeeded on July 26, 2009, and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert succeeded on Aug. 11, 2009. Two more gubernatorial successions were possible in 2009 as the New Mexico governor was considered, but later withdrew, for a presidential cabinet post and when the South Carolina legislature considered impeaching its governor.
Conclusion As a new decade dawns, history demonstrates the office of lieutenant governor, by its very nature, will continue to be an office of state government that is what it was designed to be, an essential daily and long-term post. The terrorist attacks at the start of decade and the economic meltdown near its end left people in need of reassurance. Lieutenant governors provide unheralded but critical leadership in an essential state office.
References Barry Horstman, “Decade of Disruption,” Cincinnati/ Kentucky Enquirer, (December 25, 2009).
About the Author Julia Hurst has nearly 20 years of state government experience having served as executive director of the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) since 2002. She formerly served as chief operating officer of The Council of State Governments, as chief of staff to a legislative caucus, and spent time as a multi-state lobbyist in fields ranging from health care to telecommunications.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS
Table 4.12 THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS, 2010 Length of Number of State or other Method of regular term Date of Present previous jurisdiction Name and party selection in years first service term ends terms
Joint election of governor and lieutenant governor (a)
Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California...................
Jim Folsom Jr. (D) CE 4 1/1986 (b) 1/2011 1(b) No Craig Campbell (R) CE 4 8/2009 (d) 12/2010 . . . Yes . ............................................................................................... (c)..................................................................................................... Bill Halter (D) CE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . No Abel Maldonado (R) CE 4 4/2010 (e) 1/2011 . . . No
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia.......................
Barbara O’Brien (D) Michael Fedele (R) Matthew Denn (D) Jeff Kottkamp (R) Casey Cagle (R)
CE CE CE CE CE
4 4 4 4 4
1/2007 1/2007 1/2009 1/2007 1/2007
1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes Yes No Yes No
Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................
James Aiona (R) Brad Little (R) Vacant Becky Skillman (R) Patty Judge (D)
CE CE CE CE CE
4 4 4 4 4
12/2002 1/2009 (f) (g) 1/2005 1/2007
12/2010 1/2011 1/2011(g) 1/2013 1/2011
1 . . . . . . 1 . . .
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
Troy Findley (D) CE 4 5/2009 (h) 1/2011 . . . Yes Daniel Mongiardo (D) CE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . Yes Scott Angelle (i) CE 4 5/2010 1/2012 . . . No . ............................................................................................... (c)..................................................................................................... Anthony Brown (D) CE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . Yes
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
Tim Murray (D) John D. Cherry (D) Carol Molnau (R) Phil Bryant (R) Peter Kinder (R)
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey.................
John Bohlinger (R) CE 4 1/2005 1/2013 1 Yes Rick Sheehy (R) CE 4 1/2005 (j) 1/2011 (j) Yes Brian Krolicki (R) CE 4 1/2007 1/2011 ... No . ............................................................................................... (c)..................................................................................................... Kim Guadagno (R) CE 4 1/2010 1/2014 . . . Yes
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio............................
Diane Denish (D) Richard Ravitch (D) Walter Dalton (D) Jack Dalrymple (R) Lee Fisher (D)
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
Jari Askins (D) CE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . No . ............................................................................................... (c)..................................................................................................... Joseph B. Scarnati (R) CE 4 11/2008 (l) 1/2011 . . . Yes Elizabeth H. Roberts (D) SE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . No R. André Bauer (R) CE 4 1/2003 1/2011 1 No
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont......................
Dennis Daugaard (R) Ron Ramsey (R) David Dewhurst (R) Greg Bell (R) Brian Dubie (R)
Virginia....................... Washington................ West Virginia.............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
William T. Bolling (R) CE 4 1/2006 1/2014 1 No Brad Owen (D) CE 4 1/1997 1/2013 3 No Earl Ray Tomblin (D) (o) 2 1/1995 1/2011 7 No Barbara Lawton (D) CE 4 1/2003 1/2011 1 Yes . ............................................................................................... (c).....................................................................................................
American Samoa....... Guam.......................... No. Mariana Islands.. Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands.....
Ipulasi Aitofele Sunia (D) CE 4 4/2003 (p) 1/2009 1 (p) Yes Michael W. Cruz (R) CE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . Yes Eloy Inos (D) (q)(r) CE 4 4/2009 (r) 1/2015 (r) (r) Yes . ............................................................................................... (c)..................................................................................................... Greg Francis (D) SE 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . Yes
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE SE
CE (m) CE CE CE
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 2 4 4 2
1/2007 1/2003 1/2003 1/2008 1/2005
1/2003 7/2009 (k) 1/2009 12/2000 1/2007
1/2003 1/2007 1/2003 8/2009 1/2003
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2012 1/2013
1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 12/2012 1/2011
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 (n) 1/2011
. . . 1 1 . . . 1
1 . . . . . . 1 . . .
1 . . . 1 . . . 3
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes No
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 229
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS, 2010—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments, February 2010. Key: CE—Constitutional, elected by public. SE -Statutory, elected by public. . . . —Not applicable. (a) The following also choose candidates for governor and lieutenant governor through a joint nomination process: Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, American Samoa, Guam, No. Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. For additional information see The National Lieutenant Governors Association website at http:// www.nlga.us. (b) Previously served as Lieutenant Governor from 1986 to 1993. He assumed the office of governor when Guy Hunt was removed in 1993 and served until 1995 when Fob James was sworn in. He was elected to the office of lieutenant governor for another term in November 2006. (c) No lieutenant governor. (d) Appointed to succeed Sean Parnell as lieutenant governor after Sarah Palin resigned from office. (e) The office became vacant after John Garamendi was elected to the United States House of Representatives in November 2009. Abel Maldonado was nominated by Gov. Schwarzenegger and confirmed by the Legislature in April 2010. (f) Brad Little was appointed by Governor Otter and confirmed by the state senate after Lieutenant Governor Ritsch won the U.S. Senate seat. (g) Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Attorney General, is next in the line of succession to the governor’s office. Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn became governor upon the removal from office of Gov. Blagojevich in January 2009. (h) Lieutenant Governor Parkinson assumed the office of governor when Governor Sebelius was appointed U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. On May 15, 2009 Gov. Parkinson appointed Mark Findley lieutenant governor. During his swearing in Lieutenant Governor Findley indicated that he would not be a candidate for elective office in 2010. (i) Mitch Landrieu was elected Mayor of New Orleans on February 6, 2010. He resigned in May and Governor Jindal appointed Scott Angelle as interim lieutenant governor until the November 2010 election.
230 The Book of the States 2010
(j) Lt. Governor Sheehy was appointed to the position of Lieutenant Governor January 24, 2005, by Governor Heineman. (k) Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson was sworn in as governor on March 17, 2008 after Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned. The position of Lieutenant Governor was filled by appointment on July 8, 2009. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the right of the governor to appoint a person to fill this vacant office in September 2009. (l) Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll died November 12, 2008 and Joseph Scarnati, Senate president pro tempore, assumed the role of Acting Lt. Governor. (m) In Tennessee, the President of the Senate and the Lieutenant Governor are one in the same. The legislature provided in statute the title of Lieutenant Governor upon the Senate President. The Senate President serves 2 year terms, elected by the Senate on the first day of the first session of each two year legislative term. (n) Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert was sworn in as Governor on August 10, 2009 after Governor Huntsman resigned to accept President Obama’s appointment as Ambassador to China. Utah law states that a replacement Governor elevated in a term’s first year will face a special election at the next regularly scheduled general election, November 2010, instead of serving the remainder of the term. (o) In West Virginia, the President of the Senate and the Lieutenant Governor are one in the same. The legislature provided in statute the title of Lieutenant Governor upon the Senate President. The Senate President serves 2 year terms, elected by the Senate on the first day of the first session of each two year legislative term. (p) Lt. Governor Sunia was appointed to the position of Lieutenant Governor in April 2003 by Governor Togiola Tulafono. (q) Covenant Party. (r) Lieutenant Governor Inos replaced Lieutenant Governor Villagomez after his resignation in 2009. Subsequently Governor Fitial and Lieutenant Governor Inos were elected to another term in the 2009 run-off election running mate for the November 2009 general election. The current administration will serve a 5 year term to change future CNMI elections to even-numbered years. The next election will occur in November 2014.
lieutenant governors
Table 4.13 lieutenant governors: Qualifications and Terms State Qualified Length State or other State citizen U.S. citizen resident voter of term jurisdiction Minimum age (years) (years) (a) (years) (b) (years) (years)
Maximum consecutive terms allowed
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
30 7 10 7 . . . 4 2 30 H 7 7 H 4 2 . ......................................................................................(c)...................................................................................... 30 7 H 7 . . . 4 2 18 H H 5 H 4 2
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
30 30 30 30 30
. . . H H H H
H H 12 H 15
2 H 6 7 6
. . . H H H H
4 4 4 4 4
2 ... 2 2 ...
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
30 30 25 30 30
5 . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H 2
5 2 3 H 2
H . . . . . . H . . .
4 4 4 4 4
2 ... ... 2 ...
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 30 6 H H H 4 2 25 5 5 5 . . . 4 ... . ......................................................................................(c)...................................................................................... 30 H H H H 4 2
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
. . . 30 25 30 30
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
25 2 H 2 . . . 4 2 (e) 30 5 H 5 H 4 2 25 2 H 2 H 4 2 . ......................................................................................(c)...................................................................................... 30 . . . 20 7 . . . 4 2
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
30 30 30 30 18
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
31 10 H H H 4 ... . ......................................................................................(c)...................................................................................... 30 H H 7 H 4 2 18 H H H H 4 2 30 5 5 5 H 4 2
South Dakota................ Tennessee (f)................. Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
21 30 30 30 18
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia (g)........... Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
30 . . . H 5 5 4 ... 18 H H H H 4 ... 25 1 1 1 H 2 ... 18 H H H H 4 ... . ......................................................................................(c)......................................................................................
American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
35 (h) H 5 H 4 2 30 . . . 5 5 H 4 2 35 H H H H 4 2 . ......................................................................................(c)...................................................................................... 30 . . . 5 5 5 4 2
H H . . . . . . 10
H H . . . 5 . . .
2 H . . . H 4
H H H 20 15
H H 5 . . . H
H H H H H
Source: The Council of State Government’s survey, December 2009. Note: This table includes constitutional and statutory qualifications. Key: H — Formal provision; number of years not specified. . . . — No formal provision. (a) In some states you must be a U.S. citizen to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (b) In some states you must be a state resident to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (c) No lieutenant governor.
H 4 1 5 10
5 5 2 . . . H
2 3 5 H 4
H 4 . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . H
H 1 . . . H H
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 2 4 4 2
... 2 (d) ... 2 ...
2 ... 2 ... 2
2 ... ... ... ...
(d) In 1993 a constitutional limit of two lifetime terms in the office was enacted. (e) Eligible for eight out of 16 years. (f) In Tennessee, the speaker of the Senate, elected from Senate membership, has statutory title of “lieutenant governor.” (g) In West Virginia, the President of the Senate and the Lieutenant Governor are one in the same. The legislature provided in statute the title of Lieutenant Governor upon the Senate President. The Senate President serves 2 year terms, elected by the Senate on the first day of the first session of each two year legislative term. (h) Must be a U.S. national.
The Council of State Governments 231
lieutenant Governors
Table 4.14 lieutenant governors: powers and duties Member of Serves as Authority for governorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s acting governor State or other Presides Appoints Breaks governor to cabinet or when governor jurisdiction over Senate committees roll-call ties Assigns bills assign duties advisory body out of state
Other duties (a)
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
H H H H . . . . . . H(b) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . H H . . . (c) . ......................................................................................... (d)......................................................................................... H . . . H . . . . . . . . . H ... H . . . H . . . H . . . H (c)
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
(c) ... (c) ... (c)
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . (e)
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . (f)
H H . . . H (g)
(c) ... ... ... ...
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . (h) (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . H H H ... . .......................................................................................... (i).......................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H H ...
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
. . . H . . . H H
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.................... New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio............................... Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
H . . . . . . H . . .
. . . H . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . . . .
H H(j) H H H
(c) (c) (c) (c) (c)
. . . . . . . . . . . . H H H ... H(k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H ... H . . . H(l) . . . . . . . . . H ... . .......................................................................................... (i).......................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . H H H (c) H H H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H (m) H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
... ... ... ... ...
H(n) . . . H . . . . . . . . . H (c) . ......................................................................................... (d)......................................................................................... H . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) H H H H . . . H H (c)
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
H H H . . . H
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
H . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . ... H H H . . . . . . . . . H ... H H . . . H . . . . . . . . . (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . ... . ......................................................................................... (d).........................................................................................
American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H ... (u)(k) . . . . . . . . . H H H ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H H (c) . ......................................................................................... (d)......................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . H (f) H H ...
See footnotes at end of table.
232â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
. . . H H . . . H (o)
H H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H (o)
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . H . . . H
(c) ... ... (c) ...
lieutenant governors
lieutenant governors: powers and duties—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey, December 2009 and state constitutions and statutes. For additional information on the powers and duties visit the National Lieutenant Governors Association website at http://www.nlga.us. Key: H — Provision for responsibility. . . . — No provision for responsibility. (a) Lieutenant governors may obtain duties through gubernatorial appointment, statute, the Constitution, direct democracy action, or personal initiative. Hence, an exhaustive list of duties is not maintained, but this chart provides examples which are not all inclusive. (b) The lieutenant governor performs the duties of the governor in the event of the governor’s death, impeachment, disability, or absence from the state for more than 20 days (c) Alaska—The lieutenant governor bears these additional responsibilities: Alaska Historical Commission Chair; Alaska Workforce Investment Board; supervise the Division of Elections: supervise the certification process for citizen ballot initiative and referenda; provide constituent care and communications; lend support to governor’s legislative and administrative initiatives; review, sign and file regulations; publish the Alaska Administrative Code and the Online Public Notice System; commission notaries public; regulate use of State Seal, co-chair Alaska Criminal Justice Working Group; member of Clemency Advisory Cmte.; represent Alaska on the Aerospace States Association (ASA), the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Lieutenant Governors’ Association. Arctic Winter Games; Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), Chair; Project GRAD. California—Lieutenant governor also sits on the UC Board of Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees, serves as the chair of the Commission for Economic Development, chair of the State Lands Commission, member of the Ocean Protection Council, and as a member of the California Emergency Council. Colorado—Additional responsibilities include: Chair of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs (by statute); member of the Homeland Security and All-Hazards Senior Advisory Committee (Cabinet duty). Delaware—Serves as President of the Board of Pardons. Georgia—The Lieutenant Governor, by statute, is responsible for board, commission and committee appointments. In addition the Lieutenant Governor appoints conference committees, rules on germaneness, and must sign all acts of the General Assembly. Hawaii—Also serves as Secretary of State. Kentucky—In addition to the duties set forth by the Kentucky Constitution, state law also gives the lieutenant governor the responsibility to act as chair, or serve as a member, on various boards and commissions. Some of these include: the State Property and Buildings Commission, Kentucky Turnpike Authority, Kentucky Council on Agriculture, Board of the Kentucky Housing Corporation and the Appalachian Development Council. The governor also has the power to give the Lieutenant governor other specific job duties. Massachusetts—The lieutenant governor is a member of, and presides over, the Governor’s Council, an elected body of 8 members which approves all judicial nominations. Michigan—The lieutenant governor serves as a member of the State Administrative Board; and represents the governor and the state at selected local, state, and national meetings. In addition the governor may delegate additional responsibilities. Minnesota—Serves as the Chair of the Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board Committee. Mississippi—The lieutenant governor also appoints chairs of standing committees, appoints conferees to committees and is a member of the Legislative Budget Committee, chair of this committee every other year. Missouri—Other duties of the lieutenant governor include: Official Senior Advocate for State of Missouri and Advisor to Department of Elementary and Secondary Education on early childhood education and
Parents-as-Teachers program. The lieutenant governor also serves on the following boards and commissions: Board of Fund Commissioners; Board of Public Buildings; Governor’s Advisory Council for Veteran’s (chair); Missouri Community Service Commission; Missouri Development Finance Board; Missouri Housing Development Commission; Missouri Rural Economic Development Council; Missouri Rural Economic Development Council; Missouri Senior Rx Program (chair); Missouri Tourism Commission (vice-chair); Personal Independence Commission (co-chair); Second State Capitol Commission; Statewide Safety Steering Committee; Veteran’s Benefits Awareness Task Force (chair); Special Health, Psychological, and Social Needs of Minority Older Individuals Commission; Mental Health Task Force (chair); Missouri Energy Task Force. New Jersey—Governor Christie appointed Lieutenant Governor Guadagno to also serve as the secretary of state. Oklahoma—Lieutenant governor also serves on 10 boards and commissions including Tourism and School Land Commission. Rhode Island—Serves as Chair of a number of Advisory Councils including issues related to Emergency Management, Long Term Care and Small Business. Each year submits a legislative package to the General Assembly. South Carolina—The lieutenant governor heads the State Office on Aging; appoints members and chairs the South Carolina Affordable Housing Commission. South Dakota—The lieutenant governor also serves as the Chair of the Workers Compensation Advisory Commission and as a member of the Constitutional Revision Commission. Utah—The lieutenant governor serves as Secretary of State (Constitution); Chair of the Lieutenant Governor’s Commission on Volunteers (statutory); Chair of the Lieutenant Governor’s Commission on Civic and Character Education (statutory); Chair of the Utah Capitol Preservation Board (statutory); Chair (Governor’s Cabinet). Direct cabinet oversight of following departments: 1. Utah Department of Public Safety and Homeland Security, 2. Utah Department of Transportation, 3. Utah Division of Water Rights, 4. Utah Division of Rural Affairs. West Virginia—The President of the Senate and the Lieutenant Governor are one in the same. The legislature provided in statute the title of Lieutenant Governor upon the Senate President. The Senate President serves 2 year terms, elected by the Senate on the first day of the first session of each two year legislative term. Northern Mariana Islands—The Lieutenant Governor is charged with overseeing administrative functions. (d) No lieutenant governor; secretary of state is next in line of succession to governorship. (e) Appoints all standing committees. Iowa—appoints some special committees. (f) Presides over cabinet meetings in absence of governor. (g) Only in emergency situations. (h) The Kentucky Constitution specifically gives the lieutenant governor the power to act as governor, in the event the governor is unable to fulfill the duties of office. (i) No lieutenant governor; senate president or speaker is next in line of succession to governorship. (j) As defined in the state constitution, the lieutenant governor performs gubernatorial functions in the governor’s absence. In the event of a vacancy in the office of governor, the lieutenant governor is first in line to succeed to the position. (k) Unicameral legislative body. In Guam, that body elects own presiding officer. (l) Except on final passage of bills and joint resolutions. (m) With respect to procedural matters, not legislation. (n) May preside over the Senate when desired. (o) Appoints committees with the Pres. Pro Tem and one Senator on Committee on Committees. Committee on Committees assigns bills.
The Council of State Governments 233
Secretaries of State
Will States Fall in Line for 2012? Coordinating on the Timing and Order of the Presidential Nominating Calendar By Kay Stimson As the national political parties work to overhaul the presidential nominating process for 2012, states are a vital part of this complex undertaking. Even with a tentative agreement to produce a later starting date and curb front-loading on the calendar, there are no guarantees that all of the states will be able—or willing—to comply with new rules.
More than two years before the next presidential election cycle is set to begin, state legislators and party officials are looking to the national parties, which are consulting with each other on the calendar and hoping to add some order to the next primary season. Leaders are hoping to avoid a repeat of the 2008 cycle, which began earlier than ever before, but there is no guarantee that states will adhere to their recommendations. The bipartisan effort by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to push back the start date and curb frontloading activity ahead of 2012 could also result in other challenges, including a situation in which a number of states will have to change their legislature-mandated primary laws or party caucus dates to comply with the party schedule. Secretaries of state and other election officials, who have long called for reforming the process, say there is an urgent need to take up the issue. They note that if any rationality is to be restored to the process for 2012, reforms must be adopted soon, and state legislatures must have enough time to approve changes. They also warn that a lack of bipartisan cooperation will seriously hamper these efforts. “In the absence of any major agreements between the RNC and DNC, states will start moving ahead with setting their primary dates in order to strategically position themselves on the calendar,” noted Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who has worked with national party leaders on presidential primary reform. “It is important for the national parties to engage state legislators, who often need to approve funding for primaries and tweak laws when party rules change.” The National Association of Secretaries of State, known as NASS, which Grayson currently leads as
234 The Book of the States 2010
president, has a regional primaries plan it would like both parties to adopt. Some general aspects of the plan have support from DNC and RNC members. The reforms that will ultimately be adopted, however, remain up in the air. Only one thing is certain: The two parties are working hard to make changes before state delegate selection plans begin emerging in 2011 and their window of opportunity closes.
National Parties Coordinating on Calendar Timing If national party leaders have anything to do with it, voters will have seen the last of holiday campaigning and presidential nominating contests right after the New Year. “It puts an extreme burden on everybody,” said Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro, whose 2008 state caucuses took place earlier than ever before. “It draws out the process. I don’t think the candidates want it. I know the states don’t want it.” Election officials face numerous challenges in staffing, ballot preparation, polling site selection and poll worker recruitment when the calendar is heavily front-loaded, Mauro added. Both the Democratic and Republican national committees have established bodies to set the schedule and make recommendations for next time around. They have different parameters to follow in carrying out their work and their timetables are different, but for the first time ever, the parties are consulting with each other about their decision making. The Democratic Change Commission, a 36 member panel headed by U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and U.S. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, released its initial recommendations in December 2009. They have been sent to the DNC’s
Secretaries of State Rules and Bylaws Committee for further review, with the final recommendations to be presented for adoption sometime in late 2010 or early 2011.1 The RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is a 15-member panel chaired by RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The commission’s final recommendations are due for presentation at the party’s 2010 summer meeting. An up-or-down vote must take place at that time, with no amendments allowed and a two-thirds majority vote of RNC members required for passage. There is tentative agreement that the beginning dates for each party’s nominating schedule should be in sync. They want to move the general starting date for delegate selection events from February to March, pushing the presidential campaigning out of the busy period between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. Traditional “pre-window” states like Iowa and New Hampshire would still vote first, but their early events would also take place later than they did last time around. The Democratic Change Commission recommended these two states should, along with Nevada and South Carolina, be granted exceptions to hold their contests in February 2012. The RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is expected to closely follow suit. The parties also want to spread out state contests and avoid another “Tsunami Tuesday,” when nearly two dozen states held their 2008 delegate selection events on the first allowable date. Both groups are considering options that would incentivize states to minimize front-loading and keep them from leapfrogging ahead of each other to gain attention from the media and the presidential campaigns. The DNC plan offers bonus delegates and extra convention perks to those states that do their part to space out primaries and caucuses by clustering their contests by region or sub-region; the RNC is considering similar proposals, as well as stronger penalties for violating party rules. “The outcomes of these review commissions aren’t yet clear, but the effort by the national parties to work concurrently on timing issues is certainly encouraging,” said Kentucky’s Grayson. “Moving primaries out of January and prompting states to curb front-loading through a regional approach are excellent first steps, as long as the changes are made soon and states can react accordingly.” Yet even if the parties are successful in their attempt to coordinate on certain aspects of the 2012 presidential nominating process, the states are a wild card.
States Mulling Their Options for 2012 Remember Michigan and Florida in 2008? Both states went rogue, violating party rules and pushing up their primaries to have a greater stake in the selection of the presidential nominees. The decision by the Florida state legislature to move the Sunshine State’s primary from March to late January—ahead of all but four states that year—illustrates a glaring reality of the presidential selection process: Many of the issues surrounding the timing of the nomination calendar are made even more complex because of state laws and state party decision-making that govern the process. In New Hampshire, a state that steadfastly guards its first-in-the-nation presidential primary, leaders are taking no chances for next time around. The legislature has already taken up a bill to strengthen the law that requires the state’s contest to be scheduled seven days or more before a similar election.2 Designed to stifle any renegade states that may be jockeying for position ahead of the Granite State, lawmakers want to give the secretary of state more latitude in interpreting other contests—including caucuses and nominating conventions—as potential threats to New Hampshire’s traditional frontrunner status. “Every state wants to be relevant in this process, with its voters having the chance to make a real impact on the nominations,” said Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, who testified before the RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee in November 2009. “The states that determine the nominees receive an enormous amount of attention from the media and the candidates, and the states that go first have normally had a big impact on who wins. That’s why, in 2008, 37 states and the District of Columbia decided to hold their nominating contests by the end of February. It won’t be easy to convince them to slow it down and wait their turn.” Then there is the more pragmatic aspect of scheduling primaries and caucuses. If March is the opening window for contests in 2012, many of the states that moved their nominating contests into February last time around will have to make changes to bring them into compliance with party rules.3 Caucus dates are set by parties and can be switched without much resistance. But in states with primaries, legislatures usually have to incorporate the changes into state law and governors have to approve them.4 So far, only Arkansas and Illinois have pushed back their presidential primary dates for 2012.5
The Council of State Governments 235
Secretaries of State Georgia, Florida, and New Jersey are currently considering similar bills.6 The “back-loading” movement by states could also be further complicated by the results of the 2010 elections. With gubernatorial races in 37 states and state legislative contests in 46 states this November, there are sure to be some new decisionmakers entering the picture by next year.7 It could also mean changes in state legislative majorities. Depending on who holds the power in state capitols and governor’s mansions, partisan discrepancies could result. Some states may find themselves in a situation where there is a state mandated primary date that does not comply with the party schedule, and resolving such dilemmas may not be easy or fair to everyone. “At the end of the day each party will work to do what’s best for their candidates,” said Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch, a member of the Democratic Change Commission and co-chair of the NASS Presidential Primaries Subcommittee. “And, each state legislature will work to do what’s best for their individual state. If the DNC and RNC recommendations are similar, state legislatures are more likely to work in a bipartisan manner to establish their state’s primary dates.”
Conclusion While many issues are still undecided, the Republican and Democratic parties are working to address some mutually recognized problems from the 2008 presidential nominating process: The race for the White House began too early, and the calendar was extremely front-loaded. The national parties have established bodies to examine the process and make recommendations for improvements, so the process is more orderly and rational. Both the Democratic Change Commission and the RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee want to push back the starting date of the calendar and do more to stagger the timing of state contests, something they seem willing to work on concurrently, but secretaries of state say reforms must be adopted soon if states are to comply with any rules changes. Meanwhile states are an important—and unpredictable—part of the equation. Even with adequate time to change their contest dates and get up to par with rules changes for 2012, there is no guarantee that states will go along with the changes. Some states may be willing to take a gamble and violate party rules to jump ahead on the calendar, as states like Florida and Michigan did in 2008. Or, states
236 The Book of the States 2010
may face legislative and partisan hurdles to adopting new primary dates for 2012. Throw in the midterm elections this year, and the next calendar is rife with uncertainty. In fact, there is no guarantee the national parties will ultimately act in unison. Not only are the RNC and DNC commissions facing different deadlines for adoption of their recommendations, the parties have different procedures for approving them. The Republicans also have a much higher threshold for the approval of rules changes, and because it is likely that only their party will have an active contest for their 2012 nomination, it is a shaky alliance at best. Anything can happen between now and next year, when states will begin submitting their delegate selection plans. Yet if either party takes a go-it-alone strategy, the end result could be another presidential primary cycle that is more confusing and chaotic than the last one. For that reason alone, officials are hoping that states are giving weight to the efforts taking place at party headquarters. “It’s my hope that the decision makers will take into consideration all the work done by the national parties—in the end, it’s about the voters,” said Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, co-chair of the NASS Presidential Primaries Subcommittee.
Notes 1 Linda McCulloch, “DNC Democratic Change Commission,” PowerPoint presentation to the NASS Subcommittee on Presidential Primaries, JW Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C., January 29, 2010. 2 Adam D. Krauss, “Bill Aims to Stress Primary’s Status,” The Citizen of Laconia, December 14, 2009, available at http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2009 1214/GJNEWS02/712149932/-1/citnews. 3 Examining the 2008 calendar, 33 states held their primary or caucus in January or February. 4 In 2008, most states that moved their primaries did so permanently through legislative means according to Josh Putnam’s Frontloading HQ Blog, “The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar,” December 9, 2009, available at http:// frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/12/2012-presidential-primarycalendar.html. 5 Kevin McDermott, “Illinois Pushes Back Primaries, After Moving Them Up for Obama,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 17, 2010, available at http://interact.stltoday. com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2010/03/illinois-pushes-backprimaries-after-moving-them-up-for-obama/. 6 New Jersey is considering legislation that would push its presidential primary back by combining it with primary elections for statewide office in June, which could become more of a trend as cash-strapped states look for ways to cut
Secretaries of State election costs. In 2008, 16 states plus the District of Columbia held their presidential primary and state primary elections concurrently. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of these states had later dates on the primary calendar; only four states and the District held their contests in February, while six states held their contests in May. 7 Pam Prah, “2010 Elections: New Faces, Daunting Problems,” Stateline.org, February 11, 2010, available at http:// www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=455378.
About the Author Kay Stimson is director of communications and special projects for the National Association of Secretaries of State in Washington, D.C. A former television news reporter who covered the state legislatures in Maryland and South Carolina, she frequently writes about state and federal policy issues for lawmakers.
The Council of State Governments 237
secretaries of state
Table 4.15 THE secretaries of state, 2010 Length of Number of State or other Method of regular term Date of previous jurisdiction Name and party selection in years first service Present term ends terms
Maximum consecutive terms allowed by constitution
Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California...................
Beth Chapman (R) E 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . 2 . ................................................................................................(a).................................................................................................. Ken Bennett (R) E(b) 4 1/2009 (b) 1/2011 ... 2 Charlie Daniels (D) E 4 12/2002 12/2010 1 2 Debra Bowen (D) E 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . 2
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Florida........................ Georgia.......................
Bernie Buescher (D) Susan Bysiewicz (D) Jeffrey Bullock (D) Dawn Roberts (interim) Brian Kemp (R)
Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................
. ................................................................................................(a).................................................................................................. Ben Ysursa (R) E 4 1/2003 1/2011 1 ... Jesse White (D) E 4 1/1999 1/2011 2 ... Todd Rokita (R) E 4 1/2003 1/2011 1 2 Michael A. Mauro (D) E 4 12/2006 12/2010 . . . ...
Kansas........................ Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
Chris Biggs (D) Trey Grayson (R) Jay Dardenne (R) Matthew Dunlap (D) John P. McDonough (D)
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
William Francis Galvin (D) E Terri Lynn Land (R) E Mark Ritchie (DFL) E C. Delbert Hosemann, Jr.(R) E Robin Carnahan (D) E
Montana..................... Nebraska.................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey.................
Linda McCulloch (D) E 4 1/2009 1/2013 . . . (i) John Gale (R) E 4 12/2000 (h) 1/2011 (h) ... Ross Miller (D) E 4 1/2007 1/2011 . . . 2 William Gardner (D) L 2 12/1976 12/2010 16 ... . ..............................................................................................(a)(j)................................................................................................
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio............................
Mary E. Herrera (D) E Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez (D) A Elaine Marshall (D) E Alvin A. Jaeger (R) E Jennifer Brunner (D) E
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
M. Susan Savage (D) Kate Brown (D) Pedro A. CortĂŠs (D) Ralph Mollis (D) Mark Hammond (R)
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas........................... Utah............................ Vermont......................
Chris Nelson (R) E 4 1/2003 1/2011 1 2 Tre Hargett (R) L 4 1/2009 1/2013 . . . ... Esperanza Andrade A . . . 7/2008 . . . . . . ... . ................................................................................................(a).................................................................................................. Deb Markowitz (D) E 2 1/1999 1/2013 5 ...
Virginia....................... Washington................ West Virginia.............. Wisconsin................... Wyoming....................
Katherine K. Hanley (D) Sam Reed (R) Natalie Tennant (D) Douglas LaFollette (D) Max Maxfield (R)
American Samoa....... Guam.......................... No. Mariana Islands.. Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands.....
. ................................................................................................(a).................................................................................................. . ................................................................................................(a).................................................................................................. . ................................................................................................(a).................................................................................................. Kenneth McClintock (NPP) A ... 1/2009 . . . . . . ... . ................................................................................................(a)..................................................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
238â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
E (c) E A (d) A E (e)
E E E L A
A E A E E
A E E E E
4 4 . . . . . . 4
4 4 4 2 . . . 4 4 4 4 4
12/2008 (c) 1/1999 1/2009 4/2010 1/2010 (e)
1/2011 1/2011 . . . . . . 1/2011
. . . 2 . . . . . . . . .
2 ... ... 2 ...
3/2010 (m) 12/2003 11/2006 1/2005 6/2008
1/2011 12/2011 1//2012 (f) 1/2011 . . .
3 1 . . . 2 . . .
... 2 ... 4 (g) ...
1/1995 1/2003 1/2007 1/2008 1/2005
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2012 1/2013
3 1 . . . . . . 1
... 2 ... ... ...
4 . . . 4 4 (k) 4
1/2006 3/2007 1/1997 1/1993 1/2007
12/2010 . . . 1/2013 12/2010 1/2011
. . . . . . 2 4 . . .
2 ... ... ... 2
4 4 . . . 4 4
1/2003 1/2009 5/2003 1/2007 1/2003
1/2011 1/2013 . . . 1/2011 1/2011
1 . . . . . . . . . 1
... 2 ... 2 ...
. . . 4 4 4 4
3/2006 1/2001 1/2009 1/1974 (l) 1/2007
. . . 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
. . . 2 . . . 7 (l) . . .
... ... ... ... ...
secretaries of state
THE secretaries of state, 2010—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey January 2010. Key: E — Elected by voters A — Appointed by governor. L — Elected by legislature. . . . — No provision for. (a) No secretary of state; lieutenant governor performs functions of this office. See Tables 4.12 through 4.14. (b) Ken Bennett was appointed by Governor Brewer in January 2009 to fill her term after she was sworn in as governor; replacing Janet Napolitano who became the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. (c) Bernie Buescher was appointed by Governor Ritter in December 2008 to fill the term of Mike Coffman who won the Nov. 2008 race for Congress. (d) Appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. (e) Governor Perdue appointed Brian Kemp on January 8, 2010 to replace Karen Handel after she resigned to run for the office of Governor. (f) Dardenne was elected in a special election Sept. 20, 2006 after the death of W. Fox McKeithen in July 2005, First Deputy Secretary Al Ater
assumed the duties of Secretary of State until the special election could be held. Dardenne was first elected to a full term in the 2007 general election. (g) Statutory term limit of 4 consecutive 2-year terms. (h) Secretary Gale was appointed by Gov. Mike Johanns in December 2000 upon the resignation of Scott Moore. He was elected to full four-year terms in November 2002 and again in 2006. (i) Eligible for eight out of 16 years. (j) The Secretary of State of New Jersey is an appointed position. Governor Christie appointed Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno to serve as Secretary of State for this term of office. (k) Because of a constitutional change approved by voters in 2000, the term for the secretary elected in 2004 was for two years. It reverted to a four year term in 2007. (l) Secretary La Follette was first elected in 1974 and served a 4 year term. He was elected again in 1982 and has been re-elected since. The present term ends in 2011. (m) Chris Biggs was appointed by Gov. Parkinson to fill Secretary Thornburgh’s unexpired term in March 2010.
The Council of State Governments 239
secretaries of state
Table 4.16 secretaries of state: Qualifications for office State or other U.S. citizen State resident Qualified voter jurisdiction Minimum age (years) (a) (years) (b) (years) Alabama........................ 25 Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... 25 Arkansas........................ 18 California...................... 18
7 (c) 10 H H
Colorado........................ 25 Connecticut................... 18 Delaware....................... . . . Florida........................... Georgia.......................... 25 Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
Method of selection to office
5
H
E
5 H H
. . . H H
E E E
H 2 H H . . . . . . (d) 10 4
. . . H . . . A H
E E A E
. .................................................................................... (c)........................................................................................ 25 H 2 H E 25 H 3 . . . E . . . H H H E 18 H . . . . . . E
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
. . . 30 25 . . . . . .
H H 5 . . . . . .
H H 5 . . . . . .
H H H . . . . . .
E E E (e) A
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
18 18 25 25 . . .
H H H H H
5 H 1 5 H
H H H H 2
E E E E E
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
25 . . . 25 18 18
H H 2 H H
2 H 2 H H
H H . . . H H
E E E (e) A
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
30 18 21 25 18
H H H H H
5 H H 5 H
H . . . H 5 H
E A E E E
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
31 18 . . . 18 . . .
H H . . . H H
H H . . . 30 days H
10 H . . . H H
A E A E E
South Dakota................ . . . Tennessee...................... . . . Texas.............................. 18 Utah............................... Vermont......................... 18
. . . . . . H (c) H
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
E (e) A
H
H
E
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
. . . H H H H
. . . H H H 1
. . . H H H H
A E E E E
. . . 18 . . . 18 25
American Samoa.......... (c) Guam............................. . .................................................................................... (c)........................................................................................ No. Mariana Islands..... . .................................................................................... (c)........................................................................................ Puerto Rico................... . . . 5 5 . . . A U.S. Virgin Islands........ . .................................................................................... (c)........................................................................................ Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of secretaries of state, January 2010. Key: H — Formal provision; number of years not specified. . . . — No formal provision. A — Appointed by governor. E — Elected by voters. (a) In some states you must be a U.S. citizen to be an elector, and must be an elector to run.
240 The Book of the States 2010
(b) In some states you must be a state resident to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (c) No secretary of state. (d) As of January 1, 2003, the office of Secretary of State shall be an appointed position (appointed by the governor). It will no longer be a cabinet position, but an agency head and the Department of State shall be an agency under the governor’s office. (e) Chosen by joint ballot of state senators and representatives. In Maine and New Hampshire, every two years. In Tennessee, every four years.
secretaries of state
Table 4.17 secretaries of state: Election and registration duties Receives initiative and/or referendum petition
Files certificate of nomination or election
Files candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; expense papers
Files other campaign reports
Conducts voter education programs
Registers charitable organizations
Registers corporations (a)
Processes and/or commissions notaries public
Registers securities
Registers trade names/marks
Alabama.......................... Alaska (b)........................ Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
H H H H H (c)
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H H H H
H H . . . ... H
H . . . H H H
H . . . H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H . . . H (d)
H . . . . . . H H
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H ... H H H
Colorado........................ Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
H H . . . H H
H H . . . H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H (e) H H
. . . H H H . . . . . . (f) . . . H H H H H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H (g) . . . H
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H H H H H
Hawaii (b)..................... Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana (i)........................ Iowa..................................
. . . H . . . H H
. . . H . . . H H
. . . H H . . . . . .
. . . H (h) H H
. . . H . . . H H
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . H . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . H H . . .
... H H H H
Kansas........................... Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
H H H H . . .
H H . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
H . . . H . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
Massachusetts............... Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H . . .
(f) H . . . H . . .
(f) H . . . H . . .
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H . . . H H H
H H H H H
H . . . . . . H H
H ... H H H
Montana........................ Nebraska.......................... Nevada (j)........................ New Hampshire.............. New Jersey . ....................
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . H H H
H H H . . . H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . . . . H H . . .
H H H H H
New Mexico.................. New York......................... North Carolina (k).......... North Dakota.................. Ohio (l)............................
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . H H(m)
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . H H H H
H H H H H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H H H H
Oklahoma...................... Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island (o)............. South Carolina................
. . . H H H . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H (n) H H . . . . . .
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
. . . H H H . . .
H . . . H . . . H
H (n) H H H H (p)
H H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
South Dakota................ Tennessee (q).................. Texas................................. Utah (b)........................... Vermont (r).....................
H . . . H H H
H H H H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
. . . H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H ... H
Virginia.......................... Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin (s)................... Wyoming..........................
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . (t)
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H . . . . . . H
... H H H H
American Samoa (b).... Guam (b)......................... Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands (b)....
... . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H H
H . . . H H(u)
H . . . H H
. . . . . . H . . .
... ... H H
Supplies election ballots or materials to local officials
State or other jurisdiction
Determines ballot eligibility of political parties
Registration
Chief election officer
Election
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 241
secretaries of state
secretaries of state: Election and registration duties—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of secretaries of state, January 2010. Key: H — Responsible for activity. . . . — Not responsible for activity. (a) Unless otherwise indicated, office registers domestic, foreign and non-profit corporations. (b) No secretary of state. Duties indicated are performed by lieutenant governor. In Hawaii, election related responsibilities have been transferred to an independent Chief Election Officer. In U. S. Virgin Islands election duties are performed by Supervisor of Elections. (c) Other election duties include: tallying votes from all 58 counties, testing and certifying voting systems, maintaining statewide voter registration database, publishing Voter Information Guide/State Ballot Pamphlet. (d) This office does not register charitable trusts, but does register charitable organizations as nonprofit corporations; also limited partnerships, limited liability corporations, and domestic partners. Maintains the Advanced Health Care Directive Registry and Safe at Home Confidential Address Program. (e) Files certificates of election for publication purposes only; does not file certificates of nomination. (f) Federal candidates only. (g) Incorporated organizations only. (h) Office issues document, but does not receive it. (i) Additional registration duties include securities enforcement and
242 The Book of the States 2010
auto dealer registration and enforcement. (j) Additional registration duties include: Issues annual State Business License, registers Domestic Partnerships, register advanced directives for health care (k) Other election duties: administers the Electoral College. Other registration duties: Registers state legislative and executive branch lobbyists, and maintains secure online registry of advance health care directives. (l) Supplies poll worker training materials to county boards of elections: certifies official form of the ballot to county board of elections. (m) Issues certificate of nomination or election to all statewide candidates and U.S. Representatives. (n) Certifies U.S. Congressional election results to Washington D.C. Also registers partnerships, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies and fictitious partnership names. (o) Additional registration duties include: Non-resident landlord appointment of agent for service and Uniform Commercial Code. (p) Also registers the Cable Franchise Authority. (q) Appoints the Coordinator of Elections who performs the election duties indicated. (r) Additional registration duties include: registers temporary officiants for civil marriages (s) Additional registration duties include: Issues authentications and apostilles (t) Materials not ballots. (u) Both domestic and foreign profit; but only domestic non-profit.
secretaries of state
Table 4.18 secretaries of state: custodial, publication and legislative duties
State or other jurisdiction
Administers uniform commercial code provisions
Files other corporate documents
State manual or directory
Session laws
State constitution
Statutes
Administrative rules and regulations
Opens legislative sessions (a)
Enrolls or engrosses bills
Retains copies of bills
Registers lobbyists
Legislative
Files state agency rules and regulations
Publication
Archives state records and regulations
Custodial
Alabama........................ Alaska (b)..................... Arizona.......................... Arkansas (c).................. California......................
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H H H H
H . . . H H H
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . (d)
H H H H . . .
... ... H H H
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
. . . H(e) H H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . H H H
. . . S . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H H ... ... ...
Hawaii (b)..................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
. . . . . . H H H
H . . . H H . . .
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H H H H H
... H H ... ...
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
. . . H H H . . .
H . . . . . . H H
H H H H . . .
H H H H . . .
H . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . H . . . . . .
H . . . H H (g)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
H ... (f) ... ...
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
H H H . . . H(h)
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
H . . . H H H
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . H H
H H . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . . . . H H
H H ... H ...
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey ...................
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
H H H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
... ... ... H ...
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio (i)..........................
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H H H . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H H
H ... H H ...
Oklahoma (j)................ Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island (k).......... South Carolina..............
. . . H . . . H . . .
H H . . . H . . .
. . . H H H H
H H H H H
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H H H H
... ... ... H ...
South Dakota................ Tennessee (l)................. Texas.............................. Utah (b)......................... Vermont (m).................
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H H H
H ... ... H H
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
H ... ... ... H
American Samoa (b).... Guam (b)....................... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands (b)..
. . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H H
. . . . . . H H
H . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . .
H . . . . . . H H H . . .
H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H
... ... ... ...
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 243
secretaries of state
secretaries of state: custodial, publication and legislative duties—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments survey of secretaries of state, January 2010. Key: H — Responsible for activity. . . . — Not responsible for activity. (a) In this column only: H — Both houses; H — House; S — Senate. (b) No secretary of state. Duties indicated are performed by lieutenant governor. (c) Additional custodial duties for the Arkansas Secretary of State include serving as the caretaker for the Arkansas State Capitol Building and Grounds, including all custodial duties, HVAC system, building maintenance, historic preservation and conducting tours. (d) Office does not enroll or engross bills but does chapter them. (e) The secretary of state is keeper of public records, but the state archives is a department of the Connecticut State Library. (f) Only registers political pollsters. (g) Code of Maryland regulations.
244 The Book of the States 2010
(h) Also responsible for the State Library. (i) Additional publication duties include: elections statistics, official roster of federal, state, and county officers and official roster of township and municipal officers. Additional legislative duties include :Distributing laws to specified state and local government agencies. (j) Other custodial duties include: Effective Financing Statements identifying farm products that are subject to a security interest, UCC and mortgage documents pertaining to transmitting utilities and also railroads and files open meeting notices. (k) Additional duties include administering oaths of office to general officers and legislators. (l) Additional custodial duties include the Tennessee State Library and Archives, administrative law judges, charitable gaming regulation, service of process/summons, sports agent registration and temporary liens. (m) Additional custodial duties include: records management, and certifying vital records.
Attorneys General
Cybercrime, Consumer Protection and Tobacco Settlement are Top Issues for State Attorneys General in 2010 By The National Association of State Attorneys General While the modern office of the attorney general continues to perform its traditional role of providing legal advice and legal representation in matters affecting the state’s interests, those state interests now include an infinitely broader range of social and economic policies and protection of the public interest. Three of the top issues for attorneys general this year are cybercrime, consumer protection and tobacco. As the chief legal officer of each state or jurisdiction, attorneys general are committed to arresting online predators and providing services to victims of child pornography, protecting consumers during the economic downturn from lending abuses and scams, and continuing to interpret, implement and enforce the Master Settlement Agreement reached with the tobacco industry in 1998. Cybercrime Attorneys general became heavily vested in prosecuting cases involving technology-facilitated crimes when the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, under the authority of the 1998 Justice Appropriations Act, created the Internet Crimes Against Children program. This program provided funding to help state and local law enforcement agencies develop an effective response to online child pornography and online child exploitation. Today, 14 of the 59 Internet Crimes Against Children task forces are housed in an attorney general’s office. Attorneys general have also played a role in supporting legislation with provisions that allow them to prosecute Internet crimes. All states have enacted laws that criminalize online child solici tation and pornography, often with enhanced penalties for repeat offenders. Many states have also enacted criminal statutes for computer intrusions, many of which have enhanced penalties for hacking a government computer. Other computer crimes such as Internet fraud, Internet auction fraud and computer-facilitated identity theft are addressed through updated state consumer protection laws. Cybercrime is another area where attorneys general have worked together to enforce online safety, particularly as it applies to young children, tweens—youth between the ages of 9 and 12—and teen-agers. Attorneys general formed a task force to investigate social networking sites MySpace and Facebook, resulting in agreements where the sites made significant changes to their network practices to protect children against online predators and child pornographic images. Most recently, a
task force of attorneys general began investigating Craigslist for adult postings and Limewire for facilitating distribution of child pornography. Attorneys general have been at the forefront of prevention and prosecution of online crimes against children. Most attorneys general have held online safety forums in communities and schools in their states. In addition, Internet safety tips and information are a prominent part of the Web sites of many attorneys general. The National Association of Attorneys General Cybercrime Project assists attorneys general by training their prosecutors and civil enforcement attorneys in handling cases involving technologybased crimes. To date, nearly 1,000 of these attorneys have attended project trainings. The project publishes a bimonthly e-newsletter that keeps attorneys general and their staff abreast of new developments in cyber law, case law, federal and state legislation, and new tools and publications. The project supports the task forces discussed above and provides technical support. It has also assumed responsibility for providing training on best practices in handling electronic discovery, including remote trainings for individual attorneys general offices. Finally, the project publishes a monthly e-discovery bulletin of new case law, discovery rules and practice tips.
Consumer Protection during the Economic Downturn The attorneys general continue to lead the nation in protecting their states’ consumers. They have primary responsibility for the enforcement of their
The Council of State Governments 245
Attorneys General states’ consumer protection laws. Every state has a consumer protection statute prohibiting deceptive acts and practices. These broad general statutes are supplemented in all jurisdictions by laws that target specific industries or particularly problematic practices. During the economic downturn, many attorneys general focused their consumer protection efforts on protecting their state’s residents from subprime lending abuses, foreclosure rescue and mortgage loan modification scams, and debt settlement and illegal debt-counseling operations. Such action will continue in 2010. Attorneys general have various tools and authority to address abuses in the marketplace. These include civil and criminal litigation, mediation, public education, and cooperative enforcement ventures with state, local, and federal enforcement agencies, as well as creating and commenting on state and federal legislative proposals. In June 2009, attorneys general won a significant battle in their ongoing war against federal preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association that state prosecutors are permitted to bring actions against national banks for lending discrimination.
Foreclosure Initiatives Attorneys general have long identified the predatory and deceptive mortgage practices that led to the economic meltdown. As such, attorneys general, using a multi-pronged approach that will continue in 2010, are in the forefront of addressing the mortgage foreclosure crisis through a number of initiatives. For example, attorneys general reached a landmark multi-state settlement with Countrywide Home Loans and Bank of America (Bank of America acquired Countrywide during the states’ investigation), resolving allegations that Countrywide engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct by marketing and originating unnecessarily risky and costly mortgage loans for homeowners. With respect to mortgage foreclosure rescue scams and loan modification scams, attorneys general participate with the Federal Trade Commission in the Mortgage Foreclosure Rescue Scam Working Group, coordinating enforcement efforts against scams by companies that purport to help consumers facing foreclosure of their homes. The working group shares information on potential enforcement targets and on model state legislation. In 2009, the working group announced Operation Stolen Hope, a nationwide crackdown on mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modi246 The Book of the States 2010
fication scams that involved 118 actions by state and federal agencies and Operation Loan Lies, an effort that involved 189 actions. Understanding the severity of the foreclosure crisis and the need for collaboration, attorneys general are working closely with their federal and local law enforcement counterparts. Attorneys general formed the State-Federal Task Force on Mortgage Fraud Enforcement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Trade Commission. The purpose of the task force is to develop strong working relationships between the federal agencies and attorneys general in protecting citizens against mortgage fraud and abuse. Attorneys general and banking regulators from 13 states also formed the Subprime Foreclosure Prevention Working Group, aimed at persuading mortgage-servicing companies and investors to restructure troubled subprime loans and explore ways to find long-term solutions for borrowers facing foreclosure, such as lowering the borrower’s mortgage interest rate, rather than creating a repayment plan that only offers a quick fix. In addition to enforcement efforts, attorneys general addressed the foreclosure crisis on the legislative front. For example, North Carolina passed legislation that limits the ability of mortgage brokers to charge customers above-market rates and prepayment penalties and protects subprime borrowers from high risk adjustable-rate mortgages. Colorado passed legislation that creates a duty of good faith and fair dealing for mortgage brokers in their communications and transactions with borrowers. Under the Colorado law, mortgage brokers must not induce the borrower to enter into a transaction that does not have a reasonable, tangible net benefit to the borrower. Illinois passed legislation that requires brokers and lenders to assess a borrower’s ability to repay a loan, including the borrower’s ability to repay both the initial monthly payment and the higher monthly payment when adjustable loans reset. The Massachusetts attorney general issued a regulation that prohibits a specific type of rescue plan in which a business or individual claims to offer assistance to distressed homeowners facing foreclosure if the homeowner gives over ownership of the property.
Debt Settlement Another enforcement priority for attorneys general is in the area of debt relief services. As consumers continue to find themselves drowning in unpaid
Attorneys General bills and tremendous debt, many attorneys general have focused their energies on combating debt settlement schemes whereby, for a fee, a professional debt-settlement company falsely claims that it will help consumers get rid of their debt for as little as half the amount owed. To address this growing concern, attorneys general are working collaboratively with each other and other law enforcement groups. Attorneys general participate in a debt settlement working group where they share information about consumer complaints, targets and legislative initiatives. In addition to participating in law enforcement sweeps, many attorneys general brought numerous enforcement actions against unscrupulous businesses that falsely promise to help consumers lower their debt. Attorneys general submitted comments in October 2009 to the Federal Trade Commission regarding debt relief services. In the comments, the attorneys general highlighted the complaints they received about debt settlement companies. They urged the Federal Trade Commission to amend a federal rule that would require debt relief service companies to provide services before collecting any fees, discourage unscrupulous operators from flocking to this industry, and facilitate efficient and timely enforcement. During the economic downturn, attorneys general saw a tremendous rise in consumer financial fraud. They are committed to using their law enforcement authority aggressively to help consumers during this recessionary economy and to bring these schemes to a halt.
Arbitration Begins under Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement The tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, negotiated 12 years ago by state attorneys general, is a historic, landmark agreement that generates billions of dollars for settling states to cover the health care costs created by smoking and has played a significant role in bringing about a decrease in smoking rates among adults and youth in the U.S. It has changed the way tobacco companies operate, greatly restricting the advertising and promotion of their products, dissolving entities and eliminating practices designed to obscure tobacco’s health risks, and creating an entity devoted exclusively to smoking prevention and cessation. The Master Settlement Agreement is responsible for raising a generation that has never seen cartoon characters in ads selling cigarettes. The “coolness” of smoking
is no longer an advertising message that tobacco companies can send to children. NAAG, through its Tobacco Project, is dedicated to helping the attorneys general interpret, implement and enforce this agreement. Attorneys general are also committed to preserving, enforcing and improving both the Master Settlement Agreement’s monetary and public health mandates.
2010 Tobacco Action The signatory states to the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement will begin the first arbitration in January 2010. The signatory states include 46 states, Washington, D.C., the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and four U.S. territories. Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas all settled separately with the tobacco companies and will not be part of the arbitration. At issue is state funding generated from the Master Settlement Agreement, which is used for a variety of state programs and services. The arbitration will resolve with finality disputes over whether state Master Settlement Agreement revenues will be lowered by a “Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment.” A participating manufacturer is a tobacco product manufacturer that has settled state claims over smoking-related costs by signing the Master Settlement Agreement. The agreement obligates participating manufacturers to, among other things, make settlement payments to the states annually and in perpetuity. The Master Settlement Agreement specifies an annual base payment, which is then adjusted upward and downward according to the agreement provisions by an independent auditor, PriceWaterhouseCoopers. One such downward adjustment is the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment. A non-participating manufacturer is a tobacco product manufacturer that has not settled state claims over smoking-related costs. No state is currently suing a non-participating manufacturer over these claims, but each state retains the right to do so. For years in which participating manufacturers lose market share to nonparticipating manufacturers because of the Master Service Agreement, the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment can potentially significantly reduce participating manufacturers’ settlement payments to the states. The disputes to be arbitrated pertain to a 2003 Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment of approximately $1.1 billion that, if applicable, would have reduced Master Settlement Agreement revenues due the states in 2004. However, the arbitraThe Council of State Governments 247
Attorneys General tion could resolve underlying legal issues and create precedents for disputes over potential 2004–2008 Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustments that total an additional $4.1 billion. The arbitration will focus primarily, but not exclusively, on whether a particular prerequisite to applying the 2003 Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment has been satisfied. Specifically, if during a relevant year—2003 for purposes of this initial arbitration—a state had in full force a qualifying statute and diligently enforced that statute, its share of settlement revenues for that year would not be subject to the 2003 Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment. Rather, its share would be reallocated to those states, if any, that did not meet one of these two requirements. Under this realloca tion provision, a state that did not meet one of the two requirements could potentially lose all its Master Settlement Agreement revenue due in 2004. On the other hand, if all states were to meet both requirements for 2003, the 2003 Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment would be inapplicable to the participating manufacturer’s payment. A qualifying statute requires a non-participating manufacturer to escrow each year a specified sum for each of its cigarettes sold in a state during the preceding year. The escrowed sum is slightly less per cigarette than the sum the non-participating manufacturer would have paid per cigarette had it been a Master Settlement Agreement signatory. For the first 25 years after the escrow deposit is made, the deposit can be released only to pay a judgment or settlement obtained by the state against the escrowing non-participating manufacturer. If there is no such judgment or settlement within 25 years, the deposit is released back to the non-participating manufacturer. Where a dispute is subject to Master Settlement Agreement arbitration, the states and the participating manufacturers each select a neutral arbi trator, and the two arbitrators then select a third neutral arbitrator. All arbitrators must be former Article III federal judges. The states and the partic ipating manufacturers selected the Honorable Abner J. Mikva and the Honorable William G. Bass ler, respectively, as arbitrators, and at press time, they are expected to select the third arbitrator. In the meantime, the states and the participating manufacturers are negotiating procedures to govern the arbitration. Where the arbitration will take place, how long it will last, and what form it will take were unknown at press time, but it will likely continue through 2010.
248 The Book of the States 2010
About the National Association of Attorneys General The National Association of Attorneys General was founded in 1907 to help attorneys general fulfill the responsibilities of their office and to assist in the delivery of high quality legal services to the states and territorial jurisdictions. The association provides a forum for the exchange of views and experiences on priority issues, fosters interstate cooperation on legal and law enforcement issues, conducts policy research and analysis of issues, improves the quality of legal services provided to the states and territories, and facilitates communication between its members and all levels of government. The association’s members are the attorneys general of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., and the chief legal officers of the commonwealths of Puerto Rico (secretary of justice) and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This article was written by NAAG counsel Hedda Litwin, Dennis Cuevas and Peter Levin, and compiled by Marjorie Tharp, director of communications for the National Association of Attorneys General, www.naag.org.
attorneys general
Table 4.19 THE attorneys general, 2010 State or other Method of jurisdiction Name and party selection
Length of regular term Date of Present in years first service term ends
Number of Maximum previous consecutive terms terms allowed
Alabama...................... Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
Troy King (R) Daniel S. Sullivan (R) Terry Goddard (D) Dustin McDaniel (D) Edmund Gerald Brown Jr. (D)
E A E E E
4 . . . 4 4 4
3/2004 (a) 6/2009 1/2003 1/2007 1/2007
1/2011 . . . 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011
(a) 0 1 0 0
2 ... 2 2 2
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
John W. Suthers (R) Richard Blumenthal (D) Joseph R. Biden III (D) Bill McCollum (R) Thurbert E. Baker (D)
E E E E E
4 4 4 4 4
1/2005(b) 1/1991 1/2007 1/2007 6/1997(c)
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011
(b) 4 0 0 2 (c)
2 H H 2 H
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
Mark J. Bennett (R) Lawrence Wasden (R) Lisa Madigan (D) Greg Zoeller (R) Tom Miller (D)
A E E E E
4 (d) 4 4 4 4
1/2003 1/2003 1/2003 1/2009 1/1979 (e)
12/2010 1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 1/2011
1 1 1 0 6 (e)
... H H H H
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
Stephen Six (D) Jack Conway (D) James D. Caldwell (D) Janet T. Mills (D) Douglas F. Gansler (D)
E E E L (f) E
4 4 4 2 4
1/2008 12/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2007
1/2012 1/2011 1/2012 1/2011 1/2011
0 0 0 0 0
H 2 H 4 H
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
Martha Coakley (D) Mike Cox (R) Lori Swanson (D) Jim Hood (D) Chris Koster (D)
E E E E E
4 4 4 4 4
1/2007 1/2003 1/2007 1/2004 1/2009
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2012 1/2013
0 1 0 1 0
2 2 H H H
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
Steve Bullock (D) Jon Bruning (R) Catherine Cortez Masto (D) Michael Delaney (D) Paula T. Dow (D)
E E E A A
4 4 4 4 4
1/2009 1/2003 1/2007 8/2009 1/2010
1/2013 1/2011 1/2011 8/2013 . . .
0 1 0 0 0
2 H 2 ... ...
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
Gary King (D) Andrew Cuomo (D) Roy Cooper (D) Wayne Stenehjem (R) Richard Cordray (D)
E E E E E
4 4 4 4 (h) 4
1/2007 1/2007 1/2001 1/2001 1/2009 (i)
1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 12/2010 1/2011
0 0 2 2 (h) 0
2 (g) H H H 2
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
W. A. Drew Edmondson (D) John R. Kroger (D) Tom Corbett (R) Patrick Lynch (D) Henry McMaster (R)
E E E E E
4 4 4 4 4
1/1995 1/2009 1/2005 1/2003 1/2003
1/2011 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
3 0 1 1 1
H H 2 2 H
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
Martin Jackley (R) Robert E. Cooper Jr. (D) Greg Abbott (R) Mark Shurtleff (R) William H. Sorrell (D)
E (j) E E E
4 8 4 4 2
9/2009 (n) 10/2006 1/2003 1/2001 5/1997 (k)
1/2011 8/2014 1/2011 1/2013 1/2011
1 0 1 2 5 (k)
2 (g) ... H H H
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
Ken Cuccinelli (R) E Rob McKenna (R) E Darrell Vivian McGraw Jr. (D) E J. B. Van Hollen (R) E Bruce A. Salzburg (D) A (m)
4 4 4 4 . . .
1/2010 1/2005 1/1993 1/2007 8/2007
1/2014 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011 . . .
0 1 4 0 0
(l) H H H ...
Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Guam............................ No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
Peter Nickles (D) Fepuleaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;i Afa Ripley Jr. (D) Alicia G. Limtiaco Edward T. Buckingham Guillermo Somoza-Colombani Vincent Frazer
. . . 4 4 4 4 4
1/2008 1/2007 1/2007 8/2009 12/2009 1/2007
. . . . . . 1/2011 ... . . . 1/2011
0 0 0 0 0 0
... ... ... ... ... ...
A A E A A A
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 249
attorneys general
THE attorneys general, 2010—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of attorneys general, January 2010. Key: H — No provision specifying number of terms allowed. . . . — No formal provision, position is appointed or elected by governmental entity (not chosen by the electorate). A — Appointed by the governor. E — Elected by the voters. L — Elected by the legislature. N.A.— Not available. (a) Appointed to fill unexpired term in March 2004 and elected to a full term in November 2006. (b) Appointed to fill unexpired term in January 2005 and elected to a full term in November 2006. (c) Appointed to fill unexpired term in June 1997. He was elected in 1998 to his first full term. (d) Term runs concurrently with the governor.
250 The Book of the States 2010
(e) Attorney General Miller was elected in 1978, 1982, 1986, 1994, 1998, 2002 and in 2006. (f) Chosen biennially by joint ballot of state senators and representatives. (g) After two consecutive terms , must wait four years and/or one full term before being eligible again. (h) The term of the office of the elected official is four years, except that in 2004 the attorney general was elected for a term of two years. (i) Richard Cordray won a November 2008 general election to fill the unexpired term of Marc Dann (D), who resigned May 14, 2008. (j) Appointed by judges of state Supreme Court. (k) Appointed to fill unexpired term in May 1997. He was elected in 1998 to his first full term. (l) Provision specifying individual may hold office for an unlimited number of terms. (m) Must be confirmed by the Senate. (n) Appointed September 4, 2009 to fill Larry Long’s unexpired term. AG Long resigned to accept a state judgeship.
attorneys general
Table 4.20 attorneys general: Qualifications for office State or other U.S. citizen State resident Qualified voter jurisdiction Minimum age (years) (a) (years) (b) (years)
Licensed attorney (years)
Membership in the state bar (years)
Method of selection to office
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
25 18 25 . . . 18
7 H 10 . . . H
5 . . . 5 H H
H . . . H H H
. . . H 5 . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . 5
E A E E E
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
27 18 . . . 30 25
H H . . . H 10
2 H . . . 7 4
H H . . . H H
H 10 . . . H 7
... 10 . . . 5 7
E E E E E
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
. . . 30 25 . . . 18
1 H H 2 H
1 2 3 2 H
. . . . . . H H . . .
H H H 5 . . .
(d) H H . . . . . .
A E E E E
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
. . . 30 25 . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . H(g)
. . . 2 (e) 5 . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . 8 H H H
. . . 2 H H 10
E E E (f) E
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
18 18 21 26 . . .
. . . H H H H
5 H 30 days 5 1
H . . . H H . . .
. . . H . . . 5 . . .
H H . . . H . . .
E E E E E
Montana........................... Nebraska . ....................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
25 . . . 25 . . . 18
H . . . H H . . .
2 H 2 H H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
5 . . . . . . H . . .
H . . . . . . H . . .
E E E A (h) A
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
30 30 21 25 18
H H H H H
5 5 H 5 H
H . . . H H H
H (i) H H . . .
. . . . . . (i) H . . .
E E E E E
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
31 18 30 18 . . .
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . 30 days
10 H . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
E E E E E
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
18 . . . . . . 25 18
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . H 5 (e) H
H . . . . . . H H
(i) . . . (i) H . . .
(i) . . . (i) H . . .
E (j) E E E
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
30 18 25 . . . . . .
H H . . . H H
1 (k) H 5 H H
H H H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . 4
5 (k) H . . . . . . 4
E E E E A (l)
Dist. of Columbia............ American Samoa............ Guam................................ No. Mariana Islands....... Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H . . .
H (c) . . . 3 . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H
H (i) . . . 5 H H
H (i) . . . . . . H H
A A A A A A
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of attorneys general, November 2009 and state constitutions and statutes, January 2010. Key: H — Formal provision; number of years not specified. . . . — No formal provision. A — Appointed by governor. E — Elected by voters. (a) In some states you must be a U.S. citizen to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (b) In some states you must be a state resident to be an elector, and must be an elector to run. (c) No statute specifically requires this, but the State Bar Act can be interpreted as making this a qualification.
(d) No period specified, all licensed attorneys are members of the state bar. (e) State citizenship requirement. (f) Chosen biennially by joint ballot of state senators and representatives. (g) Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections 243 Md. 555, 221A.2d431 (1966)–opinion rendered indicated that U.S. citizenship was, by necessity, a requirement for office. (h) Appointed by the governor and confirmed by the governor and the executive council. (i) Implied. (j) Appointed by state supreme court. (k) Same as qualifications of a judge of a court of record. (l) Must be confirmed by the Senate.
The Council of State Governments 251
attorneys general
Table 4.21 attorneys general: prosecutorial and advisory duties
May supersede local prosecutor
To legislators
To local prosecutors
On the constitutionality of bills or ordinances
Prior to passage
Before signing
Reviews legislation (b):
To state executive officials
Issues advisory opinions (a):
A,D A (c) (c) A,B A,F D . . . A,B,C,D,E,F A,B,C,D,E,F,G
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
. . . H H H H
H H (u) . . . (v)
... H (u) ... (v)
B . . . (f) . . . ...
H H H H H
H (d) H H H
H . . . . . . H H
H H H . . . . . .
A,B,C,D,E D D D D,F
A,B,C,D,E . . . G . . . D,E,F
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H(h) H . . . H . . .
H H (i) . . . (j)
H H (i) ... (j)
A,D B,D,G D,E,G A D
D D D,E,G A D
A,F B E,G A ...
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . H
... ... H ... H
A A B,F A,D,F B,F,G
A A B,D,G D,F F
A,D A A,B,D,G A,D,F B,F
A A B D,F G
H H H H H
H(k) H H(k) H H
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . . . .
(l) . . . . . . . . . (l)
(l) ... (l) ... (l)
Montana........................ Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
D A,D,G D,F,G A,E,F A,B,C,D
E A,D,G D A,E,F A,B,C,D
E D . . . A,D,E,F A,B,C,D
E D ... A,E,F A,B,C,D
H H H H H
H(m) H . . . H H
H H H H H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . (n) H
... ... ... (n) H
New Mexico.................. New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
B,D,E,F B,F . . . A,D,E,F,G F
D,E,F B,D,F D A,D,E,G D
A,B,D,E,F D D A,B,D,E,F,G D
D,E,F,G B . . . A,D,E,G F
H H H H H
H H(k) H H (m)
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H H H . . . . . .
H H ... ... ...
Oklahoma...................... A,B,C,D,E,F,G A,B,C,D,E,F,G A,B,C,D,E,F,G A,B,C,D,E,F,G Oregon............................. B,D,F B,D B,D B Pennsylvania.................... A,D,F D,F D,F . . . Rhode Island................... A A A A South Carolina................ A A A A
H H H H H
H H . . . H (q)
H H . . . . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H ... ... ...
South Dakota................ Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
A,B,D,E,F (p) D,F,G . . . A,B,D,E,F,G A
D,G (b) D,F,G . . . E,G A
A,B,D,E D,F . . . D,E A
D,F . . . . . . E E
H H . . . H H
H H . . . H(q) H
H H . . . H H
. . . H . . . H H
H . . . . . . H(l) H
... ... ... H(l) H
Virginia.......................... Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
B,F B,D,G (r) B,C,D,F B,D,F
B,D,F B,D,G . . . B,C,D B,D
B,D,F B,D,G . . . D B,D
B B,D,G ... B G
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H(h)
H (o) . . . (e) H
H (o) ... (e) H
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa............ Guam................................ No. Mariana Islands....... Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands..........
F A (t) A A (t) A A (t)
D (t) A (t) (t) (t)
D (t) A (t) (t) (t)
F (t) A (t) (t) (t)
H H H H H H
H . . . H H H . . .
(s) (t) H . . . . . . . . .
H (e) H H . . . H
H (l) (l) . . . H H
H (l) B ... H H
Authority in local prosecutions: State or other jurisdiction
Authority to May intervene initiate local in local prosecutions prosecutions
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
A (c) A . . . A,B,C,D,E,F
A,D (c) A . . . A,B,C,D,E,F
Colorado........................ Connecticut..................... Delaware . ....................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
A,F . . . A (f) F B,D,F,G
B . . . (f) . . . . . .
D,F . . . (f) D A,D
Hawaii........................... Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
A,B,C,D,E B,D,F D,F F D,F
A,B,C,D,E . . . D,G . . . D,F
Kansas........................... Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
A,B,C,D,F D,F,G D,E,G A B,F
Massachusetts............... Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
See footnotes at end of table.
252â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
May assist local prosecutor
H H (e) (e) H(g) H(g) . . . ... . . . ...
attorneys general
attorneys general: prosecutorial and advisory duties—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of attorneys general, November 2010. Key: A — On own initiative. B — On request of governor. C — On request of legislature. D — On request of local prosecutor. E — When in state’s interest. F — Under certain statutes for specific crimes. G — On authorization of court or other body. H — Has authority in area. . . . — Does not have authority in area. (a) Also issues advisory opinions to: Alabama—Designated heads of state departments, agencies, boards, and commissions; local public officials; and political subdivisions. Hawaii—Judges/judiciary as requested. Kansas—to counsel for local units of government. Montana—county and city attorneys, city commissioners. Wisconsin—corporation counsel. (b) Also reviews legislation: Alabama—when requested by the governor. Alaska—after passage. Arizona—at the request of the legislature. Kansas—upon request of Legislator, no formal authority. (c) The attorney general functions as the local prosecutor. (d) To legislative leadership. (e) Informally reviews bills or does so upon request. (f) The attorney general prosecutes all criminal offenses in Delaware. (g) Also at the request of agency or legislature.
(h) Bills, not ordinances. (i) Review and track legislation that relates to the Office of Attorney General and the office mission. (j) No requirements for review. (k) To legislature as a whole not individual legislators. (l) Only when requested by governor or legislature. (m) To either house of legislature, not individual legislators. (n) Provides information when requested by the Legislature. Testifies for or against bills on the Attorney General’s own initiative. (o) May review legislation at request of clients or legislature. (p) Certain statutes provide for concurrent jurisdiction with local prosecutors. (q) Only when requested by legislature. (r) Can be involved in local at request of local prosecutors. If requested by local authority, can participate in criminal prosecutions. (s) The office of attorney general prosecutes local crimes to an extent. The office’s Legal Counsel Division may issue legal advice to the office’s prosecutorial arm. Otherwise, the office does not usually advise the OUSA, the district’s other local prosecutor. (t) The attorney general functions as the local prosecutor. (u) Reviews enacted legislation only when there is a compelling need. (v) May review legislation at any time but does not have a de jure role in approval of bills as to form or constitutionality; California has a separate Legislative Counsel to advise the legislature on bills.
The Council of State Governments 253
attorneys general
Table 4.22 attorneys general: consumer protection activities, subpoena powers and antitrust duties State or other jurisdiction
May commence civil proceedings
May Represents the Administers commence state before consumer criminal regulatory protection proceedings agencies (a) programs
Handles consumer complaints
Subpoena powers (b)
Antitrust duties
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . H
H H . . . H H
H H H(c) H H
H H H H H
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
H H H H H
H (d) H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H H . . .
H H H H . . .
H H ●
A,C,D A,B,D A,B,D A,B,D ...
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H H H H
H ● ● H H
A,B,C,D A,B,D A,B,C A,B B,C
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
H H H H H
H H H H H(e)
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B,C A,B,C B,C,D
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
H H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H ● H H
A,B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B,C A,B,C,D A,B,C,D
Montana ....................... Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
● H ● H H
A,B A,B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B,C,D
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
H H H H H
H H H(f) . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
A,B,C (g) A,B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B,D A,B,C,D
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
H H H H H(a)
H H(f) H H H(h)
H H H . . . H
H H H H . . .
H H H H (i)
H ● H H ●
A,B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B A,B,C A,B,C,D
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
H H H H(j) H
H (e)(f) H H H
H (f) H H(j) H
H H H . . . H
H . . . H H(k) H
H H ● ● H
A,B,C B,C,D A,B,C,D A (l),B,C,D (l) A,B,C
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
H H H H H
(f) . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
H(k) H H H H
H(k) H H H H
● H H ● ●
A,B,C,D A,B,D A,B,D A,B,C (g) A,B
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
H H H H H H
H(m) H H H H H
H H H H . . . H
H H H H . . . H
H H H H . . . H
H . . . ● H H ●
A,B,C,D ... A,B,C,D A,B A,B,C,D A
See footnotes at end of table.
254 The Book of the States 2010
●
H H ● H ● ●
A,B,C A,B,C,D A,B,C,D A,B A,B,C,D
attorneys general
attorneys general: consumer protection activities, subpoena powers and antitrust duties—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of attorneys general, January 2010. Key: A — Has parens patriae authority to commence suits on behalf of consumers in state antitrust damage actions in state courts. B — May initiate damage actions on behalf of state in state courts. C — May commence criminal proceedings. D — May represent cities, counties and other governmental entities in recovering civil damages under federal or state law. H — Has authority in area. . . . — Does not have authority in area. (a) May represent state on behalf of: the “people” of the state; an agency of the state; or the state before a federal regulatory agency. (b) In this column only: H broad powers and ● limited powers. (c) The 49th Legislature, first regular session, established a statutory scheme that provided for a mortgage recovery fund to pay those harmed
by dishonest loan originators. The attorney general is now authorized to try to recover from the dishonest loan originators the money that the fund paid out (See ARS 6-991.15). (d) In certain cases only. (e) May commence criminal proceedings with local district attorney. (f) To a limited extent. (g) May represent other governmental entities in recovering civil damages under federal or state law. (h) When permitted to intervene. (i) On a limited basis because the state has a separate consumer affairs department. (j) Attorney general has exclusive authority. (k) Attorney general handles legal matters only with no administrative handling of complaints. (l) Opinion only, since there are no controlling precedents. (m) In antitrust, not criminal proceedings.
The Council of State Governments 255
attorneys general
Table 4.23 attorneys general: duties to administrative agencies and other responsibilities Duties to administrative agencies Issues official advice
Interprets statutes or regulations
On behalf of agency
Against agency
Prepares or reviews legal documents
Represents the public before the agency
Involved in rule-making
Reviews rules for legality
Conducts litigation:
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
A,B,C (a) A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H (a) H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
(b) H H H H
(b) H . . . H . . .
H H H . . . H
H H H ... H
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware (f).................. Florida........................... Georgia..........................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H (b) H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H (g) . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
H H H . . . . . .
H H H ... H
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H H (a) H H H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . H
H H . . . H H
H H ... H H
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . (b)
H . . . H H H
. . . H H . . . H
H . . . H . . . H
H ... H H H
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
(b)(c)(d) H (c)(d) . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H (a) H H
H H H . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H H ... H
Montana (h).................. Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
A,B A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
. . . H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . H H H H
... H H ... H
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H (b) H H H
H . . . H H H
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
H (b) H H . . .
H H H H H
H (b) (b) . . . . . .
H . . . H H . . .
H ... H H ...
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
A,B,C A,B A,B A,B,C A,B,C
H H . . . H H (d)
H H . . . H (a)
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H . . . . . . H (b)
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . H
H H H ... H
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H H H (i) H (a) H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
H H H H H
. . . (e) H (b) H
. . . (e) H H H
... H ... H H
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
H H (k) H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H (b) H
H H H (b) H
H H . . . (b) . . .
H H (l) (b) H
H H (l) (b) H
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa.......... Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
A,B A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C A,B
H (j) H (a) H H H H
H H H H H H
H H H H H H
H H (d) H H H
. . . . . . H H . . . H
H H H H H H
. . . . . . (b) . . . . . . H
H H H H H . . .
H H H H H H
Appears for State or other Serves as state in jurisdiction counsel for state criminal appeals
See footnotes at end of table.
256â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
attorneys general
attorneys general: duties to administrative agencies and other responsibilities—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of attorneys general, January 2010. Key: A — Defend state law when challenged on federal constitutional grounds. B — Conduct litigation on behalf of state in federal and other states’ courts. C — Prosecute actions against another state in U.S. Supreme Court. H — Has authority in area. . . . — Does not have authority in area. (a) Attorney general has exclusive jurisdiction. (b) In certain cases only. (c) When assisting local prosecutor in the appeal. (d) Can appear on own discretion. (e) Consumer Advocate Division represents the public in utility rate
making hearings and rule making proceedings. (f) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the Attorney General represents all state agencies and officials. (g) Rarely. (h) Most state agencies are represented by agency counsel who do not answer to the attorney general. The attorney general does provide representation for agencies in conflict situations and where the agency requires additional or specialized assistance. (i) Primarily federal habeas corpus appeals only. (j) However, OUSA handles felony cases and most major misdemeanors. (k) Limited to federal death penalty habeas corpus. (l) On request of agency. Office acts as legal counsel to any state agency on request and that can include reviewing legislation and drafting rules and regulations.
The Council of State Governments 257
Treasurers
State Debt in a Time of Turmoil By Kevin Johnson States and municipalities borrow hundreds of billions of dollars every year through the bond market. In 2008– 09, upheaval in U.S. financial markets changed the way governments could borrow money to finance infrastructure building and other activities. State treasurers and other officials responded by changing how they market and package their bonds in order to keep funds flowing to vital projects.
The recession that began in December 2007 led to a number of financial problems for state governments. In many states, officials had to address large budget shortfalls while trying to provide services for unemployed workers and distressed homeowners. In addition to these well-publicized challenges, states were also caught in the turmoil of U.S. financial markets. State governments are major participants in investment and debt markets. For instance, as custodians of public employee pension funds, states invest hundreds of billions of dollars in equities, real estate, bonds and other assets. As builders of infrastructure projects like roads and universities, states also borrow large sums. The economic downturn led to serious problems for both functions. State treasurers, as custodians of public funds, were at the forefront of the financial crisis. Forty treasurers are involved in the issuance or maintenance of public debt. In many states, they are joined in this task by other officials and authorities that share responsibility for various types of debt issuance. Once lawmakers approve projects and grant authority to borrow funds, state treasurers and others responsible for debt management must obtain the required money. Since the sums involved are too large to be financed through simple bank loans, states must borrow money from investors through the debt markets. They accomplish this by issuing bonds, which are financial agreements between borrowers and lenders with specified interest rates and repayment schedules. Tax-exempt municipal bonds are the basic tool used by state and local governments to fund capital projects such as utilities, roads and bridges, airports, health care facilities, education buildings, housing and environmental remediation programs. State governments have traditionally had good access to capital because of their broad taxing authority and strong history of repayment. But
258 The Book of the States 2010
the recession brought disruption to bond markets in 2008 and 2009, forcing states to delay or cancel some bond sales.
Changing Conditions The market for state debt is subject to the same fluctuations and forces as other financial exchanges. Following the start of the recession and the failure of major financial institutions in 2008, uncertainty led many investors to withdraw from debt markets or move rapidly to U.S. Treasury bonds. Although the markets thawed as investor unease subsided somewhat, overall sales of municipal securities fell 9 percent in 2008 to $389.6 billion. In 2009, sales rose to $409 billion, nearly the same amount seen in 2005 and 4.6 percent below peak levels in 2007.1 (See Figure A for a breakdown of municipal bond issues in the last two years.) Investors’ nervousness about almost everything besides Treasury bonds showed up in prices for municipal bonds. An index published by industry newspaper The Bond Buyer showed that, “By December 2008, yields on 20-year general obligation bonds reached an astounding 175 percent of similar-maturity Treasuries; that same spread averaged just 89 percent between 1994 and 2007.”2 In other words, relative to U.S. Treasuries, municipal borrowers had to pay much higher interest rates on the bonds in late 2008 than they traditionally had. Higher interest costs on debt mean that public projects are more expensive to complete. Fortunately for states, the markets settled down in 2009 as investors returned to buying municipal bonds. In fact, bonds with high ratings came with historically low interest rates, coinciding with low interest rates in the overall U.S. financial markets. The players in the debt markets also changed. States and other municipal issuers work with financial advisers and banks that serve as underwriters, preparing bonds for sale and finding buyers for them. Well-known bond underwriters such
Treasurers
Figure A: Total Year-end Issuance Amount, by Sector (in thousands) 0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
General Purpose Education Transportation Health Care Utilities Electric Power Public Facilities Housing Environmental Facilities Development ■ 2008
■ 2009
Source: Thomson Reuters.
as Merrill Lynch and UBS merged or left the field in 2008. This change left states with fewer options for underwriting services and may have contributed to higher borrowing costs for issuers.3 Issuers also felt the loss of major bond insurers. The interest a state pays on bonds is partly determined by buyers’ assessments of the state’s credit rating. Some states are highly rated and can find favorable interest terms based on this standing. Other states, and many local entities, traditionally looked for so-called credit enhancements to improve the marketability of their bonds. Bond insurers make debt more attractive by promising to make bond payments in the event the issuer cannot. During the credit crisis, many bond insurance companies became entangled in problems related to mortgage-backed securities. As a result, their credit ratings and ability to insure new bond offerings declined. Municipal issuers’ use of insurance for their bonds also declined. “Only 10.5 percent of all new issues carried bond insurance in (2009) through September, roughly half of the 20.4 percent carrying insurance in the same year-earlier period,” according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. 4 The significant point from this trend is that governments accustomed to selling bonds with an enhancement from insurance companies must now sell their bonds
without this guarantee. This often means they receive lower ratings than with insurance and must offer higher interest rates to compensate investors. Another change in the municipal market came in the type of investor who bought state and local debt in 2008 and 2009. Individuals who buy bonds or bond funds are known as retail investors, while organizations such as pension funds or corporations that buy bonds are called institutional investors. In a reversal from the recent past, retail investors became the dominant buyers of municipal bonds in the last two years.5 The two classes of investors have different reasons for buying bonds, so states shifted their marketing strategies in order to meet growing demand from individuals. California, the largest municipal debt issuer in 2009, employed several tools to market state bonds to investors in the last two years.6 Recognizing demand from institutional investors alone would not be enough to obtain necessary financing, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer developed a Web site, www.buycaliforniabonds.com, to explain state bonds to potential investors. The site informs visitors about the steps they can take to purchase municipal bonds, including setting up a brokerage account and researching specific bond offerings. The site also offers information about upcoming bond sales.
The Council of State Governments 259
Treasurers
Figure B: Build America Bond Issuances through November 2009 (In billions) Others $12.9
California $14.7
Mississippi $1.2 Utah $1.2 Kentucky $1.2 Pennsylvania $1.2 Washington $1.5
Texas $7.0
Ohio $1.7 Florida $1.8 New Jersey $2.1 Illinois $3.4
New York $5.1
Source: U.S. Treasury Department.
To raise awareness of the Web site, and by extension state bonds, the state ran radio advertisements featuring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The successful marketing and education efforts helped the state fill out several bond offerings in 2008 with 40 percent to nearly 80 percent of sales coming from retail buyers.7 By adapting to changing market conditions, the state was able to obtain financing at a difficult time.8
Federal Assistance States received significant financial assistance from the federal government in 2009 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The stimulus package included a new debt tool for states and local entities in which the federal government pays a portion of the interest. The program, named Build America Bonds, made an immediate impact on the municipal market. The stimulus legislation was designed by Congress to bolster the economy, and so, too, the Build America Bonds program was designed to encourage economic growth and job creation. Build America Bonds must be used for new projects, such as road or school construction, as opposed to refinancing existing debt. Bonds issued in 2009 came with an interest subsidy of 35 percent, paid by the federal government to the issuing state or local entity. In contrast to many other municipal
260â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
bonds, Build America Bonds are taxable, which means interest earned on the bonds by investors is subject to federal income taxation. Since Build America Bonds lack the tax exemption that makes other bonds attractive to buyers, states must generally pay higher interest rates on them. The federal subsidy covers a portion or all of the additional cost, depending on the precise details of a given bond offering. Other programs authorized by the stimulus legislation include Recovery Zone and Qualified School Construction Bonds. Together with Build America Bonds, these programs provided significant aid to state borrowing efforts last year. In the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first year, $64 billion in Build America Bonds were issued, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.9 The program began in April 2009, so the first-year figure only includes nine months. At more than 15 percent of the entire municipal market last year, Build America Bonds quickly took hold with investors and issuers. From April to November, 42 states and Washington, D.C. issued Build America Bonds. Figure B shows the states (including localities within those states) that issued $1 billion or more in the new bonds as of Nov. 30, 2009. The new bonds have been successful for a number of reasons. For one, they brought new investors into the market for state debt. Typical buyers of tra-
Treasurers ditional tax-exempt bonds have an interest in both the income the bonds produce and the tax benefits they convey. The tax exemption is most valuable to bondholders in higher income tax brackets. Taxable bonds, such as Build America Bonds, generally must pay higher interest rates to compensate for the lack of tax exemptions. The creation of the Build America Bonds program inserted a new type of taxable debt instrument, backed by subsidies from the federal government, into the market. Buyers of the bonds have included foreign investors and pension funds that are not affected by U.S. federal income taxes, and thus have not been interested in taxexempt bonds in the past. The Build America Bonds program also helped states by lowering the effective interest rate they must pay on new bonds. As some borrowing has shifted from traditional tax-exempt bonds to Build America Bonds, the supply of tax-exempt bonds has fallen, and with it the interest states must pay on those bonds.10 At the beginning of March 2009, 99 percent of municipal bonds issued year to date were tax-exempt. By the beginning of December 2009, 21 percent of issues in the year were taxable bonds.11 Build America Bonds changed the composition of the market in a remarkable way.
Transparency in the Market for State Debt The Internet and electronic communications are transforming the way buyers and sellers of public debt interact. States provide information to investors about their financial conditions and debt in a number of ways. They post online information about their budgets and revenue collection on a regular basis. They also publish consolidated annual financial reports, with details about assets, liabilities, income and expenditures. When preparing bond offerings, states also work with underwriters to prepare official statements for investors. Recently, the regulatory body set up by Congress to oversee the municipal market—the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board—established an online repository of disclosure information for investors. The Electronic Municipal Market Access System is replacing an older system of paper records with a Web site investors can use to access information about thousands of state and local government bonds. The National Association of State Treasurers and other organizations support this initiative as a way to make the municipal market more transparent for investors.
The system brings changes to the market by giving investors access to information free of charge for the first time and allowing investors to easily compare the disclosure practices of different issuers.12 In 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the Electronic Municipal Market Access System as a central repository of documents related to state and local bonds.13
Turmoil and Stability Amid the economic upheaval of the last two years, states adapted to evolving conditions to find funding for public works. Their own efforts to market bond offerings toward investors’ current needs helped produce this result. So, too, did assistance from the federal government in the form of a new, subsidized bond program. As always, state and local governments also worked with private sector financial experts to assess market conditions and craft appropriate borrowing strategies. At the start of 2010, market experts anticipated growth in the municipal market, particularly with regard to taxable issues like Build America Bonds.14 With the program scheduled to expire at the end of the year, however, Congress would have to pass new legislation to give Build America Bonds life beyond the short term. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 includes a provision making the program permanent, although with a lower interest subsidy of 28 percent. State treasurers and other officials have stated that regardless of the specific parameters associated with Build America Bonds, tax-exempt bonds should remain a primary tool available to municipal issuers.
Notes 1 Bond Buyer. http://www.bondbuyer.com/marketstatistics/ decade_1/. Accessed Jan. 19, 2010. 2 “Muni Bonds May Benefit from Favorable Long-Term Trends”. Northern Trust. http://individual.northernfunds.com/ resources/archive/docs/longterm_muni.pdf. Accessed Jan. 14, 2010. 3 “Municipal Bond Fees Rising at Fastest Pace Since 1981,” Bloomberg, Dec. 12, 2008. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ news?pid=20601103&sid=ajcOgJLW5ed4&refer=us. Accessed Jan. 19, 2010. 4 “Municipal Bond Credit Report 2009 Q3”. http://www. sifma.org/research/pdf/RRVol4-12.pdf. Accessed Jan. 18, 2010. 5 “Municipal bond market shifting toward retail investors,” The New York Times, Jan. 6, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/01/06/business/worldbusiness/06iht-deal07.1.1911 7339.html?_r=1. Accessed Feb. 2, 2010.
The Council of State Governments 261
Treasurers 6 “Top Issuers, 2009,” Thomson Reuters. http://www.bond buyer.com. Accessed Jan. 4, 2010. 7 Katie Carroll, Presentation to the National Association of State Treasurers, Dec. 9, 2008 in Addison, Texas. 8 Several other states have undertaken similar efforts aimed at retail buyers. For example, see www.buyoregon bonds.com and buydcbonds.com. 9 Hon. Rosie Rios, “The Recovery Act at Work: Build America Bonds”. Presentation to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. http://www.treasury.gov/recovery/docs/BAB Presentation for Mayors.ppt. Accessed Feb. 9, 2010. 10 Ibid. 11 “An Overview of the 2009 Municipal Market,” Public Financial Management, Jan. 29, 2010. Presentation provided to author. 12 Lynnette Hotchkiss, “What’s Behind the Disclosure Curtain? Just Ask EMMA.” July 6, 2009. Commentary published in The Bond Buyer. http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/118_ 127/-305089-1.html. Accessed Feb. 3, 2010. 13 Andrew Ackerman, “SEC Approves MSRB Request to Begin Filings Collection by EMMA,” The Bond Buyer, June 11, 2009. http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/118_111/ -304394-1.html. Accessed Feb. 3, 2010. 14 “SIFMA 2010 Municipal Issuance Survey”. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. December 2009. http://www.sifma.org/uploadedFiles/Research/Research Reports/2009/Municipal_MunicipalIssuanceSurvey2010_ 20091207_SIFMA.pdf.
About the Author Kevin Johnson is the communications director of the National Association of State Treasurers and program manager of the affiliated State Debt Management Network.
262 The Book of the States 2010
treasurers
Table 4.24 THE treasurers, 2010 State or other Method of jurisdiction Name and party selection
Length of regular term in years
Date of first service
Present term ends
Maximum consecutive terms allowed by constitution
Alabama...................... Alaska (a).................... Arizona........................ Arkansas...................... California.....................
Kay Ivey (R) Jerry Burnett Dean Martin (R) Martha Shoffner (D) Bill Lockyer (D)
E A E E E
4 Governor’s Discretion 4 4 4
1/2003 1/2009 1/2007 1/2007 1/2007
1/2011 … 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011
2 ... 2 2 2
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Florida (b)................... Georgia........................
Cary Kennedy (D) Denise L. Nappier (D) Velda Jones-Potter (D) Adelaide “Alex” Sink (D) W. Daniel Ebersole
E E E E A
4 4 4 4 Pleasure of the Board
1/2007 1/1999 1/2009 1/2007 11/1997
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 …
2 H H 2 ...
Hawaii (c).................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
Georgina Kawamura Ron G. Crane (R) Alexi Giannoulias (D) Richard Mourdock (R) Michael L. Fitzgerald (D)
A E E E E
Governor’s Discretion 4 4 4 4
12/2002 1/1999 1/2007 2/2007 1/1983
… 1/2011 1/2011 2/2011 1/2011
... H H (d) H
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland......................
Dennis McKinney Todd Hollenbach (D) John N. Kennedy (R) David G. Lemoine (D) Nancy K. Kopp (D)
E E E L L
4 4 4 2 4
1/2009 12/2007 1/2000 1/2005 2/2002
1/2011 12/2011 1/2012 1/2011 1/2011
H 2 H 4 H
Massachusetts.............. Michigan...................... Minnesota (e).............. Mississippi.................... Missouri.......................
Timothy Cahill (D) Robert J. Kleine Tom Hanson Tate Reeves (R) Clint Zweifel (D)
E A A E E
4 Governor’s Discretion Governor’s Discretion 4 4
1/2003 5/2006 12/2006 1/2004 1/2009
1/2011 . . . . . . 1/2012 1/2013
H ... ... H 2
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
Janet Kelly Shane Osborn (R) Kate Marshall (D) Catherine Provencher Andrew P. Sidamon-Eristoff (Acting)
A E E L A
Governor’s Discretion 4 4 2 Governor’s Discretion
1/2005 1/2007 1/2007 1/2007 1/2010
… 1/2011 1/2011 12/2010 …
… 2 2 H ...
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
James B. Lewis (D) Aida Brewer Jane Cowell (D) Kelly L. Schmidt (R) Kevin L. Boyce
E A E E E
4 1/2007 Governor’s Discretion 2/2002 4 1/2009 4 1/2005 4 1/2009 (f)
1/2011 … 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011
2 ... H H 2
Oklahoma.................... Oregon......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
Scott Meacham (D) Ben Westlund (D) Robert McCord (D) Frank T. Caprio (D) Converse Chellis (R)
E E E E E
4 4 4 4 4
6/2005 1/2009 1/2009 1/2007 8/2007 (g)
1/2011 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
H 2 2 2 H
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas (h)...................... Utah.............................. Vermont.......................
Vernon L. Larson (R) David H. Lillard Jr. Susan Combs (R) Richard K. Ellis (R) Jeb Spaulding (D)
E L E E E
4 2 4 4 2
1/2003 1/2009 1/2007 1/2009 1/2003
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 1/2013 1/2011
2 ... H H H
Virginia........................ Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
Manju Ganeriwala James L. McIntire (D) John D. Perdue (D) Dawn Marie Sass (D) Joseph B. Meyer (R)
A E E E E
Governor’s Discretion 4 4 4 4
1/2009 1/2009 1/1997 1/2007 1/2007
…. 1/2013 1/2013 1/2011 1/2011
... H H H 2
American Samoa........ District of Columbia... Guam............................ No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
Magalei Logovi’i Lasana Mack Rose T. Fejeran Antoinette S. Calvo Juan Carlos Puig Laurel Payne
A A CS A A A
4 Pleasure of CFO . . . 4 4 4
1/2009 8/2005 N.A. N.A. 1/2009 2007
. . . N.A. . . . N.A. N.A. N.A.
... ... ... ... ... ...
Source: National Association of State Treasurers and The Council of State Governments, January 2010. Key: H — No provision specifying number of terms allowed. . . . — No formal provision, position is appointed or elected by governmental entity (not chosen by the electorate). A — Appointed by the governor. (In the District of Columbia, the Treasurer is appointed by the Chief Financial Officer. In Georgia, position is appointed by the State Depository Board.) E — Elected by the voters. L — Elected by the legislature. CS — Civil Service N.A. — Not available.
(a) The Deputy Commissioner of Department of Revenue performs this function. (b)The official title of the office of state treasurer is Chief Financial Officer. (c) The Director of Finance performs this function. (d) Eligible for eight out of any period of twelve years. (e) The Commissioner of Management and Budget performs this function. (f) Kevin Boyce was appointed by Gov. Strickland to fill the Treasurer position after Richard Cordray was elected in November 2008 to fill the Attorney General seat vacated by Marc Dann’s resignation in May 2008. (g) Representative Converse Chellis was elected Treasurer on August 3, 2007 by the legislature after Gov. Sanford suspended Thomas Ravenel from the office. (h) The Comptroller of Public Accounts performs this function.
The Council of State Governments 263
treasurers
Table 4.25 treasurers: Qualifications for office
State or other jurisdiction Minimum age
U.S. citizen (years)
State resident (years)
Qualified voter (years)
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
25 . . . 25 21 18
7 . . . 10 H H
5 H 5 H H
... ... ... ... H
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
25 . . . 18 30 . . .
H H H H . . .
H H H 7 . . .
H H H H ...
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
. . . 25 25 . . . 18
H H H H . . .
5 2 H H . . .
... ... ... H ...
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana . .................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
. . . 30 25 . . . . . .
. . . H 5 H . . .
. . . 6 (a) H . . .
... H H ... ...
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
. . . . . . . . . 25 . . .
. . . . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . 5 5
... ... ... H H
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
. . . 19 25 . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
... H H ... ...
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
30 . . . 21 25 18
H H H H H
H H 1 5 H
H NA H H H
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
31 18 . . . 18 . . .
H . . . . . . H H
(b) H . . . H H
(c) ... ... H H
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
. . . . . . 18 25 . . .
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . H 5 2
... ... ... H ...
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia . .............. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
. . . 18 18 18 25
. . . H 5 H H
. . . . . . 5 H 1
... H H H H
Dist. of Columbia.........
. . .
. . .
. . .
...
Source: National Association of State Treasurers, March 2008. Key: H — Formal provision; number of years not specified. . . . — No formal provision. N.A. — Not applicable.
264 The Book of the States 2010
(a) 5 years immediately preceding the date of qualification for office. (b) For at least 10 years immediately preceding. (c) Must be able to vote for at least 10 years immediately preceding election
treasurers
State or other jurisdiction
Cash management
Investment of retirement funds
Investment of trust funds
Deferred compensation
Management of bonded debt
Bond issuance
Debt service
Arbitrage rebate
Banking services
Unclaimed property
Archives for disbursement of documents
College savings
Collateral programs
Local government investment pool
Other
Table 4.26 responsibilities of the treasurer’s office
Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California.................
H H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H H H
... (a) ... ... ...
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia.....................
H H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H H H . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H H . . . H
... (b) (c) (d) ...
Hawaii...................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa..........................
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . H . . . H
H . . . H . . . H
H H H H H
H . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . H
. . . H H H . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . H H H
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
(e) ... (f) (g) ...
Massachusetts.......... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Mississippi................ Missouri....................
H H H H H
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
H H H H . . .
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . H H
. . . . . . H H . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
(h) ... ... ... (i)
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H . . . H H H
H . . . H H H
H . . . H H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H H . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . H
... (j) ... ... ...
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina......... North Dakota........... Ohio..........................
H H H H H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . H
... (k) ... ... ...
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H H . . . H
H . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
... (l) ... ... ...
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont....................
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . H
H . . . H H H
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H H . . . . . .
. . . H H H . . .
(m) ... (n) ... ...
Virginia..................... Washington.............. West Virginia............ Wisconsin................. Wyoming..................
H H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
H . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H H
H . . . H . . . H
H H . . . H H
(o) ... ... ... ...
Dist. of Columbia.... H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
. . .
H
H
. . .
...
Source: The National Association of State Treasurer’s, March 2008 Key: H — Responsible for activity. . . . — Not responsible for activity. (a) Revenue collection including oil and gas royalties and corporate income taxes; child support enforcement; permanent fund dividend eligibility. (b) Second Injury Fund. (c) General Fund account reconcilement; disbursements. (d) State Accounting Disbursement, Fire Marshall, Insurance and Banking Consumer Services, Insurance Rehabilitation and Liquidation, Risk Management, Workers Compensation, Insurance Fraud, Insurance Agent and Agency Services.
(e) Municipal bond servicing. (f) Social Security for Section 218 Agreements. (g) Municipal Revenue Sharing. (h) Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust Funds for Cities and Towns. (i) Investment of all State funds. (j) Nebraska Child Support Payment Center. (k) Linked Deposit Program. (l) Legislation pending to move Unclaimed Property program to Treasurer’s office. (m) Treasurer is a member of the trust and retirement investment programs. (n) Tax Administration/Collection. (o) Risk Management.
The Council of State Governments 265
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
Collaboration Ushers in a New Era of Government Accountability By Glen B. Gainer III
For those in the industry of government accountability, the term “unprecedented change in 2009” is an understatement. With the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, government financial management professionals embarked on a monumental undertaking: using existing limited resources to quickly develop a new, efficient, Web-based system of reporting and accounting for federal grant funds. Everyone recognized the enormity of the task; no one, however, could have foreseen the extraordinary levels of intergovernmental cooperation that would emerge. On Feb. 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or the Recovery Act) into law. ARRA provided $787 billion in funding, with approximately $246 billion going to the states. In addition to providing an unprecedented amount of funding, the act also required unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency. As with most pieces of controversial legislation, the Recovery Act has had some unforeseen consequences. One such unforeseen consequence, however, was unexpectedly positive: the emergence of extreme levels of inter- (and intra-) governmental cooperation. As they have worked to implement the requirements of the act, governments and agencies at the local, state and federal levels have exhibited a surprising tenacity, coming together in the spirit of cooperation to accomplish what can be fairly labeled as a Herculean effort.
The Recovery Act: What’s the Big Deal? In a perfect world, nobody would talk about unprecedented levels of cooperation because everyone would work together toward common goals, with cooperation being implied and not worthy of special mention. However, when one considers the thousands of governmental and nongovernmental entities and players in the federal grants game in this country, with each working to satisfy the desires and aims of the citizen groups they represent, it is easy to understand how the notion of cooperative effort might seem foreign, or perhaps even quaint. The Recovery Act was unprecedented in many ways. Not only did it include an enormous amount of money to be distributed in the name of economic stimulus, but it also called for the creation of complex processes and oversight bodies to help
266 The Book of the States 2010
usher in a new era of government transparency and accountability. The legislation required these things to be developed and implemented in just a few months after the signing of the bill. All this happened at a time when the American economy was suffering its largest decline since the Great Depression and state budgets were at their weakest point in modern history. The act called for the establishment of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, a new entity with two goals: to provide transparency in relation to Recovery Act funds and to prevent and detect fraud, waste and mismanagement. It added new review and reporting responsibilities to the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s to-do list. Governors were required to certify the appropriateness of the use of Recovery Act funds. The act also required quarterly reporting by grant recipients and the development of a searchable Web site—www.recovery.gov—which would be used to educate and inform the American public on the use of the funds, providing previously unheard of access to data on government spending. Despite the enormity of the mandates of the Recovery Act, the tasks served to hone the focus for governments at all levels. A lot of work had to be done very quickly. Cooperation was paramount to any hope for success. And in this, officials, agencies and entities at all levels proved that government cooperation and collaboration can and does work.
Mission Impossible? Soon after the act was signed, the Obama administration quickly began staffing the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, under whose purview recovery.gov, the major tracking and accountability mechanism of the law, would reside. President Obama appointed Earl E. Dev-
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS aney, former inspector general of the Department of Interior, as chairman. Twelve other inspectors general from various federal agencies joined Devaney to comprise the board. The board had a daunting task ahead of it—to create a user-friendly, searchable Web site that would demonstrate to the American people how Recovery Act money was distributed by federal agencies and how the funds were being used by the recipients. The Web site had to be built, tested and implemented simultaneously as the data reporting process was being developed. There were seven short months from the enactment of the law in February until the first quarterly reporting deadline Oct. 10, 2009. Perhaps one of the most complex aspects of the Recovery Act was the new Section 1512 reporting requirements, which called for the primary recipients of the funds to report quarterly on aspects of grants that had never before been reported. It required not just reporting the total amounts of funds received and spent on projects and activities, but details such as descriptions of projects, completion status and estimates on jobs created and retained. To those in the business of government accountability, these new reporting requirements amounted to the biggest change in modern governmental financial management. Per the Recovery Act, federal fund recipients at the state and local levels would now be required to take their disparate systems and processes (in the cases of many local nonprofit organizations, manual processes) and conform them to uniform data elements and reporting processes—elements and processes that were still being developed even as the clock was ticking down to the Oct. 10, 2009, deadline. If the time was short, the money was even shorter. There was no Recovery Act funding specifically earmarked to assist state and local governments with implementing the act’s unprecedented reporting requirements. The Recovery Act contained another controversial and unprecedented provision: state governors were called upon to provide funding certifications. In addition to a general certification, whereby a governor accepts responsibility for Recovery Act spending, governors were also expected in some instances (such as highway spending), to certify that the funds were being spent for an appropriate government purpose. Some likened these requirements to controversial provisions contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires corporate CEOs to sign off on corporate financial statements, thereby accepting final responsibility for their
accuracy. This requirement puts members of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers right in the middle of the fray, as they are the professionals who must provide the data and ensure that it is as accurate and as complete as possible. To make things even more complex, quite a bit of disparity emerged regarding how states would and should report. Should the reporting be centralized or decentralized? Traditionally, federal grant reports were submitted in a decentralized manner, with the state agency receiving the funds reporting back through the appropriate federal funding channel. However, since governors were being asked to certify the appropriateness of spending and the accuracy of the reported data, some states desired centralized reporting. In addition to the new reporting requirements, the act included an additional layer of accountability that would take the form of new responsibilities for the Government Accountability Office. Sixteen states (and Washington, D.C.) were selected for bimonthly reviews on the use of funds, safeguards and monitoring, audits, and impact evaluations. The Government Accountability Office also would perform program-specific reviews, first focusing on Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage funding, highway infrastructure investments and then state fiscal stabilization funds. For the first time, the Government Accountability Office was asked to examine, on a nationwide basis, how states expend federal grant funds. Early on, it identified internal control as a crucial area for attention at the local and state levels. In the fall of 2009, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget launched a Single Audit Pilot Project to report early internal control deficiencies. Beyond these major hurdles, the logistics of bringing all the pieces of the puzzle together at just the right moment seemed daunting: developing never-before-reported data elements and a reporting hierarchy and architecture; addressing upfront fraud concerns; staffing and establishing an oversight body; developing the technology to present the data to the public in an easy-to-use Web site; testing the process; and finally, implementing it. To achieve what seemed impossible to some, many parties worked together to ensure the best possible levels of communication and collaboration. The Oct. 10 reporting deadline came and went, and to the relief of all, recovery.gov worked. Some issues with the process are still being resolved, but the initial success of the effort is a testament to the will and
The Council of State Governments 267
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS dedication of federal, state and local governments to working together to meet extreme challenges.
Collaborating for Success With so much at stake and so many parties involved at every level of government, how did the initial implementation of the Recovery Act succeed? Collaboration and cooperation were the essential ingredients for success. Immediately after the historic Recovery Act was signed, all the various parties responsible for implementing the provisions of the act went to work. The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, along with industry peers like the National Governors Association, National Association of State Chief Information Officers, National Association of State Purchasing Officers, National Association of State Budget Officers, The Council of State Governments and others, reached out to their members to assess the act’s provisions and develop lists of risk areas and items of concern. The Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board provided regular briefings to state officials, facilitating opportunities for states to offer input as the new reporting framework and guidelines were developed. A flurry of webinars and teleconferences emerged as everyone sought answers to how they could successfully implement the act. Working with those federal entities, states helped determine the outcome of critical aspects of the process, notably whether Recovery Act reporting should be centralized, decentralized or both. Ultimately, federal, state and local stakeholders were able to reach a solution that would allow for both types of reporting, including centralized batch reporting, which was a huge technological accomplishment. The Office of Management and Budget worked closely with state officials to develop a reporting process that had a chance of being successfully implemented by the Oct. 10 deadline. States reviewed multiple drafts of guidance documents, offering practical input on the development of the data elements and definitions. The federal officials responded to input from the states and locals to develop a workable solution. To help facilitate the process, each state assigned a key Recovery Act point of contact, or “recovery czar” as they were called early on. The National Governors Association held regular calls to allow these key contacts to establish a network of support
268 The Book of the States 2010
and interaction as each state worked within its own unique environment to meet the act’s requirements. The Government Accountability Office participated in calls with the state auditors to provide early reviews of potential internal control issues and to discuss how state auditors could perform their duties and meet the requirements of the Recovery Act. State auditors and comptrollers developed training programs to be used by state agencies to foster awareness of the potential for fraud and abuse as the funds began to make their way from the federal, to the state, and finally to the local levels. Sixteen states volunteered to participate in the Office of Management and Budget’s Single Audit Pilot Project, further enhancing efforts to curtail potential internal control issues that might be encountered at the recipient level as funds were disbursed. In short, there was an enormous effort on the part of all parties to make sure we “got it right” the first time. The act called for never-before seen levels of reporting and accountability. Citizens were expecting, and demanding such. Government was in the spotlight and was expected to deliver on huge promises. Working together, government financial managers and accountability officials at all levels—federal, state and local—were able to realize a monumental accomplishment on Oct. 10. When the first reports on the use of Recovery Act funds hit the streets, a new era of accountability and transparency debuted in America.
Future Challenges Despite the monumental accomplishment of launching recovery.gov on time and with a reasonable level of functionality, as can be expected, some things did not go exactly as planned. There was confusion about the final data elements for the reporting model: the data model went through several versions, with each including significant changes, and the database structure and hierarchy was not clearly identified prior to the first reporting date. Grant recipients were not receiving guidance in all cases from a single voice, as inconsistent directives were coming down from the Office of Management and Budget and some federal agencies. As can be expected for such a monumental task undertaken in such a short time frame, training was an issue, especially as standardizing and streamlining the process was occurring simultaneously as the process was being developed and implemented. Although the stakeholders were eventually able to reach a solution for centralized batch reporting of
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS data, that only occurred just a few weeks prior to the reporting deadline. Finally, as all parties were working feverishly to implement the data submission process, the processes to review the data (and when needed, to appeal inappropriate data) were not adequately fleshed out prior to the reporting deadline. As states approach the second quarterly reporting deadline, there are still many challenges in the future for Recovery Act reporting, and indeed for expanded federal grants reporting in general. From a state perspective, the biggest challenge for the future of expanded reporting such as that seen through the implementation of the Recovery Act is the lack of resources. The act came into being to address the biggest economic crisis the country has faced since the 1930s. As the country goes, so go state governments. The increased reporting requirements - could not have come at a worse time for state and local governments, which are experiencing budget shortfalls and economic woes in tandem with the major corporations and car manufacturers. Yet state and local governments are being asked to do more work with fewer people and smaller budgets than ever. Increasingly, states are requiring furloughs and experiencing staff cuts and layoffs. Throughout much of 2009, state accounting professionals made the Recovery Act their priority—now they have to get back to their “normal” jobs. Despite America’s taste for increased accountability and transparency, this level of output cannot be sustained by state and local government employees. If increased transparency and accountability are to be a priority, resources to support state and local governments as they carry out the priorities must be found. The first quarter reporting was successfully carried out, and the process is, for all intents and purposes, working. However, consistent directives from the Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies are essential to future success. States must know when Office of Management and Budget rules take precedence and when federal agencies have discretion. Such a small matter may not seem problematic on the surface, but a review of the complex systems, processes and training put into place to enable the reporting required by the Recovery Act quickly reveals the implications of any small changes to the process. The federal government must begin speaking with a single voice so that the states and locals can respond in kind. Perhaps the biggest threat to the Recovery Act’s goal of instituting greater transparency and accountability regarding the expenditure of federal grant funds is the looming potential for fraud.
Through the act, grantees received unprecedented amounts of money. In many cases, the final recipients of the funds had no previous reporting processes in place. A large and rapid influx of funds can often result in massive fraud, as we saw during attempts to provide aid to states after Hurricane Katrina. Government accountability professionals must proceed with caution and do everything possible to prevent the potential for fraud upfront. State comptrollers have begun providing agency-level training to address this concern and state auditors are working to identify internal control deficiencies that may allay some of the possible opportunities for fraud. These efforts must continue and increase. We must be diligent on this matter. A future challenge only slightly less threatening than potential fraud is the politicization of the reporting process. Defining the data elements to be used for the expanded reporting called for in the Recovery Act was not easy, especially data elements such as “jobs created” or “jobs retained.” Changes to data element definitions and calculations as the process gets refined also complicate the matter. Political use of the data reported through recovery.gov is inevitable. However, hopefully most will keep in mind the positives that may be gained as this new accountability and transparency paradigm progresses from infancy to its next stage and seek to minimize politicizing the process. A full examination of the future challenges for government accountability and transparency must ask: what’s next? What will citizens expect after the Recovery Act? If governments can provide quarterly data on grants reporting, why can’t they provide more timely financial statements, or even real-time data on government spending? There are no easy answers to these questions. Regardless, it is safe to say that the implementation of the Recovery Act has ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency. As importantly, it also has fostered a new spirit of cooperation and collaboration among government financial management and accountability professionals at all levels.
About the Author Glen B. Gainer III was elected as West Virginia’s 19th state auditor in November 1992 and was re-elected in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. He earned his bachelor’s degree in political science at the University of Charleston. He is a past president of the National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council and the National Association of State Comptrollers and has served as president of the West Virginia Jump Start Coalition.
The Council of State Governments 269
270â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 State Auditor Division Manager Auditor General State Examiner Auditor of State
Marion M. Higa Don Berg William G. Holland Bruce Hartman David A. Vaudt
Legislative Division of Post Audit Barbara J. Hinton Office of the Auditor of Public Accounts Crit Luallen Office of the Legislative Auditor Daryl G. Purpera Department of Audit Neria R. Douglass Office of Legislative Audits Bruce A. Myers
Office of the Auditor of the Commonwealth Office of the Auditor General Office of the Legislative Auditor Office of the State Auditor Office of the State Auditor Office of the State Auditor
Kansas..................................... Kentucky................................. Louisiana................................ Maine...................................... Maryland................................
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................. Minnesota............................... Mississippi.............................. Missouri..................................
See footnotes at end of table.
State Auditor State Auditor Auditor of State
Beth A. Wood Robert R. Peterson Mary Taylor
C C, S C, S
C, S C, S
E E E
E E
4 yrs. 4 yrs. 4 yrs.
4 yrs. 4 yrs.
H . . . H
H H
. . . State Auditor State Comptroller
Hector H. Balderas Thomas P. DiNapoli
. . .
Office of the State Auditor Office of the State Comptroller, State Audit Bureau Office of the State Auditor Office of the State Auditor Office of the Auditor of State
2 yrs. 5 yr. term and until successor is appointed 6 yrs.
New Mexico........................... New York................................ North Carolina....................... North Dakota......................... Ohio.........................................
. . . H
. . . . . . . . .
Indefinite
H H H
H H
. . .
... H
H ... H H H
H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H
H . . .
H . . . . . .
H . . .
. . . H
. . . . . . H H H
H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . H
. . . . . .
H . . . . . .
H . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
2 yrs. 4 yrs.
4 yrs.
(b) 4 yrs. (a) 4 (a)
H . . . . . . H H
Montana ................................ Legislative Audit Division Tori Hunthausen Legislative Auditor C, S LC Nebraska................................. Office of the Auditor of Mike Foley Auditor of Public Accounts C E Public Accounts Nevada.................................... Legislative Counsel Bureau, Paul Townsend Legislative Auditor S LC Audit Division New Hampshire..................... Legislative Budget Office Jeffry Pattison Legislative Budget Assistant S LC New Jersey.............................. Office of the State Auditor Stephen Eells State Auditor C, S L Office of the State Comptroller Matthew Boxer State Comptroller C G
C S C C C, S
E
LC E L L ED
10 yrs. 4 yrs. 4 yrs.
8 yrs. (b)
4 yrs. (a) Indefinite
5 yrs. 4 yrs.
(a) 5 yrs. Indefinite 4 yrs.
7 yrs.
8 yrs. 6 yrs. 4 yrs. 4 yrs. 4 yrs.
Auditor General Legislative Auditor State Auditor State Auditor State Auditor
Thomas H. McTavish James R. Nobles Rebecca Otto Stacey E. Pickering Susan Montee
C, S
S C, S S S S
L G E
L LC
E L L
LC L
L LC LC G
LC
L L E E E
Auditor of the Commonwealth
A. Joseph DeNucci
Legislative Post Auditor Auditor of Public Accounts Temporary Legislative Auditor State Auditor Legislative Auditor
C, S S C, S
C S
C C, S S
Auditor of Accounts Auditor General State Auditor
Office of the Auditor Legislative Services Officeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Legislative Audits Office of the Auditor General State Board of Accounts Office of the Auditor of State
C,S C
C, S S S S
S
Legal basis Method of U.S. State for office selection Term of office citizen resident
Colorado State Auditor State Auditors
Hawaii..................................... Idaho....................................... Illinois..................................... Indiana.................................... Iowa.........................................
Chief Examiner Legislative Auditor Auditor General Legislative Auditor State Auditor
Ronald L. Jones Pat Davidson Debra K. Davenport Roger A. Norman Elaine Howle Sally Symanski Kevin P. Johnston, Robert G. Jaekle R. Thomas Wagner, Jr. David W. Martin Russell W. Hinton
Office of the Examiner of Public Accounts Division of Legislative Audit Office of the Auditor General Division of Legislative Audit Bureau of State Audits
Colorado................................. Office of the State Auditor Connecticut............................ Office of the Auditors Public Accounts Delaware................................. Office of the Auditor of Accounts Florida..................................... Office of the Auditor General Georgia................................... Department of Audits and Accounts
Alabama................................. Alaska..................................... Arizona................................... Arkansas................................. California................................
State or other jurisdiction State agency Agency head Title
Table 4.27 THE STATE AUDITORS, 2010
None None 2
2 None
2
None None
None
None None
None None None None None
None
None 2 None 2 None
None None None
None None
None None None
None None
None None None None
None
Maximum consecutive terms allowed
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
Department of Legislative Audit Comptroller of the Treasury, Dept. of Audit Office of the State Auditor Office of the State Auditor Office of the State Auditor
Office of the Auditor of Public Accounts Walter J. Kucharski Office of the State Auditor Brian Sonntag Office of the Legislative Auditor Aaron Allred Legislative Audit Bureau Janice Mueller Department of Audit Michael Geesey
Office of the D.C. Auditor Deborah Kay Nichols Office of the Public Auditor Doris Flores Brooks Office of the Public Auditor Michael S. Sablan Office of the Comptroller of Puerto Rico Manuel Diaz Saldaña
Virginia................................... Washington............................. West Virginia.......................... Wisconsin................................ Wyoming.................................
Dist. of Columbia.................. Guam...................................... No. Mariana Islands.............. Puerto Rico............................
State Auditor State Auditor State Auditor
John Keel Auston G. Johnson Thomas M. Salmon
S C, S C
S C, S
C C, S S S S S
C, S
LC E E
L L
SS E LC LC LC SB
E
(b) 4 yrs. 2 yrs.
8 yrs. 2 yrs.
(c) 4 yrs. (b) (b) 4 yrs. Indefinite
4 yrs.
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . H H
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H
Sources: Auditing in the States: A Summary, 2009 edition, The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers and state constitutions and statutes November 2009. Key: H —Provision for. . . . — No provision for E — Elected by the public. L — Appointed by the legislature. G — Appointed by the governor. SS — Appointed by the secretary of state. LC — selected by legislative committee, commission or council.
ED — appointed by the executive director of legislative services GC — Appointed by governor, secretary of state and treasurer. GL — Appointed by the governor and confirmed by both chambers of the legislature SB — Appointed by state budget and control board. C — Constitutional S — Statutory N.A. — Not applicable. (a) Serves at the pleasure of the legislature (b) Serves at the pleasure of a legislative committee. (c) Serves at the pleasure of the secretary of state.
District of Columbia Auditor Public Auditor S E 4 yrs. H H Public Auditor C,S, GL 6 yrs. N.A. N.A. Comptroller of Puerto Rico C GL 10 yrs. H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H
Legal basis Method of U.S. State for office selection Term of office citizen resident
Auditor of Public Accounts C, S L 4 yrs. State Auditor C, S E 4 yrs. Legislative Auditor State Auditor S LC (b) Director S GC 6 yrs.
Auditor General Comptroller of the Treasury
Martin L. Guindon Justin P. Wilson
Director Auditor General Executive Director Auditor General Director Interim State Auditor
Gary Blackmer Jack Wagner Philip R. Durgin Ernest A. Almonte Thomas J. Bardin, Jr. Richard H. Gilbert, Jr.
South Dakota......................... Tennessee............................... Texas........................................ Utah......................................... Vermont..................................
State Auditor and Inspector
Steve Burrage
Office of the State Auditor and Inspector Secretary of State, Audits Division Department of the Auditor General Legislative Finance and Budget Cmte. Office of the Auditor General Legislative Audit Council Office of the State Auditor
Oklahoma............................... Oregon.................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island.......................... South Carolina.......................
State or other jurisdiction State agency Agency head Title
THE STATE AUDITORS, 2010—Continued
None 2 1
None None
None None
None None None
None None
None 2 None None None None
None
Maximum consecutive terms allowed
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
The Council of State Governments 271
auditors and comptrollers
Table 4.28 state auditors: scope of agency authority Investigations Authority to Authority Authority Authority Authority specify accounting State or other to audit all to audit local to obtain to issue principles for jurisdiction state agencies governments information subpoenas local governments
Agency investigates fraud, waste, Agency abuse, and/or operates illegal acts a hotline
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
H(a) . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
... ... ... ... H
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware ............................ Florida................................. Georgia................................
H H H (b) H
H . . . H H H
H H H H H
H . . . H . . . H
H . . . . . . . . . H
H H H H H
... H H ... ...
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana ............................... Iowa.....................................
H . . . H H H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H . . . H H H
. . . . . . (c ) H . . .
H H H H H
... ... ... ... ...
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
H H H H H(b)
H H H H (d)
H H H H H
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H H H H
... H H H H
Massachusetts..................... H H H H . . . H Michigan.............................. H . . . H H . . . H Minnesota............................ Legislative Auditor......... H . . . H H . . . H State Auditor................... (e) H H H H H Mississippi........................... H . . . H H H H Missouri............................... H . . . H H . . . H
H ...
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
H H H H H
. . . H H . . . . . .
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H ... ... ...
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
H H H (f) H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H . . . H H
H H H H H
H H H ... H
Oklahoma............................ H H H H (g) H Oregon................................. H H H H H H Pennsylvania....................... (h) H H H . . . H Rhode Island....................... H . . . H H H H South Carolina.................... Legislative Audit Council. H . . . H . . . . . . H State Auditor................... (i) . . . H . . . . . . H
H H H ...
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
H H H (k) H
H H (j) H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
. . . H . . . H (l)
H H H H H
... H H H H
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia . .................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
H H N.A. H H
. . . H N.A. . . . H
H H N.A. H H
... H N.A. H H
H H N.A. . . . . . .
H H N.A. H H
... H N.A. H ...
Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico.........................
H H N.A.
H N.A. N.A.
H H N.A.
H H N.A.
H H N.A.
H H N.A.
H N.A. N.A.
See footnotes at end of table.
272â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
... ... H H
H ...
auditors and comptrollers
state auditors: scope of agency authority—Continued Source: Auditing in the States, 2009 Edition, The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers. Key: H — Provision for responsibility. . . . — No provision for responsibility. N.A. — Not available. (a) Municipalities not covered. (b) The legislature or legislative branch is excluded from audit authority. (c) Audits of local governments conducted as directed by the General Assembly. (d) Local school systems only. (e) State agencies are audited by the Office of Legislative Auditor.
(f) The Bank of North Dakota, State Fair Association, and a few others are excluded from audit authority. (g) County governments only. (h)The legislative and judicial branches are excluded from audit authority. (i) State’s public colleges and universities and a few agencies are excluded from audit authority. (j) The state auditor can conduct an audit or investigation of any entity receiving funds from the stated; also, certain political subdivisions of the state. (k) State Retirement and Worker’s Compensation Fund are excluded from audit authority. (l) Local governments not receiving state money.
The Council of State Governments 273
274â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 H H H H . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
H . . . H H H H H . . . . . . H
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
. . . H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H
H H . . . . . . H
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . H H . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
H . . . H . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H . . . H H
. . . H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
... ... (f) ... ...
... (c ) (d) ... (e)
... ... ... (a) (b)
H H H H H
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
See footnotes at end of table.
H H . . . H H . . .
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey............................. State Auditor..................... State Comptroller............. H . . . H H H
H H . . . H H . . . H H . . . . . . H
H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . H
H H H . . . H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . H H H . . . H H . . . H H H . . . H . . . . . . H H . . . . . . . . . H . . . H H H . . . H H . . .
... ...
... (l)
(k) ...
... ... ... ...
(i) (j) ... ...
(h) ...
H H H H . . .
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
H H H H H
. . . . . . H H H
. . . H H . . . H
Massachusetts........................ . . . H H H H H . . . H H H Michigan................................ H H H . . . H H . . . H H . . . Minnesota.............................. Legislative Auditor........... H H . . . . . . H . . . . . . H H . . . State Auditor..................... H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississippi.............................. H H . . . H . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . H . . . . . . H . . . Missouri................................. H H . . . H H
H H H H H
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana .................................. Iowa........................................
H H H H H
. . . H H H . . .
Other audits
... ... (g) ...
H H . . . H H
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware . ............................. Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
H H H H H
Accounting and review services
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H H H H H
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
State or other Financial Attestation Compliance Economy Performance jurisdiction statement Single audit engagements only and efficiency Program Sunset measures IT
Table 4.29 STATE AUDITORS: TYPES OF AUDITS
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
. . . H N.A.
. . . . . . N.A. H H N.A.
. . . H N.A. H H
Sources: Auditing in the States: A Summary, 2009 edition. The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers and state constitutions and statutes. Updated November 2009. Key: H — Provision for responsibility. . . . — No provision for responsibility. N.A.— Not available. (a) Internal control and compliance reviews. (b) Investigations, assessments related to high risk. (c) Agreed-upon procedures. (d) Delaware contracts out financial statement and IT audits. (e) Desk reviews.
. . . H N.A.
. . . H N.A. . . . H . . . . . . N.A.
. . . H N.A. . . . . . .
. . . . . . N.A.
H H N.A. . . . H
. . . H H . . . H
(f) Agreed-upon procedures. (g) Investigative or forensic audits. (h) Privatization audits. (i) Internal control and compliance audits. (j) Agreed-upon procedures. (k) School district forensic audits. (l) Internal control reviews; studies. (m) Investigations (reviews). (n) Special projects, feasibility studies. (o) Cash receipts audits at local courts.
H H N.A.
H H N.A. H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . N.A.
H H N.A. . . . . . .
. . . H H . . . H
. . . H N.A.
. . . H N.A. . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . H
... ... N.A.
(o) ... N.A. ... ...
. . . H N.A.
H H N.A. . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands............. Puerto Rico...........................
H H N.A. H . . .
. . . H . . . H H
H H N.A. H . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
Virginia................................ Washington............................ West Virginia ........................ Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
H H H H . . .
... ... ... (n) ...
H H H H H
H H H H H
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
... (m) ... ...
Other audits
... ...
Accounting and review services
Oklahoma.............................. H H H . . . H H . . . . . . H . . . Oregon................................... H H H H H H . . . . . . H H Pennsylvania.......................... H H H H H H . . . H H . . . Rhode Island......................... H H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . South Carolina...................... Legislative Audit Council . . . . . . . . . . . . H H . . . . . . . . . . . . State Auditor................... H H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State or other Financial Attestation Compliance Economy Performance jurisdiction statement Single audit engagements only and efficiency Program Sunset measures IT
STATE AUDITORS: TYPES OF AUDITS—Continued
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
The Council of State Governments 275
276â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Dept. of Accounting and General Services Office of State Controller Office of the State Comptroller Office of the Auditor of State State Accounting Enterprise
Division of Accounts and Reports Office of the Controller Division of Administration Office of the State Controller Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury
Office of the Comptroller Office of Financial Management Dept. of Finance Dept. of Finance and Administration Division of Accounting
State Accounting Division Accounting Division Office of the State Controller Division of Accounting Services Office of Management and Budget
Hawaii........................... Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
Kansas........................... Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland.........................
Massachusetts............... Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi....................... Missouri...........................
Montana........................ Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
Name
See footnotes at end of table.
Title
Paul Christofferson Paul Carlson Kim Wallin (D) Steven Smith Charlene M. Holzbaur
Martin J. Benison Michael J. Moody Tom J. Hanson Kevin Upchurch Mark A. Kaiser
State Controller and Director
Administrator State Accounting Administrator State Controller Acting Comptroller Director
State Comptroller Director Commissioner Executive Director Director of Accounting
Director Controller Commissioner State Controller State Comptroller
State Controller State Comptroller Auditor of State Chief Operating Officer
Donna Jones (R) Daniel W. Hynes (D) Tim Berry (R) Calvin McKelvogue Kent Olson Edgar C. Ross Angele Davis Edward Karass Peter Franchot (D)
State Comptroller
State Controller Comptroller Secretary of Finance Chief Financial Officer State Accounting Officer
State Comptroller Director of Finance State Comptroller Chief Fiscal Officer, Director State Controller
Russ K. Satio
David J. McDermott Nancy Wyman (D) Gary M. Pfeiffer Alex Sink (D) Greg S. Griffin
Thomas L. White Jr. Kim J. Garnero D. Clark Partridge Richard A. Weiss John Chiang (D)
New Mexico.................. Dept. of Finance and Administration, Anthony I. Armijo Financial Control Division
Office of the State Controller Office of the Comptroller Dept. of Finance Dept. of Financial Services State Accounting Office
Colorado........................ Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
Agency or office
Office of the State Comptroller Division of Finance General Accounting Office Dept. of Finance and Administration Office of the State Controller
State
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
Table 4.30 THE STATE COMPTROLLERS, 2010
Legal basis for office S
S S C S S
S S S C,S S
S S S S C
C C C S
S
S C S C,S S
S S S S C
Method of selection G
(m) (d) E G G
G SBD G G (d)
(d) (f) G (f) E
E E E (g)
G
(d) E G E G
(c) (a) (d) G E
Approval or confirmation, if necessary . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . AS
. . . SBD AS AS . . .
. . . AG . . . AG . . .
. . . . . . . . . AS
AS
AG . . . AS . . . ...
AG AG AG . . . . . .
Date of first service
Present term ends (b) 1/2011 (a) 1/2011 (a)
. . . (a) . . . (a) 1/2011
1.5 yrs. 13 yrs. 1 yr. 3 yrs. 1.5 yrs.
5 mos. 8 yrs. 6 yrs. 5.5 yrs. 3 yrs.
Consecutive time in office
1/1991
6/2004 11/2000 1/2007 1/2007 12/1999
1/1999 8/2002 12/2006 1/2009 1/2009
6/2007 6/1975 4/2008 3/2003 1/2007
1/2007 11/1999 1/2007 5/2004
4 yrs. 9 yrs. 3 yrs. 3 yrs. 9 yrs.
9 yrs. 6 yrs. 3 yrs. 1 yr. 1 yr.
2.5 yrs. 33 yrs. 2 yrs. 6 yrs. 3 yrs.
3 yrs. 10 yrs. 3 yrs. 5.5 yrs.
12/2010 18 yrs.
N.A. N.A. 1/2011 N.A. (b)
1/2011 8/2008 1/2011 N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. ... N.A. 1/2011
1/2011 1/2011 1/2011 N.A.
12/2002 12/2010 7 yrs.
4/2008 1/1995 2/2009 1/2007 8/2008
1/2010 8/1999 4/2002 5/2002 1/2007
Length of term
. . . unlimited . . . 2 terms . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 terms
Elected comptrollerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s maximum consecutive terms . . . . . . 2 terms . . . . . .
unlimited . . . . . . unlimited . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . unlimited
2 terms unlimited 2 terms . . .
H ... ... ... ...
... H ... ... ...
H ... Exempt ... ...
... ... ... ...
...
H ... ... ... ...
H ... ... ... ...
Civil service or merit system employee 4 yrs. unlimited H
(b) (b) 4 yrs. 4 yrs. (a)
(j) (k) (a) (a) (g)
(b) (i) . . . (i) 4 yrs.
4 yrs. 4 yrs. 4 yrs. (a)
4 yrs. . . .
(g) 4 yrs. (a) 4 yrs. (a)
(b) (a) (b) (a) 4 yrs.
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
Office of the State Auditor Division of Accounts Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts Division of Finance Dept. of Finance and Management
Dept. of Accounts Office of Financial Management Office of the State Auditor Finance Division, Office of the State Comptroller State Controller’s Office Office of the State Auditor
South Dakota................ Tennessee........................ Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
Virginia.......................... Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
(e) (d) SBD (d) E
AG AS
. . . . . . . . .
. . . AG AG . . . . . .
Date of first service
N.A. (b) 12/2009 N.A. 1/2011
12/2010 7/2013 (a) 1/2011
Present term ends
9/2005 2/2005
N.A. N.A.
1/2003 1/2011 12/1995 N.A. 1/2007 1/2011
10/2001 11/1989 12/2007 8/1986 1/2003
1/2007 8/2008 1/2003 1/2007
4 yrs. 3 yrs.
6 yrs. 14 yrs. 3 yrs.
8 yrs 20 yrs. 2 yrs. 22 yrs. 6 yrs.
3 yrs. 1 yr. 7 yrs. 3 yrs.
Consecutive time in office
. . . . . . . . . . . . unlimited
unlimited unlimited unlimited . . .
... ... ... H ...
... ... ... ...
(g) (a)
. . . . . .
... ...
4 yrs. 2 terms ... (b) . . . ... 4 yrs. unlimited . . .
(h) (g) (a) (b) 4 yrs.
4 yrs. 7 yrs. (a) (a)
. . . . . .
8/2007 1/2007
N.A. 1/2011
2 yrs. 3 yrs.
(b) . . . 4 yrs. 2 terms
H ... (a) Serves at the pleasure of the governor. (b) Indefinite. (c) Appointed by the Director of the Dept. of Finance (merit system position). (d) Appointed by the head of the department of administration or administrative services. (e) Appointed by the head of finance. department or agency. (f) Appointed by the head of financial and administrative services. (g) Serves at the pleasure of the head of the department of administration or administrative services. (h) Serves at the pleasure of the head of the finance department or agency. (i) Serves at the pleasure of the head of the financial and administrative services. (j) Appointed by the governor for a term coterminous with the governor. (k) Two-year renewable contractual term; classified executive service. (l) As of July 1, 2005, the responsibility for accounting and financial reporting in Georgia was transferred to the newly-created State Accounting Office. (m) Classified position.
S CS C,S E
State Controller State Auditor
(d) G
Approval or confirmation, if necessary . . . GA . . . AS
Length of term
Steve Censky Rita Meyer (R)
S S
C E S (f) C,S E
S S S S C,S
Method of selection E G G G
Elected comptroller’s maximum consecutive terms
State Comptroller S G GA 11/2001 (a) 9 yrs. (a) . . . H Senior Assistant Director State Auditor C E . . . 1/1993 12/2008 15 yrs. 4 yrs. unlimited . . . State Comptroller and Finance Director S (d) AG 10/2005 N.A. 4 yrs. (g) . . . ...
Director Commissioner
John Reidhead James Reardon
Legal basis for office C,S S S S
Civil service or merit system employee
David A. Von Moll Sadie Rodriguez-Hawkins Glen B. Gainier III (D) Ross Taylor
State Auditor Chief of Accounts Comptroller of Public Accounts
State Comptroller State Controller Chief Accounting Officer State Controller Comptroller General
State Comptroller State Controller Director Director
Title
Richard L. Sattgast (R) Jan I. Sylvis Susan Combs (R)
Brenda Bolander John J. Radford Anna Maria Kiehl Lawrence C. Franklin Jr. Richard Eckstrom (R)
Thomas P. DiNapoli David McCoy Pam Sharp J. Pari Sabety
Name
Sources: Comptrollers: Technical Activities and Functions, 2008 edition, National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers. December 2009. Key: . . .— No provision for. C — Constitutional S —Statutory N.A. — Not applicable. E — Elected by the public. G —Appointed by the Governor. CS — Civil Service. AG —Approved by the governor. AS —Approved/confirmed by the Senate. SBD — Approved by State Budget Director. GA — Confirmed by the General Assembly. SDB — Confirmed by State Depository Board.
Office of State Finance State Controller’s Division Comptroller Operations Office of Accounts and Control Office of the Comptroller General
Oklahoma...................... Oregon............................. Pennsylvania................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
Agency or office
Office of the State Comptroller Office of the State Controller Office of Management and Budget Office of Budget and Management
State
New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
THE STATE COMPTROLLERS, 2010—Continued
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
The Council of State Governments 277
auditors and comptrollers
Table 4.31 state comptrollers: qualifications for office U.S. citizen State resident State Minimum age (years) (years) (b)
Education years or degree
Professional Professional No specific experience certification Other qualifications and years and years qualifications for office
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
H . . . . . . 30 H
H . . . H, 1 yr. . . . . . .
H . . . H, 1 yr. . . . . . .
H, B.S. . . . H, B.S. . . . . . .
H, 6 yrs. . . . H, 7-10 yrs. H . . .
. . . . . . H(a) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . (b)
... H ... ... ...
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
. . . . . . . . . 30 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . H, 7 yrs. . . .
H(i) . . . . . . . . . . . .
H 6,yrs. . . . . . . . . . . . .
H, CPA . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... H ... H
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
. . . 25 25 . . . . . .
. . . H(j) H . . . . . .
30 days H, 2 yrs. H, 3 yrs. H(j) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H ... ... ... H
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . (c) . . . (d) . . .
H H H H ...
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H(k) H(l) . . . H(k) . . .
H, 7 yrs. H, 2 yrs. . . . H, 10 yrs. . . .
. . . (l) . . . H, CPA . . .
. . . (l) . . . (e) . . .
... ... H ... H
Montana................................. Nebraska . ............................. Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
. . . . . . 25 . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H, 2 yrs. . . . . . .
H(p) H(m) . . . . . . . . .
H, 5 yrs. H(n) . . . . . . . . .
H, CPA H, CPA . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (f) . . .
H ... ... H H
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
30 30 . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . . . . . . .
5 H, 5 yrs. . . . . . . . . .
N.A. . . . H . . . . . .
N.A. . . . H . . . . . .
N.A. . . . . . . . . . . . .
N.A. . . . (g) . . . . . .
N.A. ... ... H ...
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
H . . . . . . H H
H . . . . . . H H
H(q) . . . . . . H(h) . . .
H, 5 yrs. . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . H, CPA . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H ... ...
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
H . . . 18 . . . . . .
H . . . H(j) . . . . . .
H, 1 yr. . . . H, 1 yr. . . . . . .
. . . H . . . H . . .
. . . H, 7 yrs. . . . H, 6 yrs. . . .
. . . H, CPA . . . H, CPA . . .
. . . . . . . . . ... . . .
... ... ... ... H
Virginia.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington............................ H H, Whole life H H H H . . . West Virginia-........................ Office of State Auditor..... 25 H H . . . . . . . . . . . . Division of Finance, Office of State Comptroller..... . . . H H H, B.S.B.A. H, 4 yrs. . . . . . . Wisconsin............................... . . . . . . . . . H(o) . . . H, CPA . . . Wyoming................................ H H H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H ...
Sources: Comptrollers: Technical Activities and Functions, 2008 Edition, The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers. December 2009. Key: H — Formal provision. . . . — No formal provision. N.A. — Not applicable. (a) Any of those mentioned or CFE, CPM, etc (b) 18 yrs. At time of election or appointment and a citizen of the state. (c) The Kentucky Revised Statutes state that “The state controller shall be a person qualified by education and experience for the position and held in high esteem in the accounting community.” (d) There are no educational or professional mandates, yet the appointed official is generally qualified by a combination of experience and education.
278 The Book of the States 2010
... ... ... ...
(e) At least 5 yrs. experience in high level management. (f) Education and relevant experience. (g) Qualified by education and experience for the position. (h) Master’s degree in accounting, finance or business management or public administration. (i) 5 yrs. or college degree. (j) Years not specified. (k) Master’s degree. (l) Bachelor’s degree no professional certification required, but CPA certification is considered desirable. Financial management experience, knowledge of GAAP and good communication skills are other qualifications. (m) 4 yrs. with major in accounting. (n) 3 yrs. directing the work of others. (o) Bachelor’s degree in accounting.
AUDITORS AND COMPTROLLERS
Table 4.32 STATE COMPTROLLERS: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES State
Comprehensive Operation of annual Disbursement Post- statewide financial Management financial report of Payroll Pre-auditing auditing management of state (CAFR) state funds processing of payments of payments system travel policies
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
N.A. N.A. . . . N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. . . . N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. . . . N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. . . . N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. . . . N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. . . . N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. H N.A. N.A.
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
H N.A. H H N.A.
. . . N.A. . . . H N.A.
H N.A. . . . H N.A.
. . . N.A. H H N.A.
H N.A. . . . H N.A.
H N.A. H H N.A.
H N.A. H H N.A.
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
H H H N.A. H
H H H N.A. H
H H H H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H . . . . . .
H . . . H H . . .
H H H N.A. H
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. . . . N.A. H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
H H N.A. H ...
N.A. H H H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. . . . N.A. H ...
N.A. . . . N.A. H ...
N.A. H N.A. H H
N.A. H N.A. H H
Montana.............................. Nebraska ............................ Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
H N.A. H N.A. H
H N.A. H N.A. H
H N.A. H N.A. H
. . . N.A. . . . N.A. . . .
. . . N.A. . . . N.A. . . .
H N.A. H N.A. H
H N.A. H N.A. H
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
H H . . . N.A. H
H H . . . N.A. H
H H H N.A. H
H H . . . N.A. H
. . . H . . . N.A. H
. . . H H N.A. . . .
H H H N.A. H
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
H H H H H
H . . . H N.A. H
. . . H H N.A. H
H . . . H N.A. H
H . . . H N.A. H
. . . H H N.A. H
H H H N.A. H
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
N.A. H H H N.A.
N.A. H H . . . N.A.
N.A. H H H N.A.
N.A. ... H ... N.A.
N.A. H H H N.A.
N.A. H H H N.A.
N.A. H H H N.A.
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
N.A. H H . . . H
N.A. . . . H H H
N.A. . . . H H H
N.A. . . . H . . . . . .
N.A. . . . H . . . . . .
N.A. H . . . H H
N.A. H H H ...
Sources: Comptrollers: Technical Activities and Functions, 2008 Edition, The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers. Key: H — Formal provision. . . . — No formal provision. N.A. — Not available
The Council of State Governments 279
Chapter Five
STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH
STATE COURTS
Facing Down a Budget Crisis, Rising Workloads, Two Judicial Elections and Living with Facebook: The State Courts in 2009 By David Rottman and Jesse Rutledge Efforts to prevent budget cutbacks from diminishing the quality of justice in this country kept the state courts in the news during 2009. That task was hindered by the continuing rise in the number of new cases filed. One repercussion of economic downturns is the potential for relationships between the branches of state government to fray, but hard times in 2009 also promoted interbranch cooperation on topics like mortgage foreclosure. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the only states to hold state supreme court elections, but two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions promise to reshape the election scene for judges nationally. State courts also made news as they confronted the rush of change associated with the growing influence of social media. Staring Down the Budget Crisis The recession of the early 2000s was pegged as the deepest and longest since the Great Depression, but it is looking positively sunny compared to the recession that began in late 2008. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 48 states are facing projected budget deficits amounting to $599 billion between 2009 and 2012, more than double the $606 billion deficit of the recession from 2001 to 2005.1 More than four out of five state courts systems are predicting budget deficits in 2010—and seven are looking at cuts of more than 8 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. The consequences of these deficits are, invariably, deep, deep cuts.2 Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the immediate past president of the Conference of Chief Justices, the national association of high court leaders, notes that state courts are in such a budget crisis they have reached “the tipping point of dysfunction.”3 A few months later, Georgia Chief Justice Carol Hunstein used her annual state of the judiciary message to intone “that some court systems (are) on the edge of an abyss.”4 In response to the crisis, many state courts focused on short-term budget saves. Nearly half the state courts are now operating under hiring freezes, while others have also frozen salaries and cut pay for staff; some states have asked judges to share the pain. More radical short-term costsaving options include furloughing staff, an option employed in more than a dozen states, including in
Vermont, where both staff and judges are required to take leave without pay, resulting in delays in concluding cases. As Utah Chief Justice Christine Durham recently noted in a speech to the American Bar Association, “In one state it now takes up to 60 days to hold a hearing in a temporary custody case that used to take just a few weeks.”5 Vermont is joined by California, Iowa and Minnesota in closing courthouse doors to the public during regular business hours, creating inconvenience and delays for many seeking the swift administration of justice. To generate revenue, legislatures in at least 13 states hiked filing fees. And courts everywhere are being asked to do even more with less. As The New York Times noted on its editorial page at the end of 2009, “At some point, slashing state court financing jeopardizes something beyond basic fairness, public safety and even the rule of law. It weakens democracy itself.”6 In Florida, an economic consulting firm confirmed claims by court leaders that cutbacks to the judicial budget weaken a state’s economy. Speedy trial rules require courts to give priority to processing criminal cases. As court resources decline, civil cases inevitably are delayed. The consulting firm estimated “the backlog of real property/mortgage foreclosure cases alone directly results in an estimated $9.9 billon of added costs and lost property values for Floridians each year. Backlogs of other civil cases create an additional $200 million of added costs each year.”7
The Council of State Governments 283
STATE COURTS
Cutbacks Amid an Increasing Workload The continuing growth in the number of cases being filed in the state courts makes the consequences of budget cutbacks particularly acute. More than 98 percent of all trial court cases and 85 percent of all appeals are filed in state courts. State courts have no control over the volume and types of cases they must decide. The number and type of cases depend on the litigiousness of the public, businesses and state and federal government entities. Caseload trends illustrate how our economy and society are changing. The work performed by the state courts in recent years is compared to the work performed in the late 1990s in the table shown below. For various reasons, tabulating caseload numbers always lags by a few years; 2008 statistics will be available in mid-2010.8 Torts and contracts. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were concerns America was becoming an “overly litigious society,” as evidenced by the number of tort cases being filed for product liability, personal injury and medical malpractice. In recent years, however, the number of tort cases filed has been on the decline—by nearly 25 percent over the last 10 years. Over the same period, however, the number of contract filings grew by 37 percent—up 11 percent between 2006 and 2007. The growth in contract cases is likely to continue because of the recession and its aftermath. Trends in mortgage foreclosure cases demonstrate the consequences to the courts of fluctuating economic conditions. Between 2003 and 2007, the number of foreclosure case filings in the state courts grew by 54 percent. That number is based on nine states that provided sufficiently detailed statistical information. For
instance, the Ohio courts in 2007 received 92,000 new foreclosure cases in their main trial court.9 Criminal cases. Over the 10-year period under discussion, criminal cases increased by 9 percent but declined by 3 percent on a population-adjusted basis according to the table below. The overall trend masks significant differences according to the type of crime. The number of new felony (serious) criminal case filings has been growing more rapidly than the number of new misdemeanor (minor) case filings. The number of drug offenses in state court caseloads for a relatively small number of states can be tracked. But the best available estimate is that about 30 percent of all cases involve a charge involving illegal drugs. The number of felony drug cases in the state courts increased by 26 percent between 2003 and 2007. The 10 states maintaining the data necessary showed either a slight increase or a decrease between 2006 and 2007 in the number of felony drug cases, so it is unclear whether the upward trend is winding down or pausing before another increase. The accuracy of what is known about court caseloads increased dramatically in recent years through automation of court management information systems and growing adherence by states to nationally developed standards for how to collect and report court statistics. The National Center for State Courts in 2009 inaugurated a “Reporting Excellence Award” program to recognize the strides states are making in providing legislators, members of the public and court managers with quality data describing the work of trial and appellate courts and also to encourage other states to take similar steps to improve their court statistics.10
Changes in Court Caseloads: 1998–2007 Change in case filings Civil Cases
Population adjusted case filings*
Proportion of total cases
18
6
18%
Criminal Cases
9
-3
21%
Domestic Relations Cases
9
-3
6%
-3
-13
2%
8
-4
54%
Juvenile Cases Traffic Cases
*Change in the number of cases per 100,000 U.S. population.
284 The Book of the States 2010
STATE COURTS
Separate Branches, Shared Responsibilities Though interbranch conflict is a familiar theme throughout American history,11 the last decade revealed a steady upward trajectory in rhetorical attacks from legislative and executive leaders, at times fanned by the ideological extremes in American politics, especially from the right side of the political spectrum. Over the last decade, a push and pull between the judiciary and the political branches of government was shaped largely in terms of fiery populist rhetoric criticizing courts for controversial decisions. The case most emblematic of this renewed tension involved the 2005 rightto-die case of Terri Schiavo, in which a Florida trial court judge received numerous threats on his life for the way he handled the case. The politics around the Schiavo case highlighted the strong, principled support for the courts held by most Americans, who looked on scornfully as Congress attempted to rewrite laws to produce the outcome they thought was politically expedient. Over the last two years, financial distress served to trump the culture wars in interbranch relations involving the courts. If anything, budget battles further strained tensions among the three branches of state government. In May 2009, the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Association cohosted a conference in Charlotte, N.C., that brought together hundreds of leaders from the three branches of government to discuss the need for better interbranch cooperation.12 More than three dozen state chief justices or their delegates attended the meeting, along with leaders and senior staff from the legislative and executive branches. The conference also featured a keynote from former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who urged those in attendance to work to depoliticize judicial selection processes. The conference helped build small working groups from the states; many in attendance returned home with a new sense of urgency in promoting better cooperation among the branches. The delegation from Utah, for instance, continues to follow up the conference with periodic meetings of their own. Before the conference, the National Center for State Courts undertook a major study of public opinion on interbranch relations.13 The survey, according to National Center for State Courts President Mary McQueen, reveals that “Americans expect more from all three branches. To get results, they want turf battles and partisan squabbles to be put to the side.”14
The survey found that more Americans have confidence in their state courts (74 percent saying “some” or “a lot”) than in their executive or legislative branches, both of which scored about 10 points lower on average in measured confidence. Support for the courts’ core functions is tied to knowledge about the workings of government—in other words, those who score high on a knowledge index are significantly more likely than less informed citizens to express confidence in the courts. The survey also reveals the years of fiery rhetoric bemoaning “activist” judges and judges “legislating” from the bench have done little to damage the confidence most Americans have in the power of the courts to perform their core functions. The survey found 68 percent of Americans believe the courts either have the appropriate amount of power or should be awarded greater power. On a separate measure—and perhaps the most surprising finding of the survey—71 percent of Americans explicitly support their state supreme court’s power to decide controversial issues, with only 23 percent believing the court’s ability to decide such cases should be limited.
Judicial Elections in Two States and in the Federal Courts The constitutions of all 39 states electing their judges include provisions designed to make judicial elections different from those used to fill executive and legislative offices.15 In Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, these distinguishing provisions include election dates for judicial office that are on a different cycle than other statewide offices. Thus in 2009, voters in those states cast ballots for a supreme court justice. On April 7, Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson faced her fourth election for another 10-year term; long terms of office are another factor distinguishing judicial elections from those held in the other branches. The race was nonpartisan in that party labels do not appear next to candidates’ names, but in practice political parties loom large in the election landscape, selecting the candidates and then aggressively advocating on their behalf. The race was expected to be a bruising battle that would repeat the heat and cash generated by the 2008 election in which incumbent Justice Louis Butler was defeated.16 The chief justice, who shared Butler’s judicial philosophy, was re-elected by a 59 to 41 percent margin; she far outspent her opponent. The campaign was tame in compari-
The Council of State Governments 285
STATE COURTS son to 2008. Third party groups largely refrained from advertising. The campaign was dominated by accusations related to the role of campaign contributions in judicial races, with both candidates questioning the extent to which their opponent would be beholden to their campaign donors when deciding cases.17 The unedifying aspects of the recent election scene in Wisconsin led six of the seven state supreme court justices to ask the legislature to establish a system of public financing for supreme court races.18 On Dec. 1, 2009, Gov. Jim Doyle signed the Impartial Justice Bill, making available up to $400,000 to a candidate meeting certain qualifying criteria. The new law replaces an earlier partial public funding program that failed to generate realistic amounts of money for candidates to mount a successful campaign. On Nov. 3, an open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was filled in a partisan election. In another departure from non-judicial elections, the successful candidate in the future will face only a “retention” election in which voters are asked to say “yes” or “no” on whether the judge should be retained in office for another 10-year term of office; there are no opponents. To a journalist observer, the campaign was confusing and unsavory: “If you only saw the ads, you might think (the) Supreme Court election pits a partisan pit bull dedicated to Republican causes against a trial lawyer’s lapdog whose insider status helped contribute to one of the worst courthouse scandals in state history … the voters have had to wade through a lot of mud to get to this (election) week.”19 The Pennsylvania Democratic candidate raised $2.4 million and garnered 47 percent of the vote; the Republican raised $734,000 and 53 percent of the vote. The total broke previous state records. As in Wisconsin, the candidates sparred over the sources of their campaign funding and the possibility that donors and interest group support would translate into influence over how the new justice would vote on cases. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have the potential to alter the tenor and stakes in judicial elections. The first decision dealt specifically with whether a judge who benefited from a very large amount of financial support during an election campaign could then sit in a case in which their benefactor is a party. In Caperton v. Massey the court heard an appeal from a litigant who
286 The Book of the States 2010
argued that a state supreme court justice should have recused himself—stepped aside because of a potential conflict of interest or bias—because he benefited from $3 million in support during his election campaign. The Supreme Court agreed, 5-4, recusal was necessary. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy used the decision to breathe new life into the Canons (a code of conduct) governing candidate conduct in judicial races: “the principal safeguard against judicial campaign abuses,”20 a move seen as greatly strengthening the force of the Canons, which had been weakened in a series of federal court decisions, including the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. Another major U.S. Supreme Court decision announced in January 2010 is widely viewed as potentially consequential for the conduct of judicial elections. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 5-4 majority held, in effect, that corporations and unions had the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to supporting candidates for political office: “The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.” Writing for the minority, Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent noted: “The consequences of today’s holding will not be limited to the legislative or executive context … At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch … the Court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in those races.”21 Stevens further noted that “Caperton motions” for recusal based on prior campaign support of the other side in a case may “catch some of the worst abuses,” further intensifying the interest in recusal reform.22 The effect of the Caperton decision on lawsuits challenging the Canons will likely be clarified in 2010; as of March, there are seven cases on appeal before the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. It is possible that differences among the circuits will open the way for a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friend or Foe? Social Media and the Courts If budgets and intergovernmental squabbles seem like inside baseball, one 2009 trend that exploded onto the courts scene reminded everyone that
STATE COURTS courts are the most public of institutions. Jurors tweeting from the jury box and judges Facebooking from the bench highlight how the courts—often considered either immune to, or slow to deal with, technological change—cannot resist this trend.23 The challenges social media present to both the perception and the reality of fair and impartial justice are numerous. For instance, should judges be online “friends” with lawyers who may come before them? In at least one state, the answer is now a resounding no. A December 2009 ethics advisory opinion from Florida’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee concluded that such an online relationship “reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.” The committee barred such online activity for Florida judges.24 It may not be realistic, advisable or even beneficial, however, for courts to attempt to clamp down on social media channels entirely. At the 2009 Court Technology Conference in Denver, Colo., National Public Radio’s justice correspondent Ari Shapiro told the 1,500 judges, court staff and technologists in attendance: “If it is in the public interest to be informed about and understand what is happening in the courts, then it should be in the courts’ interest to facilitate that. Our goal, then ... yours and mine ... should be to make the work of the courts transparent and understandable to people who want to know about it … I’m not arguing that judges should do an online Q&A about their latest opinions. But I do want to encourage you to use technology to get good, accurate information to the public.” Several other sessions at the conference sought to provide court staff with the tools to respond to the power of social media to disrupt traditional communications patterns.25 The conference was one of numerous gatherings in recent months aiming to assist court professionals grappling with the implications of social media. During a speech at the Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona, USA Today Supreme Court correspondent Joan Biskupic outlined how her job as a Supreme Court reporter has changed dramatically in recent years because of technological pressures. Whereas her job previously had been to report on a day’s decision for the following morning’s paper, Biskupic said she is now expected to have a story filed for the paper’s Web site within
minutes of a decision being handed down; that she now has to compete for market share with wellrespected online sources such as “SCOTUS Blog;” and that traditional analysis and reporting now takes a backseat to the demands for rapid filing for the paper’s online presence throughout the day.26 The Conference of Court Public Information Officers is a national leader in analyzing how social media impact the courts.27 This association of communications professionals who work in the courts commissioned a research study to dispassionately examine how courts can integrate social media into their operations.28 Findings are due to be released by August of 2010.
Conclusion Looking ahead, some of the main items for the state court agenda in 2010 are clear. Traditional ways of doing business will be subjected to unprecedented scrutiny in search of more efficient alternatives. Individual courts and state court systems will draw lines protecting what is essential from cuts. The terms under which judges run for election may well be changed significantly by the federal courts and state supreme courts will invest considerable effort in revising their state’s rules concerning recusal. November 2010 will offer a test of whether corporate and union money will become still more determinative of judicial election outcomes. Social media will continue to challenge longstanding understandings of the role of judges in deciding what evidence in a case properly merits consideration by jurors. Judges and courts on Facebook and communicating via Twitter are real possibilities.
Notes 1 See Figure 2 on the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Web page: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa= view&id=711. 2 For a far more thorough treatment of how state courts are coping with the budget crisis, see the chapter by Richard Schauffler and Matthew Kleiman in this volume. 3 New York Times Editorial, “State Courts at the Tipping Point,” November 25, 2009. 4 http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/ 2010/03/16/georgia-chief-justice-court-systems-on-edge-ofan-abyss/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway. 5 Remarks of Chief Justice Christine Durham to American Bar Association midyear meeting in Orlando, Florida, February 8, 2010. On file with authors. 6 Ibid supra note 3. 7 Washington Economics Group Inc., “The Economic Impacts of Delays in Civil Trials in Florida’s State Courts
The Council of State Governments 287
STATE COURTS Due to Under-Funding,”, February 9, 2009 (available at http://www.floridabar.org/fundingfloridacourts). 8 The statistics will be available at http://www.ncsconline. org/D_Research/csp/CSP_Main_Page.html. 9 Unpublished statistics provided by the Court Statistics Project of the National Center for State Courts. 10 The award recognizes states that report their court data based on the counting rules, case type definitions, and case status categories recommended by the National Center for State Courts. The 2009 award recipients were the courts of Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, New York State, and Utah. 11 See, for instance, Charles Gardner Geyh, When Courts & Congress Collide (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006). 12 More details on the conference are reported by Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal here: http://legaltimes. typepad.com/blt/2009/05/summit-in-charlotte-focuses-onstate-courts-in-crisis.html. 13 The telephone survey of 1,200 Americans was conducted by Princeton Research Associates for the National Center for State Courts, with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent, 19 times out of 20. The poll was paid for by the NCSC, the Pew Center on the States, and the State Justice Institute. The entire survey can be found here: 14 More details from this poll are available on the NCSC Web site at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Comm/PressRelease/2009/separate_branches-release.html. 15 Robert O’Neil, “The Canons in the Courts: Recent First Amendment Rulings,” 35 Ind. L. Rev. 701 (2002). 16 The even-year election took place because as a new gubernatorial appointment to the bench, Justice Butler was required to run to retain his seat at the earliest statewide election. 17 See Steven Walters, “Koschnick Defends Himself for Contributions from Lawyers,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 8, 2009. 18 Ibid. 19 Charles Thompson, “Attack Ads Drown Out Issues in State Supreme Court Races.” Patriot-News, October 31, 2009. 20 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 2266 (2009). 21 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting). 22 Both sides of the argument about whether large campaign contributions should require recusal are captured in this quotation from a lawyer acting on behalf of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, an interest group that spent $2.2 million in a state supreme court race in 2007: “Individuals and organizations spend money to help elect a judicial candidate precisely because they want that candidate to be a judge that is to preside over cases, including their own. There is nothing corrupt about that. That is democracy.” Matthew Mosk, “ABC News Exclusive: Study Shows Money Flooding into Campaigns for State Judgeships,” March 17, 2010. 23 For a review of the latest developments affecting the courts and social media, visit the NCSC Web site: http://
288 The Book of the States 2010
devlegacy.ncsc.org/WC/CourTopics/ResourceGuide.asp? topic=SocMed. 24 See John Schwartz, “For Judges on Facebook, friendship has limits,” New York Times, December 10, 2009. 25 Ari Shapiro’s complete remarks, along with materials from several other social media and the courts related sessions at CTC, can be found here: http://www.ncsc.org/ Web%20Document%20Library/CE_CTC2009.aspx. Shapiro not only talks the talk but walks the walk: a check of his Facebook page in March of 2010 shows that he regularly uses social media to communicate his reports and stories about the courts to his “friends”—of which he has more than 2,600. 26 Video from the Rehnquist Center conference, including the complete remarks of Biskupic, can be found at http://www.rehnquistcenter.org/MediaConference/agenda. cfm. 27 http://www.ccpio.org/. 28 Appropriately, this study was carried out at least partially online. The CCPIO created an online platform for discussion of the issues and for posting timely news developments related to social media and the courts. See http:// ccpionewmedia.ning.com/.
About the Authors David B. Rottman is a staff member of the Research Division at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). His research concerns judicial selection, public opinion on the courts, court governance, and problem-solving courts. Recent publications include “Public Opinion on the Courts” (2008) and “Procedural Fairness, Criminal Justice Policy, and the Courts” (2010). He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology and is the author of books on community justice, social inequality, and modern Ireland. Jesse Rutledge is vice president for External Affairs at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) where he oversees the organization’s communications, marketing, and private development efforts. Prior to joining NCSC, he served as deputy director at the Justice at Stake Campaign in Washington, D.C. His commentary about the politics of judicial selection has appeared in state and national media, including the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and on National Public Radio and BBC Radio. He holds a B.A. and M.A. in political science.
COURT SERVICES
State Courts and the Budget Crisis: Rethinking Court Services By Richard Y. Schauffler and Matthew Kleiman
The current fiscal crisis is provoking budget reductions so deep they threaten the basic mission of state courts. In the 2010 fiscal year, 40 state court budgets were cut, and for the 2011 fiscal year, 48 project budget cuts. The cumulative cuts have reached as high as 20 percent of the court budget, and for many state courts, the end is not in sight. The scale of the problem is enormous. Introduction The current fiscal crisis is provoking budget reductions so deep they threaten the basic mission of state courts. Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall recently described the state courts, which handle 95 percent of all criminal and civil litigation in the country, as poised at “the tipping point of dysfunction.”1 In the 2010 fiscal year, 40 state court budgets were cut, and for the 2011 fiscal year, 48 project budget cuts. The cumulative cuts have reached as high as 20 percent of the court budget, and for many state courts, the end is not in sight. The scale of the problem is enormous. According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, overall state budget deficits for the 2010 fiscal year total $194 billion or 28 percent of state budgets—the largest gaps on record. Additional 2011 fiscal year gaps total $102 billion or 17 percent of budgets for the 41 states with budget gap estimates. These totals are likely to grow as state revenues continue to deteriorate, and may well exceed $180 billion.2 In addition to the macroeconomic factors driving the current recession, a growing demographic challenge is expected to persist for the next 15 years: fewer younger workers subsidizing through their taxes the retirements and social services of a large number of older workers. Put another way, income tax and payroll tax revenues are declining while social services and especially health care costs are escalating. State courts are funded in a variety of ways— either entirely through state budgets, through a combination of state and local funding, or entirely through local funding. For the 18 state court systems that are predominantly state-funded, the judicial branch budget represents only 2 to 4 percent of the state budget, most of which is devoted to personnel costs. Court budgets do not contain
significantly large program expenses that can be cut, nor are many of their dispute resolution services optional. Even though state courts are a small fiscal target from this perspective, they are not immune to the cuts imposed by state and local governments. Like other public institutions, courts in many states are thrust into crisis mode, and forced to respond by creating immediate savings through reducing services, closing courthouses, suspending jury trials in civil cases, and attempting other short-term fixes that are not fixes at all, but simply tactics that defer the problems to a later time and create additional problems that require solutions. Unlike other institutions and social programs, courts do not have a broad and easily identified constituency, beyond the attorneys who practice in them, making budget cuts more problematic. Profound economic crisis requires a true rethinking of what government, including the courts, does and how it does it. Radical questions must be asked: Among all the responsibilities of courts, are there any that are not truly appropriate responsibilities for courts? If so, how should the court relieve itself of those duties? And for the remaining core functions, how should the courts exploit new management approaches and new technologies to deliver those services? I. First Impact States across the country are responding to the current budget crisis by implementing a number of cost-saving measures. State courts are called upon to assume part of the burden of these reductions. The typical suite of short-term responses includes the following, and states currently utilizing these measures are listed. Given the rapidly evolving and ongoing nature of the budget crisis, the list of states is constantly The Council of State Governments 289
COURT SERVICES expanding and out-of-date almost as soon as it is written: • Reduction of hours of service: California, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington • Elimination of special court programs and staff: o Massachusetts (eliminate guardians ad litem) o Minnesota (terminate civil arbitration services, reduce staff for domestic abuse centers and reduce funding for drug courts) • New or increased filing fees and/or court costs: Iowa, North Carolina and Oregon • Postponement of jury trials: New Hampshire • Furloughs: California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Washington • Layoffs/staff reductions: Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, Oregon and Utah • Elimination of court reporters: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Utah • Programs to induce early retirement: Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey • Reduction of employer contribution to state health/insurance plans: Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania • Salary freezes (including the elimination of merit increases): Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin • Hiring freeze (vacancies unfilled): Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin • Travel restrictions (limits within state, partial or full bans on out of state travel): California, Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming3 These actions are remedies often used by organizations and institutions to offset shortterm losses or fiscal downturns. Under normal business cycles, lost revenue—the origin of the budget reductions—is typically restored within a year or two allowing for staff and service delivery to be re-established at prior levels. Experience makes clear, however, that once resources are removed, restoring them is far from automatic. Furthermore, these traditional responses have 290 The Book of the States 2010
a significant impact on people seeking services from the court. Limiting staff, reducing court hours, and imposing new fees and costs all affect the court’s ability to provide access to justice, with a disproportionate impact on self-represented litigants and indigent clients. Short-term solutions work only if the problem they are designed to solve is also short term. But the depth and the anticipated length of the current financial crisis obviously are such that these short-term fixes are not only unsustainable, but they also induce new problems when left in place too long. Reducing service levels creates a backlog of cases, but a backlog sustained over time produces dysfunction at a higher level. The question for state court leaders is how to respond to a crisis of this magnitude. Where politically and economically possible, some states have been able to engage in a profound re-examination of the purpose of courts and the methods used to deliver state court services. The boldest approaches utilize re-engineering to maintain service levels while becoming dramatically more efficient, through constitutional, statutory and policy changes; reorganization of judicial branch functions; and the application of information technologies. Not all states have been so fortunate, and some have experienced the crisis as wave upon wave of short-term responses that cumulatively threaten the mission of the judiciary. II. ‘Justice Hangs in the Balance’ Iowa Iowa offers a case study of what’s happening to state courts in this recession. Iowa has a mostly state-funded unified court system, with counties paying for facilities or some services such as security or the cost of interpreters. Each of Iowa’s 99 counties has a district court (trial court) that has general jurisdiction over all civil, criminal, juvenile and probate matters in the state. For administrative purposes, the district courts are divided into eight judicial districts, each headed by a chief judge and a district court administrator. In addition, there are two appellate courts in Iowa’s judicial system, the Iowa Court of Appeals and the Iowa Supreme Court.4 In the 2010 fiscal year, appropriations for Iowa’s judicial branch were $160 million, or 3 percent of the state’s general fund appropriations. Of this, 95 percent is for personnel expenses and the remaining 5 percent
COURT SERVICES goes to non-personnel expenses, such as office supplies and communications. 5 As of Nov. 12, 2009, the judicial branch employed 1,730 people, including 116 district court judges, 58 district associate judges, 152 magistrates, and 661 clerks of court and staff. Iowa courts have been hit very hard by both the current and the 2001 financial crisis. Since the 2002 fiscal year, the court has cut its operating expenses five times. The court has also been forced to reduce staffing levels by 16 percent to work force levels below the levels in 1987, despite a 66 percent increase in the number of cases filed (excluding simple misdemeanors and scheduled violations) over the same period.6 In contrast, over the same period, staffing levels for the executive branch remained about the same.7 By the middle of the 2010 fiscal year, state courts made a reduction of $11.4 million, or 7.1 percent to the judicial branch operating budget. Cuts included 10 days of court closures and unpaid leave for all judicial officers and court employees, an elimination of 73 vacant positions, additional layoffs of court employees, a reduction in the hours of some court personnel, and a reduction in non-personnel expenditures. Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court Marsha Ternus, stated in her 2010 State of the Judiciary address that the “budget cuts of the past decade have taken a heavy toll on the ability of the judicial branch to fulfill its constitutional mission. Consequently, the ability of Iowans to receive the court services the constitution affords them has been reduced, and justice hangs in the balance.”8 Reductions in the work force have resulted in caseloads and workloads surpassing available court resources in Iowa. In response, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a supervisory order at the end of 2009 directing the court system to prioritize resources and duties in an effort to deal with the backlog. The order mandates that the highest priority be given to emergency matters such as relief from domestic abuse, waiver of notification, injunctive relief involving imminent threat of serious harm to health or safety. Priority cases are defined as those “that involve a constitutional mandate that necessitates timely adjudication, as well as cases that involve the health, safety and well-being of vulnerable citizens, including children.” Lower priority will be given to cases involving dissolutions of marriage not involving children, foreclosure actions, civil actions for recovery of money damages, small claims, admin-
istrative appeals, probate other than guardianships, other law and equity cases.9 The responses to the fiscal crisis in Iowa will most certainly limit citizen access to justice and increase backlog and delays in the handling of cases. For example, in cases involving children and families, delays may arise in setting temporary and permanent support and custody/visitation orders and in processing child support payments. In juvenile cases, reductions in staff levels will mean juvenile court officers will have less time to evaluate juvenile clients. In criminal cases, hearings may be delayed and reductions in court staff may slow the entering of no-contact orders. The budgetary cuts also have the potential to adversely impact cities and counties and general public safety. For example, delays in court hearings may force in-custody defendants to sit longer in jail, and thus increase county jail costs. Additionally, reductions in court staff will affect the ability of the court to collect fines and thus decrease county and city revenues. Finally, staff reductions may lead to delays in data transfers to criminal justice agencies that jeopardize public safety (e.g., providing domestic abuse protection orders to Department of Public Safety and updating criminal case history to Department of Public Safety).10 In addition to the set of traditional responses to the budget crisis, Iowa is actively collecting information about ways to re-engineer its practices and procedures. Through a very open and participatory process the Iowa courts are seeking input from judges, court staff, lawyers, local government officials and stakeholders for policies, practices, procedures and technology solutions that would improve the efficiency and productivity of court operations.11 At this point, re-engineering efforts have not been implemented in Iowa. Utah, Vermont and Minnesota, however, have begun the rethinking process. III. Rethinking Service Delivery State courts in those last three states are taking advantage of the crisis to rethink court services and how they should be delivered. The range of solutions includes restructuring existing resources and statutory and constitutional arrangements to investing in new technology to implement innovative practices. Utah In Utah, state courts began with an immediate cost-cutting response, reducing staff in the The Council of State Governments 291
COURT SERVICES trial courts by 6 percent while reducing staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts by 12 percent. Staff reductions have been offset—that is, basic service levels have been maintained—by flattening court organizations, creating crosstrained teams of staff rather than seniority-based hierarchies. This allows younger workers to enrich their jobs, reduces high rates of turnover among younger workers and creates greater efficiencies. Utah replaced court reporters taking a stenographic record with digital audio recording. The Utah Administrative Office of the Courts estimates about 50 staff throughout the state courts were at least partially engaged in managing the assignment of court reporters and the production and distribution of transcripts; today, after conversion to digital audio, this function is administered statewide by a single staff person, and transcript delivery times were reduced from 138 days to just 19 days. Taking advantage of the budget crunch, Utah is evaluating how to make better use of existing technologies in two more ways. First, the state courts are considering reorganizing their workflow so paper documents are only accepted at one court location in each county; all other locations would accept e-filing only. Second, the state courts will soon be setting a date by which all traffic citations must be transmitted to the court electronically through wireless handheld devices utilized by law enforcement or other electronic means, thus eliminating costly data entry and paper document management tasks in the courts. Given the volume of traffic citations, the labor savings is significant. Vermont The state courts in Vermont are rethinking the judicial branch from top to bottom. In May 2008, the Vermont Legislature created a Commission on Judicial Operation with representatives from all three branches of state government as well as the public. The commission examined consolidation, regionalization, reallocation, the introduction of new technologies, and flexible administration of the state courts. In the spirit of New England grassroots democracy, the commission held 44 focus groups throughout the state in 2008 and administered surveys seeking any and all ideas for transforming the judiciary. In November 2009 the commission issued a final report, which included such measures as: 292 The Book of the States 2010
• Restructuring courts at the local level into a single superior court with four divisions, eliminating the duplicative and inefficient court structure; • Reducing court staff while maintaining access to justice by keeping front offices open while consolidating back office work in larger courts in the region to achieve economies of scale and make full use of staff; • Eliminating part-time and non-law-trained judicial officers and consolidating judicial work into the workload of fully qualified judges; and • Improving access to justice through flexible venue rules and implementing electronic filing of court documents. The savings generated an estimated $1.2 million in property taxes at the county level, and $1.2 million in savings to the state’s general fund.12 Minnesota In a similar fashion, Minnesota’s Judicial Council created the Access and Services Delivery Committee, composed mainly of judges, in January 2008 to address the future of the state’s courts. The committee evaluated court services based on cost impact, feasibility, service impact and time impact. It identified four strategies for reshaping the courts: 1. Staffing to the most efficient norm: This strategy suggests the judicial branch should evaluate functions and seek to perform them as efficiently as possible throughout. In some cases this means standardizing business practices in all court locations, but in other functions it suggests the best way to increase staff productivity and achieve economies of scale is to centralize those functions, and thus extend the benefit of the productivity boost to all courts, even the small, rural courts. Examples include: • Centralizing payables processing; • Centralizing and regionalizing mandated services; • Centralizing annual probate reports; and • Expanding the use of subordinate judicial officers 2. Workflow re-engineering: The committee acknowledged new technologies can facilitate the work of the courts, but their greatest potential for efficiency cannot be realized without redesigning the business processes and rethink-
COURT SERVICES ing basic assumptions about the roles of justice system partners, the division of labor within and among courts, and the use of digital audio and video as well as Web-based access tools. The most immediate examples include: • Implementing e-filing of traffic citations, criminal cases and civil cases; • Implementing in-courtroom record updating; • Implementing document scanning to transform records management; and • Engaging in local level re-engineering of workflow and service delivery. 3. Legislative and court policy reform: For certain issues, the judicial branch can only rethink its services if the statutory and policy constraints under which it operates are changed. Without this precondition, many suggestions for transformations are impossible. Recognizing this, the committee recommended the courts expand the categories of infractions and petty misdemeanors that can be disposed through fines, eliminating court appearances as an immediate change that would have a large impact due to the volume of these cases. 4. Structural and governance change: Consistent with the direction taken by state funding of the courts and the creation of a Judicial Council as the policymaking body for the judicial branch, the committee suggested an immediate review of the current jurisdictional boundaries of the courts and suggested the courts redraw district boundaries. The Minnesota Judicial Council took the short-term recommendations of the Access and Services Delivery Committee under advisement, and appointed a second such committee to review longer-term service delivery issues. The Access and Services Delivery Committee 2 was a larger group comprising trial court judges, representatives of justice system partners and a variety of staff from the judicial branch. This group provided a series of options and recommendations to the Judicial Council at its meeting in December 2009; those recommendations are currently under consideration.13 IV. Re-engineering not Reacting State courts that have been actively rethinking their services began the process early in the current recession (early 2008), rather than proceeding incrementally and waiting to see how deep and how far the recession would extend.
This is a sign of active leadership, grasping the significance of the looming budget storm early and addressing issues at a strategic and structural level, rather than a tactical and operational level. Re-engineering court services starts with a review of the court’s mission and an understanding of its customers. A thoughtful review may reveal outdated assumptions and beliefs about who the courts serve and how those customers seek to make use of the courts. With agreement and clarity on that, the courts can proceed to a review of its business processes—how it delivers its dispute resolution services to meet the needs of those it serves. In the process of taking apart what the court does and how it does it, nothing is beyond scrutiny. Close review often exposes the fact that many court business processes are fragmented, resulting in a failure to observe the court’s overall performance in a given area. Only through such radical review can major improvements in efficiency and effectiveness be achieved. Only this more profound approach, with major reductions in resources, offers hope that meaningful access to court services can be preserved.
Notes 1 New York Times Editorial, “State Courts at the Tipping Point,” November 25, 2009. 2 Elizabeth McNichol and Nicholas Johnson, “Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Web site, accessed February 9 at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711. 3 Daniel J. Hall, “Assessment and Overview of State Court Budget Summaries,” presentation at the midyear meeting of the Conference of State Court Administrators, December 5, 2009, St. Augustine FL. 4 David B. Rottman, Shauna M. Strickland, State Court Organization, 2004 (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington D.C. USGPO, 2006). 5 Justice in the Balance: The Impact of Budget Cuts on Justice, Iowa Judicial Branch, January 13, 2010. 6 2010 State of the Judiciary, Marsha Ternus—Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, January 13, 2010 at http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/ D2149991113.PDF. 7 Iowa Judicial Branch FY 2010 Mid-Year Budget Cuts FAQ (November 12, 2009) http://www.iowacourts. gov/Administration/Budget/index.asp [last accessed February 16, 2010]. 8 2010 State of the Judiciary, Marsha Ternus—Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, January 13, 2010 at http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/ D2149991113.PDF. 9 In the Supreme Court of Iowa, Supervisory Order,
The Council of State Governments 293
COURT SERVICES “In the Mater of Prioritization of Cases and Duties” Dec 1, 2009. 10 Justice in the Balance: The Impact of Budget Cuts on Justice, Iowa Judicial Branch, January 13, 2010. 11 Iowa Judicial Branch FY 2010 Mid-Year Budget Cuts FAQ (November 12, 2009) http://www.iowacourts. gov/Administration/Budget/index.asp [last accessed February 16, 2010]. 12 The full report of the Commission as well as documentation of its activities can be found at its Web page at www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterPages/WhatsNewCommissionJudicialOps.aspx. 13 Report of the Access and Service Delivery Committee to the Minnesota Judicial Council, July 17, 2008, accessed at http://mncourts.gov/?page=519 and Access and Service Delivery 2 Committee, Report to the Judicial Council, December 14, 2009, accessed at www.mncourts.gov/Documents/.../Executive_Summary_ASD-2_Report.pdf.
About the Authors Richard Schauffler is the director of Research Services at the National Center for State Courts, where he heads the Court Statistics Project. He also works on the CourTools initiative, developing and assisting states and courts to implement performance measures. He holds a B.S. degree from the School of Criminology, University of California at Berkeley, and an M.A. in sociology from John Hopkins University. Matthew Kleiman is a senior court research associate with the National Center for State Courts. His work has focused on the development and implementation of: a set of court specific performance measures (CourTools); a framework to understand court culture; and statewide workload assessment models for judicial officers, court staff, prosecutors and public defenders. He has a Ph.D. in political science from Michigan State University.
294 The Book of the States 2010
STATE COURTS
Constructive State Court Intervention: Turning Crisis into Opportunity By Judith S. Kaye
Last year’s lead article in the State Judicial Branch chapter of The Book of the States began with the headline “Decimated Budgets,” and continued with a chilling description of the front-and-center subject for state courts across the nation: the budget crisis. This year’s crisis is double that. Indeed, it is hard to find adjectives that sufficiently capture the impact of the economic downturn on state courts, the repository of more than 97 percent of our nation’s litigation, dockets that swell when misery abounds. Across the country we hear of state court layoffs, shortened court hours, even actual court closing days—disastrous for litigants and for our cherished American justice system. Introduction
In one sense, a time of drastically shrunken resources hardly seems the moment for state courts to be seeking creative new ways to manage their dockets. Just getting through the day is a sufficient challenge. Yet in another sense that is precisely what we should be—and are— doing. For starters, the power of the purse having (regrettably) long ago been given to the judiciary’s partners in government, this is necessarily a time when courts must look to improved interbranch relations as well as the support of the bar association. We must remain independent but not indifferent. Additionally, the fact that state courts cannot, like others in the public and private sector, meet economic stresses by making strategic cuts in services—court dockets must remain open to all litigants—means that they simply must seek out constructive ideas and new collaborations in order to accomplish their business. Plainly, state courts today need money but they also need more than money. They need ideas. Three promising avenues for turning the crisis into opportunity start with outreach efforts that include The Council of State Governments. Interbranch Outreach Of the many 2009 examples of a new wave of collaborations, a yearlong unique initiative spearheaded by the American Bar Association called “Fair and Impartial State Courts,” climaxing in May 2009 with an assemblage of delegations from 37 states, representing all three branches of government comes to mind. The final report, delivered as part of the American Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in
August 2009, featured a lively interbranch panel enriched by excellent insights from CSG’s own executive director, David Adkins. We just don’t do enough of that—coming together across branches. Our encounters are largely limited to hosting heated courtroom battles on sizzling constitutional questions, doing little to promote understanding of our respective responsibilities and opportunities. Bringing judicial leaders into informal dialogue with state political leaders is an initiative that must continue. Problem-Solving Approaches The work of our nation’s state courts divides naturally into two parts: the adjudicative (or judging) function and the administrative (or operational) function. Overlaying both is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s concept of our individual states—each state different in so many ways—as laboratories for democracy. How true. Our state courts, similarly, function as laboratories for democracy, which brings me to the second avenue for finding opportunity in the present crisis: problem-solving approaches to certain categories of cases before us. This idea is grounded in analysis of the massive state court caseloads. In New York alone, there are thousands upon thousands of repeat low-level offenders, often drug-addicted, in our criminal courts, corroding their own lives and the vitality of our neighborhoods. There are thousands upon thousands of domestic violence cases too, often beginning with an assault and court-issued order of protection and ending with a murder-suicide. And there are thousands The Council of State Governments 295
STATE COURTS upon thousands of child abuse and neglect cases, foster care cases, juvenile delinquency cases—generation after generation of poverty, homelessness, mental illness, unemployment and crime. What a waste of lives! What a waste of resources to be recycling these cases—these people—through the courts only to see them return again and again in worsening condition. So state justice systems across the nation some years ago began asking themselves whether these laboratories for democracy could help stop the downward spiral of so many litigants’ lives. And the answer came back, resoundingly yes. A widespread national, now even international, experiment thus took root in our nation’s state courts. Thankfully, in New York we have the benefit of a public-private entity, The Center for Court Innovation, to focus and inspire these efforts. I speak, of course, of community courts, focused on quality-of-life crimes—shoplifting, illegal vending, vandalism and prostitution. The judges are the leaders, convening the necessary collaborators—prosecution and defense, as well as agencies and service providers—to effectuate a meaningful resolution that both punishes wrongdoing and repairs the community that has been harmed. And I speak of drug courts—now numbering in the thousands across the U.S.—basically offering a second chance as an alternative to incarceration; offering parents serious about ending their drug habit a chance for early family reunification; offering drugaddicted juvenile offenders a chance to get back on course. And I speak of state mental health courts, holding out the chance for needed mental health services as an alternative to incarceration where that is appropriate. And I speak of domestic violence courts, aimed at intervening to prevent that all-too-common murder-suicide. Today we have countless examples of state court-led laboratories convening the key participants to find meaningful solutions for underlying problems plaguing society. In reflecting on these state court initiatives, a few lessons stand out, beginning with the importance of judicial leadership and a problem-solving orientation. It’s hard to change mindsets to be sure, but at least that doesn’t cost money—a significant plus today. Then too, it is clear that no single one of us needs to—or can—do it alone. Collaborations are essential to successful implementation of problem-solving justice across the nation. What has been proved beyond all doubt 296 The Book of the States 2010
is that sharing ideas and resources can produce genuine benefit without stretching the budgets of any one player. Now state courts are poised to move that same constructive problem-solving approach to other vexing issues of the day, like foreclosures, evictions and massive credit card debt. That is definitely a ray of sunshine on a bleak horizon. Juvenile Justice— Focusing on ‘Crossover Youths’ Finally, there is a related subject especially dear to my heart: the huge number of children who spend a significant part of their lives before state courts—from abandoned newborns, to children in foster care limbo, to abused and neglected children, juvenile delinquents, even children tried as adults in our criminal courts. In New York, a spotlight has recently been trained on juvenile justice in the wake of an alarming U.S. Department of Justice investigation revealing widespread abuse in New York’s youth detention facilities. For the first time juvenile justice has gained serious nationwide attention. This is a moment of genuine opportunity for constructive intervention. Here is just a small, but important, piece of the issue: what we call “crossover youth.” Hard as the road is for youths in the juvenile justice system, those who are at the same time in the child welfare system—two court interventions— face even greater difficulties. Experience shows foster care youths who appear in court on delinquency charges are at significant risk of being detained while their case is pending—judges are understandably reluctant to release a young person back into the community without assurances that a responsible adult will take care of them. Unfortunately, once confined, many young people remain in facilities as their cases accelerate through the courts toward disposition, hurtling down a path that leads to youth prisons. While crossover youths may make up a relatively small percentage of the caseloads of state courts, they represent a significant challenge to judicial resources, frequently requiring appearances before different judges and multiple law guardians. There may be little or no coordination or exchange of information, with the potential for inconsistent rulings and unnecessary delays. As a result, crossover youths may be on an even faster track to a life of crime, poverty and dysfunction.
STATE COURTS Going forward, state courts, in concert with their partners in government, can play a critical role for crossover youths. What would a new approach look like? For starters, an integrated model (along the lines of domestic violence courts)—combining foster care and delinquency proceedings before a single judge—reduces court dates, unnecessary trips to court and conflicting court orders. Courts can also develop information-sharing protocols to enhance communication among the parties involved in a young person’s delinquency case and child protective proceeding—not just judges and law guardians but also case workers and others. The goal here is to ensure that everyone is on the same page and the court is pursuing a coordinated strategy for each young person. A juvenile’s arrest may be seen not only as the beginning of a fact-finding and judging process but also as a window of opportunity to make a difference in that young person’s life. This is an idea that already animates our drug treatment courts, which use the moment of crisis around an arrest to accelerate a defendant’s decision to participate in treatment. The arrest—and potential incarceration—help motivate drug court participants onto a new path, one that can lead to sobriety and a dismissal of charges. Similarly, a delinquency case is a crucial moment to intervene before a troubled young person takes another step that leads from foster care, to juvenile placement, to prison. Another idea for courts handling cases involving crossover youths is the concept of collaborative case management: social workers working with the child welfare agency, court system, probation department, foster care agency, school, foster parents, family members (when appropriate) and others to ensure that comprehensive service plans incorporate all necessary issues and perspectives. The need for services cannot be underestimated—tutoring, GED classes, mental health counseling, job training and other interventions—and it is not just young people who need help. This is a moment for linking families to services and engaging them in proven therapies to strengthen parenting skills with the goal of keeping families intact or promoting successful reunification. Clearly, we have to work to break down arbitrary and artificial barriers that have
separated the juvenile justice and child welfare systems so that we not only increase efficiency but also serve troubled young people more effectively.* New challenges; new headaches. It is definitely a new day for our nation’s state courts. While I miss beyond description the opportunities that came with being New York’s chief judge, I do not for a moment miss the agonizing, sleepless nights of trying to fashion sustainable budgets; or find funds to repair decayed court facilities; or frame court orders directing action by our partners in government; or increase judicial compensation now shamefully frozen in New York; or manage overloaded family court dockets before some terrible disaster occurs that casts a family in grief and lands the courts at the top of the daily news; or address innumerable other vexing issues. All in all, it was a privilege beyond imagination to serve in the judiciary. Ending on a positive note, together, we can do so much to relieve the nightmares of judges everywhere and improve the quality of justice throughout the nation.
Author’s Note After 25 years, three months, 19 days and 12 hours as a judge of New York State’s high court (15 of those years as chief judge), it is impossible for me to speak of state courts objectively. So please forgive the “we,” “us” and “our” used throughout this essay
Notes * We are fortunate in the New York State Court System to have the Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, with a wide cross-section of members to spearhead innovation across agency lines.
About the Author Judith S. Kaye was appointed from private law practice to New York state’s highest court in 1983, the first woman to serve on that bench in the court’s history. Ten years later, in 1993, she was appointed chief judge, a dual role that is both adjudicative and administrative. Having reached mandatory retirement age, on December 31, 2008, Judge Kaye left the bench and returned to the world of private law practice. She is of counsel to Skadden, Aprs, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.
The Council of State Governments 297
298â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 S.C. C.A. S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C. C.C.A. S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C.
New Mexico............................ New York................................. North Carolina....................... North Dakota......................... Ohio.........................................
Oklahoma................................ Oregon..................................... Pennsylvania........................... Rhode Island........................... South Carolina........................
See footnotes at end of table.
S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C.
H H H H H H H H
H H H H H
H H(g) H(g) H H H
H
9 5 7 7 5 5
5 7 7 5 7
7 7 7 5 7
7 7 7 98 7
6 6 6 10 Life 10
8 14 8 10 6
8 6 (h) 6 5 7 (j)
To age 70 8 6 By seniority of service 12
By court By court By court Seniority Appointed by governor from Judicial Nominating Commission Legislative appointment
By court Appointed by governor from Judicial Nomination Commission Non-partisan popular election By Supreme and district court judges Popular election (l)
Non-partisan popular election Appointed by governor from Judicial Nominating Commission Rotation Seniority Gubernatorial appointment with consent of the legislature
Appointed by governor (f) By court Gubernatorial appointment Duration of service By court
Montana.................................. Nebraska................................. Nevada..................................... New Hampshire...................... New Jersey..............................
H H H H H
6 8 10 7 10
S.J.C. S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C.
7 7 7 7 7
Massachusetts......................... Michigan.................................. Minnesota................................ Mississippi............................... Missouri...................................
H H H
Rotation by seniority By court By seniority of service Appointed by governor Appointed by governor
H H H H H
S.C. S.C. S.C. S.J.C. C.A.
Non-partisan popular election By court By court Non-partisan popular election Appointed by governor
Kansas...................................... Kentucky................................. Louisiana................................. Maine....................................... Maryland.................................
6 10 6 8 12
Chief justice
Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating. commission with consent of legislature By court By court Judicial nominating commission appointment By court
9 5 5 7 7
Term (in years) (c) Method of selection
Hawaii...................................... S.C. H 5 10 Idaho........................................ S.C. H 5 6 Illinois...................................... S.C. H H 7 10 Indiana..................................... S.C. H 5 10 (e) Iowa.......................................... S.C. H 7 8
H H H H H
No. of judges (b)
By court Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating. commission with consent of legislature Appointed by governor By court By court
S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C. S.C.
Alabama.................................. Alaska...................................... Arizona.................................... Arkansas.................................. California.................................
By district
Justices chosen (a) At large
Colorado.................................. S.C. H 7 10 Connecticut............................. S.C. H 7 8 Delaware................................. S.C. H 5 12 Florida...................................... S.C. (d) 7 6 Georgia.................................... S.C. H 7 6
Name of court
State or other jurisdiction
Table 5.1 STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT
Duration of service 5 years 6 years Duration of term Life 10 years
2 years 14 years 8 years 5 years (k) 6 years
8 years Duration of service 2 years (i) 5 years Duration of service
2 years
To age 70 2 years 6 years
Indefinite 4 years Duration of service 7 years Indefinite
4 years 3 years 5 years 8 years
10 years
12 years 2 years 2 years
Indefinite 8 years
6 years 3 years 5 years 8 years 12 years
Term of office for chief justice
state courts
9 7
7 9 5 7 5
Judicial Nominating Commission appointment Gubernatorial appointment with consent of the legislature
4 years To age 70
4 years 4 years 1 year Until declined 4 years
4 years 4 years 6 years 6 years (n) 4 years 6 years
Term of office for chief justice
(f) Chief Justice, in the appellate courts, is a separate judicial office from that of an Associate Justice. Chief Justices are appointed, until age 70, by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Executive (Governor’s) Council. (g) Chief justice chosen statewide; associate judges chosen by district. (h) More than three years for first election and every six years thereafter. (i) The term may be split between eligible justices. (j) Followed by tenure. All judges are subject to gubernatorial reappointment and consent by the Senate after and initial seven-year term; thereafter, they may serve until mandatory retirement at age 70. (k) Or expiration of term, whichever is first. (l) Party affiliation is not included on the ballot in the general election, but candidates are chosen through partisan primary nominations. (m) Initially chosen by district; retention determined statewide. (n) Presiding judge of Court of Criminal Appeals. (o) The initial term of appointment is until the next general election immediately following the third year from the time of the initial appointment.
15 To age 70
12 6 12 10 8
Sources: State Court Organization, 2004, U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, National Center for State Courts, March 2010. Key: S.C. — Supreme Court S.C.A. — Supreme Court of Appeals S.J.C. — Supreme Judicial Court C.A. — Court of Appeals C.C.A. — Court of Criminal Appeals H.C. — High Court (a) See Chapter 5 table entitled, “Selection and Retention of Appellate Court Judges,” for details. (b) Number includes chief justice. (c) The initial term may be shorter. See Chapter 5 table entitled, “Selection and Retention of Appellate Court Judges,” for details. (d) Regional (5), Statewide (2), Regional based on District of Appeal (e) Initial term is two years; retention 10 years.
H H
H H H H H
C.A. S.C.
Chief justice
Dist. of Columbia............... Puerto Rico.........................
Term (in years) (c) Method of selection
Seniority By court Seniority Seniority By court
No. of judges (b)
S.C. S.C. S.C.A. S.C. S.C.
By district
Justices chosen (a) At large
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
Name of court By court By court Partisan election Partisan election By court Appointed by governor from Judicial Nomination Commission, with consent of the legislature
State or other jurisdiction
South Dakota...................... S.C. H(m) H(m) 5 8 Tennessee............................ S.C. H 5 8 Texas.................................... S.C. H 9 6 C.C.A. H 9 6 Utah..................................... S.C. H 5 10 (o) Vermont............................... S.C. H 5 6
STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT—Continued
state courts
The Council of State Governments 299
300â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 Circuit Court
. . . Court of Appeals . . . . . . Appellate Division of Superior Court Court of Appeals Appellate Division of Supreme Court Appellate Terms of Supreme Court Court of Appeals Temporary Court of Appeals Courts of Appeal
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
See footnotes at end of table.
Appeals Court Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri................................. . . . 3 (l) . . . . . . 7 (n)
To age 70 6 6 8 12
4 8 10 . . . 10
10 8 56 5 (p) (q) 15 8 3 (gg) 1 (hh) 68 6
. . . 6 . . . . . . 34
28 (h) 28 16 10 32
12 14 53 (g) . . . 13
District Court Supreme Court County Court Superior Court District Court Court of Common Pleas
District Court District Court District Court Superior Court Superior Court
Superior Court Circuit Court District Court Circuit Court Circuit Court
District Court Circuit Court District Court Superior Court Circuit Court
Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Courts of Appeal . . . Court of Special Appeals
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
10 6 10 12 (c) 6
Circuit Court District Court Circuit Court Superior Court, Probate Court and Circuit Court District Court
6 3 54 15 9
Intermediate Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Appellate Court Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
Superior Court Superior Court Chancery/Probate Court and Circuit Court Superior Court
General trial court
District Court Superior Court Superior Court Court of Chancery Circuit Court Superior Court
6 6 8 6 8 12
Term (years) Name of court
Colorado................................ Court of Appeals 19 8 Connecticut........................... Appellate Court 10 8 Delaware................................ . . . . . . . . . Florida.................................... District Courts of Appeals 62 6 Georgia.................................. Court of Appeals 12 6
5 5 3 22 12 105
No. of judges
Intermediate appellate court
Court of Criminal Appeals Court of Civil Appeals Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Courts of Appeal
State or other jurisdiction Name of court
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
Table 5.2 STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS AND GENERAL TRIAL COURTS: NUMBER OF JUDGES AND TERMS
88 498 129 105 (r) 42 391
39 (k) 55 64 24 411
82 221 281 51 368 (i)
241 (f) 95 238 17 153
45 40 494 308 344 (d)
153 180 19 5 599 202
49 164 118 2,022
144
No. of judges
6 14 10 8 (s) 6 6
6 6(m) 6 To age 70 7 (o)
To age 70 6 6 4 6 (j)
4 8 6 7 15
10 4 6 6 6 (e)
6 (b) 8 12 12 6 4
6 (a) 4 6 6
6
Term (years)
state courts
State or other jurisdiction Name of court
No. of judges
Intermediate appellate court Term (years) Name of court
General trial court No. of judges
. . . Circuit Court of Appeals
Dist. of Columbia.................. Puerto Rico...........................
Sources: State Court Organization, 2004, U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, update from the National Center for State Courts, March 2010. Key: . . . — Court does not exist in jurisdiction or not applicable. (a) The initial term for Superior Court judges is three years. (b) The initial term for District Court, Denver Probate Court, Denver Juvenile Court and County Court judges is two years. (c) Two years initial; 10 years retention. (d) The number of District Court judges includes associate judges and magistrates. (e) The initial term for District judges is at least one year. Associate judges serve a term of four years with an initial term of at least one year, and magistrate judges serve a term of four years. (f) The number of District Court judges includes magistrates. (g) The Courts of Appeal have 55 authorized judicial positions. (h) The Appeals Court has 25 authorized judicial positions. The judges of the Appeals Court are assisted by the services on recall of several retired judges. (i) The number of Circuit Court judges includes associate judges. (j) Associate Circuit judges serve a term of four terms. (k) There are actually 43 District Court judges. Three of those judges serve the Water Court and are included in the data for that court. (l) More than three years for first election and retention is every six years thereafter. (m) The initial term is for three years but not more than five years. (n) Followed by tenure. All judges are subject to gubernatorial reappointment and consent by the Senate after an initial seven-year term; thereafter, they may serve until mandatory retirement at age 70. (o) After an initial seven-year term, the reapportionment term for Superior and Tax Court judges is open-ended until mandatory retirement age at age 70. (p) Or duration.
. . . 39
59 326 (ee)
157 176 65 246 21
39 34 85 33 2 444 71 32 (dd)
15 12 (ff)
8 4 8 6 6
8 8 8 8 8 4 6 (cc) 6
Life 6
4 (u) 6 6 10
Term (years)
(q) Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court have been established within the First and Second Departments of the Appellate Division. Data for the Appellate Terms are not included in the information presented here. (r) The number of Superior Court judges includes special judges. (s) Special judges serve a term of four years. (t) The number of District Court judges includes associate judges and special judges. (u) District and associate judges serve four year terms; special judges serve at pleasure. (v) The Superior Court has 15 authorized judicial positions. The judges of the Superior Court are assisted by senior judges specially appointed by the Supreme Court.. (w) The judges of the Commonwealth Court are assisted by senior judges specially appointed by the Supreme Court. Also, senior Common Pleas Court judges occasionally serve on the Commonwealth Court. (x) These numbers include both active and senior judges. (y) The number of judges includes magistrates. (z) The Court of Appeals has nine authorized judicial positions. The judges of the Court of Appeals are assisted by a retired Court of Appeals judge now on special appointment to the court. (aa) Four to five judges are currently working as active retired judges. (bb) The initial term of appointment is until the next general election immediately following the third year from the time of the initial appointment. (cc) The initial term of appointment is until the next general election immediately following the third year from the time of the initial appointment. (dd) Plus 5 magistrates for Family Court. (ee) The number of Court of First Instance judges includes Municipal Division judges. (ff) Municipal judges serve a term of eight years. (gg) The supreme court may provide for the assignment of active or retired district court judges, retired justices of the supreme court, and lawyers, to serve on three-judge panels. (hh) Assignments are for a specified time, not to exceed one year or the completion of one or more cases on the docket of the supreme court.
. . . 16
Superior Court Court of First Instance
Circuit Court Superior Court Circuit Court Circuit Court District Court
8 6 . . . 6 . . .
Court of Appeals Courts of Appeal . . . Court of Appeals . . .
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................ 11 24 . . . 16 . . .
Circuit Court Chancery Court Circuit Court Criminal Court Probate Court District Court District Court Superior Court and District Court
South Dakota........................ . . . . . . . . . Tennessee............................... Court of Appeals 12 8 Court of Criminal Appeals 12 8 Texas....................................... Courts of Appeal 80 6 Utah........................................ Court of Appeals 7 6 (bb) Vermont................................. . . . . . . . . .
Oklahoma.............................. Court of Appeals 12 6 District Court 241 (t) Oregon................................... Court of Appeals 10 6 Circuit Court 173 Tax Court 7 Pennsylvania.......................... Superior Court 23 (v) 10 Court of Common Pleas 493 (x) Commonwealth Court 9 (w) 10 Rhode Island......................... . . . . . . Life Superior Court 27 (y) South Carolina...................... Court of Appeals 10 (z) 6 Circuit Court 46 (aa)
STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS AND GENERAL TRIAL COURTS: NUMBER OF JUDGES AND TERMS—Continued
state courts
The Council of State Governments 301
state courts
Table 5.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES OF STATE APPELLATE COURTS AND GENERAL TRIAL COURTS
Residency requirement
State or other jurisdiction
State A
Local
Minimum age
Legal credentials
T
A
T
A
T
A
T
Alabama................................ 1 yr. Alaska.................................... 5 yrs. Arizona.................................. 10 yrs. (a) Arkansas................................ 2 yrs. California............................... . . .
1 yr. 5 yrs. 5 yrs. 2 yrs. . . .
. . . . . . (b) (b) . . .
1 yr. . . . 1 yr. . . . . . .
. . . . . . (e) 30 . . .
. . . . . . 30 28 . . .
Licensed attorney 8 years practice (c) 8 years practice 10 years state bar
Licensed attorney 5 years practice (d) 6 years licensed in state 10 years state bar
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
H H H H (f) H
H H H H 3 yrs.
. . . . . . . . . H (f) . . .
H . . . H H (g) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5 years state bar Licensed attorney “Learned in law” 10 years state bar 7 years state bar
5 years state bar Member of the bar “Learned in law” 5 years state bar 7 years state bar
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
H 2 yrs. H H H
H 1 yr. H 1 yr. H
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H H H
. . . 30 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 years state bar 10 years state bar Licensed attorney 10 years state bar (h) Licensed attorney
10 years state bar 10 years state bar ... ... Admitted to state bar
Kansas.................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . Kentucky................................ 2 yrs. 2 yrs. 2 yrs. 2 yrs. . . . . . . Louisiana............................... 2 yrs. 2 yrs. 2 yrs. 2 yrs. . . . . . . Maine..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maryland................................ 5 yrs. 5 yrs. 6 mos. 6 mos. 30 30
10 years active and continuous practice (i) 8 years state bar and licensed attorney 5 years state bar “Learned in law” State bar member
5 years state bar
Massachusetts........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan................................ H H . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnesota.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississippi.............................. 5 yrs. 5 yrs. H(j) . . . 30 26 Missouri................................. 9 yrs. (k) 3 yrs. (k) . . . H(k) 30 30
. . . State bar member and 5 years practice Licensed attorney 5 years state bar State bar member
8 years state bar 5 years state bar “Learned in law” State bar member ... State bar member Licensed attorney 5 years practice State bar member
Montana................................. 2 yrs. 2 yrs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 years state bar 5 years state bar Nebraska................................ 3 yrs. H H H 30 30 5 years practice 5 years practice Nevada................................... 2 yrs. 2 yrs. . . . . . . 25 25 State bar member (l) 2 years state bar member and 10 years practice New Hampshire.................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... New Jersey............................. . . . (m) . . . (m) . . . . . . Admitted to practice in 10 years practice of law state for at least 10 years New Mexico........................... 3 yrs. 3 yrs. . . . H 35 35 New York............................... H H . . . . . . . . . 18 North Carolina...................... . . . H . . . (n) . . . . . . North Dakota........................ H H . . . H . . . . . . Ohio........................................ H H . . . H . . . . . .
10 years practice and/or current state judge 10 years state bar State bar member License to practice law 6 years practice
6 years active practice
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
H 3 yrs. 1 yr. . . . 5 yrs.
(o) 3 yrs. H . . . 5 yrs.
1 yr. . . . . . . . . . . . .
H 1 yr. 1 yr. . . . (q)
30 . . . . . . 21 32
. . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 years state bar State bar member State bar member License to practice law 8 years state bar
(p) State bar member State bar member State bar member 8 years state bar
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
H 5 yrs. H 5 yrs. . . .
H 5 yrs. . . . 3 yrs. . . .
H H(r) . . . . . . . . .
H 1 yr. 2 yrs. H . . .
. . . 35 35 30 . . .
. . . 30 25 25 . . .
. . . H 1 yr. 1 yr. . . . H 10 days 10 days . . . . . .
. . . . . . 30 . . . 30
. . . . . . 30 . . . 28
5 years state bar State bar member 10 years state bar 5 years state bar 9 years state bar
5 years state bar State bar member 5 years state bar 5 years state bar ...
90 days 90 days . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
5 years state bar 10 years state bar
5 years state bar (u) 7 years state bar
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
. . . H 1 yr. 1 yr. 5 yrs. H 10 days 10 days 3 yrs. 2 yrs.
Dist. of Columbia................. Puerto Rico...........................
H 5 yrs.
See footnotes at end of table.
302 The Book of the States 2010
H . . .
10 years state bar State bar member State bar member 6 years practice
State bar member State bar member Qualified to practice law Qualified to practice law (s) (t) Admitted to practice law Admitted to practice law 5 years state bar 5 years state bar
state courts
QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES OF STATE APPELLATE COURTS AND GENERAL TRIAL COURTS—Continued Sources: State Court Organization, 2004, U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, update from the National Center for State Courts, March 2010. Key: A — Judges of courts of last resort and intermediate appellate courts. T — Judges of general trial courts. H — Provision; length of time not specified. . . . — No specific provision. N.A.— Not applicable (a) For court of appeals, five years. (b) No local residency requirement stated for Supreme Court. Local residency required for Court of Appeals. (c) Supreme Court—ten years state bar, Court of Appeals—five years state bar. (d) Admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for five years. (e) Court of Appeals minimum age is 30. (f) The candidate must be a resident of the district at the time of the original appointment. (g) Circuit court judge must reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (h) In the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, five years service as a general jurisdiction judge may be substituted. (i) Relevant legal experience, such as being a member of a law faculty or sitting as a judge, may qualify under the 10 year requirement. (j) Must reside within the district. (k) At the appellate level must have been a state voter for nine years. At the general trial court level must have been a state voter for three years and resident of the circuit for 1 year. (l) Minimum of two years state bar member and at least 15 years of
legal practice. (m) For Superior court: out of a total of 441 authorized judgeships there are 283 restricted Superior court judgeships that require residence within the particular county of assignment at time of appointment and reappointment; there are 158 unrestricted judgeships for which assignment of county is made by the chief justice. (n) Resident judges of the Superior Court are required to have local residency, but special judges are not. (o) District and associate judges must be state residents for six months if elected, and associate judges must be county residents. (p) District Court: judges must be a state bar member for four years or a judge of court record. Associate judges must be a state bar member for two years or a judge of a court of record. (q) Circuit judges must be county electors and residents of the circuit. (r) Supreme Court: One justice from each of three divisions and two seats at large; no more than two may be from any grand division. Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals: Must reside in the grand division served. (s) Ten years practicing law or a lawyer and judge of a court of record at least 10 years. (t) District Court: judges must have been a practicing lawyer or a judge of a court in this state, or both combined, for four years. (u) Superior Court: Judge must also be an active member of the unified District of Columbia bar and have been engaged, during the five years immediately preceding the judicial nomination, in the active practice of law as an attorney in the District, been on the faculty of a law school in the District, or been employed by either the by the United States or District of Columbia government.
The Council of State Governments 303
State or other jurisdiction
Court of last resort
Chief Justice salaries
304â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 (a) 156,864 157,976 167,210 140,504 143,815 115,390 139,534 140,932 147,000 144,029 164,292 152,500 183,839 121,000 148,206
Southern Region Alabama.............................. Supreme Court Arkansas.............................. Supreme Court Florida................................. Supreme Court Georgia................................ Supreme Court Kentucky............................. Supreme Court Louisiana............................. Supreme Court Mississippi........................... Supreme Court Missouri............................... Supreme Court North Carolina.................... Supreme Court Oklahoma............................ Supreme Court South Carolina.................... Supreme Court Tennessee............................ Supreme Court Texas.................................... Supreme Court Virginia................................ Supreme Court (i) West Virginia....................... Supreme Court Regional averages..............
See footnotes at end of table.
201,819 151,328 170,850 139,310 164,610 160,579 139,278 127,589 150,850 120,173 152,495 152,626
Midwestern Region Illinois.................................. Supreme Court Indiana................................. Supreme Court Iowa..................................... Supreme Court Kansas................................. Supreme Court Michigan.............................. Supreme Court Minnesota............................ Supreme Court Nebraska............................. Supreme Court North Dakota...................... Supreme Court Ohio..................................... Supreme Court South Dakota...................... Supreme Court Wisconsin............................ Supreme Court Regional averages..............
Eastern Region Connecticut......................... Supreme Court $175,645 Delaware............................. Supreme Court 194,750 Maine................................... Supreme Judicial Court 138,138 Maryland............................. Court of Appeals 181,352 Massachusetts..................... Supreme Judicial Court 145,984 New Hampshire.................. Supreme Court 151,239 New Jersey.......................... Supreme Court 192,795 New York............................. Court of Appeals 156,000 Pennsylvania....................... Supreme Court 191,876 Rhode Island....................... Supreme Court 171,835 Vermont............................... Supreme Court 135,421 Regional averages.............. 166,821
Intermediate appellate court
Chief/Presiding salaries
(b) Court of Criminal Appeals 145,204 Court of Appeals 157,976 District Court of Appeals 167,210 Court of Appeals 135,504 Court of Appeals 136,967 Court of Appeals 112,530 Court of Appeals 137,034 Court of Appeals 137,249 Court of Appeals 137,655 Court of Appeals 137,171 Court of Appeals 159,288 Court of Appeals 150,000 Court of Appeals 178,043 Court of Appeals (j) 121,000 . . . 143,774
201,819 Court of Appeals 151,328 Court of Appeals 163,200 Court of Appeals 135,905 Court of Appeals 164,610 Court of Appeals 145,981 Court of Appeals 139,278 Court of Appeals 124,027 . . . 141,600 Court of Appeals 118,173 . . . 144,495 Court of Appeals 148,220 ( c) 142,969 150,077 166,186 133,044 136,704 108,130 128,207 135,061 142,485 135,799 156,480 (e) 168,322 . . . 141,955
189,949 147,103 153,000 134,750 151,441 144,429 132,314 . . . 132000 . . . 136,316 146,811
$162,520 Appellate Court $160,722 185,050 . . . . . . 114,465 . . . . . . 162,352 Court of Special Appeals 152,552 145,984 Appellate Court 140,358 146,917 . . . . . . 185,482 Appellate division of 175,534 151,200 Appellate divisions of 148,000 186,450 Superior Court 181,349 156,213 . . . . . . 129,245 . . . . . . 156,898 159,753
Associate Justice salaries
Appellate courts
Table 5.4 COMPENSATION OF JUDGES OF APPELLATE COURTS AND GENERAL TRIAL COURTS General trial courts
Salary
(d) Circuit courts 140,732 Chancery courts 150,077 Circuit courts 166,186 Superior courts 130,044 Circuit courts 130,194 District courts 105,050 Chancery courts 128,207 Circuit courts 131,531 Superior courts 130,410 District courts 133,741 Circuit courts 153,984 Chancery courts (g) District courts 161,650 Circuit courts . . . Circuit courts 138,484
189,949 Circuit courts 147,103 Circuit courts 147,900 District courts 131,518 District courts 151,441 Circuit courts 137,552 District courts 132,314 District courts . . . District courts 132,000 Courts of common pleas . . . Circuit courts 136,316 Circuit courts 145,121
(e) 136,257 142,178 (f) 124,620 124,085 104,170 120,484 127,957 124,373 130,312 148,668 (h) 158,134 116,000 129,770
174,303 125,647 137,700 120,037 139,919 129,124 128,832 113,648 121,350 110,377 128,600 129,958
$152,637 Superior courts $146,780 . . . Superior courts 168,850 . . . Superior courts 111,969 149,552 Circuit courts 140,352 135,087 Superior courts 129,694 . . . Superior courts 137,084 175,534 Superior courts 165,000 144,000 Supreme courts 136,700 175,923 Courts of common pleas 161,850 . . . Superior courts 140,642 . . . Superior/District/Family 122,867 155,456 141,981
Judges salaries
state courts
State or other jurisdiction
Court of last resort
Chief Justice salaries
Intermediate appellate court
Appellate courts Associate Justice salaries
Chief/Presiding salaries
Judges salaries
General trial courts
(c) Salary range is between $159,503–$199,378. (d) Salary range is between $159,003–$198,753. (e) Salary range is between $119,949–$149,936. (f) Salary range is between $120,252–$187,352. (g) Salary range is between $137,500–$145,000. (h) Salary range is between $125,000–$140,000. (i) Plus 13,500 in lieu of travel, lodging, and other expenses. (j) Plus 6,500 in lieu of travel, lodging, and other expenses.
Court of Appeals 180,000 179,500 . . . . . . . . . Superior courts High Court 125,000 119,000 ... . . . . . . District courts Supreme Court 128,000 126,000 . . . . . . . . . Superior courts Commonwealth 130,000 126,000 . . . . . . . . . Superior courts Supreme Court Supreme Court 125,000 120,000 Appellate Court 105,000 105,000 Superior courts Territorial Court 186,300 181,300 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Source: National Center for State Courts, July 1, 2009. Note: Compensation is shown rounded to the nearest thousand, and is reported according to most recent legislation, even though laws may not yet have taken effect. There are other non-salary forms of judicial compensation that can be a significant part of a judge’s compensation package. It should be noted that many of these can be important to judges or attorneys who might be interested in becoming judges or justices. These include retirement, disability, and death benefits, expense accounts, vacation, holiday, and sick leave and various forms of insurance coverage. (a) Salary range is between $161,002–$201,252. (b) Salary range is between $160,003–$200,007.
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa................ Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands............ Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands...............
Western Region Alaska.................................. Supreme Court 185,448 184,908 Court of Appeals 174,696 174,696 Superior courts Arizona................................ Supreme Court 160,000 155,000 Court of Appeals 150,000 150,000 Superior courts California............................ Supreme Court 228,856 218,237 Court of Appeals 204,599 Superior court Colorado.............................. Supreme Court 142,708 139,660 Court of Appeals 137,201 134,128 District courts Hawaii................................. Supreme Court 156,727 151,118 Intermediate Court 145,532 139,924 Circuit courts Idaho.................................... Supreme Court 121,006 119,506 Court of Appeals 118,506 118,506 District courts Montana.............................. Supreme Court 115,160 113,964 . . . . . . . . . District courts Nevada................................. Supreme Court 170,000 170,000 . . . . . . . . . District courts New Mexico........................ Supreme Court 125,691 123,691 Court of Appeals 119,406 117,506 District courts Oregon................................. Supreme Court 128,556 125,688 Court of Appeals 125,688 122,820 Circuit courts Utah..................................... Supreme Court 147,350 145,350 Court of Appeals 140,750 138,750 District courts Washington......................... Supreme Court 164,221 164,221 Court of Appeals 156,328 156,328 Superior courts Wyoming............................. Supreme Court 126,500 126,500 . . . . . . . . . District courts Regional averages.............. 150,185 147,320 107,769 105,923 Regional averages.............. w/o California.................. 135,000 133,167 137,588 142,107
COMPENSATION OF JUDGES OF APPELLATE COURTS AND GENERAL TRIAL COURTS—Continued
90,000 ...
169,300 97,000 112,486 120,000
130,140
170,976 145,000 178,789 128,598 136,127 112,043 106,870 160,000 111,631 114,468 132,150 148,832 120,400 126,769
Salary
state courts
The Council of State Governments 305
state courts
Table 5.5 SELECTED DATA ON COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
State or other jurisdiction Title Established
Appointed by (a)
Salary
Alabama......................... Alaska............................. Arizona........................... Arkansas......................... California.......................
Administrative Director of Courts Administrative Director Administrative Director of Courts Director, Administrative Office of the Courts Administrative Director of the Courts
1971 1959 1960 1965 1960
CJ (b) CJ (b) SC CJ (c) JC
(g) 182,908 (h) 108,230 (i)
Colorado......................... Connecticut.................... Delaware........................ Florida............................ Georgia...........................
State Court Administrator Chief Court Administrator (d) Director, Administrative Office of the Courts State Courts Administrator Director, Administrative Office of the Courts
1959 1965 1971 1972 1973
SC CJ CJ SC JC
137,201 168,783 123,385 134,879 140,949
Hawaii............................ Idaho............................... Illinois............................. Indiana............................ Iowa................................
Administrative Director of the Courts Administrative Director of the Courts Administrative Director of the Courts Executive Director, Division of State Court Administration Court Administrator
1959 1967 1959 1975 1971
CJ (b) SC SC CJ SC
120,491 118,506 189,949 112,886 154,000
Kansas............................ Kentucky........................ Louisiana........................ Maine.............................. Maryland........................
Judicial Administrator Administrative Director of the Courts Judicial Administrator Court Administrator State Court Administrator
1965 1976 1954 1975 1955
CJ CJ SC CJ CJ (b)
120,037 124,620 130,194 111,969 142,287
Massachusetts................ Michigan......................... Minnesota....................... Mississippi...................... Missouri..........................
Chief Justice for Administration & Management State Court Administrator State Court Administrator Court Administrator State Courts Administrator
1978 1952 1963 1974 1970
SC SC SC SC SC
140,358 (j) (k) 76,500 118,450
Montana......................... Nebraska........................ Nevada............................ New Hampshire............. New Jersey.....................
State Court Administrator State Court Administrator Director, Office of Court Administration Director of the Administrative Office of the Court Administrative Director of the Courts
1975 1972 1971 1980 1948
SC CJ SC SC CJ
99,840 116,389 123,783 117,820 175,534
New Mexico................... New York........................ North Carolina............... North Dakota................. Ohio................................
Director, Administrative Office of the Courts Chief Administrator of the Courts Director, Administrative Office of the Courts Court Administrator (h) Administrative Director of the Courts
1959 1978 1965 1971 1955
SC CJ CJ CJ SC
120,752 147,600 126,738 106,428 (l)
Oklahoma....................... Oregon............................ Pennsylvania.................. Rhode Island.................. South Carolina...............
Administrative Director of the Courts Court Administrator Court Administrator State Court Administrator Director of Court Administration
1967 1971 1968 1969 1973
SC SC SC CJ CJ
130,410 (m) 171,129 (n) 123,453
South Dakota................. Tennessee....................... Texas............................... Utah................................ Vermont..........................
State Court Administrator Director Administrative Director of the Courts (i) Court Administrator Court Administrator
1974 1963 1977 1973 1967
SC SC SC SC SC
100,000 147,000 110,770 132,150 122,867
Virginia........................... Washington.................... West Virginia.................. Wisconsin....................... Wyoming........................
Executive Secretary to the Supreme Court Administrator for the Courts Administrative Director of the Supreme Court of Appeals Director of State Courts Court Coordinator
1952 1957 1975 1978 1974
SC SC (e) SC SC SC
165,149 142,800 115,900 136,316 114,234
Dist. of Columbia.......... American Samoa........... Guam.............................. No. Mariana Islands...... Puerto Rico.................... U.S. Virgin Islands.........
Executive Officer, Courts of D.C. Administrator/Comptroller Administrative Director of Superior Court Director of Courts Administrative Director of the Courts Court/Administrative Clerk
1971 N.A N.A. N.A. 1952 N.A.
(f) N.A. CJ N.A. CJ N.A.
Source: National Center for State Courts, July 1, 2009. Note: Compensation shown is rounded to the nearest thousand, and is reported according to most recent legislation, even though laws may not yet have taken effect. Other information from State Court Administrator web sites. Key: SC — State court of last resort. CJ — Chief justice or chief judge of court of last resort. JC — Judicial council. N.A. — Not available. (a) Term of office for all court administrators is at pleasure of appointing authority. (b) With approval of Supreme Court.
306 The Book of the States 2010
174,000 N.A. 120,000(o) N.A. N.A. 114,500
(c) With approval of Judicial Council. (d) Administrator is an associate judge of the Supreme Court. (e) Appointed from list of five submitted by governor. (f) Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. (g) Salary range is between $100,197 and $152,618. (h) Salary range is between $109,000 and $179,000. (i) Salary range is between $ 192,000 and $211,000. (j) Salary range is between $109,704 and $148,123. (k) Salary range is between $97,322 and $150,816. (l) Salary range is between $125,000 and $145,000. (m) Salary range is between $96,672 and 157,380. (n) Salary range is between $112,762 and $125,471. (o) After supplements: $149,000.
state courts
Table 5.6 SELECTION AND RETENTION OF APPELLATE COURT JUDGES Method of selection State or other Method of jurisdiction Name of court Type of court Unexpired term Full term retention
Geographic basis for selection
Alabama..........................
Supreme Court Court of Civil Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals
SC IA IA
GU GU GU
PE PE PE
PE PE PE
SW SW SW
Alaska..............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE (a) RE (a)
SW SW
Arizona............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
SW DS
Arkansas..........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP NP
NP NP
SW DS
California.........................
Supreme Court Courts of Appeal
SC IA
GU GU
GU GU
RE RE
SW DS
Colorado..........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
SW SW
Connecticut.....................
Supreme Court Appellate Court
SC IA
GNL GNL
GNL GNL
GNL GNL
SW SW
Delaware..........................
Supreme Court
SC
GNL
GNL
GNL
SW
Florida..............................
Supreme Court District Courts of Appeal
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
DS and SW (b) DS
Georgia............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
NP NP
NP NP
SW SW
Hawaii..............................
Supreme Court Intermediate Court of Appeals
SC IA
GNL GNL
GNL GNL
JN JN
SW SW
Idaho................................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
NP NP
NP NP
SW SW
Illinois..............................
Supreme Court Appellate Court
SC IA
CS SC
PE PE
RE RE
DS DS
Indiana.............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals Tax Court
SC IA IA
GN GN GN
GN GN GN
RE RE RE
SW DS SW
Iowa..................................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
SW SW
Kansas..............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
SW SW
Kentucky..........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
NP NP
NP NP
DS DS
Louisiana.........................
Supreme Court Courts of Appeal
SC IA
CS (c) SC (c)
PE (d) PE (d)
PE (d) PE (d)
DS DS
Maine...............................
Supreme Judicial Court
SC
GL
GL
GL
SW
Maryland..........................
Court of Appeals Court of Special Appeals
SC IA
GNL GNL
GNL GNL
RE RE
DS DS
Massachusetts..................
Supreme Judicial Court Appeals Court
SC IA
(e) (e)
GNE (f) GNE (f)
(g) (g)
SW SW
Michigan..........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP (h) NP (h)
NP (h) NP (h)
SW DS
Minnesota........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP NP
NP NP
SW SW
Mississippi........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP NP
NP NP
DS DS
Missouri...........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
SW DS
Montana...........................
Supreme Court
SC
GNL
NP
NP (i)
SW
Nebraska..........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
GN GN
RE RE
SW and DS (j) DS
Nevada.............................
Supreme Court
SC
GN
NP
NP
SW
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 307
state courts
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF APPELLATE COURT JUDGES—Continued Method of selection State or other Method of jurisdiction Name of court Type of court Unexpired term Full term retention
Geographic basis for selection
New Hampshire..............
Supreme Court
SC
GE
GE
(k)
SW
New Jersey.......................
Supreme Court Superior Court, Appellate Div.
SC IA
GL GL
GL GL (l)
GL GL (l)
SW SW
New Mexico.....................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
PE PE
RE RE
SW SW
New York.........................
Court of Appeals Supreme Ct., Appellate Div.
SC IA
GNL GN
GNL GN
GNL GN
SW SW (m)
North Carolina................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP NP
NP NP
SW SW
North Dakota..................
Supreme Court Temporary Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN (n) (w)
NP SC (x)
NP (w)
SW SW
Ohio..................................
Supreme Court Courts of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
PE (o) PE (o)
PE (o) PE (o)
SW DS
Oklahoma........................
Supreme Court Court of Criminal Appeals Court of Civil Appeals
SC SC IA
GN GN GN
GN GN GN
RE RE RE
DS DS DS
Oregon.............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP NP
NP NP
SW SW
Pennsylvania....................
Supreme Court Superior Court Commonwealth Court
SC IA IA
GL GL GL
PE PE PE
RE RE RE
SW SW SW
Rhode Island...................
Supreme Court
SC
GN
GN
(p)
SW
South Carolina................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
LA LA
LA LA
LA LA
SW SW
South Dakota..................
Supreme Court
SC
GN
GN
RE
DS and SW (q)
Tennessee.........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals
SC SC IA
GN GN GN
GN GN GN
RE RE RE
SW SW SW
Texas.................................
Supreme Court Court of Criminal Appeals Courts of Appeals
SC SC IA
GU GU GU
PE PE PE
PE PE PE
SW SW DS
Utah..................................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GNL GNL
GNL GNL
RE RE
SW SW
Vermont...........................
Supreme Court
SC
GNL
GNL
LA
SW
Virginia............................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GU (r) GU (r)
LA LA
LA LA
SW SW
Washington......................
Supreme Court Courts of Appeals
SC IA
GU GU
NP NP
NP NP
SW DS
West Virginia...................
Supreme Court of Appeals
SC
GU (s)
PE
PE
SW
Wisconsin.........................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GN GN
NP NP
NP NP
SW DS
Wyoming.......................... Supreme Court SC GN GN RE
SW
District of Columbia.......
Court of Appeals
SC
(t)
(t)
(t)
SW (u)
Puerto Rico.....................
Supreme Court Court of Appeals
SC IA
GL GL
GL GL
(v) GL
SW SW
See footnotes at end of table.
308 The Book of the States 2010
state courts
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF APPELLATE COURT JUDGES—Continued Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Organization, 2004 NCJ 212351, Update from the National Center for State Courts, March 2010. Key: SC — Court of last resort IA — Intermediate appellate court N/S — Not stated N.A. — Not applicable AP — At pleasure CS — Court selection DS — District DU — Duration of service GE — Gubernatorial appointment with approval of elected executive council GL — Gubernatorial appointment with consent of the legislature GN — Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission GNE — Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission with approval of elected executive council GNL — Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission with consent of the legislature GU — Gubernatorial appointment ID — Indefinite JN — Judicial nominating commission appoints LA — Legislative appointment NP — Non-partisan election PE — Partisan election RE — Retention election SC — Court of last resort appoints SCJ — Chief justice/judge of the court of last resort appoints SN — Seniority SW — Statewide (a) A judge must run for a retention election at the next election, immediately following the third year from the time of initial appointment. (b) Five justices are selected by region (based on the District Courts of Appeal) and two justices are selected statewide. (c) The person selected by the Supreme Court is prohibited from running for that judgeship; an election is held within one year to serve the remainder of the term. (d) Louisiana uses a blanket primary, in which all candidates appear with party labels on the primary ballot. The two top vote getters compete in the general election. (e) There are no expired judicial terms. A judicial term expires upon the death, resignation, retirement, or removal of an incumbent. (f) The Executive (Governor’s) Council is made up of nine people elected
by geographical area and presided over by the Lieutenant Governor. (g) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior to age 70. (h) Candidates may be nominated by political parties and are elected on a nonpartisan ballot. (i) If the justice/judge is unopposed, a retention election is held. (j) Chief Justices are selected statewide while Associate Justices are selected by district. (k) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior to age 70. (l) All Superior Court judges, including Appellate Division judges, are subject to gubernatorial reappointment and consent by the Senate after an initial seven-year term. Among all the judges, the Chief Justice designates the judges of the Appellate Division. (m) The Presiding Judge of each Appellate Division must be a resident of the department. (n) The Governor may appoint from a list of names or call a special election at his discretion. (o) Party affiliation is not included on the ballot in the general election, but candidates are chosen through partisan primary nominations. (p) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior for a life tenure. (q) Initial selection is by district, but retention selection is statewide. (r) Gubernatorial appointment is for interim appointments. (s) Appointment is effective only until the next election year; the appointee may run for election to any remaining portion of the unexpired term. (t) Initial appointment is made by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Six months prior to the expiration of the term of office, the judge’s performance is reviewed by the tenure commission. Those found “well qualified” are automatically reappointed. If a judge is found to be “qualified”the President may nominate the judge for an additional term (subject to Senate confirmation). If the President does not wish to reappoint the judge, the District of Columbia Nomination Commission compiles a new list of candidates. (u) The geographic basis of selection is the District of Columbia. (v) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior to age 70. (w) The supreme court may provide for the assignment of active or retired district court judges, retired justices of the supreme court, and lawyers, to serve on three-judge panels. (x) There is neither a retention process nor unexpired terms. Assignments are for a specified time, not to exceed one year or the completion of one or more cases on the docket of the supreme court.
The Council of State Governments 309
state courts
Table 5.7 SELECTION AND RETENTION OF TRIAL COURT JUDGES State or other Method of selection Method of jurisdiction Name of Court Types of court Unexpired term Full term retention
Geographic basis for selection
Alabama......................
Circuit District Municipal Probate
GJ LJ LJ LJ
GU (a) GU (a) MU GU
PE PE MU PE
PE PE RA PE
Circuit County Municipality County
GJ LG N.A.
GN GN PJ
GN GN PJ
RE (b) RE (d) PJ
State (c) District District
Arizona........................ Superior Justice of the Peace Municipal
GJ LJ LJ
GN or VA (e) CO CC (g)
GN or NP (f) PE CC (g)
NP or RE (f) PE CC (g)
County Precinct Municipality
Arkansas...................... Circuit District City
GJ LJ LJ
GU (h) GU LD
NP NP LD
NP NP LD
Circuit District City
California..................... Superior
GJ
GU
NP
NP (i)
County
Colorado......................
GJ GJ GJ GJ LJ LJ
GN GN GN SC (j) GN MU
GN GN GN SC (j) GN (k) MU
RE RE RE RE RE RA
District District District District County Municipality
Connecticut................. Superior Probate
GJ LJ
GNL PE
GNL PE
GNL PE
State District
Delaware......................
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GNL GNL GNL (l) GNL GNL LD
GNL GNL GNL (l) GNL GNL CC
GNL GNL GU GNL GNL LD
State State County County County Town
Florida.......................... Circuit County
GJ LJ
GN GN
NP NP
NP NP
Circuit County
Georgia........................
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GN CS (m) GU GU GU LD MA LD MU
NP CS (m) PE NP PE (n) LD (o) Elected LD MU
NP CS (m) PE NP PE (n) LD (o) Elected LD LD
Circuit County/Circuit County County County County Municipality County Municipality
Hawaii.......................... Circuit District
GJ LJ
GNL SCJ (p)
GNL SCJ (p)
JN JN
State Circuit
Idaho............................ District Magistrate’s Division
GJ LJ
GN JN (q)
NP JN (q)
NP RE
District County
GJ N.A.
SC SC
PE PE
RE RE
Circuit/County (r) Circuit/County (r)
GJ GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GU GU GU GU GU GU GU
PE (s) PE (t) PE PE PE PE PE
PE (s) PE (t) PE PE PE PE PE
County County County County Municipality Municipality Township
GN (u)
GN (u)
Alaska.......................... Superior District Magistrate’s Division
District Denver Probate Denver Juvenile Water County Municipal
Superior Chancery Justice of the Peace Family Common Pleas Alderman’s
Superior Juvenile Civil State Probate Magistrate Municipal/of Columbus County Recorder’s Municipal/City of Atlanta
Illinois.......................... Circuit Associate Division Indiana.........................
Superior Circuit Probate County City Town Small Claims/Marion County
Iowa.............................. District
GJ
Kansas.......................... District Municipal
GJ LJ
Kentucky...................... Circuit District
GJ LJ
GN GN
Louisiana.....................
GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ
SC (w) SC (w) SC (w) MA SC (w)
District Juvenile & Family Justice of the Peace Mayor’s City & Parish
See footnotes at end of table.
310 The Book of the States 2010
RE (u)
District
RE and PE (v) MU
District City
NP NP
NP NP
Circuit District
PE PE PE(x) LD PE
PE PE PE LD PE
District District Ward City Ward
GN and PE(v) GN and PE (v) MU MU
state courts
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF TRIAL COURT JUDGES—Continued
State or other Method of selection Method of jurisdiction Name of Court Types of court Unexpired term Full term retention
Geographic basis for selection
Maine........................... Superior District Probate
GJ GJ LJ
GL GL GU
GL GL PE
GL GL PE
State State and District (y) County
Maryland...................... Circuit District Orphan’s
GJ LJ LJ
GNL GNL GU
GNL GNL PE (z)
NP RA PE (z)
County District County
Massachusetts..............
Superior District Probate & Family Juvenile Housing Boston Municipal Land
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
(aa) (aa) (aa) (aa) (aa) (aa) (aa)
GNE (bb) GNE (bb) GNE (bb) GNE (bb) GNE (bb) GNE (bb) GNE (bb)
(cc) (cc) (cc) (cc) (cc) (cc) (cc)
State State State State State State State
Michigan......................
Circuit Claims District Probate Municipal
GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ
GU GU GU GU LD
NP NP NP NP NP
NP NP NP NP NP
Circuit Circuit District District and Circuit City
Minnesota.................... District
GJ
GN
NP
NP
District
Mississippi....................
Circuit Chancery County Municipal Justice
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GU GU GU LD LD
NP NP NP LD PE
NP NP NP LD PE
District District County Municipality District in County
Missouri....................... Circuit Municipal
GJ LJ
Montana.......................
District Workers’ Compensation Water Justice of the Peace Municipal City
GJ GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ
GN GN SCJ (hh) CO MU CC
NP GN SCJ (hh) NP NP NP
NP RA SCJ (ii) NP NP NP
District State State County City City
Nebraska......................
District Separate Juvenile County Workers’ Compensation
GJ LJ LJ LJ
GN GN GN GN
GN GN GN GN
RE RE RE RE
District District District District
Nevada......................... District Justice Municipal
GJ LJ LJ
GN CO CC
NP NP NP
NP NP NP
District Township City
New Hampshire.......... Superior District Probate
GJ LJ LJ
GE GE GE
GE GE GE
(jj) (jj) (jj)
State District County
New Jersey................... Superior Tax Municipal
GJ LJ LJ
GL GL MU
County State Municipality
New Mexico.................
District Magistrate Metropolitan/Bernalillo County Municipal Probate
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
RE PE RE PE PE
District County County City County
New York.....................
Supreme County Claims Surrogates’ Family District City NYC Civil NYC Criminal Town & Village Justice
GJ GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
North Carolina............ Superior District
GJ LJ
GU and GN (dd) PE and GN (ee) LD LD
GL GL GL GL MA or MU (kk) MA or MU (kk) GN GU GN MU CO
PE PE PE PE PE
GL PE GL PE GNL GNL GNL PE GNL and MU (ll) PE and MU (ll) (mm) PE Elected Elected MA (nn) PE MA MA LD LD GU GU
NP NP
PE and RE (ff) Circuit/County (gg) LD City
PE District PE County GU State PE County PE and MU (ll) County and NYC PE District LD City PE City MA City LD Town or Village NP NP
District District
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 311
state courts
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF TRIAL COURT JUDGES—Continued
State or other Method of selection Method of jurisdiction Name of Court Types of court Unexpired term Full term retention
Geographic basis for selection
North Dakota.............. District Municipal
GJ LJ
GN MA
NP NP
NP NP
District City
Ohio..............................
Common Pleas Municipal County Claims Mayor’s
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GU GU GU SCJ Elected
PE (oo) PE (oo) PE (oo) SCJ PE
PE (oo) PE (oo) PE (oo) SCJ PE
County County/City County N.A. City/Village
Oklahoma....................
District Municipal Not of Record Municipal of Record Workers’ Compensation Tax Review
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GN (pp) MM MU GN SCJ
NP (pp) MM MU GN SCJ
NP (pp) MM MU GN SCJ
District Municipality Municipality State District
Oregon.........................
Circuit Tax County Justice Municipal
GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ
GU GU CO GU CC
NP NP NP NP CC/Elected
NP NP NP NP CC/Elected
District State County County (qq)
Pennsylvania................
Common Pleas Philadelphia Municipal Magisterial District Judges Philadelphia Traffic
GJ LJ LJ LJ
GL GL GL GL
PE PE PE PE
RE RE PE RE
District City/County District City/County
Rhode Island...............
Superior Workers’ Compensation District Family Probate Municipal Traffic Tribunal
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GN GN GN GN CC CC GN
GN GN GN GN CC or MA CC or MA GN
(rr) (rr) (rr) (rr) RA CC or MA (rr)
State State State State Town Town State
South Carolina............
Circuit Family Magistrate Probate Municipal
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
South Dakota.............. Circuit Magistrate
GJ LJ
GN PJS
NP PJS
NP PJS
Circuit Circuit
Tennessee.....................
Circuit Chancery Criminal Probate Juvenile Municipal General Sessions
GJ GJ GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ
GU GU GU (vv) (vv) LD MU
PE (uu) PE (uu) PE (uu) PE (uu) PE (uu) LD (uu) PE (uu)
PE PE PE PE PE LD PE
District District District District County Municipality County
Texas.............................
District Constitutional County Probate County at Law Justice of the Peace Municipal
GJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ
GL CO CO CO CO CC
PE PE PE PE PE LD
PE PE PE PE PE LD
District County County County Precinct Municipality
Utah.............................. District Justice Juvenile
GJ LJ LJ
(ww) MM (xx) (ww)
GNL MM (xx) GNL
Vermont.......................
GJ GJ GJ LJ LJ LJ
GNL GNL (zz) GU GNL PJ
GNL GNL (zz) PE GNL PJ
LA LA (zz) PE LA AP
State State (zz) District State State
Virginia........................ Circuit District
GJ LJ
GU CS (aaa)
LA LA
LA LA
Circuit District
Washington.................. Superior District Municipal
GJ LJ LJ
GU CO CC
NP NP MA/CC
NP NP MA/CC (bbb)
County District Municipality
Superior District Family Probate Environmental Judicial Bureau
See footnotes at end of table.
312 The Book of the States 2010
LA and GN (ss)(tt) LA and GN (tt) LA LA GL GL GU PE CC CC
LA and GL (tt) Circuit and State (tt) LA Circuit GL County PE County CC District
RE District RE and RA (yy) County/Municipality RE District
state courts
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF TRIAL COURT JUDGES—Continued
State or other Method of selection Method of jurisdiction Name of Court Types of court Unexpired term Full term retention
Geographic basis for selection
West Virginia...............
Circuit Magistrate Municipal Family
GJ LJ LJ LJ
GU PJ LD GU
PE PE LD PE
PE PE LD PE
Circuit County Municipality Circuit
Wisconsin..................... Circuit Municipal
GJ LJ
GU MU (ccc)
NP NP
NP NP
District Municipality
Wyoming...................... District Circuit Municipal
GJ LJ LJ
GN GN MA
GN GN MA
RE RE LD
District Circuit Municipality
Dist. of Columbia........ Superior
GJ
(ddd)
(ddd)
(ddd)
State (eee)
Puerto Rico................. First Instance
GJ
GL
GL
GL
State
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Organization, 2004 NCJ 212351, Update from the National Center for State Courts, March 2010. Key: GJ — General jurisdiction court LJ — Limited jurisdiction court N/S — Not stated N.A. — Not applicable AP — At pleasure CA — Court administrator appointment CC — City or town council/commission appointment CO — County board/commission appointment CS — Court selection DU — Duration of service GE — Gubernatorial appointment with approval of elected executive council GL — Gubernatorial appointment with consent of the legislature GN — Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission GNE — Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission with approval of elected executive council GNL — Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission with consent of the legislature GU — Gubernatorial appointment JN — Judicial nominating commission appoints LA — Legislative appointment LD — Locally determined MA — Mayoral appointment MC — Mayoral appointment with consent of city council MM — Mayoral appointment with consent of governing municipal body MU — Governing municipal body appointment NP — Non-partisan election PE — Partisan election PJ — Presiding judge of the general jurisdiction court appoints PJS — Presiding judge of the general jurisdiction court appoints with approval of the court of last resort RA — Reappointment RE — Retention election SC — Court of last resort appoints SCJ — Chief justice/judge of the court of last resort appoints (a) The counties of Baldwin, Jefferson, Lauderdale, Madison, Mobile, Shelby, Talladega, and Tuscaloosa use gubernatorial appointment from the recommendations of the Judicial Nominating Commission. (b) A judge must run for retention at the next election immediately following the third year from the time of the initial appointment. (c) Judges are selected on a statewide basis, but run for retention on a district-wide basis. (d) Judges must run for retention at the first general election held more than one year after appointment. (e) Maricopa and Pima counties use the gubernatorial appointment from the Judicial Nominating Commission process. The method for submitting names for the other 13 counties varies. (f) Maricopa and Pima counties use the gubernatorial appointment from the Judicial Nominating Commission process. The other 13 counties hold non-partisan elections. (g) Municipal court judges are usually appointed by the city or town council except in Yuma, where judges are elected. (h) The office can be held until December 31 following the next general election and then the judge must run in a non-partisan election for the
remainder of the term. (i) If unopposed for reelection, incumbent’s name does not appear on the ballot unless a petition was filed not less than 83 days before the election date indicating that a write-in campaign will be conducted for the office. An unopposed incumbent is not declared elected until the election date. This is for the general election; different timing may apply for the primary election (see Elec. Code §8203). (j) Judges are chosen by the Supreme Court from among District Court judges. (k) The mayor appoints Denver County Court judges. (l) The Magistrate Screening Commission recommends candidates. (m) Juvenile Court judges are appointed by Superior Court judges in all but one county, in which juvenile judges are elected. Associate judges (formerly referees) must be a member of the state bar or law school graduates. They serve at the pleasure of the judge(s). (n) Probate judges are selected in non-partisan elections in 66 of 159 counties. (o) Magistrate judges are selected in nonpartisan elections in 41 of 159 counties. (p) Selection occurs by means of Chief Justice appointment from the Judicial Nominating Commission with consent of the Senate. (q) The Magistrate Commission consists of the administrative judge, three mayors and two electors appointed by the governor, and two attorneys (nominated by the district bar and appointed by the state bar). There is one commission in each district. (r) There exists a unit less than county in Cook County. (s) Non-partisan elections are used in the Superior Courts in Allen and Vanderburgh counties. Nominating commissions are used in St. Joseph County and in some courts in Lake County. In those courts that use the nominating commission process for selection; retention elections are used as the method of retention. (t) Non-partisan elections are used in the Circuit Courts in Vanderburgh County. (u) This applies to district judges only. Associate judges are selected by the district judges and retention is by a retention election. Magistrates are selected and retained by appointment from the County Judicial Magistrate Nominating Commission. The County Judicial Magistrate Nominating Commission consists of three members appointed by the county board and two elected by the county bar, presided over by a District Court judge. (v) Seventeen districts use gubernatorial appointment from the Judicial Nominating Commission for selection and retention elections for retention. Fourteen districts use partisan elections for selection and retention. (w) Depending on the amount of time remaining, selection may be by election following a Supreme Court appointment. (x) Louisiana uses a blanket primary in which all candidates appear with party labels on the primary ballot. The top two vote getters compete in the general election. (y) At least one judge who is a resident of the county in which the district lies must be appointed from each of the 13 districts. (z) Two exceptions are Hartford and Montgomery counties where Circuit Court judges are assigned. (aa) There are no expired judicial terms. A judicial term expires upon the death, resignation, retirement, or removal of an incumbent. (bb) The Executive (Governor’s) Council is made up of eight people elected by geographical area and presided over by the lieutenant governor. (cc) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior to age 70.
The Council of State Governments 313
state courts
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF TRIAL COURT JUDGES—Continued
(dd) Gubernatorial appointment occurs in 40 partisan circuits; gubernatorial appointment from Judicial Nominating Commission takes place in five non-partisan circuits. (ee) Partisan elections occur in 40 circuits; gubernatorial appointment from the Judicial Nominating Commission with a non-partisan election takes place in five circuits. (ff) Partisan elections take place in 40 circuits; retention elections occur in five metropolitan circuits. (gg) Associate circuit judges are selected on a county basis. (hh) Selection occurs through Chief Justice appointment from Judicial Nominating Commission. (ii) Other judges are designated by the District Court judges. (jj) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior to age 70. (kk) In multi-municipality, joint, or countywide municipal courts, selection is by gubernatorial appointment with consent of the senate. (ll) Mayoral appointment occurs in New York City. (mm) The appointment is made by the County Chief Executive Officer with confirmation by District Board of Supervisors. (nn) Housing judges are appointed by the Chief Administrator of the courts. (oo) Party affiliation is not included on the ballot in the general election, but candidates are chosen through partisan primary nominations. (pp) This applies to district and associate judges; special judges are selected by the district judges. (qq) The geographic basis for selection is the municipality for those judges that are elected. Judges that are either appointed or are under contract may be from other cities. (rr) There is no retention process. Judges serve during good behavior for a life tenure. (ss) The governor may appoint a candidate if the unexpired term is less than one year.
314 The Book of the States 2010
(tt) In addition to Circuit Court judges, the Circuit Court has mastersin-equity whose jurisdiction is in matters referred to them in the Circuit Court. Masters-in-equity are selected by gubernatorial appointment from the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, retained by gubernatorial appointment with the consent of the senate, and the geographic basis for selection is the state. (uu) Each county legislative body has the discretion to require elections to be non-partisan. (vv) The selection method used to fill an unexpired term is established by a special legislative act. (ww) There are no expired terms; each new judge begins a new term. (xx) Appointment is by the local government executive with confirmation by the local government legislative body (may be either county or municipal government). (yy) County judges are retained by retention election; municipal judges are reappointed by the city executive. (zz)Superior and District Court judges serve as Family Court judges. (aaa) Circuit Court judges appoint. (bbb) Full-time municipal judges must stand for non-partisan election. (ccc) A permanent vacancy in the office of municipal judge may be filled by temporary appointment of the municipal governing body or jointly by the governing bodies of all municipalities served by the judge. (ddd) The Judicial Nomination Commission nominates for Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Not less than six months prior to the expiration of the term of office, the judge’s performance is reviewed by the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. A judge found “well qualified” is automatically reappointed for a new term of 15 years; a judge found “qualified” may be renominated by the President (and subject to Senate confirmation). A judge found “unqualified” is ineligible for reappointment or if the President does not wish to reappoint a judge, the Nomination Commission compiles a new list of candidates. (eee) The geographic basis for selection is the District of Columbia.
Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability
Maine.....................................
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 315
See footnotes at end of table.
Louisiana...............................
Kentucky................................
Kansas....................................
Iowa........................................
Judicial Qualifications Committee Judicial Qualifications Commission Commission on Judicial Qualifications Judicial Conduct Committee Judiciary Commission
Council on Probate Judicial Conduct Preliminary Committee of the Court on the Judiciary Investigatory Committee of the Court on the Judiciary Judicial Qualifications Commission Judicial Qualifications Commission Commission on Judicial Conduct Judicial Council Judicial Inquiry Board
Indiana...................................
Idaho...................................... Illinois....................................
Hawaii....................................
Georgia..................................
Florida....................................
Delaware................................
Connecticut...........................
Colorado................................
California...............................
Arkansas................................
Arizona..................................
Judicial Inquiry Committee Committee on Judicial Conduct Commission on Judicial Conduct Judicial Discipline and Disability Committees Commission on Judicial Performance Committee on Judicial Discipline Judicial Review Council
Supreme Judicial Court
Judicial Conduct Committee Supreme Court
Judicial Qualifications Commission Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Conduct Supreme Court Courts Commission
Judicial Qualifications Commission (b) Supreme Court
Council on Probate Judicial Conduct Court on the Judiciary
Commission on Judicial Performance Commission on Judicial Discipline Judicial Review Council; Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Conduct Commission
Court of the Judiciary Supreme Court
State or other jurisdiction Investigating body Adjudicating body
Alabama................................ Alaska....................................
Table 5.8 JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: INVESTIGATING AND ADJUDICATING BODIES
No appeal
No appeal
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
N.A.
Supreme Court No appeal
No appeal
No appeal
No appeal
No appeal
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court has discretionary review No appeal
Discretionary with Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court N.A.
Appeals from adjudication are filed with:
Supreme Judicial Court
Judicial Conduct Committee Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Courts Commission
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court (c)
Court on the Judiciary
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Performance Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Court of the Judiciary Supreme Court
Final disciplining body
Filing of formal complaint by commission with Supreme Court Filing of report to Supreme Judicial Court
Reprimand is published by Supreme Court if approved by Supreme Court. Application of judge under investigation
Application by the commission to the Supreme Court
Filing with Supreme Court Filing of complaint by Judicial Inquiry Board to Courts Commission Institution of Formal Proceedings
Imposition of public discipline by Supreme Court
Filing of formal charges by Committee with Supreme Court Clerk Formal Hearing
Upon issuance of opinion and imposition of sanction
Public censure is issued at between 10 and 30 days after notice to the judge, provided that if the judge appeals, there is an automatic stay of disclosure.
Adjudication
Upon commission determination (a)
Commission on Judicial Conduct determines if there is probable cause to bring formal charges. At disposition of case
Filing of the complaint with the Court of the Judiciary Filing of recommendation with Supreme Court
Point at which reprimands are made public
JUDICIARY
316â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Commission on Judicial Performance Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline Judicial Standards Commission Commission on Judicial Qualification Commission on Judicial Discipline Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct Judicial Standards Commission Commission on Judicial Conduct
Judicial Standards Commission Commission on Judicial Conduct Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline (e) Court on the Judiciary Trial Division Council Council on Judicial Complaints Commission of Judicial Fitness and Disability (f) Judicial Conduct Board Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline
Mississippi..............................
North Carolina......................
See footnotes at end of table.
Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island.........................
Oregon...................................
Oklahoma..............................
Ohio........................................
North Dakota........................
New York...............................
New Mexico...........................
New Jersey.............................
New Hampshire....................
Nevada...................................
Nebraska................................
Montana.................................
Missouri.................................
Minnesota..............................
Michigan................................
Massachusetts........................
Commission on Judicial Disabilities Commission on Judicial Conduct Judicial Tenure Commission Board of Judicial Standards
Supreme Court
Court of Judicial Discipline
Supreme Court
Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline Court on the Judiciary Trial Division; Council on Judicial Complaint
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Discipline
Supreme Court
Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Judicial Court
Court of Appeals
State or other jurisdiction Investigating body Adjudicating body
Maryland................................
Supreme Court No appeals
No appeal
Court on the Judiciary Division; no appeal from Council on Judicial Complaints
Supreme Court
N.A.
No appeals
Court of Appeals
N.A.
N.A.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
No appeal
No appeal
Supreme Court
N.A.
No appeal
Supreme Court
N.A.
N.A.
Appeals from adjudication are filed with:
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: INVESTIGATING AND ADJUDICATING BODIESâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Court on the Judiciary Appellate Division
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Conduct and Court of Appeals Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Discipline Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Judicial Court
Court of Appeals
Final disciplining body
Once a final decision has been made When Supreme Court affirms a recommendation for reprimand or removal
(g)
Filing with clerk of the Appellate Court
Adjudication
At formal hearing
Upon recommendation of Commission to Supreme Court
Completion of service of record on respondent
Filing of record by Commission with Supreme Court
Filing of formal complaint
Upon filing of report by Committee and service upon judge On issuance of reprimand (d)
Commission may issue a public reprimand
Filing of record by Committee with Supreme Court
Filing of recommendation by Committee to Supreme Court
After final of formal charges with the Supreme Judicial Court Filing of formal complaint by commission with Supreme Court Filing of formal charges by Committee with Supreme Court Recommendation of Commission to Supreme Court
Filing of record by Committee to Court of Appeals
Point at which reprimands are made public
JUDICIARY
State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Judicial Conduct Commission Judicial Conduct Board Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission Commission on Judicial Conduct Judicial Investigation Committee and Judicial Hearing Board Judicial Commission
Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure
Disciplinary and Removal from office for health reasons
Texas.......................................
Utah........................................
Wyoming................................
Puerto Rico........................... Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure
Supreme Court
Supreme Court (i)
Judicial Hearing Board (JHB)
Supreme Court
Supreme Court, Commission on Judicial Conduct, or review tribunal consisting of Justices of Courts of Appeals Judicial Conduct Commission Supreme Court Supreme Court
Court of the Judiciary
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Commission on Judicial. Disabilities and Tenure
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Committee on Judicial Conduct or Supreme Court Supreme Court of Appeals (h)
Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court or General Assembly Supreme Court, Commission on Judicial Conduct, or review tribunal consisting of Justices of the Courts of Appeals Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Final disciplining body
Filing of formal complaint to the Discipline Commission
Filing of order with D.C. Court of Appeals (j)
Filing of petitioner formal complaint by Judicial Commission w/Supreme Court Filing with Supreme Court
Upon decision by Supreme Court of Appeals
Filing of formal charges by Board with Supreme Court Filing of formal complaint by Committee with Supreme Court Beginning of fact finding hearing by Committee
10 days after filing appeal
Convening of formal hearing by the Commission on Judicial Conduct
Filing of complaint in Appellate Court Clerk’s office
Filing with the Supreme Court
Adjudication
Point at which reprimands are made public
hears the evidence and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court, which must review the records, or any stipulation for discipline and can hear additional evidence. Technically, then, there is no appeal. The Supreme Court orders any discipline, including any stipulated sanction. (g) In Oregon, the allegations become public when the Commission issues a notice of public hearing, generally 14 days in advance of the hearing (although it can be less in the public interest). The actual complaint is not made public then, but the notice includes the general nature of the allegations. In a disciplinary case (but not a disability case), the Commission hearing, the evidence received there, and the Commission’s decisions and recommendations are public. The Supreme Court decision is public when the Court files its opinion. There is no reprimand or other sanction until the Supreme Court decision. (h) The final disciplining body is the same for both the Commission and Judicial Hearing Board. (i) The Judicial Conduct and Disability Panel, through an ad hoc three-judge panel (two must be Court of Appeals judges, one can be a retired, reserve judge or Court of Appeals judge appointed as a hearing examiner) makes a report to the Supreme Court. (j) This only applies in cases of removal or involuntary retirement wherein the Chief Justice appoints a threemember federal judge panel to review commission’s order of removal.
Federal judge panel: 3 appointments by Chief Justice of Supreme Court N.A.
N.A.
No appeal
JHB recommends to SCA (i)
No appeal
Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court, then General Assembly Supreme Court
No appeals
N.A.
Appeals from adjudication are filed with:
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Organization, 2004 NCJ 212351, update from the National Center for State Courts, March 2010. Key: N.A. — Not applicable (a) In cases involving more serious misconduct, the commission may issue a public admonishment or public censure. The nature and impact of the misconduct generally determine the level of discipline. Both public admonishments and public censures are notices sent to the judge describing the improper conduct and stating the findings made by the commission. These notices are also made available to the press and the general public. (b) The Judicial Qualifications Commission investigates and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court for discipline or removal. (c) The Supreme Court power of removal is alternative and cumulative to the power of impeachment and suspension by the Governor and Senate. (d) The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct may admonish, reprimand or order conditions, and the Supreme Court may impose formal discipline. (e) Initial review is carried out by a panel of three commissioners. (f) Technically, the Commission of Judicial Fitness and Disability does not adjudicate disciplinary matters. It
District of Columbia.............
Wisconsin...............................
West Virginia.........................
Washington............................
Vermont................................. Virginia..................................
Tennessee...............................
South Dakota........................
Commissioners on Judicial Conduct Judicial Qualifications Commission Court of the Judiciary
State or other jurisdiction Investigating body Adjudicating body
South Carolina......................
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: INVESTIGATING AND ADJUDICATING BODIES—Continued
JUDICIARY
The Council of State Governments 317
Chapter Six
ELECTIONS
ELECTIONS
Elections Changes Mean Many Questions for States, but Few Sufficient Answers By R. Doug Lewis
Governors and state legislators need to re-evaluate the federal changes to voter registration and election administration and determine if the model for management of those functions is current to state needs and practices. Where the election process for more than two centuries has been principally at the local level through county and city governments, with states responsible for policy development and enforcement, Congress continues to make the states the chief administrative body. State administrative and legislative response to the dramatic changes in level of responsibility has not kept pace with the federal mandates. State governments are lagging behind in recognizing their responsibilities for voter registration and election administration have shifted the burdens of management of the democratic process. And that burden is on the states. The changes mean that many states have not kept up through appropriate changes in their staffing to implement mandates or in their ability to provide the services necessary to manage the changes. With the passage of the National Voter Registration Act, which affected the states beginning in 1995, Congress has made a consistent thrust to make states—not local governments—the focus of responsibility for meeting federal mandates in voter registration and elections administration. The legislation established the concept of a chief elections officer for each state that had not been identified prior to passage. The states became responsible for implementation by utilizing state agencies, principally the Department of Motor Vehicles and the state social service agencies, as participants in election responsibility for American elections. The Help America Vote Act passed in 2002, took the concept of state responsibility even further with several mandates on the states. It mandated: • Statewide voter databases; • State definitions of what constitutes a vote that is to be followed uniformly throughout the state so that candidates, the media and the public will know what is to be counted before an election; • Establishment of provisional voting to be conducted uniformly throughout the state; • State plans for elections that have to be submitted to the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission which spell out how the state will accomplish its goals with federal money, among other duties;
• Centralization of decision and implementation because the chief election officer is assigned specific duties including the planning functions and distribution of Help America Vote Act funds; • Changes in voting equipment, which increased state responsibility in the role of certification and decertification of voting equipment; and • A compliance role state election offices did not have prior to the law, including federal audits of federal funds as well as voting systems compliance, database compliance and maintenance of effort requirements, among others. Revisions to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, also called the MOVE Act, in 2009 mandated additional state responsibility for assisting military and overseas voters, including sending ballots by electronic means, becoming a repository for returned ballots (which then can be redistributed to local governments), providing the chief information portal to military and overseas voters for voter registration information and absentee ballot applications and ultimately assuring the distribution of the ballots to the voters. While in some instances the states can delegate some or all portions of the legislation, it is ultimately the state government that is held accountable. Legislation that passed the U.S. House Administration Committee (but not the Senate—at least not yet), makes the states responsible for providing absentee ballots by mail to any voter who so chooses. Other House Committee-passed legislation wants states to keep systems that will show voters where their absentee applications and even ballots are at all times and to show that information on the Internet. New legislation that will likely have a chance of passage in this year or next would mandate that
The Council of State Governments 321
ELECTIONS state governments provide online Internet voter registration to all voters within the states. Additionally, a major shift of responsibility for voter registration is likely to emerge from the U.S. Senate in the near future. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who serves as chair of the Senate Rules Committee (where election legislation is considered), is indicating that a major revision to how voter registration is handled is in the works. States will have responsibility for officially taking over responsibility for voter registrations (meaning the state has to be responsible for assuring all citizens of eligible voting age are enumerated and added to the voting rolls). States will be responsible for devising methods to “automatically” put voters on the rolls of eligible voters within each state. Traditionally, voter registration has been a local government responsibility but in a somewhat passive manner; i.e., that political parties, candidate organizations and activist groups have been principally the method by which voters got registered. While local governments conduct voter registration drives, it is essentially voters seeking out one of the locations for official registration. The National Voter Registration Act started to shift the responsibility to the states. If the anticipated legislation is passed by both bodies in Congress, it means the shift to state-administered voter registration will be completed, forcing new responsibilities on state governments for voter registration and states would have to develop a more far-reaching proactive role in registering voters. However, most developed democracies in the world have made voter registration the responsibility of government (either national or regional governments depending on which countries are studied). Why does any of this need the attention of governors or state legislatures? Simply because the responsibilities are quickly outgrowing the states’ ability to manage the process. In most of the U.S., the state responsibility for handling elections matters is on either the secretary of state or the lieutenant governor. In 12 states, that role falls to either a state board or commission, which are usually bipartisan with professional staff. State governments have not looked sufficiently at what the federal mandates are doing in terms of long term professional staffing and reducing key employee turnover when a change occurs in the chief election official’s office. When the Help America Vote Act passed, the federal government allocated more than $3 billion
322 The Book of the States 2010
to state governments to make the transition to new federal requirements. That was to buy new voting equipment and to build and implement statewide voter databases (and other purposes). But the lion’s share of that money is either spent or spoken for. States were able, in some instances, to hire additional staff with the funds, but many of those positions will disappear when the funds are expended. The requirements of federal legislation and the emphasis on shifting the authority, responsibility and compliance to state government—and away from local governments—is leaving many states without the necessary tools to actually fulfill their roles long term. The changes mandated in voting equipment alone meant that state and local governments had to buy more sophisticated equipment than was used in the past. Lever machines and punch card voting equipment are a thing of the past. Even optical scan technology, first introduced into voting in the 1970s, has become far more complex with both the technology to read the optical scan ballots and the software used to count and report the results. Maintenance is at an all time premium for governments at both the state and local level. The ability of manufacturers to serve jurisdictions with sufficient trained and qualified maintenance personnel has decreased, leaving state governments as a needed resource to local governments for skilled technology service and direction. That means that state governments have to hire employees that were not necessary just 10 years ago. Those roles of technical direction for voting equipment are matched by needs for skilled technical personnel for management and maintenance of statewide voter databases. While many states spent $10 million to $25 million or more to develop and implement those databases, that is only the beginning of costs to states as those databases are forced to evolve. What many local governments were dismayed with the Congressionally mandated state level databases is that they had to give up their local databases. The local databases were used not only as a “list maintenance” device but as an election management tool that integrated the needs of absentee ballot applications and ballot distribution; for poll worker recruitment, management and payroll functions; for redistricting and for splitting precincts for ballot and voter management; for determining where voting sites would be established, and a myriad of other such election management functions. Several states already have made allowances for these kinds of changes, but it is clear that the changing mandates of Congress
ELECTIONS and state legislatures mean state databases will have to evolve for the ever-changing needs. State governments and their key leadership are not responding to the shifts in responsibility. It is hard for states to face increasing staffing and increasing resources for elections when there is an almost constant drain on state treasuries for more and more needs and public services or dismal economic times. Financial constraints is the exact reason state governments must begin to look at how to restructure the overall response to increased federal mandates related to the elections process. Elections, out of necessity, will remain principally a local function, but clearly federal legislation trends show that states will be forced to be more “hands on” than in the past. That means additional and more experienced personnel at the state level. With increased federal mandates, increased policymaking, increased compliance and increased administrative roles, the current structure of state elections management is likely to require a reevaluation of how best to serve the state. Among the questions that need to be considered are these: • How does state government begin to address the growing need for databases that communicate with each other and have become data exchange formats? It will be far easier for states to begin to focus on a handful of data sources than having every agency in state government create its own. • Should states create new centralized governmental data centers? (The Dutch government does this now.) • Should elections functions at the state government level be given more responsibility over data sources even if they remain in individual agencies? If the federal government is successful in making voter registration a state responsibility, it will be more important than ever to have good database sources. • What is the best structure for state elections offices? • If there is to be a turnover of the people elected to serve as secretary of state or lieutenant governor, then should there be as much turnover with employees?
• Can there be ways or methods of protecting (in a bipartisan manner) experienced elections management, technical and support staff? • What models exist and what are the best ways of assuring that states are not faced with excessive (and destructive) turnover in key personnel? Learning to manage the elections process does not happen quickly—it is not like hiring another accountant or 10 more engineers where you may be able to interchange personnel with the ups and downs of the economy or with the changing of elected officials. Skill sets for elections management personnel take years to develop and replacing them takes time. Turnover in the elections management in America is at an all time high. Since election 2000, turnover in local elections office has been 40 percent and in several states, it is considerably higher than 50 percent. That turnover means state governments have to provide better leadership, better training and better support services. Can legislatures look at and develop new ideas on streamlining the elections processes within each state? Are there ways to redesign methods that function better for the citizens and/or are more cost effective? Much of what has developed in the elections process over the years has been because some group or organization wanted to change one piece of the puzzle and then locked that piece into law. But elections management has been unable to achieve additional savings because the “pieces” —locked in by law—don’t allow for streamlining very well. How will states respond? So far they have not focused on the dramatic changes brought by federal requirements—which simply means there are many questions but not yet sufficient answers.
About the Author Doug Lewis, a certified elections/registration administrator (CERA), is executive director of The Election Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing the nation’s election officials. He has been called on by Congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, and national and worldwide news media for solutions to voting issues.
The Council of State Governments 323
Direct Democracy
A Case Study on Direct Democracy: Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget? By John G. Matsusaka Contrary to the claims of many pundits, voter initiatives have not constrained the California budget to the extent that fiscal crises are inevitable. I reach this conclusion by examining each of the 111 successful initiatives in the state’s history. For the 2009-2010 budget cycle, voter initiatives locked in about 33 percent of spending, most of which probably would have been appropriated even if not required, and placed no significant prohibitions on the two primary sources of state revenue—income and sales taxes. Introduction Direct democracy has emerged as a central part of government in many American states and cities in the 21st century. The initiative and referendum are available in more than half of all states and cities, and more than 80 percent of citizens have access to them at the state or local level. Yet citizen lawmaking continues to attract its share of critics, who question whether voters are competent to decide complex policy questions, and claim that initiatives place too many constraints on elected officials, making responsible budgeting difficult. Of course, an important purpose of the initiative and referendum is to constrain government officials, but this can be taken too far: By dedicating large amounts of spending to particular programs while at the same time restricting tax increases, initiatives may restrict the choices of legislators to such a degree that it is virtually impossible to balance the budget, bringing about fiscal gridlock.1 Nowhere is this argument more often heard than in California. As the state lurches from one fiscal crisis to another, reformers repeatedly single out the initiative process as a major contributor to the state’s budgetary troubles. Unfortunately, the argument that initiatives are the cause of the state’s problems is based on an impressionistic view of the budget process, not a careful accounting of the actual constraints. As reported in an earlier study (Matsusaka, 2005), the actual constraints imposed on the budget process by initiatives are less severe than many have argued. This article updates my earlier study by providing a systematic accounting of the constraints placed on the 2009–2010 California budget by initiatives. I reviewed all 111 statewide initiatives 324 The Book of the States 2010
approved by California voters since the process was adopted in 1912 and calculated the total constraints on appropriations and revenues that were in effect in 2009–2010. The main finding remains the same: Voter initiatives have imposed some significant constraints, but fewer than is often claimed. At most, 33 percent of California’s 2009–2010 state spending was locked in by initiatives, and it seems likely that much of that money would have been spent for its dedicated purpose even if it had not been required. On the revenue side, initiatives have not placed any significant limits on the legislature’s ability to tap the two most important revenue sources for state government, income and sales taxes. In short, while California initiatives do proscribe some policy choices, they leave open a number of paths to balancing the budget.
Initiatives in California The initiative process allows ordinary citizens to propose laws and constitutional amendments by collecting a predetermined number of signatures from fellow citizens on a petition. When the requisite signatures are collected, the measure is placed on the ballot and becomes law if more votes are cast in favor of it than against it. In addition to initiatives, citizens vote on propositions placed on the ballot by the legislature. Such “legislative measures” are not considered in this article. In most respects, California’s initiative process is similar to that of other states. Statutory measures require signatures equal to 5 percent of the vote cast in the last gubernatorial election, and constitutional amendments require 8 percent. Since all signatures must be collected within a 150-day period, initiative proponents typically employ paid signature collectors. A dis-
Direct Democracy tinctive feature of California’s initiative process is that adopted measures cannot be modified by the legislature; they can be changed only by the voters themselves. As a result, successful initiatives—even statutory measures—are binding on the legislature and governor. Californians have decided a total of 329 statewide initiatives through 2009, approving 34 percent of them. Of the successful measures, about half had nontrivial implications for either spending or taxes. The most famous initiative is Proposition 13, approved by voters in 1978, which capped property taxes at 1 percent of assessed value and prohibited assessment increases in excess of the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever is lower.
Initiative Constraints on Spending in 2009–2010 To identify the constraints on state spending, I read through the ballot descriptions and arguments for and against each initiative approved by the voters since the process became available in 1912 and identified those with a potential fiscal impact of at least $1 million. I eliminated any measures that had expired (such as a bond issue from the early 20th century that was paid off), been repealed or superseded by another measure, been struck down by a court, or was otherwise ineffective for 2009–2010. For the remaining initiatives, I calculated the amount of money each initiative locked in by reading through its statutory and constitutional provisions and consulting current budget documents where relevant. Where there was uncertainty about the amounts involved, I used the largest reasonable number supplied by the nonpartisan legislative analyst or other nonpartisan observer. For example, the lock-in attributed to Proposition 21 of 2000 on juvenile crime was the official estimate from the legislative analyst in 2000 (adjusted for inflation) even though courts have weakened that initiative, making the actual costs much lower than anticipated. Because I report the largest plausible amounts, the final numbers are likely to overstate the true constraints from these initiatives. Details of the assessments are in the appendix and the original article (Matsusaka, 2005). Note that initiatives that constrain spending downward, such as Proposition 4 of 1979, are omitted in order to focus on initiatives that obstruct budget balance.2 Table A lists the 20 initiatives that locked in state spending for the 2009–2010 fiscal year, and
the amount committed by each. The initiative with by far the largest fiscal impact is Proposition 98 of 1988 that locked in $34.66 billion of state spending for K–14 (K–12 plus community colleges) education in 2009–2010. The next most costly measure was Proposition 63 of 2004 that committed $1.752 billion to mental health services, funded by a surtax on millionaires. No other initiatives locked in more than $1 billion. In total, these 20 initiatives committed the state to $39 billion in spending for the 2009–2010 fiscal year. To put the figure in perspective, total state spending for the fiscal year was $119 billion. Thus, voter initiatives locked in about 33 percent of the budget. The claim made by some pundits that 70 percent of the budget is earmarked in advance by initiatives is far off the mark. This figure of 33 percent gives an exaggerated sense of the true constraints because the state would have appropriated much of the $34.66 billion on education committed by Proposition 98 even without the initiative. A requirement to spend money that would have been spent anyway is only a constraint in name. The evidence also contradicts the picture of California being encumbered year after year by a series of incompatible voter demands. Table A shows that the constraints are not the result of a gradual accumulation of mandates but rather are almost entirely the result of a single initiative, Proposition 98. Without Proposition 98, only 4 percent of the budget is locked in by initiatives. Concerns about initiatives and fiscal gridlock in California should be seen as concerns about Proposition 98, not the rest of the initiatives.
Initiative Constraints on Revenue in 2009–2010 A deficit can be closed by cutting spending or raising revenue, or some combination of the two. The previous section reports the constraints on spending cuts; this section considers initiative limits on raising revenue. The same approach as for spending is followed here, identifying all initiatives that constrain the legislature’s ability to raise money. Table B lists the main revenue sources for state governments nationwide and the constraints placed on them in California by initiatives. To put things in perspective, taxes are listed in order of their importance for state governments nationwide—taxes comprise about 75 percent of states’ general revenue from own sources, with The Council of State Governments 325
Direct Democracy
Table A Amount of California State Spending Appropriated by Initiatives, 2009–10 Year 1988 2004 2002 1998 2000 1994 1988 2002 2006 1990 2004 2004 1990 2008 1988 1988 1988 1974 1990 1986
Proposition 98 63 49 10 21 184 99 50 84 116 71 61 117 3 103 70 97 9 132 65
Description Education Millionaire surtax for mental health services After school programs Early childhood development Juvenile crime [for prisons] Three strikes and you’re out [for prisons] Tobacco tax [funds for anti-smoking, wildlife, research] Water projects bonds [authorized $3.44 billion] Water bonds [authorized $5.388 billion] Rail bonds [authorized $1.99 billion] Stem cell research bonds [authorized $3 billion] Childrens’ hospitals bonds [authorized $750 million] Wildlife protection Childrens’ hospitals bonds [authorized $980 million] Auto insurance [administrative spending] Natural resource preservation bonds [authorized $776 million] Cal/OSHA Political reform [California FPPC administration] Gill net ban [enforcement spending] Toxic discharge [enforcement spending] Total appropriation by initiatives Total state expenditures (excluding federal funds)
$ Billions 34.66 1.752 0.55 0.528 0.449 0.434 0.286 0.228 0.132 0.101 0.092 0.07 0.03 0.029 0.027 0.021 0.01 0.004 0.002 0.002 39.407 119,244.90
Note: The Appendix describes how these numbers were evaluated.
the rest coming mostly from charges for services and user fees. Initiatives created no barriers to raising the personal income tax (other than a requirement that rates be indexed) and created only a modest constraint on raising the state sales tax (it cannot be applied to food), which are by far the two most important revenue sources for state governments. The five most important revenue sources were essentially unconstrained by voter initiatives, and three of the constraints actually increased revenue: a 1 percent personal income tax surcharge for millionaires, a minimum tobacco tax of 75 cents a pack, and a state lottery. Initiatives did impose two major obstacles to tax increases. Proposition 13 of 1978 set the maximum property tax rate at 1 percent of assessed value and limited assessment increases, and Proposition 6 of 1982 essentially eliminated death and gift taxes. Property and inheritance taxes, however, are relatively minor sources of revenue for state governments.3 What may be the most important initiative constraint on revenue increases does not appear 326 The Book of the States 2010
in Table B: Proposition 13’s requirement of a twothirds vote of the legislature to increase any state tax. While not technically a constraint on the legislature’s ability to raise taxes—the legislature is permitted to raise any tax in any amount that it was permitted to raise before voters approved the initiative—this requirement certainly increases the degree of consensus required to raise taxes, and complicates the underlying politics.
Other Issues Trends My original study examined the situation in 2003–2004. The upper-bound estimate of lockedin spending at that point was $32.1 billion, equal to about 32 percent of the $101 billion in state expenditures. In the intervening six years, the amount of constrained spending has increased by a little more than $2 billion. Most of this increase is due to Proposition 62, narrowly approved in 2004 with 54 percent in favor, and several bond propositions. Proposition 62 imposed a 1 percent surtax on personal income and dedicated that
Direct Democracy
Table B Initiative Constraints on Revenue Increases in California, 2009–10 Revenue source
Percent tax revenue nationwide
Constraints
Initiative
Taxes Personal income............... Sales (general).................. Corporate income............ Gasoline............................ Alcohol & tobacco........... Property............................ Death & gift......................
35 31 7 5 3 2 0.7
Minimum 1% surtax on millionaires Prohibited on food None None At least 75¢/pack No more than 1% Prohibited
Proposition 63 (2004) Proposition 163 (1992)
Charges.................................
. . .
None
...
Lottery..................................
. . .
Required
Note: “Percent Tax Revenue Nationwide” is the percentage of tax revenue raised from a particular tax by all state governments in 2007
Proposition 99 (1988), Proposition 10 (1998) Proposition 13 (1978) Proposition 6 (1982)
Proposition 37 (1984) (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2010, Table 441). Tax revenue does not include revenue from charges and lottery.
revenue for mental health services. That revenue was forecast to be about $858 million in 2009– 2010. The initiative also prevented the state from reducing its existing level of support for mental health services, locking in an additional $894 million. Since 2003, voters have also approved more than $10 billion in four initiative bond measures: Proposition 61 of 2004 providing $750 million for children’s hospitals, Proposition 71 of 2004 providing $3 billion for stem cell research, Proposition 84 of 2006 providing nearly $5.4 billion for water bonds, and Proposition 3 of 2008 providing $980 million for children’s hospitals. The only countervailing effect over the last six years concerned Proposition 36 of 2000; that initiative’s guarantee of $120 million per year for substance abuse expired in 2006.
Other Constraints The evidence here pertains to constraints arising from initiatives, ignoring noninitiative constraints on California’s budget. State spending decisions are restricted by the U.S. Constitution (for example, prison spending can only cut so much before prison conditions will violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment) and the California Constitution (for example, the California Supreme Court has limited the state’s ability to refuse to pay for abortions for MediCal recipients on constitutional grounds). Even if the initiative constraints are weak, it could be the case that federal mandates and obligations created by previous actions of the legislature are so constraining as to create gridlock. It would take a careful accounting of those other constraints to draw an authoritative conclusion on this possibility.
Legislative Measures The California budget is also constrained by propositions placed on the ballot by the legislature. California requires the legislature to obtain voter approval for constitutional amendments and bond issues. My original study provided some information on legislature-sponsored bond proposals, concluding the amount of money they had committed was modest. The last six years seem different: The legislature requested and voters have authorized a staggering $74.621 billion in new bonds since 2003. If these bonds are all issued, they will provide a noticeable drag on the budget in future years.
Implications After updating for initiatives over the past six years, the conclusions from my original study still seem about right: Initiatives are not to blame for the state’s budget crisis. Initiatives lock in, at most, 33 percent of state spending, much of which would have been appropriated even without initiatives, and do not prohibit the legislature from raising the state’s most important taxes. But while initiatives don’t prevent the legislature from balancing the budget, they do seem to limit the options available to bring the budget into balance. Given the array of existing initiatives, the path of least resistance for balancing the budget is to The Council of State Governments 327
Direct Democracy cut noneducation funding (education spending is protected and tax increases require a supermajority). The state’s repeated fiscal problems are best seen as a consequence of the legislature’s unwillingness to go down that path. Initiatives seem to cause problems because they channel solutions to fiscal problems in directions that are not favored by most legislators. Reasonable people can disagree whether balancing the budget through cuts in noneducation spending as opposed to cuts in education spending or tax increases is good policy, but it does not seem that voter initiatives have made it impossible to balance the budget.
References Lupia, Arthur, and John G. Matsusaka. 2004 “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions,” Annual Review of Political Science. Matsusaka, John G. 2004 For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Matsusaka, John G. 2005 “Direct Democracy Works.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Matsusaka, John G. Fall 2005 “Direct Democracy and Fiscal Gridlock: Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget?,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.
Notes 1 A summary of the main arguments for and against direct democracy, basic facts, and state-by-state provisions can be found in Lupia and Matsusaka (2004) and Matsusaka (2004, 2005). 2 A general disclaimer: Some assessments require judgment calls, and minor omissions are possible. I am confident that the numbers reported here are reasonably accurate, and to the extent there are mistakes, it is in the direction of making the constraints appear too large. 3 This conclusion deserves some qualification. Although states do not rely on property taxes, property tax revenues are important for local government. By capping property taxes, Proposition 13 to some extent “forced” the state to backfill local government revenue. For a detailed discussion of this issue and an estimate of its revenue implications for the state (not large, as it turns out), see the original study (Matsusaka, 2005).
328 The Book of the States 2010
About the Author John G. Matsusaka is Charles F. Sexton Chair in American Enterprise at the Marshall School of Business and Gould Law School at the University of Southern California, and president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at USC. He is the author of For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2004).
Direct Democracy
Appendix Estimating the Initiative’s Impact on California Spending, 2009–10 This appendix describes how I calculated the amount of money locked in by initiatives, reported in Table A. References to the “Legislative Analyst’s estimates” refer to the estimates provided by the state Legislative Analyst in the California Ballot Pamphlet, published by the California secretary of state prior to each election. The ratio of debt service to debt was an assumed to be 10 percent of the outstanding debt as of Dec. 31, 2009. Proposition 9 (1974)—Political reform The measure requires an appropriation of not less than $1 million (adjusted for inflation) for the California Fair Political Practices Commission. The number in Table A is $1 million adjusted for inflation since 1975 using the U.S. Census Bureau’s Consumer Price Index. The commission is typically funded in excess of the minimum requirement. Proposition 86 (1986)—Toxic discharge The number is the Legislative Analyst’s estimated enforcement cost, adjusted for inflation since 1986. Proposition 70 (1988)—Natural resource preservation bonds The measure authorized $776 million in bonds to purchase and maintain wildlife, coastal and park lands. Outstanding general debt was $207.55 million. Proposition 97 (1988)—Cal/OSHA The measure required the state to maintain its own Occupational Safety and Hazard program. The number in Table A is the enacted budget total for the Targeted Inspection and Consultation Fund. Proposition 98 (1988)—Education The measure guaranteed minimum state spending for K-14 education from the Department of Finance’s Chart C. Proposition 99 (1988)—Tobacco tax The measure locked in spending equal to the revenue that flows into the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund from tobacco surtaxes. Proposition 103 (1988)—Auto insurance The measure regulated automobile insurance rates. The number in Table A is the legislative analyst’s upper estimate for state administrative costs adjusted for inflation since 1988. Proposition 116 (1990)—Rail bonds The measure authorized $1.99 billion in bonds for rail transportation. Outstanding debt was $1.01 billion. Proposition 117 (1990)—Wildlife protection The measure created the Habitat Conservation Fund to acquire land for parks and to protect wildlife, and guaranteed the fund at $30 million per year. Proposition 132 (1990)—Gill net ban The measured banned the use of gill nets off the coast of Southern California. The number is the legislative analyst’s estimated cost of enforcing the ban adjusted for inflation since 1990. Proposition 184 (1994)—Three strikes The measure toughened sentences on repeat offenders. The number is 10 percent of the Legislative Analyst’s estimate in 1994. The original spending projections by the RAND Corporation that were used by the legislative analyst were predicated on universal application of the law. The California Supreme Court, however, subsequently gave
judges significant leeway to ignore the initiative, and the original estimates turned out to be much too high, leading a subsequent RAND study that concluded there was no evidence any of the projected costs actually materialized. Rather arbitrarily, the actual cost is an assumed 10 percent of the legislative analyst’s estimate of $3 billion per year. Proposition 10 (1998)—Early childhood development The measure increased the tax on cigarettes by 50 cents a pack, and dedicated the money to a variety of uses, chief among them early childhood development programs. The initiative locks in spending equal to the amount raised from the tobacco surtax for the California Children and Families First Trust Fund. Proposition 21 (2000)—Juvenile crime The measure toughened sentences for juvenile offenders. The number in Table A is the Legislative Analyst’s estimate of additional prison operating costs adjusted for inflation since 2000, plus 0.1 of the estimated new construction costs (implicit debt service), not adjusted for inflation. The number of juveniles serving time as adults declined after the measure passed so this number is likely to be an overestimate of the measure’s true cost. Proposition 49 (2002)—After school programs The measure required the state to spend $550 million per year on after school programs. Proposition 50 (2002)—Water projects bonds The measure authorized $3.44 billion of bonds for water projects. Outstanding bonds and commercial paper was $2.28 billion. Proposition 61 (2004)—Children’s hospitals bonds The measure authorized $750 million of bonds, with $695 million outstanding. Proposition 62 (2004)—Surtax on millionaires for mental health services The measure levied an additional 1 percent tax on personal income greater than $1 million, with revenue dedicated health service programs (county programs for mentally ill). This measure also prohibited the state from reducing General Fund support for mental health services below the level in 2003-2004. Forecast revenue was $858 million, and spending in 2003-2004 was $894 million. Proposition 71 (2004)—Stem cell research bonds The measure authorized $3 billion of bonds, with $916 million outstanding. Proposition 84 (2006)—Water bonds The measure authorized nearly $5.4 billion of bonds for water and conservation projects, with $1.32 billion outstanding. Proposition 3 (2008)—Children’s hospitals bonds The measure authorized $980 million of bonds, with $295 million outstanding.
The Council of State Governments 329
330 The Book of the States 2010 G, LG G, LG, AG, C, SS, SP, T G, LG, AG, C, SS, T A, SS, T G, LG, AG, AR, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, CI, SS, T . . . . . . G G, LG, AG, C G, LG, AG, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, SS (f) G, LG, AG, A, SS . . . A . . . G, LG, AG, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, C, SS, T G . . . G, LG, AG, A, SS, T (g) G, LG, AG, C . . . AG, AR, SS (i)(j) G, LG, AG, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, A, CI, SP, T (k) G, SP (l) G, LG G, LG, AG, SS, T G, LG, AG, AR, C, SS, SP, T (m) G, LG, AG, A, SS, SP, T (n) G G, LG, AG, AR, C (o) G (q) G, LG, AG, A, SS, T
Hawaii............................................... Idaho................................................. Illinois............................................... Indiana.............................................. Iowa...................................................
Kansas............................................... Kentucky........................................... Louisiana.......................................... Maine (e).......................................... Maryland..........................................
Massachusetts.................................. Michigan........................................... Minnesota......................................... Mississippi........................................ Missouri............................................
Montana............................................ Nebraska........................................... Nevada.............................................. New Hampshire............................... New Jersey........................................
New Mexico..................................... New York.......................................... North Carolina................................. North Dakota................................... Ohio...................................................
Oklahoma......................................... Oregon.............................................. Pennsylvania.................................... Rhode Island.................................... South Carolina.................................
South Dakota................................ Tennessee......................................... Texas.................................................. Utah................................................... Vermont............................................
See footnotes at end of table.
G, LG, AG, SS, T G, LG, AG, C, SS, T AG, A, T G, LG, AG, AR, CFO G, LG, AG, AR, C, SS, SP (d)
Colorado........................................... Connecticut...................................... Delaware........................................... Florida............................................... Georgia.............................................
2010 G, LG, AG, AR, A, SS, T G, LG G, AG, SS, SP, T (a) G, LG, AG, A, SS, T (b) G, LG, AG, C, CI, SS, SP, T (c)
State or other jurisdiction
Alabama........................................... Alaska............................................... Arizona............................................. Arkansas........................................... California..........................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2011
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . G, LG, AG, AR, A, CI, SS, T . . .
. . . G, LG, AG, AR, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, AR, CI, SS, T . . . . . .
Table 6.1 STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO BE ELECTED: 2010–2014
(n) . . . (o) G, LG, AG, A, T G, LG, AG, A, SS, T
(k) AG, SS, T AG, A, T . . . . . .
. . . . . . G, LG, AG, AR, A, CI, SS, SP, T (h) G, LG, A, CI, SP, T (i) . . .
G, LG, AG, A, SS, SP . . . . . . G . . .
. . . (f) . . . . . . G, LG, AG, SS, T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . G, LG, AG, SP . . .
. . . . . . G, LG, CI . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2012
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . G, LG
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2013
2014
G, LG, AG, A, SS, SP, T (n) G G, LG, AG, AR, C (o) ... G, LG, AG, A, SS, T
G, LG, AG, A, CI, SP, T (k) G, SP (l) G, LG G, LG, AG, SS, T G, LG, AG, AR, C, SS, SP, T (m)
G, LG, AG, A, SS, T (g) G, LG, AG, C ... AG, AR, SS (i)(j) G, LG, AG, A, SS, T
... G, LG, AG, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, C, SS, T G ...
G, LG, AG, A, SS, T G, LG, AG, SS (f) G, LG, AG, A, SS ... A
G, LG, AG, CI, SS, T ... ... G G, LG, AG, C
G, LG G, LG, AG, C, SS, SP, T G, LG, AG, C, SS, T A, SS, T G, LG, AG, AR, A, SS, T
G, LG, AG, SS, T G, LG, AG, C, SS, T AG, A, T G, LG, AG, AR, CFO G, LG, AG, AR, C, SS, SP (d)
G, LG, AG, AR, A, SS, T G, LG G, AG, SS, SP, T (a) G, LG, AG, A, SS, T (b) G, LG, AG, C, CI, SS, SP, T (c)
ELECTIONS
3 3 3 3 2 0 0 2 3 0 3
39 (q) 32 31 7 16 1 10 3 26 9 24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2011
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey and state election administration offices and Web sites, December 2009. Note: This table shows the executive branch officials up for election in a given year. Footnotes indicate other offices (e.g., commissioners of labor, public service, etc.) also up for election in a given year. The data contained in this table reflect information available at press time. Key: . . . — No regularly scheduled elections of state executive officials. G — Governor LG — Lieutenant Governor AG — Attorney General AR — Agriculture A — Auditor C — Comptroller/Controller CFO—Chief Financial Officer CI— Commissioner of Insurance SS — Secretary of State SP — Superintendent of Public Instruction or Commissioner of Education T — Treasurer (a) Corporation commissioners (5)—4 year terms, 2012–2016: 3 seats, 2010: 2 seats. State Mine Inspector—4 year term, 2010 election. (b) Commissioner of State Lands. (c) Five (5) Board of Equalization members are elected to serve 4-year concurrent terms that will expire January 2011. (d) Commissioner of Labor—4 year term, 2010 and 2014.
Totals for year Governor....................................... Lieutenant Governor................... Attorney General......................... Agriculture.................................... Auditor.......................................... Chief Financial Officer................. Comptroller................................... Comm. of Insurance..................... Secretary of State......................... Supt. of Public Inst. or Comm. of Education................. Treasurer.......................................
. . . G, LG, AG, A . . . . . . G, LG
American Samoa.......................... Guam................................................ No. Mariana Islands........................ Puerto Rico...................................... U.S. Virgin Islands...........................
2010 . . . . . . . . . G, LG, AG, SS, T G, A, SS, SP, T
State or other jurisdiction
Virginia.......................................... Washington....................................... West Virginia.................................... Wisconsin.......................................... Wyoming...........................................
STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO BE ELECTED: 2010–2014—Continued
2013
1 0
2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G, LG, AG . . . . . . SP . . .
9 24
39 33 31 7 16 1 10 3 26
... G, LG, AG, A G, LG (r) ... G, LG
... ... ... G, LG, AG, SS, T G, A, SS, SP, T
2014
(e) In Maine the legislature elects constitutional officers (AG,SS,T) in even-numbered years for 2 year terms; the auditor was elected by the legislature in 2008 and will serve a 4 year term. (f) Michigan State University trustees (8)—8 year terms, 2010: 2, 2012: 2, 2014: 2, 2016: 2; University of Michigan regents (8)—8 year terms, 2010: 2, 2012: 2, 2014: 2, 2016: 2. Wayne State University governors (8)—8 year terms, 2010: 2, 2012: 2, 2014: 2, 2016: 2; State Board of Education (8)–8 year terms, 2010: 2, 2012: 2, 2014: 2, 2016: 2. (g) Commissioner of Public Lands–4 year term, 2010. (h) Commissioner of Labor elected in 2010. (i) There are 3 Public Service Commissioners. One is up for election every two years. (3)—6 year terms, 2010: 1, 2012: 1, 2014: 1. (j) Tax Commissioner. (k) Corporation Commissioners (3)—6 year terms, 2010: 1, 2012: 1, 2014: 1.; Commissioner of Labor—2010, 4 year term. (l) Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. (m) Adjutant general—4 year term. (n) The title is Commissioner of School and Public Lands; Public Utility Commissioners (3)—6 year terms, 2010: 1, 2012: 1, 2014: 1. (o) Commissioner of General Land Office—4 year term, 2010; railroad commissioners (3)—6 year terms, 2010: 1, 2012: 1, 2014: 1. (p) Commissioner of Public Lands. (q) Utah law mandates that a replacement governor elevated in a term’s first year will face a special election at the next regularly scheduled general election instead of serving the remainder of the term. (r) The current governor and lieutenant governor are serving a five-year term to change future CNMI elections to even-numbered years.
5 9
13 10 10 2 8 0 0 4 7
G, LG . . . . . . G . . .
. . . G, LG, AG, A, CI, SS, SP, T (p) G, AG, AR, A, SS, T . . . . . .
2012
ELECTIONS
The Council of State Governments 331
332 The Book of the States 2010 25 35 59 (a) 50 50 40 38 39 35 47 40 38 67 52 34 50 49 21 24 40 42 62 50 47 33 48 30 50 38 46
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
See footnotes at end of table.
35 36 21 40 56
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
101 60 203 75 124
70 150 120 94 99
100 U 42 400 80
160 110 134 122 163
125 100 105 151 141
51 70 118 100 100
65 151 41 120 180
105 40 60 100 80
Total legislators Senate House/Assembly 35 20 30 35 40
State or other jurisdiction
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
24 15 25 (b) 38 . . .
. . . 62 50 24 (c) 17
25 24 11 24 . . .
40 38 67 . . . 17
. . . 19 . . . 35 47
13 35 20 25 25 (c)
18 36 11 20 56
35 10 30 17 20
101 60 203 75 124
70 150 120 47 (c) 99
100 U 42 400 . . .
160 110 134 . . . 163
125 100 . . . 151 141
51 70 118 100 100
65 151 41 120 180
105 40 60 100 80
2010 Senate House/Assembly
Table 6.2 STATE LEGISLATURE MEMBERS TO BE ELECTED: 2010–2014
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 40
. . . . . . . . . 52 . . .
. . . . . . 39 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 80
. . . . . . . . . 122 . . .
. . . . . . 105 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2011 Senate House/Assembly
24 15 25 (c) 38 46
42 62 50 23 (b) 16
25 25 10 24 . . .
40 . . . . . . . . . 17
40 19 . . . 35 . . .
12 35 39 25 25 (b)
17 36 10 20 56
. . . 10 30 18 20
101 60 203 75 124
70 150 120 47 (c) 99
100 U 42 400 . . .
160 110 134 . . . 163
125 100 . . . 151 . . .
51 70 118 100 100
65 151 41 120 180
. . . 40 60 100 80
2012 Senate House/Assembly
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 80
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2013 Senate House/Assembly
24 15 25 (b) 38 . . .
. . . 62 50 24 (c) 17
25 24 11 24 . . .
40 38 67 . . . 17
. . . 19 . . . 35 47
13 35 20 25 25 (c)
18 36 11 20 56
35 10 30 17 20
101 60 203 75 124
70 150 120 47 (c) 99
100 U 42 400 ...
160 110 134 ... 163
125 100 ... 151 141
51 70 118 100 100
65 151 41 120 180
105 40 60 100 80
2014 Senate House/Assembly
ELECTIONS
13 18 15 9 28 15
1,971 2,068
Dist. of Columbia............... American Samoa................ Guam................................... No. Mariana Islands........... Puerto Rico (e)................... U.S. Virgin Islands..............
State Totals.......................... Totals................................... 5,411 5,502
U 20 U 18 51 U
100 98 100 99 60
1,133 1,170
7 (d) 15 . . . . . . 15
. . . 24 17 17 15
35 17 16 14 30
4,957 4,977
. . . 20 . . . . . . . . . U
. . . 98 100 99 60
70 99 150 75 150
2011
171 174
. . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .
40 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2012
1,113 1,177
6 (d) 15 . . . 28 15
. . . 25 17 16 15
35 16 15 15 30
4,711 4,782
U 20 . . . . . . 51 U
. . . 98 100 99 60
70 99 150 75 150
Senate House/Assembly
2013
0 6
. . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
180 198
. . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . .
100 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Senate House/Assembly
2014
1,158 1,195
7 (d) 15 . . . . . . 15
. . . 24 17 17 15
35 17 16 14 30
4,957 4,977
... 20 ... ... ... U
... 98 100 99 60
70 99 150 75 150
Senate House/Assembly
three groups. One group of senators is elected for terms of four years, four years and two years; two years, four years and four years; four years, two years and four years. (b) Even-numbered Senate districts. (c) Odd-numbered Senate districts. (d) In American Samoa, Senators are not elected by popular vote. They are selected by county councils of chiefs. (e) If in the general election more than 2/3 of the members of either house are elected from one party or from a single ticket, as both are defined by law, the numbers shall be increased in accordance with Article III Section 7 of the Puerto Rico Constitution.
407 425
. . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . .
100 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Senate House/Assembly
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey, November 2009. Note: This table shows the number of legislative seats up for election in a given year. As a result of redistricting, states may adjust some elections. The data contained in this table reflect information available at press time. See the Chapter 3 table entitled, “The Legislators: Numbers, Terms, and Party Affiliations,” for specific information on legislative terms. Key: . . . — No regularly scheduled elections U — Unicameral legislature (a) The Illinois Senate operates on a ten year election cycle. All 59 Senators are elected in each year ending in “2” (following the redistricting based upon the decennial census). Senate districts are then divided into
40 49 34 33 30
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
70 99 150 75 150
2010 Senate House/Assembly
Total legislators Senate House/Assembly 35 33 31 29 30
State or other jurisdiction
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
STATE LEGISLATURE MEMBERS TO BE ELECTED: 2010–2014—Continued
ELECTIONS
The Council of State Governments 333
ELECTIONS
Table 6.3 METHODS OF NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR STATE OFFICES
State or other jurisdiction
Methods of nominating candidates
Alabama ����������������������������� Primary election; however, the state executive committee or other governing body of any political party may choose instead to hold a state convention for the purpose of nominating candidates. Submitting a petition to run as an independent or third-party candidate or an independent nominating procedure. Alaska ��������������������������������� Primary election. Petition for no-party candidates. Arizona ������������������������������� Candidates who are members of a recognized party are nominated by an open primary election. Candidates who are not members of a recognized political party may file petitions to appear on the general election ballot. A writein option is also available. Arkansas ����������������������������� Primary election, convention and petition. California ��������������������������� Primary election or independent nomination procedure. Colorado ����������������������������� Primary election, convention or by petition. Connecticut ������������������������ Convention/primary election. Major political parties hold state conventions (convening not earlier than the 68th day and closing not later than the 50th day before the date of the primary) for the purpose of endorsing candidates. If no one challenges the endorsed candidate, no primary election is held. However, if anyone (who received at least 15 percent of the delegate vote on any roll call at the convention) challenges the endorsed candidate, a primary election is held to determine the party nominee for the general election. Delaware ���������������������������� Primary election for Democrats and primary election and convention for Republicans.. Florida �������������������������������� Primary election. Minor parties may nominate their candidate in any manner they deem proper. Georgia ������������������������������� Primary election. Hawaii �������������������������������� Primary election. Idaho ����������������������������������� Primary election and convention. New political parties hold a convention to nominate candidates to be placed on a general election ballot. Illinois ��������������������������������� Primary election. The primary election nominates established party candidates. New political parties and independent candidates go directly to the general election file based on a petition process. Indiana �������������������������������� Primary election, convention and petition. The governor is chosen by a primary. All other state officers are chosen at a state convention, unless the candidate is an independent. Any party that obtains between 2 percent and 8 percent of the vote for secretary of state may hold a convention to select a candidate. Iowa ������������������������������������ Primary election, convention and petition. Kansas �������������������������������� Candidates for the two major parties are nominated by primary election. Candidates for minor parties are nominated for the general election at state party conventions. Independent candidates are nominated for the general election by petition. Kentucky ���������������������������� Primary election. A slate of candidates for governor and lieutenant governor that receives the highest number of its party’s votes but which number is less than 40 percent of the votes cast for all slates of candidates of that party, shall be required to participate in a runoff primary with the slate of candidates of the same party receiving the second highest number of votes. Louisiana ���������������������������� Candidates may qualify for any office they wish, regardless of party affiliation, by completing the qualifying document and paying the appropriate qualifying fee; or a candidate may file a nominating petition. Maine ���������������������������������� Primary election or non-party petition. Maryland ���������������������������� Primary election, convention and petition. Unaffiliated candidates or candidates affiliated with non-recognized political parties may run for elective office by collecting the requisite number of signatures on a petition. The required number equals 1 percent of the number of registered voters eligible to vote for office. Only recognized non-principal political parties may nominate its candidate by a convention in accordance with its by laws (at this time, Maryland has four non-principal parties: Libertarian, Green, Constitution and Populist.) Massachusetts �������������������� Primary election. Michigan ����������������������������� Governor, State House, State Senate use primary election. Lieutenant Governor runs as the running mate to gubernatorial candidate, not separately, and is selected through the convention process Secretary of State and Attorney general candidates are chosen at convention. Nominees for State Board of Education, University of Michigan Regents, Michigan State University Trustees and Wayne State University Governors are nominated by convention. Minor parties nominate candidates to all partisan offices by convention. Minnesota ��������������������������� Primary election. Candidates for minor parties or independent candidates are by petition. They must have the signatures of 2,000 people who will be eligible to vote in the next general election. Mississippi �������������������������� Primary election, petition (for independent candidates), independent nominating procedures (third-party candidate). Missouri ������������������������������ Primary election. Montana ����������������������������� Primary election and independent nominating procedure. Nebraska ���������������������������� Primary election. Nevada �������������������������������� Primary election. Independent candidates are nominated by petition for the general election. Minor parties nominated by petition or by party. New Hampshire ����������������� Primary election. Minor parties by petition. New Jersey ������������������������� Primary election. Independent candidates are nominated by petition for the general election. See footnotes at end of table.
334 The Book of the States 2010
ELECTIONS
METHODS OF NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR STATE OFFICES—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Methods of nominating candidates
New Mexico ����������������������� Statewide candidates petition to go to convention and are nominated in a primary election. District and legislative candidate petition for primary ballot access. New York ���������������������������� Primary election/petition. North Carolina ������������������� Primary election. Newly recognized parties just granted access submit their first nominees by convention. All established parties use primaries. North Dakota ��������������������� Convention/primary election. Political parties hold state conventions for the purpose of endorsing candidates. Endorsed candidates are automatically placed on the primary election ballot, but other candidates may also petition their name on the ballot. Ohio ������������������������������������ Primary election, petition and by declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate. Oklahoma ��������������������������� Primary election. Oregon �������������������������������� Primary election Minor parties hold conventions. Pennsylvania ���������������������� Primary election, and petition. Nomination petitions filed by major party candidates to access primary ballot. Nomination papers filed by minor party and independent candidates to access November ballot. Rhode Island ���������������������� Primary election. South Carolina ������������������� Primary election for Republicans and Democrats; party conventions held for minor parties. Candidates can have name on ballot via petition. South Dakota ��������������������� Convention, petition and independent nominating procedure. Tennessee ��������������������������� Primary election/petition. Texas ����������������������������������� Primary election/convention. Minor parties without ballot access nominate candidates for the general election after qualifying for ballot access by petition. Utah ������������������������������������ Convention, primary election and petition. Vermont ������������������������������ Primary election. Major parties by primary, minor parties by convention, independents by petition. Virginia ������������������������������� Primary election, convention and petition. Washington ������������������������ Primary election. West Virginia ���������������������� Primary election, convention, petition and independent nominating procedure.. Wisconsin ��������������������������� Primary election/petition. Candidates must file nomination papers (petitions) containing the minimum number of signatures required by law. Candidates appear on the primary ballot for the party they represent. The candidate receiving the most votes in each party primary goes on to the November election. Wyoming ���������������������������� Primary election. Dist. of Columbia �������������� Primary election. Independent and minor party candidates file by nominating petition. American Samoa ��������������� Individual files petition for candidacy with the chief election officer. Petition must be signed by statutorily-mandated number of qualified voters. Guam ���������������������������������� Individual files petition for candidacy with the chief election officer. Petition must be signed by statutorily-mandated number of qualified voters. No. Mariana Islands ���������� Candidates are all nominated by petition. Candidates seeking the endorsement of recognized political parties must also include in their submitted petition submission a document signed by the recognized political parties’ chairperson/president and secretary attesting to such nomination. Recognized political parties may, or may not, depending on their by-laws and party rules conduct primaries separate from any state election agency participation. Puerto Rico ������������������������ Primary election and convention. U.S. Virgin Islands ������������� Primary election. Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007, and state Web sites, November 2009. Note: The nominating methods described here are for state offices; procedures may vary for local candidates. Also, independent candidates may have to petition for nomination.
The Council of State Governments 335
State or other jurisdiction
Type of primary
336â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
See footnotes at end of table.
Alabama....................... O Alaska.......................... C Arizona........................ C Arkansas...................... O California.................... SO Colorado...................... C Connecticut................. C Delaware..................... C Florida......................... C Georgia........................ O Hawaii......................... O Idaho............................ O Illinois.......................... O Indiana......................... O Iowa............................. C Kansas......................... C Kentucky..................... C Louisiana..................... O (f) Maine........................... C Maryland..................... C Massachusetts............. SO
Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 Aug., 4th T Aug. 28, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 Caucus Feb. 7, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 (d) Jan. 31, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 Caucus (c) May, 4th T May 22, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 May, H May 1, 2010 Caucus (e) Jan. 16, 2012 Feb., 1st T Feb. 7, 2012 May, 1st T after 3rd M May 22, 2012 (d) Feb. 11, 2012 Caucus (c) Feb., 2nd T Feb. 14, 2012 (d) Mar. 6, 2012
Primary
Table 6.4 ELECTION DATES FOR NATIONAL AND STATE ELECTIONS (Formulas and dates of state elections)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Runoff
National (a)
Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012
General June, 1st T June 1, 2010 Aug., 4th T Aug. 24, 2010 8th T Prior Aug. 31, 2010 T 3 wks. prior to runoff May 18, 2010 June H June 8, 2010 Aug., 2nd T Aug. 10, 2010 Aug. 2nd T Aug. 10, 2010 Sept., 1st S after 1st M Sept. 14, 2010 9th T prior to General August 24, 2010 (d) July 20, 2010 Sept., 2nd Last S Sept. 18, 2010 May, 4th T May 25, 2010 Feb., 1st T Feb. 9, 2010 May, H May 5, 2010 June, H June 1, 2010 Aug. 1st T Aug. 3, 2010 May, 1st T after 3rd M May 18, 2010 (f) Aug. 28 and Oct. 2 June, 2nd T June 8, 2010 2nd T after 1st M in Sept. Sept. 14, 2010 7th T Prior Sept. 14, 2010
Primary July, 1st T after 2nd M (even yrs.) July 13, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . June, 2nd T June 8, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 10, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 days AP June 22, 2010 (f) None scheduled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Runoff
State (b) General Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 (f) Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010
ELECTIONS
State or other jurisdiction
Type of primary
The Council of State Governments 337
See footnotes at end of table.
Michigan...................... O Minnesota.................... O Mississippi................... O Missouri....................... O Montana...................... O Nebraska..................... C Nevada......................... C New Hampshire.......... SO New Jersey.................. SO New Mexico................ C New York..................... C North Carolina............ C (h) North Dakota.............. O Ohio............................. SO Oklahoma.................... C Oregon......................... C Pennsylvania............... C Rhode Island............... O South Carolina............ O South Dakota.............. C Tennessee.................... O
Runoff
National (a) (d) . . . Feb. 28, 2012 . . . (g) . . . Mar. 6, 2012 . . . Mar., 2nd T (g) 3 wks. after 1st Primary Mar. 13, 2012 Apr. 3, 2012 Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 . . . June, H . . . June 5, 2012 . . . May, 1st T After 2nd M . . . May 15, 2012 Caucus . . . Jan. 28, 2012 Set by SS . . . Jan. 24, 2012 Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 May, H 7 wks. AP May 8, 2012 June 26, 2012 (i) . . . Caucus—Feb. 7, 2012 Mar., H . . . Mar. 6, 2012 Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 May, 3rd T . . . May 15, 2012 Apr., 4th T . . . Apr. 24, 2012 (d) . . . (c) (d) . . . (c) . . . June, H 2nd T AP June 5, 2012 June 19, 2012 Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 . . .
Primary
ELECTION DATES FOR NATIONAL AND STATE ELECTIONS (Formulas and dates of state elections)
Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012
General
Runoff
State (b) Aug., H . . . Aug. 3, 2010 . . . (g) . . . Sept. 14, 2010 . . . (d) 3rd T AP August 2, 2011 August 23, 2011 Aug., H . . . Aug. 3, 2010 . . . June, H . . . June 8, 2010 . . . May, 1st T After 2nd M . . . May 11, 2010 3rd T Aug. . . . Aug. 17, 2010 (d) . . . Sept. 14, 2010 June, H . . . June 4, 2013 June, 1st T . . . June 1, 2010 . . . Sept., H . . . Sept. 7, 2010 May, H 7 wks. AP May 4, 2010 June 22, 2010 June, 2nd T . . . June 8, 2010 . . . Mar., H . . . Mar. 2, 2010 July, last T Aug., 4th T July 27, 2010 Aug. 24, 2010 May, 3rd T . . . May 18, 2010 Apr., 4th T . . . Apr. 27, 2010 . . . Sept., 2nd T after 1st M . . . Sept. 14, 2010 . . . June, 2nd T 2nd T AP June 8, 2010 June 22, 2010 June, H 2nd T AP June 1, 2010 June 15, 2010 Aug., 1st TH . . . Aug. 5, 2010 . . .
Primary
General Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 8, 2011 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 5, 2013 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010
ELECTIONS
State or other jurisdiction
Type of primary
338 The Book of the States 2010 Runoff
National (a) Mar., 1st T . . . Mar. 6, 2012 . . . Feb., H . . . Feb. 7, 2012 Mar., 1st T . . . Mar. 6, 2012 Feb., 2nd T . . . Feb. 14, 2012 (d) . . . (c) May, 2nd T . . . May 8, 2012 (d) . . . Feb. 21, 2012 Caucus . . . (c) (d) . . . (c) . . . (j) 14 days after general Nov. 6, 2012 . . . . . . (c) . . . . . . (c) . . .
Primary
Sources: The Council of State Governments, March 2010. Note: This table describes the basic formulas for determining when national and state will be held. For specific information on a particular state, the reader is advised to contact the state election administration office. All dates provided are based on the state election formula and dates are subject to change. Key: H — First Tuesday after first Monday. AP — After primary. . . . — No provision. V — Varies. M —Monday. N.A. — Not applicable T — Tuesday. Key: Column 1: TH — Thursday. C — Closed primary S — Saturday. O — Open primary Nat. — Same date as national elections. PC — Private-choice primary State — Same date as state elections. SC — Semi-closed primary Prior — Prior to general election. SO — Semi-open primary (a) National refers to presidential elections. (b) State refers to election in which a state executive official or U.S. senator is to be elected. See Table 6.2, State Officials to be Elected. (c) Date not available at press time. (d) Formula not available at press time. (e) Iowa does not have a presidential primary. The Iowa Caucuses mark the beginning of the presidential candidate selection process by choosing delegates to the next level of political party conventions.
Texas............................ O Utah............................. C Vermont....................... O Virginia........................ O Washington................. PC West Virginia............... C Wisconsin.................... O Wyoming..................... C Dist. of Columbia....... C American Samoa........ N.A. Puerto Rico................. N.A. U.S. Virgin Islands...... N.A.
ELECTION DATES FOR NATIONAL AND STATE ELECTIONS (Formulas and dates of state elections)
Mar., 1st T Mar. 2, 2010 June, 4th T June 22, 2010 Sept., 2nd T Sept. 14, 2010 June, 2nd T June 11, 2013 Aug., 3rd T Aug. 17, 2010 May, 2nd T May 11, 2010 Sept., 2nd T Sept. 14, 2010 Aug., 1st T After 3rd M Aug. 17, 2010 (d) Sept. 14, 2010 (j) Nov. 2, 2010 (d) (c) Sept., 2nd S Sept. 11, 2010
Primary
Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010
. . . . . . 14 day AP Sept. 25, 2010
General Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 5, 2013 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H Nov. 2, 2010 Nov., H
Apr., 2nd T Apr. 13, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 days after general
Runoff
State (b)
(f) Louisiana has an open primary which requires all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, to appear on a single ballot. If a candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote in the primary, that candidate is elected to the office. If no candidate receives a majority vote, then a single election is held between the two candidates receiving the most votes. For national elections, the first vote is held on the first Saturday in October of evennumbered years with the general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. For state elections, the election is held on the second to last Saturday in October with the runoff being held on the fourth Saturday after first election. Local elections vary depending on the location and the year. (g) Parties must notify the Secretary of State’s Office in writing prior to Dec. 1st the year preceding the date of the election of their intentions to hold a preference primary election. (h) Unaffiliated voters, by state statute and with permission of a party, may vote in a party primary. Currently both the Democratic and Republican parties allow this. (i) On one designated day, following presidential nominating contests in the states of Iowa and New Hampshire and prior to the first Wednesday in March in every presidential election year, every political party entitled to a separate column may conduct a presidential preference caucus. Before August 15 of the odd-numbered year immediately preceding the presidential election year, the secretary of state shall designate the day after consulting with and taking recommendations from the two political parties casting the greatest vote for president of the United States at the most recent general elections when the office of president appeared on the ballot. (j) American Samoa does not conduct primary elections (In addition, elections are conducted for territorywide offices. There are no local elections).
Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 6, 2012 Nov., H Nov. 16, 2010 . . . Nov. 6, 2012 . . . Nov. 6, 2012
General
ELECTIONS
ELECTIONS
Table 6.5 POLLING HOURS: GENERAL ELECTIONS
State or other jurisdiction
Polls open
Polls close
Alabama ����������������������������� Alaska ��������������������������������� Arizona ������������������������������� Arkansas ����������������������������� California ��������������������������� Colorado �����������������������������
7 a.m. 7 a.m. 6 a.m. 7:30 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m.
7 p.m. 8 p.m. 7 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 8 p.m. 7 p.m.
Connecticut ������������������������ Delaware ���������������������������� Florida �������������������������������� Georgia �������������������������������
6 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m.
8 p.m. 8 p.m. 7 p.m. 7 p.m.
Hawaii ��������������������������������
7 a.m.
6 p.m.
Idaho �����������������������������������
8 a.m.
8 p.m.
Illinois ��������������������������������� Indiana �������������������������������� Iowa ������������������������������������
6 a.m. 6 a.m. 7 a.m.
7 p.m. 6 p.m. 9 p.m.
Kansas ��������������������������������
7 a.m.
7 p.m.
Kentucky ���������������������������� Louisiana ��������������������������� Maine ����������������������������������
6 a.m. 6 a.m. Between 6 and 10 a.m.
6 p.m. 8 p.m. 9 p.m.
Maryland ����������������������������
7 a.m.
8 p.m.
Massachusetts ��������������������
7 a.m.
8 p.m.
Michigan ����������������������������� Minnesota ���������������������������
7 a.m. 7 a.m.
8 p.m. 8 p.m.
Mississippi �������������������������� Missouri ������������������������������
7 a.m. 6 a.m.
7 p.m. 7 p.m.
Montana �����������������������������
7 a.m.
8 p.m.
Nebraska ���������������������������� Nevada �������������������������������� New Hampshire �����������������
7 a.m. MST/8 a.m. CST 7 a.m. No later than 11 a.m.
7 p.m. MST/8 p.m. CST 7 p.m. No earlier than 7 p.m.
New Jersey ������������������������� New Mexico �����������������������
6 a.m. 7 a.m.
8 p.m. 7 p.m.
New York ���������������������������� North Carolina ������������������� North Dakota ���������������������
6 a.m. 6:30 a.m. Between 7 and 9 a.m.
9 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Between 7 and 9 p.m.
Ohio ������������������������������������
6:30 a.m.
7:30 p.m.
Oklahoma ���������������������������
7 a.m.
7 p.m.
Oregon ��������������������������������
7 a.m.
8 p.m.
Pennsylvania ���������������������� Rhode Island ���������������������� South Carolina ������������������� South Dakota ��������������������� Tennessee ���������������������������
7 a.m. 6 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m.
8 p.m. 9 p.m. 7 p.m. 7 p.m. 7 p.m. CST/ 8 p.m. EST
Texas ����������������������������������� Utah ������������������������������������ Vermont ������������������������������
7 a.m. 7 a.m. Between 5 and 10 a.m.
7 p.m. 8 p.m. 7 p.m.
Notes on hours (a)
Clerk has the option of opening all polls at 7 a.m. Idaho is in two time zones—MST and PST. Hours for school and city elections: polls open at 7 a.m. or noon (depending upon choice of county auditor, with legal limitations on opening the polls at noon). Polls close at 8 p.m. Counties may choose to open polls as early as 6 a.m. and close as late as 8 p.m. Several western counties are on Mountain time. Applicable opening time depends on variables related to the size of the precinct. Anyone in line at 8 p.m. will be allowed to vote.
Towns outside of the Twin Cities metro area with less than 500 inhabitants may have a later time for the polls to open as long as it is not later than 10 a.m. Those individuals in line at 7 p.m. will be allowed to vote. Polling places with fewer than 200 registered electors must be open from noon until 8 p.m. or until all registered electors in any precinct have voted. Polling hours vary from town to town. The hours of 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. are by statute.
Counties must have polls open by 9 a.m., but can choose to open as early as 7 a.m. Polls must remain open until 7 p.m., but can be open as late as 9 p.m. The majority of polls in the state are open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. in their respective time zones (CST and MST).
Oregon’s polls (County Clerk’s office and dropsites) are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Local time. Poll hours are set by each county election commission. Polling places shall be open a minimum of 10 hours but no more than 13 hours. All polling locations in the eastern time zone shall close at 8 p.m. and those in the Central time zone shall close at 7 p.m. The opening time for polls is set by local boards of civil authority.
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 339
ELECTIONS
POLLING HOURS: GENERAL ELECTIONS—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Polls open
Polls close
Virginia �������������������������������
6 a.m.
7 p.m.
Washington ������������������������ West Virginia ���������������������� Wisconsin ���������������������������
7 a.m. 6:30 a.m. Between 7 and 9 a.m.
8 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 8 p.m.
Wyoming ���������������������������� Dist. of Columbia ��������������
7 a.m. 7 a.m.
7 p.m. 8 p.m.
American Samoa ���������������
6 a.m.
6 p.m.
Guam ���������������������������������� No. Mariana Islands ����������
7 a.m. 7 a.m.
8 p.m. 7 p.m.
Puerto Rico ����������������������� U.S. Virgin Islands �������������
8 a.m. 7 a.m.
3 p.m. 7 p.m.
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey, January 2007 and state election Web sites, November 2009. Note: Hours for primary, municipal and special elections may differ from those noted.
340 The Book of the States 2010
Notes on hours (a)
In cities with a population of 10,000 or more, the polls must open at 7 a.m. In cities, towns and villages with populations of 10,000, the polls may open any time between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.
Election proclamation issued by Chief Election Officer contains a statement of time and place for each territorial election. Elections are held on six separate islands. At the close of the polls, ballots are flown to Saipan where they are tabulated at election headquarters.
(a) In all states, voters standing in line when the polls close are allowed to vote; however, provisions for handling those voters vary across jurisdictions.
29 (b)(f) 20 29 30 (g)
30 25
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida....................... Georgia.....................
Hawaii....................... Idaho.........................
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
28 25 25 (w) 30
25 21 30 30 30
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina........ North Dakota.......... Ohio..........................
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
See footnotes at end of table.
Yes Yes Yes No No
Montana................... 30 Nebraska.................. (s) Nevada...................... (t) New Hampshire....... Election Day (l) New Jersey............... 21
Yes No No No No
No No No No No
15 Yes 29 30 Yes Election Day Yes 21 Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes Yes
No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Massachusetts.......... 20 Michigan................... 30 Minnesota................. Election Day (l) Mississippi................ 30 Missouri.................... 28
Kansas....................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
Illinois....................... 28 (j) Indiana...................... 29 Iowa........................... Election Day (l)
10 30 29 30 15
Closing date for Early registration before voting gen. election (days) allowed (a)
Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California..................
State or other jurisdiction
Table 6.6 VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION Absentee voting
No excuse required No excuse required B,C,D, O, P, R, S, T B,D,O,R,S A
No excuse required A No excuse required No excuse required No excuse required
No excuse required No excuse required No excuse required B, D, E, O, R, S, T No excuse required
B,D,O,P,R,T B,C,D,O,R,T B,D,O,P,R,T A A
No excuse required A A No excuse required No excuse required
No excuse required A No excuse required
No excuse required No excuse required
No excuse required A A No excuse required No excuse required
B,D,O,P,T No excuse required No excuse required No excuse required No excuse required
7 p.m. Election Day 8 p.m. Election Day 5 p.m. Friday before election 21 days 7 p.m. Election Day
7 p.m. Election Day Postmarked day before election (h) 5 p.m. day before election 2 days after election Close of polls (x)
Close of polls 10 a.m. 2 days after election Close of polls (v) 8 p.m. Election Day
10 days after election (q) Election Day 5 p.m. day before election Close of polls
Close of polls Close of polls Election Day 8 p.m. Election Day Friday after election
Close of polls on Election Day (k) Close of polls Postmarked by election day (m)
6 p.m. Election Day 8 p.m. Election Day
7 p.m. Election Day 8 p.m. Election Day 8 p.m. Election Day 7 p.m. Election Day Close of polls (h)
5 p.m. day before election 8 p.m. Election Day 7 p.m. Election Day 7:30 p.m. Election Day 8 p.m. Election Day
Persons eligible for absentee Cut-off for receiving voting (b) absentee ballots
Provision for felons
N or W . . . . . . N or 2W N or 1W
. . . W . . . N or W . . .
. . . W . . . . . . W or N
. . . . . . N or 1W W N
. . . . . . N and 2W N or W . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . N W . . .
N or W N or 1 W . . . . . . . . .
S S, 20 S, D, 30 S,30 S,C,P, 30
S S, C, 30 S, C, 30 S,P, 30 S, 30
S, C, 30 S S, C, 30; P, 10 (u) S S, C, 30
S S, M, 30 S, 20 S, C, 30 S
S S, C, 28 S, 30 (o) S, M S, 21 (p)
S, P, 30 S, P, 30 S (n)
S S, C, 30
S, P, 30 S, T S S, C, 29 S, C
S, 1 day S, D, 30 S, C, 29 C, 30 S
. . . H H H H
. . . H H (w) H
H H H H H
. . . H . . . H . . .
H H H H H
H . . . H
H . . .
H H H . . . . . .
H H H H . . .
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H(r) H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H
H H
H H H H H
H H H H H
H H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H ● H H
H H H ● H
H . . . H . . . H
H H H
H(i) H
H H ● ● H
● H ● H H
H H ... H H
H H ... ... H
H H H ... ...
H ... H H H
H H H H H
... ... H
H ...
... ... H H H
H H H H H
Absentee votes Registration Voting Method/process Provision signed by witness Residency in other places rights or provision regarding mental or notary (c) requirement (d) prohibited (e) revoked for restoration competency
ELECTIONS
The Council of State Governments 341
342 The Book of the States 2010 No N.A. No 50 N.A. No
A No excuse required (ff) A No excuse required No excuse required
No excuse required (y) A A No excuse required No excuse required
A A A No A A
Absentee voting
10 days after election 1:30 p.m. Election Day N.A. B, D, E, O, R, S,T 30 or 45 days after election 14 days before election
Close of polls (gg) 6 days prior to election Close of polls 7 p.m. Election Day
Close of polls Close of polls Before close of polls Noon on day of canvass 7 p.m. Election Day
Persons eligible for absentee Cut-off for receiving voting (b) absentee ballots
Sources: The Council of State Governments survey of state election Web sites, March 2010. Note: Previous editions of this chart contained a column for “Automatic cancellation of registration for failure to vote for ___ years”. However, the National Voter Registration Act requires a confirmation notice prior to any cancellation and thus effectively bans any automatic cancellation of voter registration. In addition, all states and territories except Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands allow mail-in registration. Key: H—Provision exists . . .—No state provision. ●—Limited voting restoration. N.A.—Information not available at press time. (a) Column 2: Early voting is usually done in person on the same equipment as that used on election day. An excuse is not required. (b) Persons eligible for absentee voting: A - All of these; B—Absent on business; C—Senior citizen; D— Disabled persons; E—Not absent, but prevented by employment from registering; M/O—No absentee registration except military and oversees citizens as required by federal law; O—Out of state; P—Out of precinct (or municipality in PA); R—Absent for religious reasons; S—Students; T—Temporarily out of jurisdiction. (c) Absentee votes must be signed by, N - Notary or W - Witness. Numbers indicated the number of signatures required. (d) Key for residency requirements: S—State, C—County, D—District, M—Municipality, P—Precinct, T—Town. Numbers represent the number of days before an election for which one must be a resident. (e) State provision prohibiting registration or claiming the right to vote in another state or jurisdiction. (f) For primary, must be postmarked five days before election or registration may be completed in person by noon on the last business day before election. For general, must be postmarked 14 days before election or registration may be completed in person by the seventh day before election. (g) The 5th Monday before a general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary; the 5th day after the date of the call for all other special primaries and special elections. (h) The request deadline is 6 days before the election, to be mailed the next day, the receipt deadline is before canvas with election day postmark, the day after the election with no post mark, and before canvas for military and oversees regardless of post mark.
30 30 10 40 or 60 30
Dist. of Columbia.... American Samoa..... Guam........................ No. Mariana Islands Puerto Rico.............. U.S. Virgin Islands...
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
15 30 30 (cc) 6 (dd)
Closing date for Early registration before voting gen. election (days) allowed (a)
Virginia..................... 29 Washington.............. (ee) West Virginia............ 21 Wisconsin.................. Election Day (l) Wyoming.................. Election Day (l)
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont....................
State or other jurisdiction
VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION—Continued Provision for felons
D, 30 S, 30 S N (ii) S (kk) (ll)
S S, 30 (hh) S, 10 S, P
(aa) S S, C S, 30 S, C
H H H (jj) . . . H
H H H . . . . . .
H H . . . H . . .
H N.A. H H . . . H
H H H H H
H H H H . . .
H N.A. N.A. H N.A. H
. . . H . . . H ●
H ● H H . . .
H N.A. H N.A. H H H
H H H H H
H H H H ...
(i) Upon parole, pardon, or probation, felons are required to re-register to voter to restore lost voting rights. (j) Closing date for registration before general election is 28 days before. Illinois now has grace period registration which allows for registration of voters and change of address during a period from close of registration for a primary or election and until 14th day before the primary or election, If a voter who registers during this time period wishes to vote at that first election occurring after grace period, he/she must do so by grace period voting (at the discretion of the election authority a grace period registrant may vote by mail). (k) Except that mailed absentee ballots which are postmarked prior to election may be received up to the 14th day after election day. (l) Iowa—Delivered by 5 p.m. 10 days before the election, if it is a state primary or general election; 11 days before all others or election-day registration at precincts. Minnesota—delivered 21 days before an election or election-day registration at polling precincts. New Hampshire—Received by city or town clerk 10 days before election or election-day registration at precincts. Wisconsin—Twenty days before the election, or completed in the local voter registration office by 5 p.m. one day before election, or election-day registration at polling precincts. Wyoming—delivered 30 days before or election-day registration at polling precincts. (m) An absentee ballot must be returned before the polls are closed on election day; or if the ballot is mailed, the envelope must be postmarked before election day. Timely postmarked ballots are considered on time if the ballot is received before noon on Monday following the election day. However, if the canvass of votes for the election is required by law to be held earlier, the ballot must be received by the time set for the canvass of votes. The canvass of votes for the school election and some city election will be held on Thursday or Friday after the election. (n) Iowa does not have a residency length of time requirement, it does require that a person be a resident when registering to vote. One must be registered at least 10 days before a primary and general elections; 11 days before all others. (o) A voter must be registered to vote 30 days before an election, and must be a resident in order to register. (p) State election law does not apply to Municipal elections. Therefore each municipality may have a separate requirement. (q) If a voter wishes to have a ballot mailed, clerk must receive written request by 2 p.m. on the Saturday prior to the election. Voters can obtain an absentee ballot in person anytime through 4 p.m. on the day prior to the election. If the voter qualifies for an emergency ballot, request can be submitted through 4 p.m. on the date of the election.
. . . . . . N.A. 14 days after election N.A. Affidavit
1W . . . . . . W . . .
(z) W (h) (bb) . . . . . .
Absentee votes Registration Voting Method/process Provision signed by witness Residency in other places rights or provision regarding mental or notary (c) requirement (d) prohibited (e) revoked for restoration competency
ELECTIONS
(r) Only while confined, automatic restoration after release. (s) Received by the 2nd Friday before election or postmarked by the 3rd Friday before the election. (t) By mail, 30 days before election; In person 20 days before election. (u) Must have continuously resided in the state and county at least 30 days and in precinct at least 10 days before election. Must claim no other place as legal residence. (v) In person: day before election. By mail: day of election. (w) No voter registration. (x) Voted ballots on in-country electors must be received by close of polls; voted ballots returned from outside the United States must be received within 10 days of election day. (y) No excuse required. In South Dakota must submit the application for absentee ballot to the person in charge of the election. (z) Absentee ballot applications (not absentee ballots) are required to be notarized or submitted with a copy of the voter’s photo identification. (aa) Municipality: at least thirty days during the year preceding the election. Town: thirty consecutive days each year. (bb) If unable to sign.
VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION—Continued (cc) Must be postmarked 30 days before an election if mailed. May register in person the 15th day before an election, but you will only be eligible to vote on elections. (dd) Must be received by 5 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the day of the election. (ee) Thirty days before the election if mailed or 15 days before the election if delivered in-person to the local voter registration office. (ff)There is a late registration date, 15 days prior, for in person new registrations and the voter must vote an absentee ballot. (gg) Ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day. (hh) A voter must be a resident for 30 days prior to the election. West Virginia poll books for each election require that the voters acknowledge that their address is current and that they have been at that location for thirty days prior to the election. (ii) Notary public or commissioned officer authorized to administer oath for Armed Services personnel. (jj) State/territory: one hundred twenty days, district, municipality, precinct: fifty days. (kk) According to Electoral Law the voter must have a permanent residence in Puerto Rico to be a qualified elector. (ll) 90 days residency requirement, 30 days for district.
ELECTIONS
The Council of State Governments 343
344â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
See footnotes at end of table.
0 0 0 0 119 0 128 18 0 0 1,812 2,077
1,631,565 1,502,341 221,903 382,003 1,112,845 514,373 345,207 89,028 1,816,916 92,763 556,614 8,265,558
460,019 466,537 0 0 925,467 ... No primary in 2006 due to only one candidate per party..... 985,986 857,814 0 0 1,843,800 419,254 482,117 0 0 901,371 202,339 348,238 0 0 458,341 699,275 397,755 200,810 0 1,297,840 197,647 446,722 0 0 644,369 395,885 358,016 0 1,729 755,630 504,973 1,494,998 0 0 1,999,971 182,136 264,467 0 0 446,603 247,281 138,343 0 0 395,905 534,824 539,018 0 809 1,074,651 655,919 508,602 0 0 1,164,521 (b) 319,168 0 0 319,168 81,019 354,849 0 0 435,868 5,566,557 6,976,644 200,810 2,538 12,663,505
0 0 0 0 0 11,689 0 0 0 0 0 11,689
Southern Region Alabama................................ 2006 Arkansas.............................. 2006 Florida.................................... 2006 Georgia.................................. 2006 Kentucky................................ 2007 Louisiana (a)......................... 2007 Mississippi.............................. 2007 Missouri................................. 2008 North Carolina...................... 2008 Oklahoma.............................. 2006 South Carolina...................... 2006 Tennessee............................... 2006 Texas....................................... 2006 Virginia.................................. 2009 West Virginia......................... 2008 Regional total........................
931,779 1,151,951 148,000 76,046 (d) 531,322 316,470 73,592 38,784 783,044 36,389 320,782 4,408,159
699,786 350,390 73,903 (d) 194,295 581,404 166,112 271,487 50,226 812,388 (d) 234,020 3,434,011
Total votes
Midwestern Region Illinois.................................... 2006 Indiana................................... 2008 Iowa........................................ 2006 Kansas.................................... 2006 Michigan................................ 2006 Minnesota.............................. 2006 Nebraska................................ 2006 North Dakota........................ 2008 Ohio........................................ 2006 South Dakota........................ 2006 Wisconsin............................... 2006 Regional total........................
Primary election Date of last election Republican Democrat Independent Other .................................................(b).................................................. 28,972 73,961 0 0 102,933 68,574 54,422 0 0 120,996 213,744 524,671 0 0 738,415 71,430 912,348 0 0 983,778 53,120 49,124 0 0 102,444 334,215 209,304 0 0 543,519 138,263 624,684 0 0 762,947 572,375(d) 644,444 (d) 0 0 1,216,819 63,148 88,688 0 0 151,836 11,798 18,851 0 135 30,784 983,264 2,556,053 0 135 4,754,471
State or other jurisdiction
Eastern Region Connecticut......................... 2006 Delaware................................ 2008 Maine..................................... 2006 Maryland................................ 2006 Massachusetts........................ 2006 New Hampshire.................... 2008 New Jersey............................. 2009 New York............................... 2006 Pennsylvania.......................... 2006 Rhode Island......................... 2006 Vermont................................. 2008 Regional total........................
Table 6.7 VOTING STATISTICS FOR GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS BY REGION
718,327 314,630 2,519,845 1,229,724 435,773 699,275 (a) 430,807 1,136,364 2,001,168 310,327 601,868 540,853 1,716,792 1,163,523 181,612 14,000,888
1,368,682 1,563,885 467,425 343,586 1,608,086 1,028,568 435,507 235,009 1,470,708 206,990 979,427 9,707,873
710,048 126,662 166,425 825,464 784,342 188,555 1,174,445 1,105,681 1,622,135 197,306 170,492 7,071,555
57.4 40.7 52.2 57.9 41.3 54.0 57.9 39.5 46.9 66.5 55.1 29.7 39.0 59.0 25.7 46.4
38.2 57.8 44.1 40.4 42.3 46.4 73.3 74.4 35.2 61.7 45.3 44.5
63.2 32.0 30.2 46.2 35.0 27.6 47.9 23.5 39.6 51.0 53.4 37.9
519,827 430,090 2,178,289 811,049 619,552 397,755 313,232 1,680,611 2,146,189 616,135 489,076 1,247,491 1,310,337 818,901 492,697 14,071,231
1,736,219 1,082,463 569,021 491,993 2,142,513 1,007,460 145,115 74,279 2,428,013 121,226 1,139,115 10,937,417
398,220 266,861 209,927 942,279 1,234,984 479,042 1,087,731 2,740,864 2,470,517 189,503 69,534 10,089,462
41.5 55.5 45.1 38.2 58.7 30.6 42.1 58.4 50.3 33.5 44.8 68.6 29.8 41.0 69.8 46.7
48.4 40.0 53.7 57.9 56.3 45.4 24.5 23.5 58.0 36.1 52.7 50.2
0 15,739 92,595 0 0 200,810 0 0 0 0 0 30,205 1,344,525 0 31,486 1,715,360
0 28 0 0 0 141,735 0 6,404 112,742 0 0 260,909
35.4 0 67.5 0 38.1 118,715 52.7 0 55.0 154,628 70.2 14,987 44.4 161,508 58.3 190,661(c) 60.4 0 48.9 0 21.7 0 54.0 449,838
0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 30.5 0.0 0.0 5.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 2.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.2
0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 7.0 2.2 6.6 4 0.0 0.0 0 2.4
General election Republican Percent Democrat Percent Independent Percent
12,247 13,093 38,541 81,412 0 0 0 60,803 121,584 0 1,008 0 27,462 0 0 356,150
381,770 57,376 22,618 14,121 50,657 25,174 12,735 0 0 7,292 43,158 614,901
15,198 1,681 55,798 20,573 69,881 326 0 660,661 0 0 79,059 903,177
Other
1.0 1.7 0.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.2
10.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 2.8
1.4 0.5 10.1 1.1 3.1 0.05 0 14 0 0.0 24.7 4.8
Percent
1,250,401 773,552 4,829,270 2,122,185 1,055,325 1,297,840 744,039 2,877,778 4,268,941 926,462 1,091,952 1,818,549 4,399,116 1,982,432 705,795 30,143,637
3,586,292 2,703,752 1,059,064 849,700 3,801,256 2,217,719 593,357 315,692 4,184,072 335,508 2,161,700 21,808,112
1,123,466 395,204 550,865 1,717,068 2,243,835 682,910 2,451,704 4,697,867 4,092,652 387,870 319,085 18,662,526
Total votes
ELECTIONS
State or other jurisdiction
2008 2006 2008
N.A 2,803 N.A.
2,139,471 N.A 31,615 N.A.
2,159,720 N.A 1,740 N.A.
33,327 N.A 0 N.A.
31,137 N.A 36,158 N.A.
4,264,552
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of election administration offices, February 2007 and state elections web sites, March 2010. Key: N.A. — Not applicable (a) Louisiana has an open primary which requires all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, to appear on a single ballot. If a candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote in the primary, he is elected to the office. If no candidate receives a majority vote, then a single election is held between the two
American Samoa (e)............ U.S. Virgin Islands................. Puerto Rico...........................
Total votes
101,695 97,238 22443 2,944 160,874 333,604 246,876 0 4,046 584,526 1,809,189 2,360,529 27,195 49,693 4,246,606 193,804 (d) 142,586 (d) 0 0 336,390 32,107 179,227 0 642 211,976 137,175 30,443 0 0 184,456 81,526 175,043 0 0 204,993 140,515 119,046 0 0 259,561 53,974 107,520 0 0 160,575 300,554 319,177 0 0 619,731 .................................................(b).................................................. 695,116 712,952 10,884 23,505 1,442,457 69,401 29,612 0 0 99,013 3,948,660 4,520,249 60,522 80,830 8,511,158
Primary election Date of last election Republican Democrat Independent Other
Western Region Alaska.................................... 2006 Arizona.................................. 2006 California............................... 2006 Colorado................................ 2006 Hawaii.................................... 2006 Idaho...................................... 2006 Montana................................. 2008 Nevada................................... 2006 New Mexico........................... 2006 Oregon................................... 2006 Utah..................................... 2008 Washington............................ 2008 Wyoming................................ 2006 Regional total........................ Regional total........................ without California..............
VOTING STATISTICS FOR GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS BY REGION—Continued
0.0 6.2 53.0
44.9
48.1 35.4 55.9 40.2 61.7 52.7 32.5 47.9 31.2 38.1 77.9 46.8 29.9 49.7
6,590 32,308 801,053
5,713,231
97,238 959,830 3,376,732 888,096 121,717 198,845 318,670 255,684 384,806 579,060 175,031 1,598,738 135,516 9,089,963
56.5 59.2 41.2
50.5
40.8 62.6 39.0 57.0 34.9 44.1 65.5 43.9 68.8 41.3 19.5 53.2 69.8 45.4
5,084 1,778 53,690
271,098
22,443 0 61,901 0 0 0 0 0 0 248,655 0 0 0 332,999
43.6 30.8 2.7
2.4
7.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
0 16,093 60,975
222,824
2,944 30,287 390,258 44,405 11,721 14,550 9,796 47,471 0 37,925 23,449 0 276 613,082
Other
0.0 3.7 3.1
2.0
1.2 2.0 4.4 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.0 8.2 0.0 2.7 2.6 0.0 0.1 3.0
Percent
11,674 53,017 1,941,663
11,299,686
238,307 1,533,645 8,679,048 1,558,387 348,751 489,424 486,734 582,158 559,170 1,399,650 906,706 3,002,862 193,892 19,978,734
Total votes
candidates receiving the most votes. In the October 20, 2007 primary election Bobby Jindahl (R) received 54 percent of the vote, the five Democrats received 30.6 percent of the vote and the other candidates received the remaining 15.6 percent of the vote. No run-off election was required. (b) Candidate nominated by convention. (c) Governor Eliot Spitzer was also the Independence Party candidate. (d) Candidate ran unopposed. (e) The results displayed in the table are from the Nov. 18, 2008 run-off election.
0 2,838 1,025,945
5,083,527
114,697 543,528 4,850,157 625,886 215,313 276,029 158,268 279,003 174,364 533,650 700,565 1,404,124 58,100 9,933,684
General election Republican Percent Democrat Percent Independent Percent
ELECTIONS
The Council of State Governments 345
ELECTIONS
Table 6.8 VOTER TURNOUT FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BY REGION: 2000, 2004 AND 2008 (In thousands) 2008 2004 2000 State or other Voting age Number Number Voting age Number Number Voting age Number Number jurisdiction population (a) registered voting (b) population (a) registered voting (b) population (a) registered voting (b) U.S. Total.............................
227,719
189,391
128,628
208,247
170,937
122,501
205,410
156,420
105,587
Eastern Region Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Maine................................... Maryland............................. Massachusetts..................... New Hampshire.................. New Jersey.......................... New York............................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... Vermont............................... Regional total.....................
2,682 659 1,037 4,259 5,016 1,017 6,622 14,884 9,646 824 489 47,135
2,210 602 1,000 3,429 4,220 864 5,379 12,031 8,730 701 454 39,620
1,645 391 731 2,632 3,103 708 3,868 7,675 5,995 470 325 27,543
2,574 594 1,042 3,922 4,931 991 6,669 14,206 9,404 803 490 45,626
1,823 554 957 3,070 3,973 856 5,009 11,837 8,367 709 445 37,600
1,579 376 741 2,396 2,927 684 3,612 7,448 5,770 437 312 26,282
2,499 582 968 3,925 4,749 911 6,245 13,805 9,155 753 460 44,052
1,874 505 882 2,715 4,009 857 4,711 11,263 7,782 655 427 35,680
1,460 328 652 2,024 2,734 569 3,187 6,960 4,912 409 294 23,529
Midwestern Region Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa..................................... Kansas................................. Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Nebraska............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio..................................... South Dakota...................... Wisconsin............................ Regional total.....................
9,653 4,758 2,276 2,079 7,624 3,937 1,328 496 8,715 599 4,280 45,745
7,790 4,515 2,076 1,750 7,471 3,200 1,157 (d) 8,163 508 3,405 (d) 40,035
5,578 2,751 1,537 1,264 5,044 2,910 801 317 5,698 382 2,983 24,174
9,519 4,420 2,212 2,038 7,541 3,823 1,257 487 8,604 573 4,119 44,593
7,499 4,163 2,107 1,694 7,164 2,977 1,160 (d) 7,973 502 2,957 (d) 38,196
5,274 2,468 1,522 1,188 4,839 2,828 778 316 5,426 395 2,997 28,031
8,983 4,448 2,165 1,983 7,358 3,547 1,234 477 8,433 543 3,930 43,101
7,129 4,001 1,841 1,624 6,861 3,265 1.085 (c) 7,538 471 (d) 33,815
4,742 2,180 1,314 1,072 4,233 2,439 697 288 4,702 316 2,599 24,582
Southern Region Alabama.............................. Arkansas.............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................ Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Mississippi........................... Missouri............................... North Carolina.................... Oklahoma............................ South Carolina.................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Virginia................................ West Virginia....................... Regional total.....................
3,504 2,134 14,207 7,013 3,237 3,213 2,150 4,453 6,843 2,717 3,347 4,685 17,281 5,885 1,424 82,093
2,841 1,686 11,248 5,266 2,907 2,945 1,873 4,181 6,226 2,184 2,554 3,978 13,575 5,044 1,212 67,720
2,100 1,087 8,358 3,924 1,827 1,961 1,290 2,925 4,311 1,463 1,921 2,600 8,077 3,724 713 46,281
3,252 1,951 12,539 6,080 3,012 3,249 2,014 4,297 6,453 2,515 3,214 4,284 16,071 5,194 1,406 75,531
2,597 1,686 10,301 4,249 2,819 2,923 1,865 4,194 5,527 2,143 2,315 3,532 13,098 4,528 1,169 62,946
1,883 1,055 7,610 3,285 1,796 1,957 1,140 2,731 3,501 1,464 1,618 2,437 7,411 3,195 744 41,827
3,333 1,929 11,774 5,893 2,993 3,255 2,047 4,105 5,797 2,531 2,977 4,221 14,479 5,263 1,416 72,013
2,529 1,556 8,753 3,860 2,557 2,730 1,740 3,861 5,122 2,234 2,157 3,181 12,365 3,770 1,068 57,483
1,666 922 5,963 2,583 1,544 1,766 994 2,360 2,915 1,234 1,386 2,076 6,408 2,790 648 35,255
Western Region Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ California............................ Colorado.............................. Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Montana.............................. Nevada................................. New Mexico........................ Oregon................................. Utah..................................... Washington......................... Wyoming............................. Regional total..................... Regional total without California...........
501 4,668 27,169 3,668 997 1,091 738 1,905 1,469 2,884 1,828 4,932 397 52,247
496 2,987 23,209 3,209 691 862 668 1,208 1,193 2,154 1,433 3,630 276 42,016
326 2,321 13,214 2,401 454 655 490 968 830 1,828 905 3,037 255 30,620
460 3,800 22,075 3,246 873 996 680 1,580 1,318 2,665 1,522 4,596 370 44,181
472 2,643 16,557 2,890 647 798 596 1,094 1,105 2,120 1,278 3,508 246 33,954
313 2,038 12,589 2,130 429 613 450 830 756 1,837 928 2,883 244 26,040
436 3,625 21,461 3,067 909 921 668 1,390 1,263 2,530 1,465 4,368 358 42,461
474 2,173 15,707 2,274 637 728 698 898 973 1,944 1,123 3,336 220 31,185
286 1,532 11,142 1,741 368 502 411 609 599 1,534 771 2,487 214 22,196
25,078
18,807
17,406
22,106
17,397
13,451
21,000
15,478
11,054
Dist. of Columbia...............
474,572
427
267
435
384
228
411
354
202
Sources: U.S. Congress, Clerk of the House, Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election, 2004, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, December 2008. The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; survey of election officials, January 2009. 2000 data provided by the Federal Election Commission.
346â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Key: (a) Estimated population, 18 years old and over. Includes armed forces in each state, aliens, and institutional population. (b) Number voting is number of ballots cast in presidential race. (c) Information not available. (d) No statewide registration required. Excluded from totals for persons registered.
ballot propositions
2009 Ballot Propositions By John G. Matsusaka Voters decided 32 ballot propositions in seven states in 2009, approving 22 of them. The highest profile measures concerned same-sex marriage and taxes. The number of measures and the approval rate was down modestly from recent odd-year elections. For the decade as a whole, initiative activity remained high in the 2000s, at about the same level as the historical peak of the 1990s. Overview Voters decided 32 state-level ballot propositions in 2009, 26 propositions Nov. 3 and six propositions from a May 19 special election in California (see Table A, B). Ballot proposition activity was down significantly from November 2008, when 153 measures went before the voters, but a dip is typical for odd-year elections. There were 34 measures in November 2007, 39 in November 2005 and 22 in November 2003 The propositions reached the ballot in several ways. Five were initiatives, new laws proposed by citizen groups and qualified for the ballot by petition. Three were referendums, proposals to repeal existing laws, also qualified by petition.1 Initiatives and referendums come to the ballot when citizen groups become dissatisfied with a state’s laws and seek to change them by a direct appeal to voters. The other 24 propositions were legislative measures placed on the ballot by a state’s legislature. As usual, most of the measures that went before the voters originated in the legislature. Most legislative measures are constitutional amendments—every state but Delaware requires voter approval to amend the constitution. Initiatives are the most visible ballot propositions and have had the biggest impact on state policy historically. The initiative process allows ordinary citizens to propose new laws directly to their fellow citizens, without needing the approval of the legislature. South Dakota in 1898 was the first state to adopt the process, followed by Utah in 1900 and Oregon in 1902. By 1918, a total of 19 states had adopted the process and adoption has continued at the rate of about one state every 20 years since then. Mississippi was the latest adopter in 1992, bringing the total number of states that allow initiatives to 24.2 Initiative use has waxed and waned over time. With the closure of the decade of the 2000s, we can assess how initiative use in this decade compared
to historical levels, and speculate about future trends. Figure A shows the number of initiatives by decade, beginning with the first initiatives in Oregon in 1904. Initiatives were used extensively in the second, third and fourth decades of the 20th century. Much of that activity arose from tensions between the new urban majorities in many states and the rural interests that controlled the legislature.3 The initiative process fell out of use in the middle decades of the century, with only 98 measures in the 1960s. Beginning in the 1970s, initiative use picked up again, triggered by California’s property tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978 that set off a national tax revolt. At first it was not clear if the burst of initiatives would be a passing fad, but with initiative use growing in each subsequent decade, it seems that something more fundamental is transpiring. The total number of initiatives for the first decade of the 21st century was 374. This is slightly below the record number of 377 for the decade of the 1990s and represents the first decline in initiative use since the 1960s. Given the continued popularity of direct democracy worldwide, it seems unlikely that the process will significantly dwindle, but it may stabilize. Ballot initiatives are not going to replace representative government, but especially in the main initiative states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington), citizen lawmaking is likely to remain a central part of the policy process.
Key Issue: Gay Rights Gay rights remained the most visible issue on ballot propositions in 2009, with measures in Maine and Washington. The year’s highestprofile issue was Maine’s Question 1 that asked voters to repeal a May 2009 law legalizing samesex marriage. Traditional marriage supporters were victorious, by a 53-47 margin. Following California’s The Council of State Governments 347
ballot propositions
Table A State-by-State Totals for 2009 State Initiatives Referendums
Legislative measures
California...................... Maine............................. New Jersey.................... New York....................... Ohio............................... Texas.............................. Washington...................
. . . 3 (1) . . . . . . 1 (1) . . . 1 (0)
… 2 (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (1)
6 (1) 2 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2) 11 (11) . . .
Total...............................
5 (2)
3 (2)
24 (18)
Source: Initiative & Referendum Institute (www.iandrinstitute.org). Note: The table reports the total number of propositions during 2009. California’s propositions were on the ballot in a May 19 special election; all other propositions were on the ballot in November 3. The
Proposition 8 in 2008, this marks the second successive repeal of a same-sex marriage law by the voters. Campaign spending on Question 1 exceeded an estimated $6.5 million, a large sum for the Pine Tree State. Gay marriage first emerged as a controversial issue in the states in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in Baehr v. Lewin that a refusal to grant same-sex marriage licenses was sex discrimination under the state constitution. The state’s legislators responded by placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 1998, authorizing the legislature to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman, and the voters approved the measure with 68 percent in favor. At about the same time, fearing similar judicial developments in their states, conservative activists placed “defense of marriage” measures on the ballot in Alaska (1998), California (2000), Nebraska (2000) and Nevada (2000), all of which were approved. The issue seemed to be fading away until May 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state constitution contained a right to gay marriage. This ruling set off a pitched battle across the nation as marriage traditionalists in 24 states rushed to make gay marriage unconstitutional to head off similar rulings in their states. A little more than half of these amendments were proposed and placed on the ballot by state legislatures; the rest were proposed and qualified by citizen groups using the initiative process. So far the battle has been a rout, with 33 of 34 propositions banning gay 348 The Book of the States 2010
Notable issues Package of measures to address budget crisis Same-sex marriage, TABOR tax limit, medical marijuana Bonds for land conservation Power lines in state forests Casino authorization Eminent domain Rights for same-sex domestic partners, TABOR tax limit
number of measures that were approved is reported in parentheses. A referendum in which the original law is retained is considered to have been “approved.” (Maine reports in the opposite way on its Web site.)
marriage passing (Table C), including California’s high-profile Proposition 8 in 2008. The only ban that failed, in Arizona in 2006, was approved in slightly modified form two years later. So far, the only victories for gay marriage supporters have come from courts and legislatures—samesex marriage proponents have yet to achieve a breakthrough victory in a popular election. The bad news for gay marriage supporters was partially offset by election results in the state of Washington. There, marriage traditionalists petitioned to repeal a state law granting same-sex domestic partners essentially the same rights as married spouses, but voters rejected the repeal (R-71), supporting the existing law by a 53-47 margin. Supporters of the new law spent about $2 million during the campaign, compared to about $500,000 by opponents. An interesting side skirmish in the campaign developed over the issue of whether the names of people who signed petitions calling for a vote were confidential. Proponents of the referendum argued that those who signed might be exposed to harassment, giving as example the experience of some contributors who supported California’s Proposition 8. Opponents of the referendum argued that the names should be released as part of the state’s public records disclosure laws. This case and an ongoing case in California concerning Proposition 8 raise issues about the trade-off between confidentiality and the public’s right to know. Those issues are headed for the U.S. Supreme Court and could have important ramifications on the conduct of ballot propositions campaigns.
ballot propositions
Figure A Number of Initiatives by Decade (number approved shaded) 400 350
Total number of initiatives
300 250 200 150 100 50 0
1900–09
1910–19
1920–29
1930–39
1940–49
1950–59
1960–69
1970–79
1980–89
1990–99
2000–09
Decade Source: Initiative & Referendum Institute. The shaded bar is the number approved.
Key Issue: Tax limits Tax limits have been a mainstay of ballot propositions throughout the century-long history of citizen law-making, with some prominent victories for limits as well as some prominent losses. In 2009, voters in Maine and Washington decisively rejected propositions that would have limited the growth of taxes and government spending by state and local governments, and would have required voter approval of future tax increases. Maine’s Question 4, dubbed TABOR II, was rejected 40-60. The proposition was modeled after Colorado’s controversial Taxpayer Bill of Rights measure approved in 1992. Question 4 would have restricted the growth of government spending to the rate of inflation plus the growth
rate of population (the state’s current spending limit is linked to income growth, which typically allows a faster growth of spending). Revenue collected in excess of the limit would have been channeled to a rainy day fund (20 percent) and returned to citizens in the form of tax relief (80 percent). Maine voters rejected a similar measure in 2006 with 54 percent against. Washington’s I-1033, also a TABOR-type measure, was rejected by a lopsided margin, 42-58. It would have limited the growth of state and local government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth, and required voter approval for tax increases. Revenue collected in excess of the limit was to have been returned in the form of property tax relief. Opposition to I-1033 was The Council of State Governments 349
ballot propositions
Table B Complete List of Statewide Ballot Propositions in 2009
State
Type
Description
Result
California Prop. 1A (May 19) L/CA Prop. 1B (May 19) L/CA Prop. 1C (May 19) L/CA+ST Prop. 1D (May 19) L/ST Prop. 1E (May 19) L/ST Prop. 1F (May 19) L/CA
Increased “rainy day fund”, possible limits on spending, would have extended certain taxes. Supplemented state payments to schools. Allowed state to borrow against future lottery revenues. Allowed state to divert money from California Children and Families Fund. Allowed state to divert money from mental health services. Prohibited increase in legislator salaries in deficit years.
Maine Question 1 R/ST Question 2 I/ST Question 3 R/ST Question 4 I/ST Question 5 I/ST Question 6 L/ST Question 7 L/CA
Asked voters to repeal law permitting same sex marriage (approved = repealed) Reduced excise taxes on energy efficient cars Asked voters to repeal 2007 school consolidation law (failed = not repealed) TABOR II. Limited growth of government spending, required voter approval for tax increases. Expanded law allowing use of marijuana for medical purposes $71.25 million bonds for transportation projects Allowed local officials more time to certify petitions
Approved 59–41 Approved 65–35 Failed 48–52
New Jersey Public Question
L/ST
$400 million bonds to acquire land for conservation and recreation
Approved 53–47
New York Proposal No. 1 Proposal No. 2
L/CA L/CA
Allowed power lines in state forest preserve Allowed prison inmates to work for nonprofit organizations
Approved 67–33 Approved 68–32
Ohio Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3
L/CA L/CA I/CA
$200 million bonds to pay stipends to veterans Created a board to regulate treatment of farm animals Authorized casinos in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo
Approved 72–28 Approved 64–36 Approved 53–47
Texas Prop. 1 L/CA Prop. 2 L/CA Prop. 3 L/CA Prop. 4 L/CA Prop. 5 L/CA Prop. 6 L/CA Prop. 7 L/CA Prop. 8 L/CA Prop. 9 L/CA Prop. 10 L/CA Prop. 11 L/CA
Allowed cities and counties to finance purchase of open areas near military bases Allowed property taxes based only on value of residence as a residence Provided uniform standards and procedures for property tax appraisals Established fund to support research at state universities Authorized single board of equalization for adjoining appraisal entities Allowed new bonds for Texas Veterans Land Board without voter approval. Permitted state militia to hold other civil offices Allowed state to contribute money and property for veterans’ hospitals Guaranteed public access to beaches on seaward shore of Gulf of Mexico. Increased terms from 2 to 4 years for board members of emergency service districts Prohibited public taking of property for transfer to private entities or economic development
Approved 55–45 Approved 68–32 Approved 66–34 Approved 57–43 Approved 62–38 Approved 66–34 Approved 73–27 Approved 75–25 Approved 77–23 Approved 73–27 Approved 81–19
Washington I-1033 I/ST R-71 R/ST
Limited growth of government spending, required voter approval of tax increases Asked voters to approve a law granting same-sex couples same rights as married couples (approved = not repealed)
Failed 42-58 Approved 53–47
Source: Initiative & Referendum Institute Note: Unless another date is given, a proposition appeared on the November 3 ballot. Key: CA — Constitutional amendment
led by public employee groups, but also included Microsoft Corporation and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. The initiative’s supporters were heavily outspent by opponents, with $3.5 million spent in the no campaign compared to $600,000 in the yes campaign. Rejection of spending limits in Maine and Washington hint that voters are willing to pay 350 The Book of the States 2010
Failed 35–65 Failed 38–62 Failed 36–64 Failed 34–66 Failed 34–66 Approved 74–26 Approved 53–47 Failed 26–74 Failed 42–58 Failed 40–60
I — Initiative L — Legislative measure R — Referendum ST — Statute
more taxes and may not be extremely concerned with growth in government spending, despite a huge expansion in federal spending over the past year. Voters in Maine, New Jersey and Ohio also approved bond propositions, which were also popular in November 2008. The electorate continues to be willing to borrow despite the ongoing economic recession.
ballot propositions
Table C Complete List of Propositions Banning Same-Sex Marriage
State
Year
Measure
Vote
Alaska.................................. Hawaii................................. California............................ Nebraska............................. Nevada.................................
1998 1998 2000 2000 2000
Ballot Measure 2 Amendment 2 Proposition 22 Initiative 416 Question 2
68–32 69–31 61–39 70–30 70–30
Legislature Legislature Initiative Initiative Initiative
Source
Nevada................................. Arkansas.............................. Georgia................................ Kentucky............................. Louisiana.............................
2002 2004 2004 2004 2004
Question 2 Amendment 3 Amendment 1 Amendment 1 Amendment 1
67–33 75–25 77–23 75–25 78–22
Initiative Initiative Legislature Legislature Legislature
Michigan.............................. Mississippi........................... Missouri............................... Montana.............................. North Dakota......................
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
Proposal 04-2 Amendment 1 Amendment 2 CI-96 Amendment 1
59–41 86–14 71–29 67–33 68–32
Initiative Legislature Legislature Initiative Initiative
Ohio..................................... Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Utah..................................... Kansas.................................
2004 2004 2004 2004 2005
Issue 1 Question 711 Measure 36 Amendment 3 Amendment
62–38 76–24 57–43 66–34 70–30
Initiative Legislature Initiative Legislature Legislature
Texas.................................... Alabama.............................. Arizona................................ Colorado.............................. Idaho....................................
2005 2006 2006 2006 2006
Proposition 2 Amendment Proposition 107 Amendment 43 HJR 2
76–24 81–19 48–52 55–45 63–37
Legislature Legislature Initiative Initiative Legislature
South Carolina.................... South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Virginia................................ Wisconsin............................
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006
Amendment 1 Amendment C Amendment 1 Ballot Question 1 NA
78–22 52–48 81–19 57–43 59–41
Legislature Legislature Legislature Legislature Legislature
Arizona................................ California............................ Florida................................. Maine...................................
2008 2008 2008 2009
Proposition 102 Proposition 8 Amendment 2 Question 1
56–44 52–48 62–38 53–47
Legislature Initiative Initiative Referendum
Source: Initiative & Referendum Institute (www.iandrinstitute.org).
Notes
About the author
This article uses referendums instead of referenda as the plural, following the Oxford English Dictionary and common practice. 2 For detailed information on initiative adoption and provisions, see the appendixes of John G. Matsusaka, For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2004) and M. Dane Waters, Initiative and Referendum Almanac (Carolina Academic Press, 2003). 3 See Chapter 7 in Matsusaka, For the Many or the Few (2004).
John G. Matsusaka is the Charles F. Sexton Chair in American Enterprise in the Marshall School of Business, Gould School of Law and Department of Political Science, and president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute, all at the University of Southern California. He is the author of For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2004).
1
The Council of State Governments 351
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS
Table 6.9 STATEWIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Changes to constitution
State or other jurisdiction
Initiative Direct (a)
Indirect (a)
Changes to statutes
Referendum
Initiative
Legislative (b)
Direct (c)
Indirect (c)
Referendum Legislative
Citizen petition (d)
Alabama....................... Alaska........................... Arizona......................... Arkansas....................... California.....................
. . . . . . H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
. . . H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . H
... H H H ...
Colorado....................... Connecticut.................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia.........................
H . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H . . . H
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................. Illinois........................... Indiana.......................... Iowa..............................
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . H . . .
... H ... ... ...
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana...................... Maine............................ Maryland......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . H . . . H . . .
... H ... H H
Massachusetts.............. Michigan....................... Minnesota..................... Mississippi.................... Missouri........................
. . . H . . . . . . H
H . . . . . . H . . .
H H H H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
H H . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . H
H H ... ... H
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada.......................... New Hampshire........... New Jersey...................
H H H . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H H . . . . . .
. . . . . . H . . . . . .
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H ... ...
New Mexico................. New York...................... North Carolina............. North Dakota............... Ohio..............................
. . . . . . . . . H H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H (f) H . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . H
. . . H . . . H . . .
... ... ... H H
Oklahoma..................... Oregon.......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island................ South Carolina.............
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H H H
H H . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H H . . . . . .
H H H(e) ... ...
South Dakota............... Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont........................
H . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H H . . . H H
H . . . . . . H . . .
. . . . . . . . . H . . .
H H . . . . . . H (limited)
H ... ... H ...
Virginia......................... Washington.................. West Virginia................ Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H . . . H H H
. . . H . . . . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . . H
. . . H H . . . . . .
... H ... ... H
American Samoa......... No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico.................. U.S. Virgin Islands.......
. . . H . . . H
. . . H . . . . . .
H H H H
. . . H . . . . . .
. . . H . . . . . .
. . . H H H
... H ... ...
See footnotes at end of table.
352â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS
STATEWIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM—Continued Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites March 2010. Note: This table summarizes state provisions for initiatives and referenda. Initiatives may propose constitutional amendments or develop state legislation and may be formed either directly or indirectly. The direct initiative allows a proposed measure to be placed on the ballot after a specific number of signatures have been secured on a citizen petition. The indirect initiative must be submitted to the legislature for a decision after the required number of signatures has been secured on a petition and prior to placing the proposed measure on the ballot. Referendum refers to the process whereby a state law or constitutional amendment passed by the legislature may be referred to the voters before it goes into effect. Three forms of referenda exist: (1) citizen petition, whereby the people may petition for a referendum on legislation which has been considered by the legislature; (2) submission by the legislature (designated in table as “Legislative”), whereby the legislature may voluntarily submit laws to the voters for their approval; and (3) constitutional
requirement, whereby the state constitution may require that certain questions be submitted to the voters. Key: H — State Provision. . . . — No state provision. (a) See Table 1.3, “Constitutional Amendment Procedure: By Initiative,” for more detail. (b) See Table 1.2, “Constitutional Amendment Procedure: By the Legislature,” for more detail. (c) See Chapter 6 tables on State Initiatives, for more detail. (d) See Chapter 6 tables on State Referendums, for more detail. (e) No provision for statewide referenda initiated by citizen petition. There are several county/local referenda that can be initiated by citizen petition. (f) Only the legislature can make statutory changes while in session. Proposed constitutional changes must be passed by the legislature and then are submitted to the citizens to be voted on.
The Council of State Governments 353
354â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
D . . . . . . D . . .
. . . . . . D . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . . . . . . I D
D D . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . D D
D D . . . . . . . . .
Colorado....................... Connecticut.................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia.........................
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................. Illinois........................... Indiana.......................... Iowa..............................
Kansas.......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana...................... Maine............................ Maryland......................
Massachusetts.............. Michigan....................... Minnesota..................... Mississippi.................... Missouri........................
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada.......................... New Hampshire........... New Jersey...................
New Mexico................. New York...................... North Carolina............. North Dakota............... Ohio..............................
Oklahoma..................... Oregon.......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island................ South Carolina.............
See footnotes at end of table.
. . . . . . D D D
Alabama....................... Alaska........................... Arizona......................... Arkansas....................... California.....................
D D . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . D I
D D . . . . . . . . .
I . . . . . . . . . D
. . . . . . . . . I . . .
. . . D . . . . . . . . .
D . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . D D D D
15% 8% (r) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 4%(o) 1, 000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . 12% . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5% (j) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 15% (g) 10% . . .
8% 6% (r) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 2% (o) 1, 000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 5 (l) 3 (m)
. . . 20 . . . . . . . . .
5% (j) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 100 10% (g) 8% . . .
SS SS . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS AG
(x) SS SS . . . . . .
AG . . . . . . SP SS
. . . . . . . . . SS SS (n)
. . . SS . . . . . . . . .
SS . . . . . . SS . . .
. . . LG SS AG AG
O SS . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SP (p)
SP SP SS . . . . . .
SS . . . . . . . . . SP
. . . . . . . . . SS SBE
. . . SP . . . . . . . . .
SS . . . . . . SP . . .
. . . SBE SS SP . . .
N N . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . N N (q)
Y Y Y . . . . . .
Y Y . . . Y Y
. . . . . . . . . Y Y
. . . N Y . . . . . .
N . . . . . . N . . .
. . . Y N N Y
P AG . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS, AG (p)
AG SP P, SP . . . . . .
AG SP . . . AG SS, AG
. . . . . . . . . P . . .
. . . AG . . . . . . . . .
(k) . . . . . . SP . . .
. . . LG (h) AG AG
P AG . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS (p)
AG SP P, SP . . . . . .
AG SP . . . AG SS, AG
. . . . . . . . . SS . . .
. . . AG . . . . . . . . .
(k) . . . . . . SP . . .
. . . LG (h) AG AG
Individual Signatures required to responsible for Applied to (a) request a petition (b) petition State or other Request Request form Restricted jurisdiction Const. amdt. Statute Const. amdt. Statute submitted to furnished by (c) subject matter (d) Title Summary
Table 6.10 STATE INITIATIVES: REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CIRCULATE A PETITION
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . Y (e) Y
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
Y Y . . . Y Y
. . . . . . . . . Y Y
. . . Y Y . . . . . .
Y . . . . . . Y . . .
. . . Y Y Y N (i)
Financial contributions reported (e)
N N ... ... ...
... ... ... N N
N N ... ... ...
... N ... ... N
... ... ... ... N
... N N ... ...
N ... ... N ...
... $100 ... ... $200 (i)
Deposits required (f)
INITIATIVES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . D . . . D
Virginia......................... Washington.................. West Virginia................ Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
American Samoa......... No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico.................. U.S. Virgin Islands....... . . . I D . . .
. . . D, I . . . . . . I
D . . . . . . D, I . . .
. . . 50% . . . 41% (w)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(s) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 20% (u) . . .
. . . (t) . . . . . . 100
5 EV . . . . . . 5 SP . . .
. . . AG SBE SBE
. . . SS . . . . . . SS
SS . . . . . . LG . . .
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites March 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable D — Direct initiative AG — Attorney General I — Indirect initiative O — Other EV — Eligible voters P — Proponent LG — Lieutenant Governor ST — State SS — Secretary of State SP — Sponsor SBE — State Board of Elections Y — Yes N — No (a) An initiative may provide a constitutional amendment or develop a new statute, and may be formed either directly or indirectly. The direct initiative allows a proposed measure to be placed on the ballot after a specific number of signatures have been secured on a petition. The indirect initiative must first be submitted to the legislature for decision after the required number of signatures have been secured on a petition, prior to placing the proposed measure on the ballot. (b) Prior to circulating a statewide petition, a request for permission to do so must first be submitted to a specified state officer. (c) The form on which the request for petition is submitted may be the responsibility of the sponsor or may be furnished by the state. (d) Restrictions may exist regarding the subject matter to which an initiative may be applied. The majority of these restrictions pertain to the dedication of state revenues and appropriations, and laws that maintain the preservation of public peace, safety, and health. In Illinois, amendments are restricted to “structural and procedural subjects contained in” the legislative article. (e) In some states, a list of financial contributors and the amount of their contributions must be submitted to the specified state officer with whom the petition is filed. In North Dakota, must report any contribu-
D . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Dakota............... Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont........................
. . . Y N Y
. . . N . . . . . . Y
Y . . . . . . N . . .
. . . SP (v) SBE
. . . AG . . . . . . SS
SP . . . . . . SP . . .
. . . SP (v) SBE
. . . AG . . . . . . AG, SS
SP . . . . . . SP . . .
. . . Y Y Y
. . . N . . . . . . Y
Y . . . . . . Y . . .
Financial contributions reported (e)
... N $500 N
... $5 ... ... $500
N ... ... N ...
Deposits required (f)
tions and/or expenditures in excess of $100. Must also report the gross total of all contributions received and gross totals of all expenditures made. Must give total cash on hand in the filer’s account at the start and close of a reporting period. (f) A deposit may be required after permission to circulate a petition has been granted. This amount is refunded when the completed petition has been filed correctly. (g) The number of signatures required to request permission to circulate a petition: Constitutional amendment, 183,917; statute, 122,612. (h) The proponent and sponsor are responsible for the title and summary. (i) No report required at time of filing request, but later if any money is raised, $200 deposit required. (j) Five percent of all votes cast for Secretary of State at last election; governor in preceding election. (k) Title Setting Board—secretary of state, attorney general, director of legislative legal services. (l) The name and address of five voters. (m) Three percent of last vote for governor- at this time 51,185. (n) Secretary of state accepts and turns over to State Board of Elections. (o) Percentage of resident population of the state at the last federal decennial census. (p) Petitioners. Petitioners must prepare the summary and submit it to the Ohio Attorney General, who then must certify whether the summary fully and accurately describes the proposal. (q) Such restrictions apply to referendums, but not initiatives. (r) Constitutional amendment, 110,358; Statute, 82,769. (s) Number of signatures required to request a petition for a constitutional amendment, 10% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. (t) Statute requires 224, 880. (u) Ten percent district and 41 percent territorial. (v) Office of the Supervisor of Elections Titling Board. (w) District wide 10%, territory wide 41%. (x) Legislative Services Division.
. . . AG (v) SBE
. . . SP SS . . . SS
SS . . . . . . LG . . .
Individual Signatures required to responsible for Applied to (a) request a petition (b) petition State or other Request Request form Restricted jurisdiction Const. amdt. Statute Const. amdt. Statute submitted to furnished by (c) subject matter (d) Title Summary
STATE INITIATIVES: REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CIRCULATE A PETITION—Continued
INITIATIVES
The Council of State Governments 355
356â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
15% VH 8% VG . . . . . . . . .
Oklahoma.................. Oregon....................... Pennsylvania............. Rhode Island............. South Carolina..........
See footnotes at end of table.
. . . . . . . . . 4% resident population 10% VG, 5% each from 1/2 counties
New Mexico.............. New York................... North Carolina.......... North Dakota............ Ohio........................... 8% VH 6% VG . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 2% resident population 3% VG, 1.5% each from 1/2 counties
5% VG and 5% in 34 of the SLD 7% EV 10% TV . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 10% VG . . .
10% VG and 10% in 40 of the SLD 10% EV 10% TV . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kansas....................... Kentucky................... Louisiana................... Maine......................... Maryland...................
. . . 6% EV . . . . . . . . .
Montana.................... Nebraska................... Nevada....................... New Hampshire........ New Jersey................
. . . . . . 8% VG . . . . . .
Hawaii....................... Idaho.......................... Illinois........................ Indiana....................... Iowa...........................
5% VSS . . . . . . . . . . . .
3% VG, no more than 25% from 1 county (g) 8% VG . . . . . . 5% VG, 5% each from 2/3 CD
5% VSS . . . . . . 8% VEP, 8% from 1/2 CD . . .
Colorado.................... Connecticut............... Delaware................... Florida....................... Georgia......................
. . . 10% TV from 3/4 ED 10% VG 8% VG 5% VG
Massachusetts........... 3% VG, no more than 25% from 1 county Michigan.................... 10% VG Minnesota.................. . . . Mississippi................. 12% VG Missouri..................... 8% VG, 8% each from 2/3 CD
. . . . . . 15% VG 10% VG 8% VG
Alabama.................... Alaska........................ Arizona........................ Arkansas.................... California..................
Basis for signatures (see key below) State or other jurisdiction Const. amdt. Statute
Table 6.11 STATE INITIATIVES: CIRCULATING THE PETITION
90 days . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 yr. . . .
(l) . . . (m) . . . . . .
From 1st Wed. in Sept. to 1st Wed. in Dec. (i) 180 days . . . 1 yr. Approx. 18 mos.
. . . . . . . . . 1 yr. . . .
. . . (e) 18 mos. prior to election . . . . . .
6 mos. (3 mos prior to election) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 yr. 2 yr. . . . 150 days
Maximum time period allowed for petition petition circulation (a)
Y Y (o) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . N Y
SS SS . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS SS
SS SS SS . . . . . .
SS (c) SS (c) SS
N (k) . . . Y Y Y Y Y . . . . . .
SS (i)
. . . . . . . . . SS . . .
. . . SS SBE . . . . . .
SS . . . . . . SS . . .
. . . LG SS SS (c)
Y (h)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Y Y . . . . . .
Y . . . . . . N . . .
. . . Y Y N Y
Can signatures Completed be removed petition from petition (b) filed with
60 days 4 mos. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 90 days 90 days
(l) 4 mos. 90 days . . . . . .
120 days . . . 90 days prior to LS 6 mos.
(g)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 6 mos. . . . . . .
90 days . . . . . . Feb. 1 (d) . . .
. . . . . . 4 mos. 120 days 131 days
Const. amdt.
60 days 4 mos. ... ... ...
... ... ... 90 days (n)
(l) 4 mos. 30 days prior to LS ... ...
160 days ... ... 6 mos.
(j)
... ... ... (f) ...
... 4 mos. ... ... ...
90 days ... ... ... ...
... ... 4 mos. ... 131 days
Statue
Days prior to election
INITIATIVES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Virginia...................... Washington............... West Virginia............. Wisconsin.................. Wyoming...................
American Samoa...... No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico............... U.S. Virgin Islands.... . . . . . . . . . 10 % ED
. . . 8% VG . . . . . . 15% TV, from 2/3 counties
5% VG . . . . . . 10% VG, 10% each from 26 of 29 senate districts (q) . . .
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites March 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable. VG — Total votes cast for the position of governor in the last election. EV — Eligible voters. VH — Total votes cast for the office receiving the highest number of votes in last general election. TV — Total voters in last election. VSS — Total votes cast for all candidates for the office of secretary of state at the previous general election. VEP — Total votes cast in the state as a whole on the last presidential election. ED — Election district. CD — Congressional district. SBE - State Board of Elections. SLD — State legislative district. LG — Lieutenant Governor SS — Secretary of State LS — Legislative session Y — Yes N — No T— Tuesday (a) The petition circulation period begins when petition forms have been approved and provided to sponsors. Sponsors are those individuals granted permission to circulate a petition, and are therefore responsible for the validity of each signature on a given petition. (b) Should an individual wish to remove his/her name from a petition, a request to do so must be submitted in writing to the state officer with whom the petition is filed. (c) County elections officials.
10% VG . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Dakota............ Tennessee.................. Texas.......................... Utah........................... Vermont.....................
Basis for signatures (see key below) State or other jurisdiction Const. amdt. Statute
STATE INITIATIVES: CIRCULATING THE PETITION—Continued
. . .
. . . Y . . . Y
. . . . . . . . . SS
. . . SS . . . . . . SS
. . .
SS . . . . . . LG
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Const. amdt.
... ... ... 6 mos.
... (r) ... ... 120 days
...
... ... ... June 1
Statue
Days prior to election
(d) February 1 of the general election year. (e) Eighteen months from receipt of ballot title or April 30 of year of election on initiative, whichever occurs first. (f) To be placed on November ballot, petitions must be submitted to SS by 5 p.m. on 50th day after convening of Legislature in 1st regular session, or by 5 p.m. on 25th day in 2nd regular session. (g) First Wednesday in December. (h) Should an individual wish to remove his/her name from a petition, a request to do so must be submitted in writing to the local election official before the petition is submitted for certification of signatures. (i) Petitions first must be submitted to local municipal clerks for signature certification. (j) After legislative inaction, petitions must be filed no later than the 1st Wednesday in July, signed by not less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the last vote cast for governor. (k) Not after petition has been filed. (l) No maximum, but petitions must be submitted to the county election administrators at least four weeks before the third Friday in July. This is the dedline for county election administrator to file the petitions with the Secretary of State after their review of signatures. (m) Constitutional amendment–276 days; Amend or create a statute–291 days. (n) Ten days prior to commencement of General Assembly session for initial filing; second petition must be filed within 90 days after General Assembly takes no action, fails to enact or pass amended form; the petition is filed with the secretary of state. (o) Only by the chief petitioners before submittling signatures for verification. Signatures many not be removed once the signatures have been submitted to the Secretary of State (p) No more than 18 months preceeding the election date specified on the petition. (q) Five percent in both categories for indirect. (r) Initiatives to the legislature must be turned in 10 days before the legislature convenes. If the legislature does not act, the initiative goes to the next General Election ballot. (s) Until 120 days before the date of the election.
. . . (s) . . . 180 days
. . . N . . . . . . Y
. . . . . . 6 to 9 mos. . . . . . . 18 mos.
N . . . . . . Y
Can signatures Completed be removed petition from petition (b) filed with
(p) . . . . . . 1 yr.
Maximum time period allowed for petition petition circulation (a)
INITIATIVES
The Council of State Governments 357
358â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
SS . . . . . . Supervisor of elections . . .
. . . County clerk SBE (g) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . Registrar of voters . . .
Local board of registrar SS . . . Circuit clerk County clerk
County election administrators County clerk County clerk . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS County board of elections
SS County clerk . . . . . . . . .
Colorado......................... Connecticut.................... Delaware......................... Florida............................. Georgia...........................
Hawaii............................. Idaho............................... Illinois............................. Indiana............................ Iowa.................................
Kansas............................. Kentucky......................... Louisiana........................ Maine.............................. Maryland........................
Massachusetts................ Michigan......................... Minnesota....................... Mississippi...................... Missouri..........................
Montana.......................... Nebraska......................... Nevada............................ New Hampshire............. New Jersey......................
New Mexico................... New York........................ North Carolina............... North Dakota................. Ohio.................................
Oklahoma....................... Oregon............................ Pennsylvania.................. Rhode Island.................. South Carolina...............
See footnotes at end of table.
. . . Division of Elections County recorder SS County clerk
State or other jurisdiction Signatures verified by: (a)
Alabama......................... Alaska............................. Arizona........................... Arkansas......................... California........................
. . . 30 days . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 35 days 10 days
4 weeks 40 days (i) . . . . . .
2 weeks Approx. 60 days . . . . . . 63 days
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 60 days . . . . . . . . .
30 days . . . . . . N.A. . . .
. . . 60 days 10 days (e) 30 days 30 days
10 days (l) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 days
10 days . . . 5 days (j) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 10 days . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . (h) . . . . . .
10 days . . . . . . N.A. . . .
. . . . . . . . . 30 days . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 20 days . . .
10 days . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 10 days 10 days
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10 days (h) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . N.A. . . .
. . . . . . . . . 30 days . . .
Number of days to amend/appeal a petition that is: Within how many days after filing Incomplete (b) Not accepted (c)
Table 6.12 STATE INITIATIVES: PREPARING THE INITIATIVE TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT
$1,000, 1 yr. (m) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (k) 5th degree felony
$500, 6 mos. . . . . . . . . . . . .
$1,000, 1 yr. $500, 90 days . . . $1,000, 1 yr. Class A misdemeanor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . $5,000, 2 yrs. Class 3 felony . . . . . .
(f) . . . . . . First degree misdemeanor . . .
. . . Class B misdemeanor Class 1 misdemeanor ... Felony or misdemeanor (depending on severity)
Penalty for falsifying petition (denotes fine, jail term)
SS SS ... ... ...
... ... ... SS SS
SS SS SS ... ...
SS BSC ... CC SS
... ... ... SS ...
... SS SBE ... ...
SS ... ... SS ...
... LG SS SS SS
Petition certified by: (d)
INITIATIVES
. . . SS . . . . . . SS
. . . Election Commission Office of the Supervisor of Elections Office of the Supervisor of Elections
Virginia........................... Washington..................... West Virginia.................. Wisconsin........................ Wyoming.........................
American Samoa........... No. Mariana Islands...... Puerto Rico.................... U.S. Virgin Islands......... . . . (o) 15 days 15 days
. . . (n) . . . . . . 60 days
. . . . . . . . . 30 days . . .
. . . 30 days (p) 3 days 7 days
. . . 5 days . . . . . . 30 days
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . (q) . . . . . .
. . . Fine or imprisonment . . . . . . $1,000, 1 yr.
Class 1 misdemeanor . . . . . . Class A misdemeanor . . .
Penalty for falsifying petition (denotes fine, jail term)
... AG SBE Office of the Supervisor of Elections
... SS ... ... SS
SBE ... ... LG ...
Petition certified by: (d)
(f) Secretary conducts hearing, then turns over to the attorney general for investigation/possible criminal prosecution. (g) State Board of Elections and County Clerks or Municipal Boards of Election Commissioners. Individual petition sheets must be from a single jurisdiction. The SBE verifies that all signatures are from a single jurisdiction and the County Clerks or Municipal Boards verify the signatures against their registration files. (h) Amendments are not permitted. Judicial review must be sought within ten days after determination be State Board of Elections. (i) 1. Within four days county clerk totals the number of signatures and forwards to the secretary of state. 2. The secretary of state immediately notifies county clerks if they are to proceed or not proceed with the signature verification. 3. If ordered by the secretary of state, the county clerks verify signatures within nine days (excluding weekends and holidays). (j) In Nevada, appeal must be within 5 working days after SS determines the petition is not sufficient. (k) Any violations discovered will be reported to the attorney general for investigation and prosecution. (l) Additional signatures may be submitted if signatures were turned in prior to deadline for submitting signatures. (m) Whether a penalty is assessed would be based upon what information on the petition was falsified. (n) Signatures must be verified by not later than the 3rd Tuesday following the primary. (o) Within 90 days before the date of election. (p) 30 days if submitted 150 days before the date of the election. No amendment/appeal if submitted 120 days before the date of election. (q) Subject to statute governing fraud and perjury.
. . . 119 days . . . ...
. . . 5 . . . . . . 30 days
. . . . . . . . . 14 days . . .
Number of days to amend/appeal a petition that is: Within how many days after filing Incomplete (b) Not accepted (c)
Source: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites March 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable. CC — Circuit Clerk. SS — Secretary of State. LG — Lieutenant Governor. BSC — Board of State Canvassers. SBE — State Board of Elections. (a) The validity of the signatures, as well as the correct number of required signatures must be verified before the initiative is allowed on the ballot. (b) If an insufficient number of signatures is submitted, sponsors may amend the original petition by filing additional signatures within a given number of days after filing. If the necessary number of signatures has not been submitted by this date, the petition is declared void. (c) In some cases, the state officer will not accept a valid petition. In such a case, sponsors may appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, where the sufficiency of the petition will be determined. If the petition is determined to be sufficient, the initiative is required to be placed on the ballot. (d) A petition is certified for the ballot when the required number of signatures has been submitted by the filing deadline, and are determined to be valid. (e) Removal of petition and ineligible signatures by Secretary of State’s office fifteen days (A.R.S. § 19-121.01), certification by County Recorder ten days after receipt from secretary of State’s office (A.R.S. § 19-121.02)
SS . . . . . . County clerk . . .
State or other jurisdiction Signatures verified by: (a)
South Dakota................. Tennessee....................... Texas................................ Utah................................. Vermont..........................
STATE INITIATIVES: PREPARING THE INITIATIVE TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT—Continued
INITIATIVES
The Council of State Governments 359
360â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 TB(h) . . . . . . SP . . . . . . AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sponsor,SS . . .
Colorado......................... Connecticut.................... Delaware......................... Florida............................. Georgia...........................
Hawaii............................. Idaho............................... Illinois............................. Indiana............................ Iowa.................................
Kansas............................. Kentucky......................... Louisiana........................ Maine.............................. Maryland........................ . . . . . . . . . (n) . . .
. . . AG SS (l) . . . . . .
(h) . . . . . . SP . . .
. . . LG LC AG AG
. . . . . . . . . REG or SP . . .
. . . GE GE . . . . . .
GE, Odd year . . . . . . GE . . .
. . . GE,PR or SP GE GE GE,PR or SP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 days . . . . . . (j) . . .
. . . 30 days (d) . . . 30 days 1 day
. . . . . . . . . 30 days (e) . . .
. . . 30 days . . . . . . . . .
30 days . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 90 days (d) IM(e) 30 days IM
Effective date of approved initiative (b) Const. amdt. Statute
. . . . . . . . . 5 . . .
. . . 20 30 . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . 10 . . .
. . . 10 5 20 5 (d)
. . .. . . . . . . Y . . .
. . . Y (m) . . . . . .
N (i) . . . . . . Y (k) . . .
. . . Y (f) Y Y (g)
. . . . . . . . . N . . .
. . . N . . . . . . . . .
N (i) . . . . . . N . . .
. . . N N N N
. . . . . . . . . Y . . .
. . . Y . . . . . . . . .
N (i) . . . . . . Y (k) . . .
. . . Y N Y Y (g)
. . . . . . . . . SS,AG Ohio Ballot Board AG AG . . . . . . . . .
New Mexico................. New York........................ North Carolina............... North Dakota................. Ohio.................................
Oklahoma..................... Oregon............................ Pennsylvania.................. Rhode Island.................. South Carolina...............
See footnotes at end of table.
AG AG SS,AG . . . . . .
Montana....................... Nebraska......................... Nevada............................ New Hampshire............. New Jersey......................
P AG . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS (t)
AG AG SS,AG . . . . . .
GE or SP GE . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . PR or GE GE
GE GE GE . . . . . .
IM 30 days . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 30 days 30 days
Jul. 1 10 days (q) . . . . . .
IM 30 days . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 30 days 30 days
Oct. 1 10 days (q) . . . . . .
. . . 40 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 14 15
1 yr. 40 14 . . . . . .
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (s) (u)
Y Y (r) . . . . . .
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . N N
N N (r) . . . . . .
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (s) N
Y Y (r) . . . . . .
after 3 yrs. Y ... ... ...
... ... ... Y Y
Y N (p) Y ... ...
after 2 biennial elections Y ... Y Y
... ... ... ... ...
... Y Y ... ...
... ... ... Y ...
... N Y Y Y
Can an approved initiative be: Days to contest election Can a defeated results (c) Amended? Vetoed? Repealed? initiative be refiled?
Massachusetts................ AG AG GE 30 days 30 days 10 Y Y Y Michigan......................... BSC BSC GE 45 days 10 days 2 (o) Y N Y Minnesota....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississippi...................... AG AG GE 30 days . . . . . . N N N Missouri.......................... SS,AG SS,AG GE 30 days IM 30 (o) Y N Y
. . . LG SS, AG AG AG
Alabama......................... Alaska............................. Arizona........................... Arkansas......................... California........................
Ballot (a) State or other Election where jurisdiction Title by: Summary by: initiative voted on
Table 6.13 STATE INITIATIVES: VOTING ON THE INITIATIVE
INITIATIVES
1 day . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 day . . . . . . 5 days (v) . . .
. . . AG AG, LLS Office of Supervisor of Elections
. . . (x) . . . IM
Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites, March 2010. Key: PR — Primary election. . . . — Not applicable. GE — General election. LG — Lieutenant Governor. REG — Regular election. SS — Secretary of State. SP — Special election. AG — Attorney General. IM — Immediately. P — Proponent. LS — Legislative session. LC — Legislative Council. TB— Title Board LLS — Legislative Legal Services. Y — Yes. BSC — Board of State Canvassers. N — No. SBE — State Board of Elections. w/i — Within. (a) In some states, the ballot title and summary will differ from that on the petition. (b) A majority of the popular vote is required to enact a measure. In Massachusetts and Nebraska, apart from satisfying the requisite majority vote, the measure must receive, respectively, 30% and 35% of the total votes cast in favor. An initiative approved by the voters may be put into effect immediately after the approving votes have been canvassed. In California and Nebraska, the measure may specify an enacting date. In Colorado, measures take effect from the date of proclamation by governor, but no later than 30 days after votes have been canvassed and certified by secretary of state. In Nebraska, 10 days after completion of canvass by the State Board of Canvassers. (c) Individuals may contest the results of a vote on an initiative within a certain number of days after the election including the measure proposed. (d) After certification of election. (e) Upon governor’s proclamation. (f) Initiative can be amended by three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature (AZ Constitution Article 4, Part 1, Section14. (g) By vote only. (h) Ballot title: Drafted by Legislative Council of the General Assembly, then finalized by three board members called the Title Board. Summary by: Legislative Council of the General Assembly. (i) If it is statutory it can be changed by the legislature.
. . . AG LC Office of Supervisor of Elections
Y . . . . . . Y . . .
N . . . . . . N . . .
N . . . . . . N . . .
. . . 30 . . . 7
. . . . . . Y (r)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . (r)
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 days Y (w) . . . Y (w) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 15 after Y N after 2 yrs. Canvass
. . . . . . . . . 40 . . .
... Y Y Y
... Y ... ... after 5 yrs.
Y ... ... after 2 yrs. ...
Can an approved initiative be: Days to contest election Can a defeated results (c) Amended? Vetoed? Repealed? initiative be refiled?
(j) It is effective the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following election unless specified in the amendment. (k) Amendments or repeal must be voted on by the voters. (l) Subject to approval of the Attorney General. (m) Changing a constitutional amendment would require another constitutional amendment. (n) Revisor of Statutes (o) After election is certified. (p) Not on next ballot. (q) Constitutional amendment—after passed twice by the voters it becomes effective upon the completion of the canvass of votes by the Supreme Court on the fourth Tuesday of November following the election. Statute—effective on the date approved by the governor or the canvass of the vote by the Supreme Court. (r) It cannot be amended or repealed within three years from the date it takes effect. (s) A measure approved by the electors may not be amended or repealed by the legislative assembly for seven years from its effective date, except by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house. (t) No summary, but the Ohio Ballot Board prescribes the ballot language. Also explanations and arguments for and against the proposal may be prepared by the petitioner and the person(s) appointed by the governor or, if appropriate, the General Assembly. The Ohio Ballot Board must prepare any missing explanation or argument. (u) Initiate constitutional amendment proposed by petition cannot be vetoed: cannot be amended or repealed except by another constitutional amendment. Initiated statute cannot be vetoed by the governor, but may be amended or repealed after its effective date via legislation or another initiative. (v) Effective date may be written in the initiative, otherwise it takes place within five days after governor’s proclamation. (w) An initiative may be challenged in court as to constitutionality. No act, law or bill approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon shall be amended or repealed by the legislature within a period of two years following such enactment. Such enactment may be amended or repealed at any general regular or special election by direct vote of the people thereon. (x) Effective upon approval by voters and certification of election result by Election Commission: usually 15 days after date of election or later if there is an election contest.
. . . (x) IM IM
. . . GE GE Any election
GE . . . . . . GE . . .
American Samoa......... No. Mariana Islands...... Puerto Rico.................... U.S. Virgin Islands.........
AG . . . . . . LLS . . . . . . . . . . . . GE . . . 30 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GE 120 days . . . 90 days after LS
AG . . . . . . LLS . . .
Effective date of approved initiative (b) Const. amdt. Statute
Virginia......................... . . . . . . Washington..................... AG AG West Virginia.................. . . . . . . Wisconsin........................ . . . . . . Wyoming......................... SS SS,AG
South Dakota............... Tennessee....................... Texas................................ Utah................................. Vermont..........................
Ballot (a) State or other Election where jurisdiction Title by: Summary by: initiative voted on
STATE INITIATIVES: VOTING ON THE INITIATIVE—Continued
INITIATIVES
The Council of State Governments 361
REFERENDUMS
Table 6.14 STATE REFERENDUMS: REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CIRCULATE A CITIZEN PETITION Individual Signatures responsible required Financial for petition State or other Citizen to request Request Request forms Restricted contributions Deposit jurisdiction petition (a) a petition (b) submitted to: furnished by: (c) subject matter (d) Title Summary reported (e) required (f) Alabama......................... Alaska............................. Arizona........................... Arkansas......................... California........................
. . . Y Y Y Y
. . . 100 5% VG 8% . . .
. . . LG SS AG AG
. . . DV SS SP . . .
. . . Y Y N Y
. . . LG P SP AG
. . . LG P AG AG
. . . Y Y Y N
... $100 N N $200
Colorado......................... Connecticut.................... Delaware........................ Florida............................. Georgia...........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii............................. Idaho............................... Illinois............................. Indiana............................ Iowa.................................
. . . Y Y (g) . . .
. . . 20 . . . Varies . . .
. . . SS . . . SS . . .
. . . SP . . . SS . . .
. . . N Y Y . . .
. . . AG . . . Varies . . .
. . . AG . . . . . . . . .
. . . Y . . . . . . . . .
... N ... ... ...
Kansas............................. Kentucky........................ Louisiana........................ Maine.............................. Maryland........................
. . . Y . . . Y Y
. . . . . . . . . 5 (h) (j)
. . . SS . . . SS . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS . . .
. . . Y . . . Y Y
. . . . . . . . . SP, SS SP
. . . . . . . . . SS (i) SP
. . . . . . . . . Y Y
... ... ... ... N
Massachusetts................ Michigan......................... Minnesota....................... Mississippi...................... Missouri..........................
Y Y . . . . . . Y
10 . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS . . . . . . . . . SP
Y Y . . . . . . Y
AG SP . . . . . . SS, AG
AG SP . . . . . . (l)
Y Y . . . . . . Y
N N ... ... N
Montana......................... Nebraska........................ Nevada............................ New Hampshire............. New Jersey.....................
Y Y Y . . . . . .
(k) . . . . . . . . . . . .
LS, SS, AG SS SS . . . . . .
SP . . . SS . . . . . .
Y Y Y . . . . . .
AG SP P, SP . . . . . .
AG SP P, SP . . . . . .
Y Y Y . . . . . .
N N N ... ...
New Mexico................... New York........................ North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio................................
. . . . . . . . . Y Y
. . . . . . . . . (m) . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS SS, AG
. . . . . . . . . SP PE
. . . . . . . . . N Y
. . . . . . . . . SS, AG PE
. . . . . . . . . SS PE (n)
. . . . . . . . . Y Y
... ... ... N N
Oklahoma....................... Oregon............................ Pennsylvania.................. Rhode Island.................. South Carolina...............
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
(o) 4% or 55, 179 . . . . . . . . .
SS SS . . . . . . . . .
(j) SS . . . . . . . . .
N Y (p) . . . . . . . . .
P AG . . . . . . . . .
P AG . . . . . . . . .
Y Y . . . . . . . . .
N N ... ... ...
South Dakota................. Tennessee....................... Texas............................... Utah................................ Vermont..........................
Y . . . . . . Y . . .
5% EV . . . . . . 5 SP . . .
SS (q) . . . . . . LG . . .
SP . . . . . . LG . . .
N . . . . . . Y (r) . . .
AG . . . . . . SP . . .
AG . . . . . . SP . . .
Y . . . . . . Y . . .
N ... ... ... ...
Virginia........................... Washington.................... West Virginia.................. Wisconsin........................ Wyoming........................
. . . Y Y . . . Y
. . . 112, 440 varies . . . 100
. . . SS ... . . . SS
. . . SS SS . . . SS
. . . Y (p) Y . . . Y
. . . AG . . . . . . SS
. . . AG . . . . . . SS
. . . N N . . . Y
... $5 N ... $500
. . . . . . 10% district/ 41% territorial . . .
. . . . . . Other
. . . . . . SBE
. . . Y N
. . . SP SP
. . . AG Other
. . . Y Y
... N N
L
L
N
L
L
N
N
American Samoa........... . . . No. Mariana Islands...... Y Puerto Rico.................... Y U.S. Virgin Islands......... . . . See footnotes at end of table.
362â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
REFERENDUMS
STATE REFERENDUMS: REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CIRCULATE A CITIZEN PETITION—Continued (e) In some states, a list of individuals who contribute financially to the Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election referendum campaign must be submitted to the specified state officer with administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites, March 2010. whom the petition is filed. Key: (f) A deposit may be required after permission to circulate a petition has . . . — Not applicable. been granted. This amount is refunded when the completed petition has been EV — Eligible voters. filed correctly. VG — Total votes cast for the position (g) A referendum can only be placed on the ballot if authorized by a state LG — Lieutenant Governor. law. As a result, a county or town election board cannot print any referendum LS — Legislative services. on the ballot unless the legislature has already passed a law to permit the L — Legislature referendum. Therefore, each statute is different. SS — Secretary of State. (h) The name and address of five voters. SBE — State Board of Elections (i) Revisor of statutes DV—Division of Elections (j) Petition sponsor may submit proposed petition summary for approval to AG —Attorney General State Administrator of Elections but a formal request to circulate a petition P — Proponent of governor in the last election. is not required. PE — Petitioner (k) No specific requirement to request a petition. Legislative Services receives ST — State the request and reviews it, and then the sponsor submits it to the Secretary of SP — Sponsor State and Attorney General for petition format review and legal and constiY — Yes tutional sufficiency review. N — No (l) State auditor writes the fiscal note. (a) Three forms of referenda exist: citizen petition, submission by the (m) Two percent of resident population of state at the last federal decenlegislature, and constitutional requirement. This table outlines the steps nial census. necessary to enact a citizen’s petition. (n) Petitioners must prepare the summary, and submit it to the Ohio Attorney (b) Prior to circulating a statewide petition, a request for permission to do so must first be submitted to a specified state officer. Some states require General, who then must certify whether the summary fully and accurately describes the proposal. such signatures to only be those of eligible voters. (o) Five percent of legal voters based upon the total number of votes cast (c) The form on which the request for petition is submitted may be the at the last general election for the state office receiving the highest number responsibility of the sponsor or may be furnished by the state. (d) Restrictions may exist regarding the subject matter to which a ref- of votes at such election. (p) No bills with an emergency clause. erendum may be applied. The majority of these restrictions pertain to the (q) Do not have to request permission to circulate but must follow certain dedication of state revenues and appropriations, and laws that maintain the preservation of public peace, safety and health. In Kentucky, referenda steps for this process. (r) May not challenge laws passed by two-thirds of each house of the are only permitted for the establishment of soil and water and watershed legislature. conservation districts.
The Council of State Governments 363
REFERENDUMS
Table 6.15 STATE REFERENDUMS: CIRCULATING THE CITIZEN PETITION State or other Maximum time period allowed jurisdiction Basis for signatures for petition circulation (a)
Can signatures Completed petition filed: be removed from petition (b) With Days after legislative session
Alabama....................... Alaska........................... Arizona......................... Arkansas....................... California.....................
... 10% TV, from 3/4 ED 5% VG 6% VG 5% VG
. . . w/i 90 days of LS w/i 90 days after LS . . . 90 days
. . . Y Y N Y
. . . . . . SS SS (c)
... 90 days after LS 90 days 90 days ...
Colorado...................... Connecticut.................. Delaware...................... Florida.......................... Georgia.........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii........................... Idaho............................. Illinois........................... Indiana.......................... Iowa...............................
. . . 6% EV 8% VG (d) . . . . . .
. . . w/i 60 days after LS . . . . . . . . .
. . . Y Y . . . . . .
. . . SS SBE . . . . . .
... 60 days ... ... ...
Kansas........................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana...................... Maine............................ Maryland......................
. . . 5% VG . . . 10% VG 3 % VG
. . . . . . . . . 90 days of LS (e) (f)
. . . ... . . . ... Y
. . . SS . . . SS SS
... 4 mos. ... 90 days ...
Massachusetts.............. Michigan....................... Minnesota.................... Mississippi.................... Missouri........................
1.5% VG for emergency 90 days Y (g) SS 2% or immediate suspension 5% VG 90 days after LS N SS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% VG, from 2/3 ED w/i 90 days after LS Y SS
90 days ... ... 90 days
Montana....................... Nebraska...................... Nevada.......................... New Hampshire.......... New Jersey...................
5% EV and 5% from 34 of 100 ED 5% EV 10% EV last GE . . . . . .
(h) ... (i) . . . . . .
Y Y Y . . . . . .
SS SS SS . . . . . .
6 mos. 90 days 120 prior to next GE ... ...
New Mexico................. New York..................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
. . . . . . . . . 2% total population 6% VG, 3% each from 1/2 counties
. . . . . . . . . 90 days 90 days
. . . . . . . . . N Y
. . . . . . . . . SS SS
... ... ... (j) 90 days
Oklahoma.................... Oregon.......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... South Carolina............
5% VH 4% VG . . . . . . . . .
w/i 90 days of LS w/i 90 days of LS . . . . . . . . .
Y Y (k) . . . . . . . . .
SS SS . . . . . . . . .
90 days 90 days ... ... ...
South Dakota.............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont........................
5% VG . . . . . . 10% VG . . .
w/i 90 days of LS . . . . . . 40 days after LS . . .
N . . . . . . Y . . .
SS . . . . . . CC . . .
90 days ... ... 40 days ...
Virginia......................... Washington.................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming......................
. . . 4%VG . . . . . . 15% TV, from 2/3 county
. . . Approx. 90 days . . . . . . 18 months
. . . N . . . . . . N
. . . SS . . . . . . SS
... 90 days ... ... 90 days
American Samoa........ No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico.................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
. . . . . . . . . No. of registered voters
. . . Up to 120 days before election . . . 180 days
. . . Y . . . . . .
. . . AG . . . . . .
... ... ... ...
See footnotes at end of table.
364â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
90 days after signed by governor
REFERENDUMS
STATE REFERENDUMS: CIRCULATING THE CITIZEN PETITION—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites, March 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable. VG — Total votes cast for the position of governor in the last election. EV — Eligible voters. TV — Total voters in the last general election. VH — Total votes cast for the office receiving the highest number of votes in last general election. VSS — Total votes cast for all candidates for the office of secretary of state at the previous general election. ED — Election district. GE — General election. LS — Legislative session. LG — Lieutenant governor. SBE - State Board of Elections. SS — Secretary of state. AG — Attorney General CC — County clerk Y — Yes N — No w/i — Within (a) The petition circulation period begins when petition forms have been approved and provided to or by the sponsors. Sponsors are those individuals
granted permission to circulate a petition, and are therefore responsible for the validity of each signature on a given petition. (b) Should an individual wish to remove his/her name from a petition, a request to do so must first be submitted in writing to the state officer with whom the petition is filed. (c) County elections office. (d) Referenda are advisory only. (e) Request for petition must be submitted within 10 days of adjournment of legislative session. (f) No signature may be collected until the final action of the General Assembly. Session ends the second Monday in April. One third of the signatures must be submitted not later than May 31. The remaining signatures are due no later than June 30th. (g) Should an individual wish to remove his/her name from a petition, a request to do so must first be submitted in writing to the local election official prior to the petition being submitted for certification of signatures. (h) No specific beginning date for circulation of petitions, so there is no maximum time period. There is an ending deadline of 6 months after legislative session. (i) Not later than the third Tuesday in May of even-numbered years. (j) Within 90 days after the legislation is filed in the Secretary of State’s office. (k) Only by the chief petitioners before submitting signatures before verification. Signatures may not be removed once the signatures have been submitted to the secretary of state for verification.
The Council of State Governments 365
REFERENDUMS
Table 6.16 STATE REFERENDUMS: PREPARING THE CITIZEN PETITION REFERENDUM TO BE PLACED ON BALLOT State or other jurisdiction Signatures verified by: (a)
No. of days to amend/ Within how appeal petition that is: many days after filing Incomplete (b) Not accepted (c)
Penalty for falsifying petition (denotes fine, jail term)
Petition certified by: (d)
Alabama..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaska......................... Division of elections 60 10 10 Arizona....................... County recorder (e) . . . . . . Arkansas..................... SS 30 . . . 30 California.................... County clerk 8 . . . . . .
. . . Class B misdemeanor Class 1 misdemeanor Class D felony Felony or misdemeanor (depending on severity)
... LG SS SS SS
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware..................... Florida......................... Georgia.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii......................... Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa.............................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . County clerk State Board of Elections County clerk . . .
. . . . . . varies . . . . . .
. . . ... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . $5,000, 2 yrs. Class 3 felony . . . . . .
Kansas......................... Kentucky..................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
. . . . . . . . . Registrars of voters Local Board of Elections
. . . . . . . . . 30 20
. . . ... . . . ... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . Misdemeanor (f)
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
Local boards of registrars SS . . . . . . County clerk
14 Approx. 60 . . . . . . (g)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
$1,000, 1 year $500, 90 days . . . . . . Class A misdemeanor
Montana...................... Nebraska..................... Nevada........................ New Hampshire......... New Jersey..................
County election administrators County clerk County clerk . . . . . .
28 40 (h) . . . . . .
10 . . . 5 . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . . .
$500, 6 mos. . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS SS SS ... ...
New Mexico............... New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio.............................
. . . . . . . . . SS County board of elections
. . . . . . . . . 35 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . 20 . . .
. . . . . . . . . (i) 5th degree felony
... ... ... SS SS
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
SS SS, county clerk . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 ... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$1,000, 1 year (j) . . . . . . . . .
SS SS ... ... ...
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont......................
SS . . . . . . County clerks . . .
. . . . . . . . . 55 (k) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 10 . . .
Class 1 misdemeanor . . . . . . Class A misdemeanor . . .
SS ... ... LG ...
Virginia....................... Washington................. West Virginia.............. Wisconsin.................... Wyoming.....................
. . . SS . . . . . . SS
. . . (l) . . . . . . 60
. . . . . . . . . . . . 60
. . . 10 . . . . . . 60
. . . Class C felony (possible) . . . . . . $1,000, 1 yr.
... SS ... ... SS
American Samoa..... No. Mariana Islands.. Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands
. . . AG . . . Supervisor of Elections
. . . . . . . . . 15
. . . (m) . . . . . .
. . . (m) . . . . . .
. . . (n) . . . . . .
See footnotes at end of table.
366â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
... SS SBE ... ... ... ... ... SS SS, SBE SS BSC ... ... SS
... AG ... Supervisor of Elections.
REFERENDUMS
STATE REFERENDUMS: PREPARING THE CITIZEN PETITION REFERENDUM TO BE PLACED ON BALLOT—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election to complete random sample; the county recorder then has 10 days to verify signatures. administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites, March 2010. (f) Misdemeanor, punishable by a $10–$250 fine or 30 days—six months Key: in jail, or both. . . . — Not applicable. (g) In Missouri, must be certified as sufficient or insufficient by the 13th SS — Secretary of State. Tuesday prior to the general election. LG — Lieutenant Governor. (h) 1. Within four days county clerks count total number of signatures and BSC — Board of State Canvassers. forward to the secretary of state. 2. The secretary of state immediately notifies SBE — State Board of Elections. (a) The validity of the signatures, as well as the correct number of required county clerks if they are to proceed or not proceed with the signature verificasignatures must be verified before the referendum is allowed on the ballot. tion. 3. If ordered by the secretary of state, the county clerks verify signatures (b) If an insufficient number of signatures are submitted, sponsors may within nine days (excluding weekends and holidays). (i) Any violations discovered will be reported to the attorney general for amend the original petition by filing additional signatures within a given number of days after filing. If the necessary number of signatures have not investigation and prosecution. (j) Whether a penalty is assessed would be based upon what information been submitted by this date, the petition is declared void. (c) In some cases, the state officer will not accept a valid petition. In such on the petition was falsified. (k) After the end of the legislative session. cases, sponsors may appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, where the (l) Not later than the third Tuesday following the primary election. sufficiency of the petition will be determined. If the petition is determined to (m) Incomplete: 30 or more days if submitted 150 days before date of the be sufficient, the referendum is required to be placed on the ballot. (d) A petition is certified for the ballot when the required number of election; none if submitted 120 days before date of election. Not accepted: If signatures have been submitted by the filing deadline, and are determined submitted 119 days or less before the election. (n) Subject to statute governing fraud or perjury. to be valid. (e) In Arizona, the secretary of state has 15 days to count signatures and
The Council of State Governments 367
REFERENDUMS
Table 6.17 STATE REFERENDUMS: VOTING ON THE CITIZEN PETITION REFERENDUM
Ballot (a) State or other jurisdiction Title by: Summary by: Election where referendum voted on
Effective date of approved referendum (b)
Days to contest election results (c)
. . . 30 days (d) . . . 1 day
... 10 5 20 5 (e)
Alabama...................... . . . Alaska.......................... LG Arizona........................ SS, AG Arkansas...................... AG California..................... AG
. . . LG LC ... AG
. . . 1st statewide election 180 days after LS GE GE GE or PR
Colorado...................... Connecticut................. Delaware..................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................
... . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa..............................
. . . AG . . . . . . . . .
. . . AG . . . . . . . . .
. . . GE GE . . . . . .
. . . 30 days Advisory only . . . . . .
... 20 (e) 30 ... ...
Kansas.......................... Kentucky..................... Louisiana..................... Maine........................... Maryland.....................
. . . . . . . . . . . . SS
. . . . . . . . . . . . LSS
. . . GE or SP . . . GE or statewide election more than 60 days after filing GE
. . . IM . . . 30 days (f)
... ... ... 5 ...
Massachusetts............. SS,AG Michigan...................... BSC Minnesota.................... . . . Mississippi................... . . . Missouri....................... SS, AG
AG BSC . . . . . . SS
GE more than 60 days after filing GE . . . . . . GE
30 days 10 days . . . . . . IM
10 2 (e) ... ... 30
Montana.................... AG Nebraska..................... AG Nevada......................... SS, AG New Hampshire.......... . . . New Jersey.................. . . .
AG AG SS, AG . . . . . .
(g) . . . Nov., 4th Tues. . . . . . .
1 yr. ... 14 ... ...
New Mexico.............. . . . New York..................... . . . North Carolina........... . . . North Dakota............. SS, AG Ohio............................. . . .
. . . . . . . . . SS . . .
. . . . . . . . . PR GE more than 60 days after filing.
. . . . . . . . . 30 days IM
... ... ... 14 (e) 15 (h)
Oklahoma.................. LLS, AG Oregon......................... AG Pennsylvania............... . . . Rhode Island............... . . . South Carolina............ . . .
LLS AG . . . . . . . . .
GE or SP GE (i) . . . . . . . . .
. . . 30 days . . . . . . . . .
... 40 ... ... ...
South Dakota............ Tennessee.................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont.......................
AG . . . . . . LLS . . .
AG . . . . . . LLS . . .
GE . . . . . . GE . . .
1 day . . . . . . 5 days . . .
... ... ... 40 ...
Virginia...................... Washington................. West Virginia............... Wisconsin..................... Wyoming.....................
. . . AG . . . . . . SS
. . . AG . . . . . . SS, AG
. . . GE . . . . . . GE more than 120 days after LS
. . . 30 days . . . . . . 90 days
... 10 ... ... 15
American Samoa...... No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands......
. . . AG . . . . . .
. . . AG . . . . . .
. . . GE or special election if specified . . . . . .
. . . (j) . . . ...
... 30 days ... ...
See footnotes at end of table.
368â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
GE GE GE . . . . . .
REFERENDUMS
STATE REFERENDUMS: VOTING ON THE CITIZEN PETITION REFERENDUM—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey of state election administration offices, January 2007 and state web sites, March 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable. LG — Lieutenant Governor. GE — General election. AG — Attorney General. PR — Primary election. SS — Secretary of State. REG — Regular election. BSC — Board of State Canvassers. SP — Special election. LC — Legislative Counsel. IM — Immediately. LSS — Legislative Legal Services. LS — Legislative session. SBE — State Board of Elections . (a) In some states, the ballot title and summary will differ from that on the petition. (b) A majority of the popular vote is required to enact a measure in every state. In Arizona, a referendum approved by the voters becomes effective upon the governor’s proclamation. In Nebraska, a referendum may be put into effect immediately after the approving votes have been canvassed by the Board of State Canvassers and upon the governor’s proclamation. In Massachusetts the measure must also receive at lease 30 percent of the total ballots cast in the last election. In Oklahoma, put into effect upon certification of election results by state election board. In Utah, after proclamation by governor and date specified in petition. (c) Individuals may contest the results of a vote on a referendum within a certain number of days after the election including this matter. In Alaska, five
days to request recount with appeal to the court within five days after recount. (d) Upon proclamation of the governor after the canvas. (AZ Const. Article 4, Part 1, Section 13). (e) After election is certified. (f) After the certification of election results. Depends on date Board of State Canvassers meets. They must meet within 35 days after General Election. (g) Unless specifically provided by the legislature in an act referred by it to the people or until suspended by a petition signed by at least 15% of the qualified electors in a majority of the legislative representative districts, an act referred to the people is in effect as provided by law until it is approved or rejected at the election. An act that is rejected is repealed effective the date the result of the canvass is filed by the secretary of state under 13-27-503. An act referred to the people that was in effect at the time of the election and is approved by the people remains in effect. An act that was suspended by a petition and is approved by the people is effective the date the result of the canvass is filed by the secretary of state under 13-27-503. An act referred by the legislature that contains an effective date following the election becomes effective on that date if approved by the people. An act that provides no effective date and whose substantive provisions were delayed by the legislature pending approval at an election and that is approved is effective October 1 following the election. (h) After election is certified or if recount conducted, 10 days after recount. (i) Special election can be held at the request of the Legislative Assembly. (j) Upon approval by voters and certification of election results by Election Commission, usually 15 days after date of election if no contest.
The Council of State Governments 369
RECALL
Table 6.18 STATE RECALL PROVISIONS
State or other jurisdiction
Provision for recall
Officials subject to recall
Constitutional and statutory citations for recall of state officials
Constitutional or statutory language
Alabama ��������������������
No
Alaska ������������������������
Yes
All (a)
Const. Art., 11 § 8; AS § 15.45.470 et seq.
All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, are subject to recall by the voters of the State or political subdivision from which elected.
Arizona ����������������������
Yes
All
Const. Art. 8, § 1-6; ARS § 19-201–19-234
Every public officer in the state of Arizona, holding an elective office, either by election or appointment, is subject to recall from such office by the qualified electors of the electoral district from which candidates are elected to such office.
Arkansas ��������������������
No
California ������������������ Yes All
Const. Art. 2, § 13-19; CA Election Code § 11000-11386
Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer. Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.
Colorado �������������������� Yes All
Const. Art. 21, § 1; CRS § 1-12-101– 1-12-122, 23-17-120.5, 31-4-501-505
Every elective public officer of the state of Colorado may be recalled from office at any time by the registered electors entitled to vote for a successor of such incumbent through the procedure and in the manner herein provided for, which procedure shall be known as the recall, and shall be in addition to and without excluding any other method of removal by law.
All
Const. Art. 2, § 2.4; GA Code § 21-4-1 et seq.
The General Assembly is hereby authorized to provide by general law for the recall of public officials who hold elective office. The procedures, grounds, and all other matters relative to such recall shall be provided for in such law.
All (a)
Const. Art 6, § 6; ID Code § 34-1701–34-1715
Every public officer in the state of Idaho, excepting the judicial officers, is subject to recall by the legal voters of the state or of the electoral district from which he is elected. The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry this provision into effect.
All (a)
Const. Art. 4, § 3; KSA § 25-4301–25-4331
All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, shall be subject to recall by voters of the state or political subdivision from which elected. Procedures and grounds for recall shall be prescribed by law.
Const. Art. 10, § 26; LRS § 18:1300.1– 18:1300.17
The legislature shall provide by general law for the recall by election of any state, district, parochial, ward, or municipal officer except judges of the courts of record. The sole issue at a recall election shall be whether the official shall be recalled.
Connecticut ����������������
No
Delaware �������������������
No
Florida �����������������������
No
Georgia ����������������������
Yes
Hawaii �����������������������
No
Idaho ��������������������������
Yes
Illinois (b) ������������������
No
Indiana �����������������������
No
Iowa ���������������������������
No
Kansas �����������������������
Yes
Kentucky �������������������
No
Louisiana ������������������� Yes All (a)
Maine �������������������������
No
Maryland �������������������
No
Massachusetts �����������
No
See footnotes at end of table.
370 The Book of the States 2010
RECALL
STATE RECALL PROVISIONS—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Provision for recall
Officials subject to recall
Michigan ��������������������
Yes
All (a)
Minnesota ������������������
Yes
Mississippi �����������������
No
Missouri ���������������������
No
Montana ��������������������
Yes
Nebraska �������������������
No
Nevada ����������������������� Yes
New Hampshire ��������
No
New Jersey ����������������
Yes
New Mexico ��������������
No
New York �������������������
No
North Carolina ����������
No
North Dakota ������������ Yes
Ohio ���������������������������
Constitutional and statutory citations for recall of state officials
Constitutional or statutory language
Const. Art. 2, §8;MCL § 168.951–168.975
Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.
(c)
Const. Art. 8, § 6; MS § 211C.01 et. seq.
A state officer other than a judge may be subject to recall for serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in the performance of the duties of the office or conviction during the term of office for a serious crime.
All
Mont. Code § 2-16-601– 2-16-635
Every person holding a public office of the state or any of its political subdivisions, either by election or appointment , is subject to recall from such office.
All
Const. Art. 2, § 9; NRS § 294A.006, Chapter 306
Every public officer in the State of Nevada is subject, as herein provided, to recall from office by the registered voters of the state, or of the county, district, or municipality which he represents.
All
Const. Art. 1, § 2; NJRS § 19:27A-1–19:27A-18 The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the Untied States Congress.
All (d)
Const. Art. 3, § 1 and 10; ND Century Code § 16. 1-01-09.1
Any elected official of the state, of any county or of any legislative or county commissioner district shall be subject to recall by petition of electors equal in number to twenty-five percent of those who voted at the preceding general election for the office of governor in the state, county, or district in which the official is to be recalled.
All (d)
Const. Art. 2, § 18; ORS § 249.865–249.880
Every public official in Oregon is subject, as herein provided, to recall by the electors of the state or of the electoral district from which the public official is elected.
Const. Art. 4, § 1
Recall is authorized in the case of a general officer who has been indicted or informed against for a felony, convicted of a misdemeanor, or against whom a finding of probable cause of violation of the code of ethics has been made by the ethics commission.
No
Oklahoma ������������������
No
Oregon �����������������������
Yes
Pennsylvania �������������
No
Rhode Island �������������
Yes
South Carolina ����������
No
South Dakota ������������
No
(e)
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 371
RECALL
STATE RECALL PROVISIONS—Continued
State or other jurisdiction
Provision for recall
Tennessee ������������������
No
Texas ����������������������������
No
Utah �����������������������������
No
Vermont ����������������������
No
Virginia �����������������������
No (f)
Officials subject to recall
Washington ����������������� Yes
West Virginia ��������������
No
Wisconsin ��������������������
Yes
All (a)
Constitutional and statutory citations for recall of state officials
Constitutional or statutory language
Const. Art. 1, Sec. 33-34; WRC §29.82-010 –29.82.220
Every elective public officer of the state of Washington except judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, . . . is filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination, or certificate for nomination, to such office must be filed under the laws of this state, and the same officer shall call a special election as provided by the general election laws of this state. and the result determined as therein provided.
All
Const. Art. 13, §12; Wisc. Stat. §9.10
The qualified electors of the state, of any congressional, judicial or legislative district or of any county may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective officer after the first year of the term for which the incumbent was elected, by filing a petition with the filing officer with whom the nomination petition is filed, demanding the recall of the incumbent.
Wyoming ���������������������
No
No. Marianas Islands ���
Yes
All
N.A.
N.A.
Puerto Rico ����������������
Yes
All
N.A.
N.A.
U.S.Virgin Islands ������
Yes
All
Constitutional and statutory citations exist
N.A.
Sources: The Council of State Governments, state constitutions and legislatively referred amendment, on Nov. 2, 2010. The amendment if passed will allow for recall of the governor. statutes, February 2010. (c) State executive officers, legislators, and judicial officers. Note: This table refers only to officials elected to statewide office. Many (d) Except for U.S. Congress. local governments allow recall of elected officials. (e) Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and N.A. Not available Attorney General. (a) Except judicial. (f) Virginia permits a recall trial not a recall election. (b) The state of Illinois will vote on a Constitutional Amendment 31, a
372 The Book of the States 2010
. . . All but judicial officers All state level officials . . . . . .
Massachusetts............ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Mississippi.................. Missouri......................
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 373
See footnotes at end of table.
. . . No limit . . . . . . . . .
. . . 180 days (t) . . . 6 mos. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 15% (u) . . . 15% VO . . .
. . . All elected state officials . . . Gov., lt. gov., atty. gen., sec. of state, treasurer . . .
. . . . . . . . . 190 . . .
Oklahoma................... Oregon........................ Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. South Carolina...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 25% EVg . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . . . All elected state officials . . .
. . . 25% VG in district 25% VO . . . . . .
40% VO . . . 33 1/3% EV (k) . . . . . .
New Mexico............. New York.................... North Carolina........... North Dakota............. Ohio.............................
. . . 6 mos. 6 mos. . . . . . .
180 . . . 6 mos. . . . . . .
. . . 20% EVg . . . . . . . . .
10% EV . . . 25% VO in given jurisdiction . . . 25% VO in given jurisdiction
. . . 6 mos. . . . . . . . . .
120 days . . . 1 day . . . . . .
. . . 25% VO 25% VO (e) . . . 20% VO
. . . 15% (u) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 25% EV . . .
(m) 35-45% VO 25% VO in given jurisdiction . . . 25% VO in given jurisdiction
. . . 25% VG in district 25% VO . . . . . .
40% VO . . . 33 1/3% EV (k) . . . . . .
. . . 50%VO . . . . . . . . .
25% VO 25% VO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15% EV (h) , 1/15 from each 30% EV (h) congressional district
. . . 25% VO 25% VO (e) . . . 12% VO, 1% from 5 counties
Montana...................... All state level officers & elected officials (l) 2 mos. . . . Nebraska..................... Elected officials from political subdivisions (n) 6 mos. 6 mos. Nevada........................ All officers (d) 6 mos. (o) . . . New Hampshire......... . . . . . . . . . . . . New Jersey.................. All elected officials (p) (q) (r)
. . . No limit No limit . . . . . .
1 . . . (j) . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All but judicial officers . . . All but judicial officers . . . . . .
. . . 90 days . . . . . . . . .
Kansas......................... Kentucky..................... Louisiana.................... Maine.......................... Maryland....................
. . . (d) . . . . . . . . .
. . . All but judicial officers . . . . . . . . .
Hawaii......................... Idaho........................... Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa.............................
. . . 180 . . . . . . 6 mos.
All elected officials (g) 6 mos 6 mos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All state level officials, county and city . . . 180 days 180 elected officials
. . . 120 days 6 mos./5 days legislators . . . 90 days
Recall may not be Basis for signatures (b) (see key below) initiated with days remaining in term Statewide officers Others
Colorado..................... Connecticut................ Delaware..................... Florida......................... Georgia.......................
. . . . . . 1 (d) . . . (f)
Recall may be initiated after official has been in office
. . . All but judicial officers All elected officials . . . All elected officials
No. of times recall can be attempted
Alabama..................... Alaska......................... Arizona....................... Arkansas..................... California....................
State or other Officers to whom jurisdiction recall is applicable (a)
Table 6.19 STATE RECALL PROVISIONS: APPLICABILITY TO STATE OFFICIALS AND PETITION CIRCULATION
... 90 days ... 90 days ...
... ... ... 90 days ...
... (s)
3 mos. ... 90 days
... 90 jays 90 days ... ...
90 days ... 180 days ... ...
... 60 days ... ... ...
60 days ... ... ... (i)
... ... 120 days ... 160 days
Maximum time allowed for petition circulation (c)
RECALL
374 The Book of the States 2010
. . . All but judges of courts of records . . . All elected officials . . .
. . . All elected officials . . . All elected officials
Virginia....................... Washington................. West Virginia.............. Wisconsin.................... Wyoming.....................
American Samoa....... No. Mariana Island.... Puerto Rico................ U.S. Virgin Islands..... . . . (x) . . . Unlimited
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No. of times recall can be attempted
. . . 180 days . . . 1 year
. . . IM . . . 1 yr. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 365
. . . 180 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 40% EV (y) . . . . . .
. . . 25% VO . . . 25% VG (w) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . Registered electors
. . . 35% VO . . . 25% VG (w) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recall may not be Basis for signatures (b) (see key below) initiated with days remaining in term Statewide officers Others
... (z) ... 180 days
... (v) ... 60 days ...
... ... ... ... ...
Maximum time allowed for petition circulation (c)
no less than 5,000 signatures are required for the recall petition, 45 days. Any officer holding an office other than statewide office and for whom less than 5,000 are required, 30 days. (j) Unlimited. Once every 18 months. (k) Basis for signatures 33 1/3 percent if over 1,000 eligible voters; 40 percent if under 1,000 eligible voters. (l) No recall petition may be filed against an officer for whom a recall election has been held for a period of 2 years during his term of office unless the state or political subdivisions financing such recall election is first reimbursed for all expenses of the preceding election. (m) 15–20 percent of eligible voters depending on the office. (n) If voted on, no recall for one year. (o) For legislators, anytime after 10 days from the beginning of the first legislative session after their election. (p) An elected official sought to be recalled who is not recalled as the result of a recall election shall not again be subject to recall until after having served one year of a term calculated from the date of the recall election. (q) The recall drive may not commence before the 50th day preceding the completion of the elected official’s first year of the current term. (r) No election to recall an elected official shall be held after the date occurring six months prior to the general election or regular election for that office, as appropriate, in the final year of the officials term. (s) The maximum time allowed for petition circulation is 320 days for a governor or 160 days for other elected officials. (t) Unless it is a state senator or representative and then it is anytime after fifth day form the beginning of legislative session or after election of legislator. (u) 15 percent of the total number of votes cast in the public officer’s electoral district for all candidates for governor at the last election at which a candidate for governor was elected to a full term. (v) Statewide officials 270 days; others 180 days. (w) At least 25 percent of the vote case for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled. (x) Not more than once a year or not during the first six months in office. (y) Grounds for recall must be stated and must be signed by 40% of voters represented by the elected official. (z) Until 120 days before the election.
Recall may be initiated after official has been in office
Sources: The Council of State Governments, February 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable. All — All elective officials. VO — Number of votes cast in the last election for the office or official being recalled. EVg — Number of eligible voters in the last general election for governor. EV — Eligible voters. VG — Total votes cast for the position of governor in the last election. VP — Total votes cast for position of president in last presidential election. IM — Immediately. (a) An elective official may be recalled by qualified voters entitled to vote for the recalled official’s successor. An appointed official may be recalled by qualified voters entitled to vote for the successor(s) of the elective officer(s) authorized to appoint an individual to the position. (b) Signature requirements for recall of those other than state elective officials are based on votes in the jurisdiction to which the said official has been elected. (c) The petition circulation period begins when petition forms have been approved and provided to sponsors. Sponsors are those individuals granted permission to circulate a petition, and are therefore responsible for the validity of each signature on a given petition. (d) Additional recall attempts can be made provided that the state treasury is reimbursed the cost of the previous recall attempt(s). The specific reason for recalling on one petition cannot be the basis for a second recall petition during the current term of office. (e) 25% of the number of votes cast at the preceding general election for all candidates for the office held by the officer, even if the officer was not elected at that election, divided by the number of offices that were being filled at that election. (A.R.S.§ 19-201. (f) Open ended. (g) One attempt unless a second petition is circulated and valid signatures gathered are at least 50% of votes cast for all candidates in last election. (h) Eligible voters for office at last general election to fill office. (i) For any statewide office, 90 days. Any officer holding an office other than statewide office and for whom
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Dakota............. Tennessee................... Texas............................ Utah............................. Vermont......................
State or other Officers to whom jurisdiction recall is applicable (a)
STATE RECALL PROVISIONS: APPLICABILITY TO STATE OFFICIALS AND PETITION CIRCULATION—Continued
RECALL
SS . . . . . . . . . Registrar of voters
. . . Co. clerk . . . . . . . . .
Colorado....................... Connecticut.................. Delaware...................... Florida........................... Georgia.........................
Hawaii........................... Idaho............................. Illinois........................... Indiana.......................... Iowa...............................
. . . . . . . . . 30 . . .
15 (w) . . . 10
(u)
. . . . . . . . . 10 . . .
5 5 . . . 5
5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . (o) . . . . . .
. . . 15–20 days . . . . . . . . . 35 10 . . . . . .
Next day
. . . 5 . . . . . . . . .
5 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 5 . . . (j)
The Council of State Governments 375
See footnotes at end of table.
. . . w/i 35 days after resignation period . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 50–60 . . .
30–45 days after cert. (x) . . . (z)
(v)
. . . (s) (t) . . . . . .
. . . (p) . . . . . .
60–90 days after cert.
. . . 45+ days after cert. (l) . . . . . . . . .
45–75 days after cert. . . . . . . . . . 30–45 days after cert.
. . . 60–90 days after cert. (h) . . . 60–80 days after cert.
... 40 ... ... ...
. . . SP . . .
... ... ... 14 (bb) ...
40 (y) ... (aa)
12 mos.
... 2 (m) 7 ... ...
... (q) ... ...
5 (m)
... 20 (m) ... ... ...
10 ... ... ... 5
... 10 5 ... 5
Days to contest election results (g)
. . . SP
. . . . . . . . . SP . . .
SP SP . . . SP or GE
SP or GE (dd) (v)
. . . SP GE . . . . . .
. . . SP . . . . . .
SP
. . . SP , PR, GE (l) . . . . . . . . .
SP or GE . . . . . . . . . SP
. . . GE,PR,SP (i) . . . GE
Days to step Voting on the recall (f) down after certification (e) Election held Election type
30
. . . 10 . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . 30–45
. . . 30 70 . . . 10
Days allowed for petition to be certified (d)
Oklahoma..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oregon.......................... Co. clerk (cc) . . . (dd) 10 5 Pennsylvania................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhode Island................ SBE w/i 90 days . . . Misdemeanor and/or felony 90 . . . South Carolina............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Mexico................. New York...................... North Carolina............ North Dakota.............. Ohio..............................
. . . . . . . . . SS . . .
$500 or six months in Co. jail, or both. . . . Misdemeanor . . . Crime of the 4th degree
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Montana....................... Co. election administrators 10 10 Nebraska...................... Co. clerk . . . . . . Nevada.......................... Co. clerk, registrar of voters 5 . . . New Hampshire........... . . . . . . . . . New Jersey................... Recall elections official . . . . . .
. . . . . . 90 . . . . . .
. . . $500, 90 days Felony . . . . . .
. . . SS, local election officials (r) SS . . . . . .
Massachusetts.............. Michigan....................... Minnesota..................... Mississippi.................... Missouri........................
. . . $5,000, 2 yrs. . . . . . . . . . Class B misdemeanor; up to $1,000, up to one year or both. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 (k) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kansas........................... Co. clerk . . . . . . Kentucky...................... . . . . . . . . . Louisiana...................... Registrar of voters (n) (n) Maine............................ . . . . . . . . . Maryland...................... . . . . . . . . .
. . . 30 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . Misdemeanor
. . . Class B misdemeanor Class 1 misdemeanor . . . . . .
. . . 20 . . . . . . 10
. . . Division of Elections Co. recorder . . . Co. clerk/registrar of voters
Alabama....................... Alaska........................... Arizona......................... Arkansas....................... California...................... . . . 20 . . . . . . 10
Penalty for falsifying petition (denotes fines, jail time)
Days to amend/appeal a petition that is: State or other jurisdiction Signatures verified (a) by: Incomplete (b) Not accepted (c)
Table 6.20 STATE RECALL PROVISIONS: PETITION REVIEW, APPEAL AND ELECTION
RECALL
376 The Book of the States 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sources: The Council of State Governments February 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable. SBE — State Board of Elections. SS — Secretary of State. SP — Special election. GE — General election. PR — Primary election. IM — Immediate and automatic removal from office. w/i — Within N.A. — Information not available. (a) The validity of the signatures, as well as the correct number of required signatures must be verified before the recall is allowed on the ballot. (b) If an insufficient number of signatures are submitted, sponsors may amend the original petition by filing additional signatures within a given number of days. If the necessary number of signatures have not been submitted by this date, the petition is declared void. (c) In some cases, the state officer will not accept a valid petition. In such a case, sponsors may appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, where the sufficiency of the petition will be determined. When this is declared, the recall is required to be placed on the ballot. (d) A petition is certified for the ballot when the required number of signatures has been submitted by the filing deadline, and are determined to be valid. (e) The official to whom a recall is proposed has a certain number of days to step down from his position before a recall election is initiated, if he desires to do so. (f) A majority of the popular vote is required to recall an official in each state. (g) Individuals may contest the results of a vote on a recall within a certain number of days after the results are certified. In Alaska, an appeal to courts must be filed within five days of the recount. (h) The election order is issued within 15 days if the officer does not resign within five days after certification.
. . . IM
. . . 10
. . . . . .
. . . (gg)
. . . GE
. . . GE, SP
... 5
... 30
...
... 3 (ff)
... 3
... ... ... ... ...
Days to contest election results (g)
(i) To be held on the next consolidated election date pursuant to § 16-204 that is 90 days or more after the order calling the election (A.R.S. § 19-209(A)). (j) Prior to election being called. (k) After determination of sufficiency. (l) In Idaho, the dates on which elections may be conducted are the first Tuesday in February, the fourth Tuesday in May, the first Tuesday in August, or the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. In addition, an emergency election may be called upon motion of the governing board of a political subdivision. Recall elections conducted by any political subdivision shall be held on the nearest of these dates which falls more than 45 days after the clerk of the political subdivision orders that the recall election shall be held. (m) After election is certified. In Michigan, if a petition is filed against a local officer, a recount can be requested up to 6 days after certification of recall election. (n) The Registrar of Voters shall honor the written request of any voter who either desires to have his handwritten signature stricken from or added to the petition at any time prior to certification of the petition, or within five days after receipt of such signed petition, whichever is earlier. (o) (y) Election returns are certified on the fifth day after the election, and the office is immediately vacant. (p) The local registrar of voters sends the original certified recall petition to the governor, who issues, within 15 days, a proclamation calling a special election, placing the special election on the next regularly scheduled election date. (q) Not later than 4:30 p.m. of the 30th day after the official promulgation of the results of the election. Promulgation is on or before the 12th day after the election. (r) Secretary of state if filed on the state level; county or local clerks if filed on county level. (s) Under Michigan’s consolidated elections, the recall election is held on the next fixed election date that falls at least 95 days after the recall petition is filed. (t) An election will not be held in the last 6 mos. of a term after certification. (u) County election administrators have 30 days; sponsor has three mos. to submit the petition from the date of certification. (v) A special election is called unless the filing is within 90 days of a general election.
. . . . . .
. . . 15 days
. . . Statute governs fraud or perjury. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Samoa......... . . . . . . . . . No. Mariana Islands.... AG 150 days . . . Puerto Rico.................. . . . . . . . . . U.S. Virgin Islands....... Office of the Supervisor . . . . . . of Elections
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Days to step Voting on the recall (f) down after certification (e) Election held Election type
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class B felony or not specified . . . 45–60 days after cert. SP misdemeanor (ee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class 1 felony—$10,000, 31 10 6 weeks after cert. GE or PR 3 yrs. prison or both. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Days allowed for petition to be certified (d)
Virginia......................... . . . . . . . . . Washington.................. SS 30 . . . West Virginia................ . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin...................... SBE . . . . . . Wyoming...................... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Dakota............... Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Utah.............................. Vermont........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Penalty for falsifying petition (denotes fines, jail time)
Days to amend/appeal a petition that is: State or other jurisdiction Signatures verified (a) by: Incomplete (b) Not accepted (c)
STATE RECALL PROVISIONS: PETITION REVIEW, APPEAL AND ELECTION—Continued
RECALL
(w) Within four days, county clerks count signature totals and forward to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State immediately notifies the clerks if they are to proceed with signature verification. (x) In Nevada, a recall election is held 10-20 days after the Secretary of State completes notification of the petition sufficiency unless a complaint is filed, the clerk shall issue a call for the election which is to be held within 30 days after the issuance of the call. (y) Five days after recount is completed or 14 days after the election if no recount is demanded. (z) New Jersey Permanent Statutes,19:27A-13, In the case of an office which is ordinarily filled at the general election, a recall election shall be held at the next general election occurring at least 55 days following the fifth business day after service of certification, unless it was indicated in the notice of intention to recall that the recall election shall be held at a special election in which case the recall election official shall order and fix the date for holding the recall election to be the next Tuesday occurring during the period beginning with the 55th
day and ending on the 61st day following the fifth business day after service of the certification of the petition. (aa) New Jersey Permanent Statutes, 19:27A-16. (bb) Fourteen days after the canvas board has certified the results. (cc) Chief petitioners may submit additional signatures if the deadline for submitting signatures has not passed. (dd) Whether a penalty is assessed would depend on what information on the petition was falsified. (ee) If possible to be held on a regularly scheduled election; cannot be held between the primary and general. (ff) Business days. (gg) The election is held at the next regular general election or at a special election set forth in the recall petition.
STATE RECALL PROVISIONS: PETITION REVIEW, APPEAL AND ELECTIONâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
RECALL
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 377
Chapter Seven
STATE FINANCE
State Budgets
State Budgets in 2009 and 2010: In the Midst of Arguably the Worst Economic Downturn since the Great Depression, States Experience Record Declines in Revenue and State Spending By Brian Sigritz Fiscal conditions rapidly deteriorated for states in the 2009 fiscal year as the nation remained in a prolonged economic downturn. States experienced unprecedented declines in both revenues and state spending, while rainy day fund levels sharply declined from the 2008 fiscal year. While the national economy may be slowly recovering, conditions have not improved for states in the 2010 fiscal year. State spending is projected to be negative for the second year in a row. Revenue collections remain weak, with total collections declining for a record five consecutive quarters. The state fiscal outlook is expected to remain grim in fiscal 2011 and beyond as Recovery Act funds decrease and revenues are slow to recover.
Introduction The deterioration of state finances that began in the 2008 fiscal year rapidly worsened in the 2009 fiscal year. Revenues, state spending and rainy day fund levels all declined sharply, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers, commonly known as NASBO. While the 2008 fiscal year saw modest revenue growth of 2.2 percent, revenue declined by 7.4 percent in the 2009 fiscal year. State general fund spending declined by 3.4 percent, only the second time since 1979 that states experienced a nominal decline in general fund spending. Balances and rainy day fund levels fell from 8.6 percent of expenditures in the 2008 fiscal year to 4.8 percent of expenditures in the 2009 fiscal year, below the historical average of 5.5 percent. Not surprisingly, the number of states making midyear budget cuts increased exponentially. Forty-three states were forced to make midyear budget cuts in 2009, more than cuts made from the 2004 fiscal year through the 2008 fiscal year combined. The 2010 fiscal year has not been any kinder to state finances. Revenues have continued their downward trajectory, with tax collections declining by 10.9 percent and 4.1 percent respectively in the first two quarters of the fiscal year. The continued decline in state economic conditions has caused the vast majority of states to miss their revenue projections for the year, with 41 states experiencing revenues lower than projected through February. State spending is expected to decrease by at least 5.4 percent, the first time on record that state spending has declined two years in a row. Nineteen
states have had to cut their 2010 fiscal year budgets up to 5 percent, with another 24 states making cuts greater than 5 percent. The fiscal health of states would be even more dismal if not for the funds contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Congress passed in February 2009. But Recovery Act funds alone have not been enough to solve states’ fiscal difficulties. States have already closed $89.8 billion in budget gaps in the 2010 fiscal year, and face at least $136.1 billion in remaining budget gaps through the 2012 fiscal year. Fiscal conditions are not expected to noticeably improve in 2011 either. While the national recession may have ended in August or September 2009, state revenues typically do not rebound until two years after an economic recovery begins. This is partly due to the fact that states’ revenue collections do not markedly improve until job hiring begins in earnest. Additionally, states will face a large drop-off in Recovery Act funds in the 2011 fiscal year, potentially creating a new round of budget shortfalls. As a result, states will be forced to make painful budgetary decisions in fiscal 2011 and beyond, and will need to re-examine the roles and responsibilities of state government.
The Current State Fiscal Condition Revenues in the 2009 Fiscal Year While the 2008 fiscal year saw modest revenue growth of 2.2 percent,1 revenue growth turned sharply negative in the 2009 fiscal year. Combined revenue collections of sales, personal income and The Council of State Governments 381
State Budgets corporate income declined 7.4 percent in the 2009 fiscal year from 2008 levels. Individually, sales tax collections decreased 4.7 percent, personal income tax collections declined 8.2 percent, and corporate income tax collections were 16.1 percent lower. In actual dollar terms, sales tax revenues declined by $8.4 billion, personal income tax revenues shrank by $17.2 billion and corporate income tax collections decreased by $5.8 billion.2 Another indication of the severity of the revenue strain states faced in the 2009 fiscal year is that revenue collections from all sources3 were lower than anticipated in 41 states, on target in another four states and were higher than budgeted amounts in only four states. By comparison, in the 2008 fiscal year, 20 states had lower than projected revenue collections, five states met projections and 25 states exceeded projections.4
Revenues in the 2010 Fiscal Year Unfortunately for states, the revenue outlook has not improved in the 2010 fiscal year. The latest information from the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government illustrates this point. According to preliminary figures for the second quarter of the 2010 fiscal year, 39 of 46 early reporting states are reporting declines in revenue collections. Overall, states are experiencing a 4.1 percent decline in revenue in the second quarter of the 2010 fiscal year, following a 10.9 percent decline in the first quarter. Total revenue collections have now fallen for a record five consecutive quarters on a year-over-year basis.5 When passing their 2010 fiscal year budgets, states were more hopeful that revenue declines would be more moderate in 2010. States projected revenues from sales, personal income and corporate income taxes would be 1.4 percent lower than those collected in the 2009 fiscal year. Specifically, states projected sales tax collections to increase 0.7 percent, personal income tax collections to decline 2.5 percent and corporate income tax collections to decline an additional 6.3 percent.6 It should be noted that most states passed their 2010 fiscal year budgets in the spring of 2009, nearly a year ago. As a result of the continued weakness in the job market and sluggish sales, few states are currently meeting revenue projections. According to a short survey conducted in February by the National Governors Association and NASBO, 41 states are experiencing revenue collections lower than projected, six states are on target and only three have revenues higher than projected. The continued decline in revenue has led to budget shortfalls in 382â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
all regions of the country. States face $136.1 billion in remaining budget gaps for fiscal 2010â&#x20AC;&#x201C;12, even after previously closing $89.8 billion in 2010 fiscal year budget shortfalls.7
Tax and Fee Changes in the 2010 Fiscal Year In addition to budget cuts and the use of rainy day funds and balances, many states enacted tax and fee increases in the 2010 fiscal year in order to balance their budgets. Overall, states enacted a net tax and fee increase of $23.9 billion. This marks the highest dollar amount since the Fiscal Survey of the States began tracking tax and fee changes in 1979. In total, 29 states enacted net increases while nine states enacted net decreases. Personal income taxes comprised the largest enacted revenue increase for the 2010 fiscal year, totaling $10.7 billion. The largest enacted increases were seen in California and New York. Twelve states enacted overall increases in personal income taxes, while six states enacted net decreases. The net decreases were relatively minor, with North Dakota enacting the largest decrease at $49 million. Personal income taxes were far from the only type of enacted revenue increase in the 2010 fiscal year. States also enacted increases of $6.1 billion in sales taxes, $5.3 billion in fees, $967.8 million in other taxes, $908.1 million in cigarette and tobacco taxes, $54.1 million in alcohol taxes, and $42.3 million in motor fuel taxes. Corporate income taxes were the only category in which states enacted a net decrease, by $202.2 million.8 State Spending in 2009 General funds serve as the primary source for financing a stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operations. General funds typically receive their revenue from broad-based state taxes such as sales taxes and personal income taxes. In the 2009 fiscal year, state general fund expenditures were $663.9 billion (preliminary actual), a 3.4 percent decline compared to the 2008 fiscal year. The 2009 fiscal year marked only the second time since 1979 that states experienced a nominal decline in general fund spending; the 32-year historical average of spending growth is 5.6 percent.9 In contrast to the 2008 fiscal year, all regions of the country experienced some form of a spending slowdown in 2009. In 2008, only six states reported negative expenditure growth, 35 states reported growth that was positive but less than 10 percent, and nine states had growth rates of 10 percent or higher.10 Several states that were most severely impacted by the housing market decline, such as
State Budgets Arizona, Florida and Nevada, were forced to enact negative growth budgets in the 2008 fiscal year. By the 2009 fiscal year, however, the downturn had become much more universal. Twenty-eight states reported negative expenditure growth in 2009, 19 states had growth that was positive but less than 5 percent, and only three states experienced growth greater than 5 percent.11 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 created a large influx of federal dollars to the states and produced a shift in the funding sources for state expenditures. In the 2008 fiscal year, general funds accounted for 45.7 percent of total state spending, federal funds were 26.3 percent, other state funds were 25.7 percent, and bonds reflected 2.4 percent. In the 2009 fiscal year, general funds are estimated to account for 41.7 percent of total state expenditures, federal funds 30 percent, other state funds 25.6, and bonds are estimated to reflect 2.7 percent.12 Additionally, while general fund spending declined in the 2009 fiscal year, federal fund spending is estimated to increase by 21.2 percent.13 Elementary and secondary education remained the largest category of general fund expenditures in 2009, accounting for 35.1 percent of general fund expenditures. Medicaid represented 16.2 percent, and higher education accounted for 11.1 percent. Combined, Medicaid and education comprised more than 62 percent of total state general fund spending. Other categories of general fund spending included corrections at 7.2 percent, public assistance at 1.9 percent, transportation at 0.7 percent, and all other spending14 at 27.8 percent. While elementary and secondary education remains by far the largest category of general fund expenditures, Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 and Medicaid represent nearly the same level of total state expenditures. In fiscal 2009, elementary and secondary education is estimated to account for 21.1 percent of total state expenditures, with Medicaid close behind at 21 percent. Since Medicaid is a long-term health care program for low-income individuals, however, Medicaid spending is expected to increase sharply as more individuals continue to feel the impact of the economic downturn. Nearly 3.3 million more people were enrolled in Medicaid in June 2009 compared to June 2008, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.15 Other categories of total state spending for 2009 included higher education at 9.8 percent, transportation at 8.2 percent, corrections at 3.3 percent, public assistance at 1.6 percent, and all other spending at 34.9 percent.16
State Spending in 2010 According to appropriated budgets, general fund expenditure growth is expected to decrease by an additional 5.4 percent in the 2010 fiscal year. This will mark the first time in at least several decades that state spending growth has declined two years in a row.17 General fund spending is estimated to be $627.9 billion in the 2010 fiscal year, a $36 billion decrease from fiscal 2009. Compared to the 2008 fiscal year, general fund spending is expected to decrease $59 billion.18 Not surprisingly, the number of states enacting negative growth budgets greatly increased in the 2010 fiscal year. Thirty-seven states reported negative growth budgets, while another 11 states enacted budgets with spending growth ranging from no growth to 4.9 percent, and only two states enacted budgets with spending growth over 5 percent.19 Additionally, it is likely that the final figures for the 2010 fiscal year will show state spending growth declined by even more than 5.4 percent. As of February, states had already closed, or are currently facing, a cumulative $108.7 billion shortfall in the 2010 fiscal year, and are potentially facing a $55.4 billion shortfall in the 2011 fiscal year. These massive shortfall amounts will lead to even further spending reductions in the 2010 fiscal year.20 Budget Cuts The number of states forced to make midyear budget cuts increased exponentially in the 2009 fiscal year. More states made midyear budget cuts in 2009 than in the 2004 to 2008 fiscal years combined. Forty-three states made midyear cuts in the 2009 fiscal year,21 while 18 states made cuts in 2004, five in 2005, two in 2006, three in 2007 and 13 in 2008. States made budget cuts in a wide range of areas in 2009. Thirty-three states cut higher education, 29 states reduced personnel, 29 cut Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 education, 28 reduced corrections spending, and 27 made cuts to Medicaid.22 The number of states making budget cuts has not abated in the 2010 fiscal year. Through February, 19 states have made budget cuts up to 5 percent, while another 24 states have made cuts greater than 5 percent.23 It should also be noted that even if the national recession ended earlier in the 2010 fiscal year as most economists believe, states will likely be forced to make midyear budget cuts for several years to come since states typically lag the economy as a whole in recovering from an economic downturn. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that 37 states made midyear The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 383
State Budgets budget cuts in the 2003 fiscal year, well after the 2001 recession ended.
Balances Total balances include both ending balances and the amounts in states’ budget stabilization funds. They also reflect the funds states may use to respond to unforeseen circumstances after budget obligations have been met. Forty-eight states have either a budget stabilization fund or a rainy day fund, with about three-fifths of the states having limits on the size of these funds.24 Balances, like spending growth, declined in the 2009 fiscal year. Balances were 4.8 percent of expenditures ($32 billion), considerably less than the 2008 fiscal year when balances were 8.6 percent of expenditures ($59.1 billion). As recently as the 2006 fiscal year, balances were at record high levels of 11.5 percent of expenditures ($69 billion). The informal rule-of-thumb is that balances should be at least 5 percent of expenditures. While the 2009 fiscal year’s 50-state average balance level of 4.8 percent may seem like a significant cushion, two states—Alaska and Texas—represent 48 percent of total balance levels. Without those two states, total balance levels drop to 2.7 percent of expenditures. Over the last 32 years, balances have averaged 5.5 percent of general fund expenditures.25
Looking Ahead Negative fiscal conditions are expected to persist in most states for the remainder of 2010 and throughout the 2011 fiscal year. Even though the national recession likely ended in the second half of the 2009 calendar year, many states will likely face several more years of negative or slow revenue growth. Typically, state tax revenues remain weak for several years after a recession ends. For example, it took state revenues at least five years to fully recover after the last two recessions.26 Tax collections are not expected to fully recover until the job market improves, which would lead to increased personal income tax collections and more consumer spending. There are few, if any, signs of a rapid improvement in the labor market. Unemployment rates increased in 31 states in January,27 and the Council of Economic Advisers assumes near double-digit unemployment for the rest of 2010.28 States are also expected to face increased demand for services even as revenues remain weak. Case in point, Medicaid enrollment is projected to continue to increase even as the national economy begins to
384 The Book of the States 2010
recover.29 States are also very concerned about the impact of decreasing Recovery Act funds. Increased federal funds from the Recovery Act have been instrumental in helping states avoid even more draconian cuts. States face a cliff in the 2011 fiscal year as Recovery Act dollars rapidly drop off. The low revenue growth, increased demand for services and the end of Recovery Act funding have led credit rating agencies to rate states’ outlook as negative.30 Furthermore, due to balanced budget requirements, states will continue to be forced to use rainy day funds and balances, examine tax and fee increases, and make painful spending reductions in some areas of the budget while at the same time facing increased demands for services in other areas. States have begun discussing the new normal, in which spending and revenue growth will remain well below historical averages through the foreseeable future. All these factors combined have the potential to lead to a painstaking re-examination of the roles and responsibilities of state government. Some states have already begun this process by creating reform and streamlining commissions, partly designed to determine the core responsibilities of states and ways to make state government more efficient. Increased demand for performance and results, along with austere state budgets, have created an environment in which there exists a tremendous opportunity for reform.
Notes 1 National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2008), 15. 2 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 50, 52. 3 “All Sources” includes revenues from sales, personal income, corporate income, gaming taxes and all other taxes and fees. 4 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 17. 5 Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State Revenue Flash Report, (February 2010), 1. 6 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 19. 7 National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers, State Fiscal Update—February 2010, 2. 8 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 17–19. 9 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 8. 10 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2008), 7. 11 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 9. 12 National Association of State Budget Officers, 2008 State Expenditure Report, (Fall 2009), 2. 13 2008 State Expenditure Report, (Fall 2009), 9. 14 “All Other” spending in states includes the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally
State Budgets disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing, and general aid to local governments. 15 Kaiser Family Foundation’s Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Medicaid Enrollment: June 2009 Data Snapshot, (February 2010). 16 2008 State Expenditure Report, (Fall 2009), 8. 17 See note 12 above. 18 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 31–37. 19 See note 14 above. 20 See note 10 above. 21 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), vii. 22 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 5. 23 State Fiscal Update—February 2010, 2. 24 National Association of State Budget Officers, Budget Processes in the States, (Summer 2008), 67–69. 25 The Fiscal Survey of States, (December 2009), 25–26. 26 Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Fiscal Features: What Will Happen to State Budgets when the Money Runs Out?, (February 2009), 2. 27 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary, (January 2010). 28 Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President, (February 2010). 29 Kaiser Family Foundation’s Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, State Fiscal Conditions and Medicaid, (February 2010). 30 Moody’s Public Finance, Annual Sector Outlook for U.S. State Governments, (February 2010), 1.
About the Author Brian Sigritz is the director of State Fiscal Studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers. He received his M.P.A. from George Washington University and his B.A. from St. Bonaventure University. Prior to working at NASBO, Sigritz worked for the Ohio Senate and the Ohio House of Representatives.
The Council of State Governments 385
STIMULUS FUNDS
The Stimulus at One: Economic Success and Political Failure By Chris Whatley With the notable exception of health reform, it’s hard to find a more politically charged topic in 2009 than the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus. For proponents, it is the bullet that brought down the Great Recession. For opponents, it is an $862 billion boondoggle that failed to deliver the jobs America needs.1 The public verdict is clear, with polls showing that up to 75 percent of Americans think the stimulus has done little or nothing to help them personally.2 The view from the states, however, is much more complicated. The Recovery Act is arguably the largest government response to an economic crisis in American history. Although the public spending levels in both the New Deal and the Recovery Act are broadly comparable, with each costing roughly $500 billion in today’s dollars, the New Deal was spread out over six years while the stimulus was front-loaded into a two-year window. In addition, while infrastructure accounted for roughly half of New Deal spending ($250 billion) it accounts for only 12 percent ($60 billion) of the Recovery Act.3 Any casual observer reading the press in January 2009 or listening to debate in Congress, with impassioned reports of “shovel-ready” projects and lofty promises of rebuilding America, would have assumed there was $800 billion worth of asphalt in the stimulus. Once the signing ceremony was over, the public sat back and waited for the jobs to roll in and the infrastructure to roll out. It didn’t take long for disappointment to grow. The eye-popping size of the Recovery Act is driven by its tax cut measures, coming in at $288 billion, and by a host of individual program accounts focused on bolstering the social safety net, promoting energy efficiency, helping states balance their books, and many other public purposes. The Recovery Act is designed to get money flowing through the economy quickly by boosting spending across literally dozens of accounts. Rather than funding new initiatives, the stimulus took existing programs such as weatherization assistance, unemployment insurance and even Pell grants and put them all on steroids. Given this complexity, it is understandable that the public is both confused and alarmed. Americans can’t figure out what they’re getting, but they know all too well how much they are paying for it. The impact on states is clear and present, however. While the New Deal was about federal programs, the Recovery Act is about federal partnership.
386 The Book of the States 2010
Roughly 60 percent ($300 billion) of Recovery Act spending will flow into, through or be touched by state governments. This includes $140 billion in budget relief; more than $100 billion in formula allocation, education funds, social safety net spending and infrastructure funds; and more than $60 billion in competitive grant opportunities for highspeed rail projects, broadband rollout, renewable energy projects, high-tech research and other projects. Within days of enactment, states began receiving the first of more than $87 billion in enhanced Medicaid matching payments. The first checks for payments backdated to Oct. 1 arrived just as states were gearing up to enact historic budget cuts in the face of a $300 billion state fiscal crisis. By July 2009, states were receiving initial installments of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a $53 billion funding stream that states could use to offset their own education budgets. Without this funding, hundreds of thousands of teachers, police officers and other public employees would be out of work today, pushing unemployment to even greater heights. A job created, however, is different from a job saved. If the cuts forestalled by stimulus money had come to pass, sparking major increases in class sizes in public schools and mass releases of state prisoners, there would have undoubtedly been an outcry. A public already confused about the content of the Recovery Act, and skeptical about government in general, was understandably unenthused about jobs saved in the public sector. Moreover, even with a massive infusion of federal funds states were still forced to cut employees. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 41,000 state and local employees lost their jobs in January 2010 alone.4 While the public’s skepticism about stimulus spending is understandable, the lackluster response
Stimulus Funds to the Recovery Act’s $288 billion in tax benefits is more surprising. More than 95 percent of individuals and small businesses in America received tax cuts as a result of the stimulus. Economists, such as Mark Zandi of Moody’s, credit these tax breaks with playing a pivotal role in arresting America’s economic freefall.5 President Bush’s 2008 tax rebate—sometimes referred to as stimulus one—provided most citizens with a $600 one-time benefit. Those same citizens will receive $800 in tax benefits over two years under the Recovery Act. Unlike the Bush rebate, however, the stimulus tax cuts were designed to trickle out slowly through Americans’ paychecks. Since the enactment of the Recovery Act, most Americans have received a tax cut generating an extra $16 in their biweekly pay stubs. This approach was recommended by economists as it encourages citizens to spend the money rather than save it. While it may have been an economic success, it has been a political failure, as most Americans don’t realize they have received a tax cut. The greatest driver of public skepticism, however, continues to be an unemployment rate that seems stuck near 10 percent. The stimulus was billed as a platform to create 3.5 million jobs and keep unemployment under 9 percent. While most estimates credit the Recovery Act with creating roughly 2 million jobs so far, it has not been enough to keep the unemployment lines from growing. In addition, the methodologies used to track and account for stimulus jobs baffle even the experts. Many stimulus proponents have pinned their hopes on creating new green jobs. The Recovery Act included more than $60 billion to support renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. As of September 2009, however, only 13,000 green jobs were created with stimulus funding nationwide (see Table A). While these investments are opening new doors for states to catalyze new energy sectors, such as wind power generation and new battery technologies, green jobs will not be the silver bullet that ends the jobs crisis. While the short-term verdict for the stimulus is in, its long-term legacy lies in the hands of state leaders. The stimulus appears to have succeeded in its most elemental purpose, injecting adrenaline into the veins of a sick economy. But if it is to leave a lasting legacy, multiple streams of formula funding and grant opportunities will need to be combined and leveraged to catalyze long-term private sector growth in new sectors such as biotechnology and renewable energy. Only states have the convening
power and the resources to play this role. It is far too early to know how the history of the Recovery Act will be written, but it is fair to assume that states will stand prominent in the cast of characters.
Notes 1 Initially estimated to cost $787 billion, spending on enhanced Medicaid payments, unemployment insurance, and other safety net programs have pushed the cost of the Recovery Act over $800 billion; see Budget Outlook 2010, Congressional Budget Office, January 2010. 2 See CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, January 25, 2010. 3 For more comparisons of New Deal spending, see “America Needs a New New Deal,” The Nation, September 27, 2008. 4 See Recession Continues to Batter State Budget; State Responses Could Slow Recovery, Center For Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2010. 5 See Testimony of Mark Zandi, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, October 29, 2009.
About the Author Chris Whatley is the director of The Council of State Governments’ Washington, D.C. office.
The Council of State Governments 387
STIMULUS FUNDS
Table A: Green Jobs Created or Saved under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 State or other jurisdiction
Total green jobs created
United States......................
13,151.02
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
68.65 21.85 235.34 77.40 698.33
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
196.15 37.48 165.50 309.66 99.67
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
115.85 817.70 254.50 45.35 33.75
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
74.33 42.38 79.79 147.18 129.68
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
112.79 930.48 523.21 79.21 94.04
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
109.12 106.39 95.32 37.99 270.97
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
335.48 358.23 210.26 96.37 2,565.73
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island . .................... South Carolina....................
185.02 65.20 101.01 0.00 972.45
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
13.12 304.37 77.57 301.83 24.74
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
97.46 1,027.28 289.00 27.06 70.19
Dist. of Columbia............... Puerto Rico......................... U.S. Virgin Islands..............
1.50 10.06 7.00
Source: Job numbers are from the Oct. 10, 2009 reporting of three departments: Department of Energy, Department of Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency. Note: The 13,151.02 green jobs counted in this report should not be considered as an absolute minimum or maximum of the number of green jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act through Sept. 30, 2009. Many jobs created through Department of Labor programs, for example, were green jobs, but recipients did not indicate how many specific green jobs were created out of the total, and therefore these jobs could not be included in the total. Additionally, many projects were reported as having created or saved jobs when the project had not yet started; these job figures were also excluded from the total. Some states have spent Recovery Act funds quicker than others, contributing to large differences in the amount of green jobs created or saved among states because of how far along a particular state is in implementing a project.
388â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
state finance
Table 7.1 fiscal 2008 state general fund, ACTUAL, by region (In millions of dollars) State
Beginning balance Revenues Adjustments
Total Ending Budget resources Expenditures Adjustments balance stabilization fund
U.S. totals*....................
$46,262
$680,231
. . .
$734,875
$687,269
. . .
$34,550
$32,943
Eastern Region Connecticut................... Delaware*..................... Maine (a)....................... Maryland (b)................. Massachusetts*(c)......... New Hampshire............ New Jersey* (d)............ New York* (e)............... Pennsylvania (f)............ Rhode Island( g)........... Vermont (h).................. Regional totals..............
0 591 36 285 2,901 62 2,586 3,045 531 4 0 10,040
16,419 3,357 3,041 13,546 32,360 1,484 32,738 53,094 26,878 3,429 1,200 187,544
0 0 54 1,096 0 0 0 0 142 -69 31 . . .
16,419 3,948 3,131 14,926 35,261 1,546 35,324 56,139 27,551 3,364 1,230 198,837
16,319 3,422 3,129 14,439 33,035 1,528 33,112 53,385 26,968 3,405 1,200 189,943
0 0 0 0 0 0 908 0 0 0 30 . . .
99 526 1 487 2,226 17 1,303 2,754 583 -41 0 7,955
1,382 183 130 685 2,119 89 735 1,206 742 103 58 7,431
Midwestern Region Illinois (i)....................... Indiana (j)..................... Iowa (k)......................... Kansas........................... Michigan (l)................... Minnesota*(m)............. Nebraska (n)................. North Dakota (o)......... Ohio............................... South Dakota (p).......... Wisconsin (q)................ Regional totals..............
642 941 0 935 259 2,245 591 296 1,433 0 66 7,409
27,759 13,051 6,084 5,693 8,168 16,680 3,501 1,246 26,659 1,144 13,043 123,028
1,900 152 0 0 1,916 0 -260 115 0 32 568 . . .
30,301 14,144 6,084 6,628 10,343 18,925 3,832 1,657 28,092 1,177 13,678 134,861
27,153 12,730 5,888 6,102 9,885 17,005 3,248 1,204 26,410 1,176 13,526 124,326
3,007 364 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 . . .
141 1,050 48 527 458 1,920 584 453 1,682 0 131 6,994
276 363 592 0 2 1,222 546 200 1,012 107 0 4,320
Southern Region Alabama (r).................. Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia* (s).................. Kentucky (t).................. Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri (u)................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma (v)................ South Carolina*............ Tennessee (w)............... Texas (x)........................ Virginia.......................... West Virginia (y)........... Regional totals..............
515 0 3,434 2,786 579 1,015 226 753 1,221 196 1,081 1,006 7,253 326 432 20,823
7,758 4,353 24,595 18,728 8,779 10,181 4,954 8,004 19,824 6,575 6,392 10,756 41,669 17,250 3,928 193,747
476 0 0 141 457 130 0 153 145 -35 0 210 0 0 0 . . .
8,748 4,353 28,029 21,655 9,816 11,326 5,181 8,910 21,190 6,737 7,473 11,972 48,922 17,576 4,361 216,248
8,612 4,353 27,708 19,438 9,450 9,633 5,145 8,074 20,521 6,447 7,149 10,973 39,647 17,263 3,757 198,168
-83 0 0 0 280 828 0 0 70 0 0 652 2,242 0 53 . . .
219 0 321 2,217 86 866 36 836 599 290 324 348 7,034 313 550 14,038
248 0 1,345 1,025 215 776 365 279 787 597 95 750 4,355 1,015 581 12,431
0 390 2,787 267 493 255 545 138 651 1,437 242 781 5 7,990
9,454 8,790 102,574 7,743 5,245 2,910 1,957 3,614 6,114 5,867 5,213 14,614 1,818 175,912
270 859 0 -243 -1 -131 0 0 93 -319 488 11 0 . . .
9,723 10,038 105,361 7,767 5,737 3,033 2,502 3,752 6,858 6,985 5,943 15,405 1,823 184,929
5,463 10,037 102,986 7,440 5,407 2,794 2,069 3,436 6,008 6,980 5,784 14,616 1,813 174,832
4,261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 159 0 0 . . .
0 1 2,376 327 330 240 434 316 735 5 0 790 10 5,562
5,601 219 0 284 74 141 0 73 735 622 414 303 296 8,760
5,203 0
73,338 9,227
. . . -824
79,568 8,403
71,846 9,087
. . . 0
3,187 -684
8,760 0
Western Region Alaska (z)...................... Arizona (aa).................. California...................... Colorado*(bb).............. Hawaii (cc).................... Idaho (dd)..................... Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico* (ee)........ Oregon (ff).................... Utah (gg)....................... Washington (hh)........... Wyoming (ii)................. Regional totals.............. Regional totals without California..... Puerto Rico (jj).............
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 389
state finance
fiscal 2008 state general fund, actual, by region—Continued (In millions of dollars) Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of the States (December 2009). Note: For all states, unless otherwise noted, transfers into budget stabilization funds are counted as expenditures, and transfers from budget stabilization funds are counted as revenues. Key: * In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the budget stabilization fund. NA — Indicates data are not available. . . .— Not applicable (a) Revenue and expenditure adjustments reflect legislatively authorized transfers. (b) Revenue adjustments reflect a $14.0 million reimbursement from the reserve for Heritage Tax Credits, $6 million reimbursement from the reserve for Biotechnology Tax Credits, and transfers of $1,078 million from the State Reserve Fund. (c) Includes budgeted fund balances. (d) Transfers to other funds and budget vs. GAAP adjustment. In keeping with past practice, and to ensure consistency in survey results over time, the figures above exclude New Jersey’s Casino Revenue Fund, Casino Control Fund and Gubernatorial Elections Fund. (e) The ending balance includes $1.2 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $1.1 billion reserved for labor settlements and other risks, $340 million in a community projects fund, $122 million reserved for debt reduction and $21 million in a reserve for litigation risks. (f) Revenue adjustment reflects $142.1 million in prior year lapses. The year-end transfer to the Rainy Day Fund (25 percent of the ending balance) was suspended for FY 2008. (g) Opening balance includes a free surplus of $0 and reappropriations of $3.6 million from the prior year. Adjustments to revenues represent a transfer to the Budget Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund of $68.6 million. (h) Revenue adjustments include $16.6 million for direct applications and transfers in, $3.2 million increase in property transfer tax revenue estimate, and $10.9 million from the General Fund Surplus Reserve. Expenditure adjustments include $4.7 million from the Education Fund, $0.3 million Federal “Part D” refund, $3.5 million to Catamount Fund, $0.5 million to Internal Service Funds, $8.0 million to miscellaneous other funds, $2.6 million to the Budget Stabilization Reserve, $19.9 million to the General Fund Surplus Reserve and other reserves. (i) Revenue adjustments include $1,900 million in transfers to General Funds. Expenditure adjustments include $2,735.0 million in transfers out, $467.0 million for Pension Obligation Bond Debt Service, $3 million in interest payments on general obligation bond short-term borrowing and a $198 million increase in the end of year accounts payable. (j) Revenue Adjustments: Property Tax Reform Revenues; Expenditure Adjustments: Local Option Income Tax Distributions, Reversal of Payment Delays, PTRF Adjust for Abstracts, Property Tax Reform (HEA 1001 - 2008) Appropriations. (k) Expenditure Adjustments include $99.8 million was appropriated from the ending balance of the general fund to the Property Tax Credit fund to pay for property tax credits in FY 2008. $48.3 million of the ending balance was credited to the Senior Living Trust Fund. (l) FY 2008 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes ($1,192.1 million); revenue sharing law changes ($589.3 million); sale of properties ($23.0 million); and other revenue adjustments ($111.6 million). (m) Ending balance includes budget reserve of $654.9 million, cash flow account of $350 million and appropriations carried forward of $217.2 million. (n) Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. Per Nebraska law, includes a transfer of $191.4 million to the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) of the amount the prior year’s net General Fund receipts exceeded the official forecast. The Revenue adjustment also includes a $105 million transfer from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund. (o) Revenue adjustments are a $115.0 million transfer from the permanent oil tax trust fund to the general fund. (p) Adjustments in Revenues: $6.5 million was from one-time receipts, $25.7 million was transferred from the Property Tax Reduction Fund to cover the budget shortfall, and $0.2 million was obligated cash carried forward from FY 2007. Adjustments in Expenditures: $0.2 million was transferred to the Budget Reserve Fund from the prior year’s obligated cash, and $0.2 million was obligated cash to the Budget Reserve Fun. (q) Revenue adjustments include Transfers In General Fund, $242.9 million, Other Revenue, $307.5 million, Tribal Gaming, $18 million. Expenditure
390 The Book of the States 2010
Adjustments Include Designation for Continuing Balances, $27.4 million and Unreserved Designated Balance, -$6.8 million. (r) Revenue adjustments include release of prior year Debt Service Reserve and Public School and College Authority repayment for Enterprise School. Expenditure adjustments are reversions. (s) Adjustment is agency surplus returned to Treasury as reported by State Accounting Office. (t) Revenue includes $115.1 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $288.6 million that represents appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $168.4 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded to the next fiscal year. (u) Revenue adjustments: includes on-going transfers from other funds into GR. (v) Revenue adjustments include the Rainy Day Fund deposit of $25 million and the cash flow difference of $9.6 million. No spillover money was appropriated. (w) Revenue adjustments include $106.0 million transfer from debt service fund unexpended appropriations, $284.2 million transfer from statutory and other reserves, -$207.1 million transfer to Rainy Day Fund, and $26.5 million transfer from other dedicated revenue reserves. Expenditure adjustments include $293.0 million transfer to capital outlay projects fund, $15.1 million transfer to Highway Fund, and $343.9 million transfer to reserves for dedicated revenue appropriations. (x) Revenue adjustment related to transfer of General Funds to dedicated accounts. Expenditure adjustment related to transfers to the Rainy Day Fund. (y) Fiscal Year 2008 Beginning balance includes $287.1 million in Reappropriations, Unappropriated Surplus Balance of $106.8 million, and FY 2007 13th month expenditures of $38.2 million. Expenditures include Regular, Surplus and Reappropriated and $38.2 million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Revenue adjustment are from prior year redeposit. Expenditure adjustment represents the amount transferred to the Rainy Day Fund. (z) Revenue Adjustments include: $250.0 million Oil & Gas Tax Credits and $19.9 million Reappropriations and Carry Forward. Expenditure Adjustments are deposits to the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the Statutory Budget Reserve, the Community Revenue Sharing Fund, the Marine Highway Stabilization Fund and a Public Education Fund Adjustment. (aa) Adjustments to revenues include $560 million Rainy Day fund transfer, $290 million agency fund transfers, and $8.7 million other adjustments. (bb) Revenue adjustments include GF diversion (which are not counted as expenditures) to fund the State’s transportation needs, as well as transfers to the State Veterans Trust Fund and the Older (cc) Coloradans Cash Fund. The difference between the rainy day fund balance and the ending GF balance is allocated to capital construction and transportation purposes in the following fiscal year. (cc) Incorrect recording of general excise taxes. (dd) Transfers included: $19,059,100 to Budget Stabilization Fund; $351,500 to the Public School Permanent Fund for prior year unclaimed property, escheats, and interest amounts inadvertently transferred to the General Fund; $5,300,000 to Disaster Emergency Account; $1,328,000 to Water Resources; $60,000,000 to the Economic Recovery Reserve Fund; $10,000,000 for Opportunity Scholarship Fund; and a $1,500,000 transfer to DEQ to fund the Community Reinvestment pilot program created during the 2006 legislative session without funding; $10,000,000 to the Water Board Revolving Development Fund; $69,300 for Hazardous Substance Emergency Response Fund; $255,000 Agriculture Pest Control Fund; and $21,500,000 to the Fire Suppression Fund. (ee) All adjustments are transfers between reserve accounts, except for $22.4 million transferred out from Tobacco Settlement Permanent Fund, a reserve account to the Tobacco Settlement Program Fund, a nonreserve account. (ff) Oregon budgets on a biennial basis. The constitution requires the state to be balanced at the end of each biennium. Revenues are after $1.1 billion “kicker” refunds were returned to taxpayers. Revenue adjustment is the transfer of revenues to the new Rainy Day Fund. (gg) Includes transfers from previous year balance, to/from Rainy Day Fund, and special revenue funds. (hh) Fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts, and balancing to the final audited ending balance. (ii) Wyoming budgets on a biennial basis, to arrive at annual figures assumptions and estimates were required. (jj) Revenues adjusted due to economic conditions.
state finance
Table 7.2 fiscal 2009 state general fund, preliminary actual, by region (In millions of dollars) State
Beginning Ending Budget balance Revenues Adjustments Resources Expenditures Adjustments balance stabilization fund
U.S. totals......................
$34,539
$626,414
...
$674,794
$663,890
...
$8,165
$27,111
Eastern Region Connecticut................... Delaware *.................... Maine (a)....................... Maryland (b)................. Massachusetts* (c)........ New Hampshire............ New Jersey * (d)........... New York * (e).............. Pennsylvania (f)............ Rhode Island (g)........... Vermont (h).................. Regional totals..............
0 526 1 487 2,406 17 1,304 2,754 583 -41 0 8,036
15,701 3,148 2,855 12,901 30,850 1,474 28,700 53,801 24,305 3,023 1,103 177,860
179 0 244 1,008 0 0 365 0 166 -44 66 ...
15,880 3,674 3,100 14,396 33,256 1,491 30,369 56,555 25,054 2,938 1,168 187,881
16,828 3,296 3,018 14,309 32,421 1,560 29,612 54,607 27,084 2,999 1,146 186,880
0 0 30 0 0 -69 23 0 0 0 22 . . .
-948 379 52 87 835 0 734 1,948 -2,030 -61 0 996
1,382 186 0 692 766 20 0 1,206 755 80 60 5,148
Midwestern Region Illinois (i)....................... Indiana (j)..................... Iowa (k)......................... Kansas........................... Michigan (l)................... Minnesota * (m)........... Nebraska (n)................. North Dakota (o)......... Ohio (p)......................... South Dakota (q).......... Wisconsin (r)................. Regional totals..............
141 1,050 0 527 458 1,920 584 453 1,682 0 131 6,946
27,551 13,063 5,889 5,710 7,224 15,536 3,351 1,354 26,685 1,141 12,113 119,616
1,593 0 45 0 1,048 0 -182 0 0 13 573 . . .
29,285 14,113 5,934 6,236 8,731 17,456 3,753 1,807 28,367 1,154 12,817 129,652
29,961 13,019 5,934 6,164 8,520 16,918 3,329 1,237 27,632 1,153 12,744 126,611
-955 130 0 0 0 494 0 208 0 0 -17 . . .
279 964 0 73 210 538 424 362 735 0 90 3,675
276 365 519 0 2 350 578 325 0 107 0 2,523
Southern Region Alabama (s).................. Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia * (t)................. Kentucky (u)................. Louisiana (v)................. Mississippi..................... Missouri (w).................. North Carolina.............. Oklahoma (x)................ South Carolina*............ Tennessee (y)................ Texas (z)........................ Virginia.......................... West Virginia (aa)......... Regional totals..............
219 0 321 2,217 86 866 36 836 599 290 324 348 7,034 313 550 14,038
6,739 4,435 23,953 16,767 8,553 9,386 4,931 7,451 19,146 6,147 5,544 9,899 38,817 15,769 3,902 181,437
557 0 0 653 625 119 0 425 0 131 0 646 -28 0 27 . . .
7,515 4,435 24,274 19,638 9,263 10,370 4,967 8,712 19,745 6,567 5,869 10,893 45,823 16,082 4,479 198,629
7,465 4,435 23,973 17,455 9,158 9,382 5,178 8,454 19,653 6,534 5,748 10,802 42,629 15,943 3,980 190,788
0 0 0 0 66 912 -218 0 0 0 0 90 1,060 0 18 . . .
50 0 301 2,183 40 76 7 258 92 33 121 0 2,134 139 481 5,914
0 0 274 240 7 776 334 273 150 597 0 587 6,739 575 473 11,023
0 1 2,376 284 330 240 434 316 735 5 0 790 10 5,519
5,858 6,966 84,098 6,681 5,008 2,466 1,816 3,468 5,846 5,849 4,529 13,092 1,825 147,501
801 1,310 1,260 640 0 15 0 0 170 0 487 930 0 . . .
6,659 8,277 87,733 7,605 5,338 2,720 2,250 3,783 6,750 5,854 5,016 14,811 1,835 158,632
5,152 8,775 91,547 7,456 5,375 2,720 1,858 3,570 6,051 5,843 4,817 14,617 1,830 159,612
1,507 0 -435 0 0 -50 0 0 218 0 200 0 0 . . .
0 -499 -3,379 148 -37 50 392 213 481 11 0 194 5 -2,419
6,551 0 0 148 60 102 0 1 481 338 419 24 296 8,418
3,144 0
63,403 9,488
. . . -728
70,899 8,761
68,065 9,484
. . . 0
960 -723
8,418 0
Western Region Alaska (bb)................... Arizona (cc).................. California...................... Colorado* (dd)............. Hawaii........................... Idaho* (ee).................... Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico* (ff).......... Oregon (gg)................... Utah (hh)....................... Washington (ii)............. Wyoming (jj)................. Regional totals.............. Regional totals.............. without California..... Puerto Rico (kk)...........
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 391
state finance
fiscal 2009 state general fund, preliminary actual, by region—Continued (In millions of dollars) Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of the States (December 2009). Note: For all states unless otherwise noted, transfers into budget stabilization funds are counted as expenditures and transfers from budget stabilization funds are counted as revenues. Key: * In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the budget stabilization fund. NA — Indicates data are not available. . . .— Not applicable (a) Revenue and expenditure adjustments reflect legislatively authorized transfers. (b) Revenue adjustments reflect a $13.2 million reimbursement from the reserve for Heritage Tax Credits, $6 million reimbursement from the reserve for Biotechnology Tax Credits, transfer of $170 million from the State Reserve Fund, transfer of $380.2 million from Accounting Reserves, and transfers of $439.0 million from other special funds. (c) Includes budgeted fund balances. (d) Transfer from and to other funds. In keeping with past practice, and to ensure consistency in survey results over time, the figures above exclude New Jersey’s Casino Revenue Fund, Casino Control Fund and Gubernatorial Elections Fund. (e) The ending balance includes $1.2 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $503 million reserved for timing-related changes and other risks, $145 million in a community projects fund, $73 million reserved for debt reduction and $21 million in a reserve for litigation risks. (f) Revenue adjustment includes a $2.5 million adjustment to the beginning balance and $163.8 million in prior year lapses. (g) Opening balance includes a free surplus of ($43.0) million and reappropriations of $1.7 million from the prior year. Adjustments to revenues reflect a net transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund, consisting of a transfer-in of $66.1 million and an appropriation of $22.0 million from the fund to partially cover the FY 2008 closing shortfall. (h) Revenue adjustments include $37.7 million for direct applications and transfers in, $7.7 million other bills revenue, $1.3 million increase in property transfer tax revenue estimate, and $19.1 million from the General Fund Surplus Reserve. Expenditure adjustments include 0.7 million to the Education Fund, $3.7 million from the Tobacco Settlement Fund, $7.3 million to the Next Generation Fund, $1.0 million from Human Services Caseload Reserve, $3.1 million to Internal Service Funds, $3.9 million from miscellaneous other funds, $2.2 million to the Budget Stabilization Reserve, and $17.2 million to the General Fund Surplus Reserve and other reserves (i) Revenue adjustments include $1,593 million in transfers to General Funds. Expenditure adjustments include $2,532.0 million in transfers out and $467.0 million for Pension Obligation Bond Debt Service; net “failure of revenue” borrowing proceeds of $976 and a $2,978 million increase in accounts payable. (j) The full impact of Property Tax Reform (HEA 1001-2008) revenues and expenditures have been incorporated into the FY 2009 and FY 2010 figures, as the State of Indiana recently assumed more than $1 billion of expenses from the local level. Expenditure Adjustments: Local Option Income Tax Distributions, Reversal of Payment Delays, PTRF Adjust for Abstracts. (k) Revenue adjustments are for the $45.3 million transfer from the Economic Emergency Fund to the General Fund per Executive Order 18. An additional $56 million was appropriated from the Economic Emergency Fund to pay for disaster related expenses relating to the 2008 flood/ storm disaster. (l) FY 2009 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes ($210.9 million); revenue sharing law changes ($538.3 million); deposits from state restricted revenues ($238.4 million; and pending revenue options ($60.6 million). (m) Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million. FY 2009 includes $494.2 in federal stimulus funds that were used to offset general fund spending. (n) Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. Per Nebraska law, includes a transfer of $117 million to the Cash Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund) of the amount the prior year’s net General Fund receipts exceeded the official forecast. The Revenue adjustment also includes a $115 million transfer from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund. (o) Expenditure adjustments are $77.0 million of expenditure authority carried over to the 2009-2011 biennium, obligating an equal amount of the general fund balance. The balance shown is the unobligated balance after subtracting all expenditures and obligations. Also included in the adjustments are a $125.0 million transfer to the budget stabilization fund and $6.0 million of other transfers from the general fund.
392 The Book of the States 2010
(p) Rainy day fund was required in order to balance the FY 2009 budget. (q) Adjustments in Revenues: $12.8 million was from one-time receipts and $0.2 million was obligated cash carried forward from FY 2008. Adjustments in Expenditures: $0.2 million was transferred to the Budget Reserve Fund from the prior year’s unobligated cash. (r) Revenue adjustments include Transfers In General Fund, $151.7 million, Other Revenue, $327.6 million, and Tribal Gaming, $93.9 million. Expenditure Adjustments Include Designation for Continuing Balances, $10.6 million and Unreserved Designated Balance, -$27.4 million. (s) Revenue adjustments include one-time revenue, Tobacco Funds transfer, transfer from the ETF Proration Prevention Account and the ETF Rainy Day Fund. (t) Revenue adjustments include $187.3 million for Mid Year Adjustment Reserve and $200 million from Revenue Shortfall Reserve. $266 million early return of surplus to Treasury. (u) Revenue includes $126.5 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $280.2 million that represents appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $344.5 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded to the next fiscal year. (v) Revenue-Fiscal Year 2007–2008: Carry-forward of mid-year adjustments $114.7 million; Act 208 of 2007 transferred $3 million from the Incentive Fund and $9.9 million from the Higher Education Initiatives Fund; Interim Emergency Board carry-forward of $1.5 million; re-appropriation of Capital Outlay per Act 28 of 2007 $1.2 million. Expenditures-Fiscal Year 2007–2008: Interim Emergency Board carry-forward balance $3.3 million; Carry-forward mid-year adjustments $91.2 million; Capital Outlay carryforwards $733.6 million. (w) Expenditure adjustment includes $199.9 million for budget cuts, $11.6 million in general fund lapses and reappropriations, and $6.8 million for other adjustments. (x) Revenue Adjustments: includes on-going transfers from other funds into GR and a one-time transfer from federal budget stabilization funds into GR. (y) Revenue adjustment is the Cash flow difference of $130.5 million. No Rainy Day Fund deposit was made. (z) Revenue adjustments include $124.8.0 million transfer from debt service fund unexpended appropriations, $126.5 million transfer from TennCare reserve, $190.2 million transfer from capital outlay projects fund, $41.2 million transfer from other agency reserves, and $163.5 million transfer from Rainy Day Fund. Expenditure adjustments include $70.5 million transfer to capital outlay projects fund and $19.8 million for dedicated revenue appropriations. (aa) Expenditure adjustment related to transfers to the Rainy Day Fund. (bb) Fiscal Year 2009 Beginning balance includes $409.6 million in Reappropriations, Unappropriated Surplus Balance of $35.3 million, and FY 2008 13th month expenditures of $105.5 million. Expenditures include Regular, Surplus and Reappropriated and $105.5 million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Revenue adjustment are from prior year redeposit and expirations from Civil Contingent Fund for Flood Relief. Expenditure adjustment represents the amount transferred to the Rainy Day Fund. (cc) Revenue Adjustments include: $787.3 million draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve and $14.0 million of Reappropriations and Carry Forward. Expenditure Adjustments include: payment of a one-time Resource Rebate, deposits to the Public Education Fund, the Constitutional Budget Reserve, and the Oil & Gas Tax Credit Fund. (dd) Adjustments to revenues include $152 million Rainy Day fund transfer, $709 million agency fund transfers, $103.5 million other transfers, and $344 million proceeds from prior year’s lease purchase financing of school buildings. (ee) Revenue and revenue adjustments above reflect what was published in the Legislative Council forecast on June 22, 2009, plus additional cash fund transfers to the General Fund to eliminate the budgetary shortfall. These additional transfers were allowable pursuant to the passage of SB 09-279, which authorized the Governor to transfer additional cash funds into the General Fund (for one day only) to ensure that the FY 2008-2009 fiscal year could close without a deficit. Figures above therefore reflect the minimum amount needed to preserve the 2 percent GF reserve requirement at fiscal year end for FY 2008-2009. (ff) Transfers included: $5,645,200 to the Permanent Building Fund, $20,000,000 to Water Resources aquifer study $1,000,000 for Health and Welfare Community Health Center Grant; $10,000,000 Opportunity Scholarship Fund; and $1,800,000 for the Water Resource Board Revolving Development Fund. Transfer in include: $920,100 from Geo Thermal royalties; $12,000,000 from the Water Resources aquifer study; $5,000,000 from the Capitol Commission; $2,200,000 from the Attorney General’s Office— Consumer Protection; and $11,950,200 from the Permanent Building Fund.
state finance
fiscal 2009 state general fund, preliminary actual, by regionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued (In millions of dollars) (gg) All adjustments are transfers between reserve accounts, except for $48.6 million transferred out from Tobacco Settlement Permanent Fund, a reserve account to the Tobacco Settlement Program Fund, a nonreserve account. (hh) Includes transfers from previous year balance, to/from Rainy Day
Fund, and special revenue funds. (ii) Fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts. (jj) Wyoming budgets on a biennial basis, to arrive at annual figures assumptions and estimates were required. (kk) Revenues adjusted due to economic conditions.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 393
state finance
Table 7.3 fiscal 2010 state general fund, appropriated, by region (In millions of dollars) State U.S. totals......................
Beginning Ending Budget balance Revenues Adjustments Resources Expenditures Adjustments balance stabilization fund . . .
$14,085
$25,583
Eastern Region Connecticut................... 0 17,375 0 17,375 17,375 0 Delaware*(a)................ 373 3,191 0 3,564 3,237 0 Maine (b)....................... 52 2,865 46 2,963 2,928 25 Maryland (c)................. 87 12,314 718 13,120 13,349 0 Massachusetts*(d)........ 941 31,362 0 32,304 31,605 0 New Hampshire............ 0 1,563 0 1,563 1,561 0 New Jersey* (e)............ 734 28,351 0 29,085 28,577 7 New York*(f)................ 1,948 54,338 0 56,286 54,908 0 Pennsylvania (g)........... -2,030 27,564 0 25,533 25,179 0 Rhode Island (h).......... -61 3,077 -72 2,944 3,000 0 Vermont (i)................... 0 1,051 34 1,085 1,088 -3 Regional totals.............. 2,045 183,050 . . . 185,821 182,806 . . .
$9,279
$627,198
. . .
$646,820
$627,870
1 327 11 -229 699 2 501 1,378 354 -57 0 2,987
342 186 0 647 571 20 0 1,206 1 117 57 3,148
Midwestern Region Illinois (j)....................... 279 27,078 2,221 29,578 25,133 4,166 Indiana (k).................... 964 12,892 0 13,856 12,890 0 Iowa (l).......................... 0 5,438 0 5,438 5,768 -519 Kansas........................... 73 5,536 0 5,608 5,614 0 Michigan (m)................ 210 6,895 1,152 8,257 8,081 0 Minnesota* (n)............. 538 14,854 0 15,392 15,054 1,610 Nebraska (o)................. 424 3,409 -31 3,802 3,381 266 North Dakota (p)......... 362 1,270 295 1,927 1,592 0 Ohio............................... 389 25,555 0 25,944 25,770 0 South Dakota (q).......... 0 1,130 4 1,134 1,134 0 Wisconsin (r)................. 90 12,346 831 13,267 13,341 -545 Regional totals.............. 3,329 116,403 . . . 124,203 117,758 . . .
279 966 189 -5 176 338 156 335 174 0 470 3,078
276 371 419 0 2 350 465 325 0 107 0 2,315
Southern Region Alabama........................ 50 7,108 0 7,158 7,158 0 Arkansas........................ 0 4,509 0 4,509 4,509 0 Florida........................... 301 21,562 0 21,862 21,195 0 Georgia* (s).................. 2,183 16,994 259 19,436 17,253 0 Kentucky (t).................. 40 8,408 147 8,595 8,584 11 Louisiana (u)................. 0 8,060 954 9,013 9,011 0 Mississippi..................... 7 4,899 0 4,906 4,906 0 Missouri (v)................... 258 7,376 189 7,823 7,859 -77 North Carolina.............. 92 18,927 0 19,019 19,015 0 Oklahoma...................... 33 6,049 0 6,082 5,853 0 South Carolina*............ 121 5,778 0 5,899 5,805 0 Tennessee (w)............... 0 10,000 55 10,055 9,997 58 Texas.............................. 2,134 37,532 0 39,665 36,041 741 Virginia.......................... 139 15,755 0 15,894 15,844 0 West Virginia (x)........... 481 3,788 0 4,269 3,812 11 Regional totals.............. 5,838 176,743 . . . 184,184 176,841 . . .
0 0 667 2,183 0 2 0 41 4 229 94 0 2,884 50 446 6,600
0 0 274 240 0 854 250 260 150 0 192 532 8,053 584 538 11,926
0 -583 1,579 136 25 42 306 168 -4 -438 30 160 0 1,420
6,902 0 0 136 57 77 0 1 -5 219 419 108 279 8,194
-159
8,194
0
0
Western Region Alaska (y)...................... 0 3,211 1,124 4,335 4,335 0 Arizona (z).................... 0 7,117 1,072 8,188 8,772 0 California...................... -3,379 89,541 0 86,162 84,583 0 Colorado*(aa)............... 148 6,766 162 7,076 6,940 0 Hawaii........................... -37 4,664 0 4,627 4,602 0 Idaho (bb)..................... 50 2,539 -40 2,548 2,507 0 Montana........................ 392 1,773 0 2,165 1,859 0 Nevada........................... 213 3,205 0 3,418 3,250 0 New Mexico*(cc).......... 481 5,111 607 6,199 5,513 690 Oregon (dd).................. 0 6,490 0 6,490 6,928 0 Utah (ee)....................... 0 4,365 200 4,564 4,498 36 Washington (ff)............. 194 14,396 418 15,008 14,848 0 Wyoming (gg)............... 5 1,825 0 1,830 1,830 0 Regional totals.............. -1932 151,001 . . . 152,611 150,465 . . . Regional totals.............. without California..... 1,447 61,460 . . . 66,449 65,882 . . . Puerto Rico (hh)...........
0
7,670
0
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of the States (December 2009). Note: For all states, unless otherwise noted, transfers into budget stabilization funds are counted as expenditures, and transfers from budget stabilization funds are counted as revenues.
394 The Book of the States 2010
7,670
7,670
0
Key: *In these states, the ending balance includes the balance in the budget stabilization fund. NA—Indicates data are not available. . . .—Not applicable
state finance
fiscal 2010 state general fund, appropriated, by region—Continued (In millions of dollars) (a) FY 2010 revenues are reported as per enactment of appropriations legislation in July 2009 and are not updated for subsequent revisions by the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council. FY 2010 expenditure does reflect estimate as of September DEFAC (b) Revenue and expenditure adjustments reflect legislatively authorized transfers. (c) Revenue adjustments reflect a $18.5 million reimbursement from the reserve for Heritage Tax Credits, $6 million reimbursement from the reserve for Biotechnology Tax Credits, transfer of $210 million from the State Reserve Fund, approved transfers of $216.3 million, and proposed transfers of $267.3 million from other special funds. (d) Includes budgeted fund balances. (e) Transfer to other funds. In keeping with past practice, and to ensure consistency in survey results over time, the figures above exclude New Jersey’s Casino Revenue Fund, Casino Control Fund and Gubernatorial Elections Fund. (f) The ending balance includes $1.2 billion in rainy day reserve funds, $78 million in a community projects fund, $73 million reserved for debt reduction and $21 million in a reserve for litigation risks. (g) The FY 2010 enacted budget transfers $755 million from the Rainy Day Fund to the General Fund. This amount is included in FY2010 revenues. (h) Opening balance includes a free surplus of ($61.8) million and reappropriations of $998,144 from the prior year. Adjustments to revenues reflect transfers to the Budget Stabilization Fund. (i) Revenue adjustments include—$0.5 million VEDA debt forgiveness, $15.7 million for direct applications and transfers in, $13.1 other bills revenue, $5.5 million increase in property transfer tax revenue estimate. Expenditure adjustments include $3.3 million to the Next Generation Fund, $1.2 from the Bond Issuance Premium Reserve, $3.1 million from Human Services Caseload Reserve, $0.4 million to Internal Service Funds, $2.7 million from the Budget Stabilization Reserves. (j) Revenue adjustments include $2,221 million in transfers to General Funds. Expenditure adjustments include $2,321.0 million in transfers out and $520.0 million for Pension Obligation Bond Debt Service; $1,045 million in interest payments on general obligation bond short-term borrowing and a $279 million paydown in accounts payable. (k) The full impact of Property Tax Reform (HEA 1001-2008) revenues and expenditures have been incorporated into the FY 2009 and FY 2010 figures, as the State of Indiana recently assumed more than $1 billion of expenses from the local level. (l) Revenue is based upon the Revenue Estimating Conference estimates made on October 7, 2009. Expenditures are adjusted for the statutory appropriation to repay the $45.3 million transfer in FY2009 and the 10% across the board reduction of—$564.4 million ordered by Governor Culver in Executive Order 19 issued after the REC meeting which reduced General Fund revenues for FY2010 by $414.1 million. Cash Reserve Fund is reduced by appropriations made for 2008 Flood Disaster related expenses and property tax credits. (m) FY 2010 revenue adjustments include the impact of federal and state law changes ($55.1 million); revenue sharing law changes ($513.9 million); deposits from state restricted revenue ($527.6 million); and pending revenue options ($55.3 million). (n) Ending balance includes cash flow account of $350 million. FY 2010 includes $1,610.3 million in federal stimulus funds that were used to offset general fund spending. (o) Revenue adjustments are transfers between the General Fund and other funds. The Revenue adjustment also includes a $112 million transfer from the General Fund to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund. Expenditure adjustments are reappropriations ($265.6 million) of the unexpended balance of appropriations allowed by the Legislature to be carried over into FY2010 to offset restrained growth in new appropriations. (p) Revenue adjustments are a $295.0 million transfer from the permanent oil tax trust fund to the general fund. (q) Adjustments in Revenues: $3.9 million was from one-time receipts. (r) Act 28 Budget Bill. Revenue adjustments include Tribal Gaming, $19.5 million, and Other, $811.8 million. Expenditure Adjustments include estimated lapses,—$592 million, and Compensation Reserve, $47.3 million. (s) Appropriation from Revenue Shortfall Reserve (t) Revenue includes $112.3 million in Tobacco Settlement funds. Adjustment for Revenues includes $17.7 million that represents appropriation balances carried over from the prior fiscal year, and $129.2 million from fund transfers into the General Fund. Adjustment to Expenditures represents appropriation balances forwarded to the next fiscal year. (u) Revenue-Fiscal Year 2009–2010: Act 226 of 2009 transferred $3.9 million from the Incentive Fund, $13.5 million from the Rapid Response Fund, and $75.6 million from the Insure Louisiana Incentive Program Fund; Act 20 of 2009 appropriated 782.3 million of non-recurring revenues for capital outlay projects; Act 122 of 2009 authorized utilization of $86.2 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund; Act 478 of 2009 provides for $8 million in
tax credits. Expenditures-Fiscal Year 2009–2010: Interim Emergency Board carry-forward balance $3.3 million; Carry-forward mid-year adjustments $91.2 million; Capital Outlay carry-forwards $733.6 million. (v) Revenue Adjustments: includes on-going transfers from other funds into GR Expenditure Adjustments: reflects the amount of expenditure restrictions placed on appropriations. (w) Revenue adjustments include $55.0 million transfer from Rainy Day Fund. Expenditure adjustments include $40.1 million transfer to capital outlay projects fund and $17.8 million transfer to dedicated revenue appropriations. (x) Fiscal Year 2010 Beginning balance includes $432.6 million in Reappropriations, Unappropriated Surplus Balance of $22.2 million, and FY 2009 13th month expenditures of $26.0 million. Expenditures include Regular appropriations and $26.0 million of 31 day prior year expenditures. Ending Balance is the amount that is available for appropriation (From FY 2010 revenue estimate and from surplus {previous year} general revenue) and reappropriations carried forward from FY 2009. Historically some carried forward reappropriation amounts will remain and be reappropriated to the next fiscal year. (y) Revenue Adjustments include: $12.0 million Reappropriations and Carry Forward, not capitalizing the Public Education Fund for FY 2011 totaling $1,053.4 million, and a draw of $58.6 million from the Constitutional Budget Reserve. (z) Adjustments to revenues include $236 million agency fund transfers, $735 million State asset sale/lease back and $100 million in prison concession revenues. (aa) Represents Governor’s Plan for Budget Balancing executed/submitted August 25, 2009. The revenues and revenue adjustments noted above reflect what was published in the Legislative Council Staff Economic forecast on June 22, 2009 (used as the basis for FY 2009–2010 appropriations by the legislature and the Governor). These figures were as adjusted in Column D by the following: (1) Within the LCS Forecast: +$280.8 million transfers to the GF, +$81.9 million Medicaid ARRA and Governor’s Discretionary Fund,—$10.9 million for sales taxes to Older Coloradans Fund and other measures; (2) State Controller Preliminary (8/4/09) Closing Estimates of the following: Excess GF at year end beyond reserve of +$269.0 million pursuant to SB 09–279 less reduction of—$458.1 million required payback of SB 09–279 for FY 2008-2009 balancing plus adjustment of +$2.8 million from Gaming; and (3) OSPB Governor’s Office initiatives of the following: (a) reduction of—$45.4 million in revenue from $81.9 million Medicaid ARRA and Governor’s Discretionary Funds (these are instead used as offsets to the DOC GF expenditures in FY 2009–2010); +$40.6 million proposed new CF transfers to the GF; and +$800,000 procurement card proposal. The ending reserve balance represents the statutory requirement of 2.0 percent of GF appropriations; this sum is 2.0 percent of a lower number because of balancing efforts put forward by the Governor on August 25, 2009. (bb) Transfers in included: $30 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund; $10 million from the Permanent Building Fund, $1,680,000 from the Division of Human Resources cash on hand; $1 million from Department of Agriculture; $446,900 from Dept. of Labor—Rural Broadband; $618,500 from the Attorney General—Consumer Protection; transfers $1,172,100 stimulus dollars to the General Fund for Professional-Technical Education, and transfer $2.6 million from the Bond Levy Equalization. Transfer out include $85.1 the Public Education Stabilization Fund. (cc) All adjustments are transfers between reserve accounts, except for (1) $48.6 million transferred out from Tobacco Settlement Permanent Fund, a reserve account to the Tobacco Settlement Program Fund, a nonreserve account; (2) $15 million transferred from the appropriation account to the College Affordability Fund; and (3) $20 million transferred from the appropriation account to the public school capital outlay fund. (dd) Oregon budgets on a biennial basis. The constitution requires the state to be balanced at the end of each biennium. Revenues include recently passed income tax increases. These tax increases could be referred to the voters through the referendum process, resulting in a special January 2010 election. (ee) Includes transfers from previous year balance, to/from Rainy Day Fund, and special revenue funds. (ff) Fund transfers between General Fund and other accounts. (gg) Wyoming budgets on a biennial basis, to arrive at annual figures assumptions and estimates were required. (hh) The General Fund Budget excludes a $2.5 billion Stabilization Fund that will facilitate the orderly implementation of certain expense reduction measures adopted by the government of the Commonwealth pursuant to Act No. 7 of March 9, 2009. The Stabilization Fund will provide (i) $1 billion to finance the cost of transitioning public employees to non-governmental sectors and providing vouchers for re-training, self-employment, relocation and salary subsidy alternatives, and (ii) $1.5 billion to cover payroll and operating expenses that are expected to be reduced through fiscal year 2010, but whose savings will not be realized in such fiscal year. The Stabilization Fund will be funded with proceeds from the bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation
The Council of State Governments 395
state finance
Table 7.4 fiscal 2009 state tax collections compared with projections used in adopting fiscal 2009 budgets, by region (In millions of dollars) Sales tax
Personal income tax
Corporate income tax
State
Original estimate
Current estimate
Original estimate
Current estimate
Original estimate
Current estimate
Revenue collection (a)
U.S. totals (b)................
$182,341
$169,534
$210,807
$192,133
$35,720
$30,026
—
Eastern Region Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Maine............................. Maryland....................... Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey (c)............... New York....................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional totals (b)........
3,748 NA 983 4,034 4,286 NA 9,136 10,914 8,731 823 229 33,747
3,319 NA 975 3,611 3,869 NA (c) 10,274 8,136 808 214 31,205
7,676 1,038 1,282 7,445 12,762 NA 12,700 38,149 11,489 971 588 81,401
6,386 913 1,243 6,782 10,584 NA (c) 36,840 10,199 941 530 74,416
792 92 149 673 1,705 320 2,898 6,559 2,321 112 59 12,782
616 134 143 582 1,549 250 (c) 5,556 1,980 104 66 10,981
L L L L L L (c) L L L L —
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ Indiana (d).................... Iowa............................... Kansas........................... Michigan (e).................. Minnesota...................... Nebraska....................... North Dakota................ Ohio............................... South Dakota................ Wisconsin...................... Regional totals (b)........
7,297 6,726 2,055 1,940 6,645 4,601 1,359 537 7,948 676 4,479 44,263
6,773 6,153 2,327 1,925 6,212 4,378 1,326 622 7,113 659 4,084 41,572
10,432 4,934 351 2,775 7,010 7,767 1,750 255 9,201 NA 7,106 51,580
9,223 4,314 3,331 2,682 6,058 7,012 1,600 375 7,628 NA 6,223 48,445
1,937 947 424 255 2,661 969 215 70 522 NA 860 8,859
1,710 839 417 240 2,160 710 199 99 521 NA 630 7,525
L L L L L L L H L L T —
Southern Region Alabama........................ Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia.......................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri......................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma...................... South Carolina.............. Tennessee (f)................. Texas.............................. Virginia.......................... West Virginia................. Regional totals (b)........
2,114 2,185 19,093 5,594 2,978 2,891 2,019 1,937 5,049 1,701 2,699 7,019 21,167 3,226 1,222 80,894
1,796 2,081 16,531 5,343 2,858 2,841 1,922 1,813 4,678 1,647 2,248 6,331 21,700 2,961 1,159 75,908
3,245 2,295 NA 8,479 3,473 2,873 1,617 5,448 10,895 2,165 2,970 262 NA 10,777 1,585 56,084
2,661 2,239 NA 7,815 3,315 2,831 1,475 4,876 9,470 2,014 2,327 221 NA 9,697 1,653 50,594
481 306 2,223 729 513 969 528 471 1,095 289 249 1,664 NA 706 315 10,539
427 334 1,833 695 268 881 422 358 836 266 207 1,369 NA 685 285 8,865
L L L L L T L L L L L L H L T —
NA 4,644 26,813 1,929 2,590 1,042 16 1,164 2,404 NA 1,821 8,508 485 51,414
NA 3,756 NA 1,931 2,418 1,022 15 NA 2,310 NA 1,544 7,330 522 20,849
NA 3,615 54,380 4,239 1,529 1,223 853 NA 1,140 6,375 2,769 NA NA 76,122
NA 2,568 NA 4,333 1,338 1,168 815 NA 1,015 5,117 2,323 NA NA 18,678
810 841 11,926 331 83 157 157 NA 399 432 330 NA NA 15,466
685 592 NA 293 54 141 166 NA 200 244 281 NA NA 2,655
L L L H L L L L L L T L H —
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California...................... Colorado........................ Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico.................. Oregon........................... Utah............................... Washington................... Wyoming....................... Regional totals (b)........ Regional totals without California (b) Puerto Rico...................
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
911
865
2,770
2,614
1,751
1,364
See footnotes at end of table.
396 The Book of the States 2010
L
state finance
fiscal 2009 state tax collections compared with projections used in adopting fiscal 2009 budgets, by region—Continued (In millions of dollars) Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of the States (December 2009). Note: Unless otherwise noted, original estimates reflect the figures used when the fiscal 2009 budget was adopted, and current estimates reflect preliminary actual tax collections. Key: H—Revenues higher than estimates. L—Revenues lower than estimates. T—Revenues on target. NA—Indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. (a) Refers to whether actual fiscal 2009 collections of Sales, Personal Income and Corporate taxes were higher than, lower than, or on target with original estimates. (b) Totals include only those states with data for both original and current estimates for fiscal 2009. (c) These numbers are still being developed and researched.
(d) Sales tax revenues include revenue from the one penny increase in the sales tax rate effective April 1, 2008. The increase was part of the property tax reform plan that shifted over $1 billion of expenses from local units to state government. (e) The fiscal 2010 enacted budget is based on the May 2009 consensus estimates and is net of all enacted tax changes. Tax estimates represent total tax collections. Sales tax collections are for the Michigan sales tax only and do not include collections from Michigan use tax. Michigan does not have a Corporate Income tax; estimates are for the Michigan Business Tax that replaced Michigan’s Single Business Tax effective December 2007. The fiscal 2010 revenues appear to be lower than May 2009 consensus revenue estimates; updated fiscal 2010 revenue figures will be released at the next regularly scheduled consensus revenue conference in January 2010. (f) Corporate Income Tax includes excise tax and franchise tax. Sales tax, personal income tax and corporate excise tax are shared with local governments.
The Council of State Governments 397
state finance
Table 7.5 comparison of tax collections in fiscal 2008, fiscal 2009, and enacted fiscal 2010, by region (In millions of dollars) Sales tax State
Fiscal 2008
U.S. totals (a)................ $177,951
Personal income tax
Corporate income tax
Fiscal 2009
Fiscal 2010
Fiscal 2008
Fiscal 2009
Fiscal 2010
Fiscal 2008
Fiscal 2009
Fiscal 2010
$169,534
$170,690
$208,404
$191,220
$186,479
$35,803
$30,026
$28,141
Eastern Region Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Maine............................. Maryland....................... Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.................... New York....................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional totals (a)........
$3,582 NA 1,035 3,675 4,087 NA 8,916 10,592 8,497 844 226 32,538
$3,319 NA 975 3,611 3,869 NA (b) 10,274 8,136 808 214 31,205
$3,167 NA 995 3,605 4,664 NA 8,579 10,389 8,391 815 211 32,237
$7,513 1,007 1,444 6,940 12,484 NA 12,606 36,564 10,908 1,074 622 77,548
$6,386 913 1,243 6,782 10,584 NA (b) 36,840 10,199 941 530 73,503
$6,631 936 1,445 6,602 10,380 NA 10,393 37,239 10,277 963 502 74,039
$734 179 185 552 1,513 317 3,133 6,018 2,418 150 75 11,643
$616 134 143 582 1,549 250 (b) 5,556 1,980 104 66 10,596
$722 47 145 556 1,455 258 2,440 5,495 1,878 113 48 10,411
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa............................... Kansas........................... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Nebraska....................... North Dakota................ Ohio............................... South Dakota................ Wisconsin...................... Regional totals (a)........
7,215 5,686 2,000 1,958 6,773 4,571 1,322 555 7,614 645 4,268 41,962
6,773 6,153 2,327 1,925 6,212 4,378 1,326 622 7,113 659 4,084 40,913
6,394 6,132 2,398 1,931 6,067 4,157 1,344 598 7,000 659 4,089 40,109
10,320 4,838 3,360 2,897 7,226 7,759 1,726 307 9,115 NA 6,714 54,261
9,223 4,314 3,331 2,682 6,058 7,012 1,600 375 7,628 NA 6,223 48,445
9,206 4,289 3,311 2,775 5,354 7,043 1,675 321 7,053 NA 6,231 47,258
1,860 910 484 432 2,466 1,020 233 141 753 NA 838 9,137
1,710 839 417 240 2,160 710 199 99 521 NA 630 7,525
1,133 800 394 268 2,214 448 170 120 100 NA 717 6,364
Southern Region Alabama........................ Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia.......................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri......................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma...................... South Carolina.............. Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Virginia.......................... West Virginia................. Regional totals (a)........
2,067 2,110 18,429 5,797 2,878 2,864 1,947 1,931 4,982 1,612 2,463 6,851 21,604 3,076 1,155 39,733
1,796 2,081 16,531 5,343 2,858 2,841 1,922 1,813 4,678 1,647 2,248 6,331 21,700 2,961 1,159 37,676
1,959 2,139 15,902 5,213 3,067 2,614 1,924 1,861 5,374 1,754 2,192 6,414 21,812 3,157 1,194 38,863
2,971 2,345 NA 8,830 3,483 3,169 1,542 5,210 10,902 2,239 2,864 292 NA 10,115 1,614 55,576
2,661 2,239 NA 7,815 3,315 2,831 1,475 4,876 9,470 2,014 2,327 221 NA 9,697 1,653 50,594
2,883 2,189 NA 8,338 3,630 2,557 1,535 5,122 11,386 2,044 2,469 188 NA 1,034 1,617 44,992
501 318 2,217 942 435 940 501 459 1,112 279 269 1,620 0 808 400 8,583
427 334 1,833 695 268 881 422 358 836 266 207 1,369 NA 685 285 7,032
347 324 1,508 543 506 517 379 410 1,192 307 129 1,340 NA 724 235 6,953
NA 4,354 26,613 2,127 2,619 1,142 17 986 2,323 0 1,739 8,216 505 14,320
NA 3,756 NA 1,931 2,418 1,022 15 NA 2,310 NA 1,544 7,330 522 12,997
NA 3,800 24,612 2,031 2,279 1,026 17 815 2,428 NA 1,473 7,551 506 13,053
NA NA 3,407 2,568 54,182 4,974 4,333 1,544 1,338 1,430 1,168 867 815 NA NA 1,214 1,015 4,973 5,117 2,612 2,323 NA NA NA NA 16,047 13,561
NA 2,577 45,275 4,281 1,352 1,212 841 NA 1,237 5,496 2,260 NA NA 13,759
789 785 11,849 508 85 190 160 NA 355 441 416 NA NA 2,498
685 592 NA 293 54 141 166 NA 200 244 281 NA NA 1,727
510 597 9,783 285 60 162 116 NA 273 324 274 NA NA 1,767
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California...................... Colorado........................ Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico.................. Oregon........................... Utah............................... Washington................... Wyoming....................... Regional totals (a)........ Regional totals without California..... Puerto Rico...................
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
911
865
606
$2,793
2,614
2,614
1,566
1,364
1,541
See footnotes at end of table.
398â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
state finance
comparison of tax collections in fiscal 2008, fiscal 2009, and enacted fiscal 2010, by region—Continued (In millions of dollars) Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of the States (December 2009). Note: Unless otherwise noted, fiscal 2008 figures reflect actual tax collections, 2009 figures reflect preliminary actual tax collections estimates, and fiscal 2010 figures reflect the estimates used in enacted budgets.
Key: N.A. — Indicates data are not available because, in most cases, these states do not have that type of tax. (a) Totals include only those states with data for all years. (b) These numbers are still being developed and researched.
The Council of State Governments 399
400â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
$651,280
15,294 3,390 3,023 14,204 27,589 1,391 30,284 51,591 26,298 3,218 1,200 177,482
20,847 12,247 5,363 5,608 9,187 16,517 3,126 1,012 25,148 1,058 13,105 113,218
14,807 4,026 27,680 18,096 8,781 9,327 3,969 7,798 18,662 5,966 6,565 10,182 35,061 16,547 3,714 191,181
U.S. total........................
Eastern Region Connecticut (a)............. Delaware (b)................. Maine............................. Maryland....................... Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey (c)............... New York (d)................ Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional totals..............
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ Indiana (e)..................... Iowa............................... Kansas........................... Michigan (f).................. Minnesota...................... Nebraska (g)................. North Dakota................ Ohio............................... South Dakota................ Wisconsin...................... Regional totals..............
Southern Region Alabama (h).................. Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia.......................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri (i).................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma...................... South Carolina (j)......... Tennessee (k)................ Texas.............................. Virginia.......................... West Virginia................. Regional totals..............
See footnotes at end of table.
General fund
State
10,660 4,594 18,886 10,573 7,051 11,151 7,580 5,328 10,908 8,780 6,680 8,965 22,299 6,244 3,263 142,962
11,398 7,107 3,959 3,131 11,853 5,965 2,366 1,239 8,350 1,200 7,244 63,812
1,540 1,055 2,190 6,363 2,558 1,409 8,751 35,453 17,820 1,847 1,250 80,236
$379,271
11,366 7,439 16,227 4,854 6,448 5,257 3,895 6,985 9,133 3,840 6,633 5,014 12,634 10,946 11,342 122,013
13,362 3,406 5,453 2,985 20,906 3,909 2,670 1,050 18,536 791 13,903 86,971
3,972 3,132 1,912 8,189 9,855 1,682 4,991 23,476 11,906 1,481 2,661 73,257
277 54 3,319 1,670 0 233 427 892 803 130 111 378 2,790 1,097 223 12,404
616 37 69 245 641 709 0 68 1,414 10 0 3,809
2,088 222 70 235 1,782 58 1,366 2,244 898 182 37 9,182
37,110 16,113 66,112 35,193 22,280 25,968 15,871 21,003 39,506 18,716 19,989 24,539 72,784 34,834 18,542 468,560
46,223 22,797 14,844 11,969 42,587 27,100 8,162 3,369 53,448 3,059 34,252 267,810
22,894 7,799 7,195 28,991 41,784 4,540 45,392 112,764 56,922 6,728 5,148 340,157
$358,688 $35,789 $1,425,028
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
Actual fiscal 2007
Table 7.6 total state expenditures: capital inclusive, by region (In millions of dollars)
16,392 4,274 27,513 19,310 9,334 10,444 4,830 8,084 20,376 5,981 7,149 11,570 39,646 15,099 3,824 203,826
22,140 12,880 5,867 6,102 9,822 17,600 3,248 1,204 25,722 1,146 13,527 119,258
16,654 3,422 3,084 14,488 29,282 1,515 33,112 53,385 26,969 3,405 1,225 186,541
$686,567
General fund
Actual fiscal 2008
10,933 4,806 18,873 10,692 6,720 12,899 6,438 5,619 10,913 9,324 6,654 9,375 25,406 6,342 3,287 148,281
11,867 7,818 4,565 3,522 12,660 6,264 2,411 1,241 9,655 1,181 7,535 68,719
1,634 1,113 2,182 6,561 2,525 1,498 8,851 34,680 18,037 1,923 1,312 80,316
$394,830
12,282 7,756 14,669 5,280 6,941 6,361 4,097 6,921 10,098 4,477 6,866 5,144 14,885 13,040 11,422 130,239
12,591 3,380 5,668 2,787 21,081 3,891 3,053 1,125 20,633 806 15,029 90,044
4,216 3,811 2,053 8,520 10,919 1,679 5,233 26,122 12,952 1,584 2,734 79,823
552 63 3,324 1,480 0 291 234 555 200 180 118 235 2,219 849 177 10,477
279 161 29 278 419 691 0 27 753 17 0 2,654
2,032 275 108 229 1,420 114 1,508 1,869 738 185 37 8,515
40,159 16,899 64,379 36,762 22,995 29,995 15,599 21,179 41,587 19,962 20,787 26,324 82,156 35,330 18,710 492,823
46,877 24,239 16,129 12,689 43,982 28,446 8,712 3,597 56,763 3,150 36,091 280,675
24,536 8,621 7,427 29,798 44,146 4,806 48,704 116,056 58,696 7,097 5,308 355,195
$385,670 $35,425 $1,502,492
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
16,496 4,400 24,803 18,076 9,031 9,468 4,842 8,448 19,653 5,868 6,006 11,886 42,629 15,020 3,928 200,554
19,830 13,037 5,961 6,349 9,383 17,572 3,595 1,254 26,783 1,137 12,744 117,645
16,779 3,296 3,020 14,315 27,499 1,467 30,515 54,607 27,184 3,001 1,168 182,851
$664,421
General fund
Estimated fiscal 2009
13,704 5,516 18,853 12,105 8,233 16,139 9,165 6,280 11,855 9,930 7,621 10,953 29,051 6,772 3,878 170,055
14,417 9,061 4,970 3,366 19,464 8,910 3,128 1,405 10,342 1,396 9,711 86,170
1,982 1,256 2,778 7,791 2,841 1,600 11,980 38,425 20,552 2,415 1,694 93,314
$478,369
Total
15,865 8,436 18,916 5,010 6,793 6,932 5,013 7,590 8,169 4,418 6,916 5,393 15,625 13,539 12,375 140,990
13,845 3,524 6,569 3,366 19,191 4,551 4,113 1,379 19,819 919 15,990 93,266
4,397 3,908 2,184 9,216 13,098 1,691 5,173 25,386 14,274 1,950 2,414 83,691
493 51 2,945 1,012 0 284 360 108 600 199 0 286 2,602 1,632 181 10,753
287 98 216 294 309 599 0 12 850 44 0 2,709
1,852 281 110 264 2,085 113 1,587 3,153 999 221 65 10,730
46,558 18,403 65,517 36,203 24,057 32,823 19,380 22,426 40,277 20,415 20,543 28,518 89,907 36,963 20,362 522,352
48,379 25,720 17,716 13,375 48,347 31,632 10,836 4,050 57,794 3,496 38,445 299,790
25,010 8,741 8,092 31,586 45,523 4,871 49,255 121,571 63,009 7,587 5,341 370,586
$406,464 $43,564 $1,592,818
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds
state finance
Actual fiscal 2007
3,004 7,228 52,935 4,386 1,648 1,863 1,538 1,861 4,226 4,419 2,370 6,326 457 92,261 39,326
67,986
53,893
3,903 5,580 22,554 11,867 3,153 1,057 871 1,963 3,467 9,983 2,793 7,905 1,351 76,447 4,393
300 445 6,001 0 474 10 0 394 844 246 111 1,569 0 10,394 165,598
11,542 23,327 182,903 23,797 10,628 5,538 4,066 7,121 14,522 20,222 9,985 29,944 4,906 348,501
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
4,335 10,074 101,413 7,544 5,353 2,608 1,657 2,903 5,985 5,574 4,711 14,144 3,098 169,399
General fund
73,956
5,170 10,201 102,986 7,908 5,407 2,799 1,901 4,031 6,027 6,980 5,784 14,616 3,132 176,942
General fund
Actual fiscal 2008
58,890
4,470 6,079 26,674 12,482 3,376 1,096 930 3,028 3,674 10,754 3,033 8,617 1,351 85,564 5,374
26 586 8,405 0 617 30 0 401 583 210 1,100 1,821 0 13,779 179,523
12,322 24,721 194,276 25,129 11,160 5,930 4,477 9,240 14,790 22,644 12,420 31,732 4,958 373,799 71,824
5,899 9,111 91,547 7,730 5,375 2,744 1,753 4,203 6,030 5,786 4,816 14,617 3,760 163,371
General fund
52,201
3,434 10,662 76,629 6,247 1,919 2,460 1,827 2,203 4,946 5,790 3,205 7,623 1,885 128,830
61,987
4,637 6,626 26,530 12,951 3,958 1,547 953 1,292 3,873 12,584 3,537 8,551 1,478 88,517
5,214
345 671 14,158 0 570 29 0 602 606 322 43 2,026 0 19,372
Bonds
Estimated fiscal 2009 Federal Other state funds funds
191,226
14,315 27,070 208,864 26,928 11,822 6,780 4,533 8,300 15,455 24,482 11,601 32,817 7,123 400,090
Total
(g) Fiscal 2008–09 amounts shown are equal to appropriations for the year for all fund types. It is expected that some level of appropriations will not be expended due to the need to carryover a certain amount to cover possible prior year obligations. However, no estimate of unexpended appropriation is made here. The likelihood of unexpended appropriation is especially high for Federal Funds and Other State Funds as legislative appropriations for those fund types will typically provide expending agencies with excess flexibility. (h) Amounts shown in fiscal years 2006–07 and 2007–08 are based on the actual expenditures during these years, regardless of the year appropriated. Fiscal 2008–09 amounts shown are equal to appropriations for the year, except for bond proceeds, which are estimated. It is assumed that some level of appropriations will not be expended this fiscal year. (i) Total expenditures exclude refunds. Fiscal 2007 expenditures exclude refunds of $1,258 million, including $1,208 million general revenue. Fiscal 2008 expenditures exclude refunds of $1,307 million, including $1,258 million general revenue. Fiscal 2009 estimates exclude refunds of $1,488 million, including $1,441 million general revenue. Other funds include federal reimbursements received by the Department of Highways and Transportation and the Department of Conservation which have constitutionally created funds. (j) Estimated capital expenditures are no longer collected. Therefore, no capital expenditure data is included for estimated fiscal 2009. (k) Tennessee collects personal income tax on income from dividends on stocks and interest on certain bonds. Tax revenue estimates do not include federal funds and other departmental revenues. However, federal funds and other departmental revenues are included in the budget as funding sources for the general fund, along with state tax revenues. (l) Fiscal 2007 expenditures include a one-time-only general fund transfer to state retirement programs of $50 million and over $100 million in other one-time-only general fund expenditures. Fiscal 2008 expenditures reflect over $220 million in various one-time-only general fund expenditures including nearly $96 million for a $400 tax rebate and $50 million general fund for fire fighting. Fiscal 2009 expenditures reflect $46 million in various one-time-only general fund expenditures. Principal and interest payments on bonds are included in total expenditures. Capital expenditures are not reported separately but are included in total expenditures.
41,303
2,656 7,855 56,211 4,739 1,760 2,005 1,646 1,780 4,506 4,700 2,503 6,678 475 97,514
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report 2008 (December 2009). Note: State funds refers to general funds plus other state fund spending. State spending from bonds is excluded. Total funds refers to funding from all sources-general fund, federal funds, other state funds and bonds. Key: (a) Bonds data is based on bond allocations by the State Bond Commission. (b) Fiscal 2009 numbers are actual, not estimates. (c) Totals include pension, post retirement medical, debt service on pension bonds, payroll taxes, and health benefits expenditures which total $1.44 billion in State General Fund in fiscal 2008 and $1.18 billion in fiscal 2009 spread across Education, Corrections, Transportation and All Other. (d) New York budgets most employer contributions to employees’ benefits and pensions centrally. The portion of employer contributions to employees’ benefits not distributed to an expenditure category has been included in the “All Other Expenditures” category. (e) Expenditure figures for “2008 Actual - General Funds” include $149.7 million of Homestead Credits distributed as part of HEA 1001 (2008), the Governor’s property tax reform legislation. The revenue for these expenditures was provided by the 1% increase in the sales tax from 6% to 7%, effective April 1, 2008, which generated $151.6 million during fiscal 2008. Excluding these expenditures, total General Fund expenditures for fiscal 2008 would have been $12,730 million (instead of $12,880 million). Expenditure figures for “2009 Estimated—General Funds” include $1,122.4 million of appropriations made in HEA 1001 (2008), the Governor’s property tax reform legislation. The revenue for these expenditures was provided by the 1% increase in the sales tax from 6% to 7% ($879.0 million), the racing wagering tax ($62.8 million), the riverboat admissions tax ($12.8 million), and the motor vehicle excise tax and FIT ($13.0 million). Excluding these appropriations, total General Fund expenditures for fiscal 2009 would have been $11,915 million (instead of $13,037 million). (f) Fiscal 2007 expenditures are artificially low and fiscal 2008 estimated spending is artificially high, distorting year-to-year comparisons. Partial fiscal 2007 payments to higher education institutions are deferred to fiscal 2008, and fiscal 2007 use of restricted revenue is replaced with General Fund revenue in fiscal 2008. Adjusting for these one-time actions results in nominal expenditure changes of 2.0% (Total Funds) and 1.3% (General Fund) from fiscal 2007.
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California...................... Colorado........................ Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Montana (l)................... Nevada........................... New Mexico.................. Oregon........................... Utah............................... Washington................... Wyoming....................... Regional totals.............. Regional totals without California.....
State
total state expenditures: capital inclusive, by region—Continued (In millions of dollars)
state finance
The Council of State Governments 401
402â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
$222,149
2,312 1,088 1,170 4,644 4,414 0 10,347 16,282 8,804 888 38 49,987
7,360 4,638 2,329 2,830 43 6,481 938 332 7,159 341 5,812 38,263
4,064 1,771 9,967 7,392 3,769 2,753 1,975 2,793 7,377 1,731 2,189 3,379 13,772 5,686 1,704 70,322
U.S. totals......................
Eastern Region Connecticut (a)............. Delaware....................... Maine............................. Maryland....................... Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.................... New York....................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional totals..............
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ Indiana (b).................... Iowa............................... Kansas........................... Michigan (c).................. Minnesota...................... Nebraska....................... North Dakota................ Ohio............................... South Dakota................ Wisconsin...................... Regional totals..............
Southern Region Alabama (d).................. Arkansas........................ Florida (e)..................... Georgia.......................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri......................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma (f)................ South Carolina.............. Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Virginia.......................... West Virginia................. Regional totals..............
See footnotes at end of table.
General fund
State
797 472 2,491 1,567 697 1,216 715 832 1,161 654 682 839 3,990 827 338 17,278
1,873 826 385 386 1,483 641 263 127 1,660 153 671 8,468
416 142 185 867 828 166 834 3,655 1,945 174 120 9,332
$45,323
150 811 583 0 19 296 355 1,334 163 716 765 61 1,974 121 40 7,388
30 18 12 99 11,573 40 39 36 1,909 3 214 13,973
4 461 4 10 550 844 17 2,735 18 5 1,191 5,839
$33,876
0 0 0 443 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 534
33 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 596 0 0 643
672 207 0 0 0 10 0 45 0 7 2 943
$4,443
5,011 3,054 13,041 9,402 4,485 4,265 3,052 4,959 8,701 3,101 3,636 4,279 19,736 6,634 2,166 95,522
9,296 5,482 2,726 3,315 13,099 7,176 1,240 495 11,324 497 6,697 61,347
3,404 1,898 1,359 5,521 5,792 1,020 11,198 22,717 10,767 1,074 1,351 66,101
$305,791
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
Actual fiscal 2007
4,497 1,911 9,943 7,965 4,016 3,164 2,180 2,864 7,977 1,723 2,443 3,757 15,169 5,376 1,767 74,752
8,180 4,801 2,523 3,076 44 6,820 980 363 6,933 371 5,974 40,065
2,569 1,133 1,211 5,317 4,672 0 10,973 17,946 9,361 909 46 54,137
$236,963
General fund
824 453 2,422 1,548 707 1,082 652 848 1,199 606 682 842 4,061 826 320 17,072
1,983 870 380 399 1,548 624 273 121 1,647 150 688 8,683
418 141 179 901 824 161 786 3,404 2,015 176 109 9,114
$45,224
169 789 632 0 17 308 332 1,404 144 860 792 63 4,463 618 13 10,604
28 36 13 101 11,396 43 34 39 2,251 4 214 14,159
0 496 3 10 658 898 18 2,910 17 8 1,236 6,254
$38,192
0 0 0 664 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 694
30 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 56 0 0 100
736 225 2 0 0 8 0 17 0 5 9 1,002
$3,545
5,490 3,153 12,997 10,177 4,740 4,554 3,171 5,116 9,320 3,189 3,917 4,662 23,693 6,820 2,123 103,122
10,221 5,707 2,916 3,576 12,988 7,501 1,287 523 10,887 525 6,876 63,007
3,723 1,995 1,395 6,228 6,154 1,067 11,777 24,277 11,393 1,098 1,400 70,507
$323,924
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
Actual fiscal 2008
Table 7.7 elementary and secondary education expenditures, by STATE AND region (In millions of dollars)
3,390 1,950 8,708 7,506 4,017 3,187 2,237 3,019 8,142 1,740 2,151 3,967 17,342 5,678 1,800 74,834
8,906 5,695 2,595 3,235 88 6,957 1,071 388 8,125 378 5,623 43,061
2,672 1,163 1,201 5,548 4,457 0 11,581 19,435 9,680 828 48 56,613
$233,420
General fund
Estimated fiscal 2009
1,164 494 2,628 1,789 707 1,463 794 888 1,450 731 698 1,048 4,440 844 360 19,498
2,036 1,476 430 416 3,189 889 398 124 1,700 198 1,327 12,183
527 150 218 932 849 168 833 3,579 2,102 272 119 9,749
$56,875
174 774 587 0 15 756 354 1,321 120 833 676 47 3,999 665 30 10,351
26 51 76 117 11,037 43 16 39 2,702 12 86 14,205
2 524 3 14 635 898 25 3,089 628 23 1,294 7,135
$40,249
0 0 0 105 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 139
3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
642 234 0 0 0 48 0 7 0 13 10 954
$5,171
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds
Total
4,728 3,218 11,923 9,400 4,739 5,406 3,389 5,228 9,712 3,304 3,525 5,062 25,781 7,187 2,220 104,822
10,971 7,222 3,101 3,768 14,314 7,896 1,485 551 12,527 588 7,036 69,459
3,843 2,071 1,422 6,494 5,941 1,114 12,439 26,110 12,410 1,136 1,471 74,451
$335,715
state finance
Actual fiscal 2007
184 885 5,838 529 241 195 144 218 384 509 372 672 74 10,245 4,407
26,723
6,686
112 1,244 -10 3,143 199 60 56 0 6 361 33 679 793 6,676 106
0 106 2,217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,323 37,922
1,285 6,944 44,899 6,966 2,468 1,571 830 1,206 2,770 3,480 2,516 7,007 879 82,821
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total
989 4,709 36,854 3,294 2,028 1,316 630 988 2,380 2,610 2,111 5,656 12 63,577
General fund
28,971
1,027 4,547 39,038 3,976 2,172 1,392 691 1,303 2,513 2,916 2,519 5,903 12 68,009
General fund
Actual fiscal 2008
6,761
4,515
102
0 102 1,647 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,749 40,349
1,329 6,793 46,939 7,793 2,442 1,695 888 1,533 2,926 3,871 2,884 7,316 879 87,288 27,748
1,046 3,954 31,164 3,215 2,272 1,360 661 1,616 2,614 2,352 2,315 6,332 11 58,912
General fund
Estimated fiscal 2009
5,472
291 971 9,973 534 207 240 145 224 504 631 665 995 65 15,445
7,819
119 1,457 739 3,653 44 153 66 0 17 850 72 432 956 8,558
96
0 96 3,972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,068
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds
41,135
1,456 6,478 45,848 7,402 2,523 1,753 872 1,840 3,135 3,833 3,052 7,759 1,032 86,983
Total
for Department of Education employees but excluded for employees of K–12 schools. General fund revenue support has increased from fiscal 2007 as support from other revenue sources in the State School Aid Fund have declined. Federal revenue support is expected to increase in fiscal 2009 largely due to appropriation of federal ARRA funding for K–12 ($600 million) and other education programs ($929 million). Actual ARRA expenditures will be recorded with the fiscal 2009 annual financial report. (d) Federal funds received directly by local school systems are not reported at the state budget level. (e) State appropriations to school districts for operational costs include funding intended to be expended by school districts for contributions to current employees’ pensions, employee health benefits, and for the operational cost of libraries. (f) Federal funds increase for Elementary and Secondary Education from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009 is due to ARRA funds. (g) Elementary and Secondary education totals include capital expenditures.
113 1,231 414 3,298 44 69 57 0 11 444 -15 716 793 7,175
Federal Other state funds funds Bonds Total 189 913 5,840 519 226 234 140 230 402 511 380 697 74 10,355
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report 2008 (December 2009). Key: (a) Federal funds include $111 million for ARRA funding (primarily Title I and IDEA). (b) Expenditure figures for “2009 Estimated—Elementary and Secondary Education (General Funds)” were less than anticipated due to the use of $536.4 million in ARRA Education Stabilization Funds. General Fund expenditures increased nonetheless, in part due to HEA 1001 (2008), the Governor’s property tax reform legislation whereby the state assumed the responsibility for funding 100% of the K–12 tuition support formula. Expenditure figures for “2009 Estimated—Elementary and Secondary Education (Federal Funds)” increased dramatically as a result of the use of $536.4 million in ARRA Education Stabilization Funds. (c) Figures reflect K–12 education, the Michigan Department of Education, adult education and pre-school. Employer contributions to current employees’ pensions and health benefits are reported
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California...................... Colorado (g).................. Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico.................. Oregon........................... Utah............................... Washington................... Wyoming....................... Regional totals.............. Regional totals without California.....
State
elementary and secondary education expenditures, by STATE AND region—Continued (In millions of dollars)
state finance
The Council of State Governments 403
404â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
$107,978
3,152 486 660 2,562 7,551 440 4,380 9,017 6,418 789 197 35,652
4,235 1,461 679 835 2,326 2,965 619 165 9,219 219 1,786 24,509
491 652 4,131 2,211 982 737 51 1,106 2,650 912 754 2,259 4,783 2,586 409 24,714
U.S. totals......................
Eastern Region Connecticut (a)............. Delaware....................... Maine............................. Maryland (b)................. Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.................... New York (c)................. Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional totals..............
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ Indiana (d).................... Iowa............................... Kansas........................... Michigan (e).................. Minnesota...................... Nebraska....................... North Dakota................ Ohio............................... South Dakota................ Wisconsin...................... Regional totals..............
Southern Region Alabama (f)................... Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia (g).................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri (h)................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma...................... South Carolina.............. Tennessee (i)................. Texas.............................. Virginia.......................... West Virginia................. Regional totals..............
See footnotes at end of table.
General fund
State
3107 2297 8069 4472 3107 3840 2689 4002 6152 2238 3062 4567 7032 2456 1547 58637
5,977 3,117 1,505 1,310 5,227 3060 889 326 2,355 420 2,835 27,021
0 490 1,342 2,775 0 580 4,554 19,867 9,441 813 556 40,418
$163,547
Federal funds
956 255 2170 730 442 597 418 2360 1692 240 659 267 164 0 201 11151
2,336 415 491 86 1,682 0 20 4 1,150 0 147 6,331
775 0 169 112 0 157 129 3,504 1,634 0 188 6,668
$26,288
4,554 3,204 14,370 7,413 4,531 5,174 3,158 7,468 10,494 3,390 4,475 7,093 11,979 5,042 2,157 94,502
12,548 4,993 2,675 2,231 9,235 6,025 1,528 495 12,724 639 4,768 57,861
3,927 976 2,171 5,449 7,551 1,177 9,063 32,388 17,493 1,602 941 82,738
$297,813
Other state funds Total
Actual fiscal 2007
Table 7.8 medicaid expenditures by state and region (In millions of dollars)
572 615 4,454 2,370 1,133 871 317 1,175 2,915 1,009 906 2,525 5,539 2,756 389 27,546
4,491 1,537 661 871 2,308 3,188 634 189 9,346 261 1,627 25,113
3,471 494 594 2,580 8,247 468 4,734 8,568 6,488 899 199 36,742
$111,711
General fund
2,899 2,494 8,114 4,448 3,362 4,278 2,629 4,288 6,395 2,419 3,006 4,675 7,813 2,587 1,633 61,040
6,496 3,335 1,641 1,395 5,680 3,252 890 352 2,480 440 2,986 28,947
0 497 1,319 2,821 0 615 4,640 19,102 9,596 933 595 40,118
$172,290
929 322 2,354 393 410 631 547 1,848 1,684 291 471 297 108 0 239 10,524
2,837 380 590 106 1,762 0 20 2 1,338 0 264 7,299
794 0 178 217 0 167 134 3,370 1,701 5 209 6,775
$26,884
4,400 3,431 14,922 7,211 4,905 5,780 3,493 7,311 10,994 3,719 4,383 7,497 13,460 5,343 2,261 99,110
13,824 5,252 2,892 2,372 9,750 6,440 1,544 543 13,164 701 4,877 61,359
4,265 991 2,091 5,618 8,247 1,250 9,508 31,040 17,785 1,837 1,003 83,635
$310,885
Other state funds Total
Actual fiscal 2008 Federal funds
552 654 4,614 1,818 1,020 1,151 300 1,257 2,766 1,006 587 2,588 6,098 2,903 301 27,615
4,367 1,225 602 801 1,625 3,002 613 162 10,237 229 1,250 24,113
3,851 538 544 2,400 8688 406 4,230 7,689 6,029 731 153 35,259
$107,524
General fund
3,351 2,725 8,522 5,353 4,152 5,111 3,176 4,920 6,672 2,498 3,340 4,514 8,248 3,176 1,921 67,679
7,837 3,986 1,865 1,705 7,471 3,656 993 380 2,886 547 3,953 35,279
0 539 1,735 3,629 0 644 5,485 21,310 11,096 1,029 714 46,181
$199,625
Federal funds
968 387 2,983 444 337 326 727 2,442 1,283 464 635 287 125 0 245 11,653
2,284 384 643 87 1,455 0 23 7 928 0 995 6,806
820 0 183 324 0 266 136 3,429 1,625 6 221 7,010
$28,028
Other state funds
Estimated fiscal 2009 Total
4,871 3,766 16,119 7,615 5,509 6,588 4,203 8,619 10,721 3,968 6,562 7,389 14,471 6,079 2,467 108,947
14,488 5,595 3,110 2,593 10,551 6,658 1,629 549 14,051 776 6,198 66,198
4,671 1,077 2,462 6,353 8688 1,316 9,851 32,428 18,750 1,766 1,088 88,450
$335,177
state finance
658 3,546 21,335 1,296 616 771 510 700 1,941 1,924 1,048 2,887 239 37,471 16,136
8,993
1,556
27 519 582 59 6 88 49 0 153 395 218 42 0 2,138 26,685
1,059 5,243 36,027 2,582 1,062 1,199 716 1,137 2,701 3,220 1,594 5,720 452 62,712
Other state funds Total
Actual fiscal 2007 Federal funds
374 1,178 14,110 1,227 440 340 157 437 607 901 328 2,791 213 23,103
General fund
9,602
408 1,285 12,708 1,309 505 369 165 455 699 873 333 2,954 247 22,310
General fund
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report 2008 (December 2009). Note: States were asked to report Medicaid expenditures as follows: General funds: all general funds appropriated to the Medicaid agency and any other agency which are used for direct Medicaid matching purposes under Title XIX. Other state funds: other funds and revenue sources used as Medicaid match, such as local funds and provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments (as defined by the Health Care Finance Administration). Federal Funds: all federal matching funds provided pursuant to Title XIX. States were asked to report Medicaid expenditures as follows: General funds: all general funds appropriated to the Medicaid agency and any other agency which are used for direct Medicaid matching purposes under Title XIX. Other state funds: other funds and revenue sources used as Medicaid match, such as local funds and provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments (as defined by the Health Care Finance Administration). Federal Funds: all federal matching funds provided pursuant to Title XIX. As noted above, the figures reported as Other State Funds reflect the amounts reported as provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments and local funds by states. State Medicaid agencies report these amounts to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on form 37, as defined by the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-specific Tax Amendments of 1991 (P.L. 102-234). However, some state budget offices are unable to align their financial reporting to separate these costs for the NASBO State Expenditure Report. Thus, this report does not capture 100 percent of state provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments and local funds. Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase. The states were asked to separately detail the amount of provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments and local funds reported as Other State Funds. Key: (a) Medicaid Appropriation is “gross funded”—Federal funds are deposited directly to the State Treasury. Connecticut’s FMAP is currently at 50 percent of Medicaid benefit costs (excluding enhanced FMAP available under ARRA). Excludes state portion of Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries and School Based Child Health as those expenditures are netted out of federal Medicaid reimbursement. (b) General Fund and Federal Fund totals reflect rough estimates of accrual adjustments, and adjust for fiscal 2009 ARRA funds that are not explicitly budgeted. Fiscal 2007 Other State Funds include: $63.7 million in tobacco settlement funds, $42.7 million in HMO/MCO tax, $5 million in local taxes, and $0.7 million in interest from the Community Services Trust Fund. Fiscal 2008 Other State Funds include: $106.7 million in tobacco settlement funds, $65 million in HMO/MCO tax, $25.8 million in nursing facility assessments, $13.6 million in local repayments of audit disallowance, $5 million in other local funds, and $0.9 million in interest from the Community Services Trust Fund. Fiscal 2009 Other State Funds include: $97.5 million in tobacco settlement funds, $83 million in HMO/MCO
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California...................... Colorado (j).................. Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico.................. Oregon........................... Utah............................... Washington................... Wyoming....................... Regional totals.............. Regional totals without California.....
State
medicaid expenditures by state and region—Continued (In millions of dollars)
1,560
17,328
28,490
1,031 5,646 38,291 2,786 1,245 1,301 753 1,139 3,070 3,097 1,695 6,223 504 66,781 9,627
402 1,239 10,910 1,223 447 331 142 475 604 711 270 3,528 255 20,537
General fund
22,115
770 5,971 28,371 1,756 884 1,015 642 857 2,604 2,452 1,211 3,633 320 50,486
Federal funds
1,937
29 762 622 135 0 91 57 0 193 369 239 62 0 2,559
Other state funds
Estimated fiscal 2009
33,679
1,201 7,972 39,903 3,114 1,331 1,437 841 1,332 3,401 3,532 1,720 7,223 575 73,582
Total
tax, $42 million in nursing facility assessments, $84.2 million in hospital assessments, $10.8 million in lottery overattainment, $5 million in other local funds, and $1.6 million in interest from the Community Services Trust Fund. (c) New York Medicaid spending does not include administrative costs or local government shares. (d) Expenditure figures for “2009 Estimated—Medicaid (General Funds)” were less than anticipated due to the use of $348.1 million in ARRA Medicaid Funds. Expenditure figures for “2009 Estimated—Medicaid (Federal Funds)” increased more than anticipated due to the use of $348.1 million in ARRA Medicaid Funds. (e) Other state funds include local funds of $102.0 million, and provider taxes of $856.0 million for fiscal 2007; local funds of $101.0 million and provider taxes of $1,022.0 million for fiscal 2008; and local funds of $62.0 million and provider taxes of $855.0 million for fiscal 2009. The decline in provider assessment funds is due to Federal ARRA FMAP increase and the elimination of the provider assessment program for HMOs as of April 1, 2009. Federal revenue support is expected to increase in fiscal 2009 largely due to appropriation of federal ARRA/ FMAP funding ($965.7 million).Actual ARRA expenditures will be recorded with the fiscal 2009 annual financial report. Public health and community and institutional care for mentally and developmentally disabled persons are partially reported in the Medicaid totals. (f) Fiscal 2007 through fiscal 2009 Other State Funds includes provider taxes in the amounts of $58 million, $59 million, and $60 million, respectively. (g) Changes to reporting of fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009 data include prior year state fund reserves being classified as state funds (previously other funds). Previous surveys included adjustments to represent information on an accrual basis. These adjustments have been excluded in fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009. Other funds for fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009 include provider fees (nursing home, care management organization, and ambulance) and local funds. (h) Medicaid data is from the CMS 64 Report used for federal reporting of Medicaid expenditures. The split between the General Revenue Fund and Other Funds is an estimate. Medicaid does not track the General Revenue Fund versus Other State Funds in its reporting. Other Funds include an estimated $1,002 million in fiscal 2007, $601 million in fiscal 2008 and $829 million in fiscal 2009 of local funds used to match Title XIX. (i) Regarding premium revenue: fiscal 2007 totals $64 million, fiscal 2008 totals $68 million, and fiscal 2009 totals $69 million. Regarding Certified Public Expenditures—Local fund from Hospitals: fiscal 2007 totals $416 million, fiscal 2008 totals $325 million, and fiscal 2009 totals $265 million. Regarding Nursing Home Tax: fiscal 2007 totals $85 million, fiscal 2008 totals $55 million, and fiscal 2009 totals $85 million. Regarding the ICF/MR 6 percent Gross Receipts Tax: fiscal 2007 totals $16 million, fiscal 2008 totals $12 million, and fiscal 2009 totals $12 million. Regarding Intergovernmental Transfers: fiscal 2007 totals $0 million, fiscal 2008 totals $0 million, and fiscal 2009 totals $0 million. (j) Medicaid totals are adjusted for the ARRA impact on federal funds.
11 546 726 79 0 84 57 0 172 322 239 50 0 2,286
612 3,815 24,857 1,398 740 848 531 684 2,199 1,902 1,123 3,219 257 42,185
Other state funds Total
Actual fiscal 2008 Federal funds
state finance
The Council of State Governments 405
State TAXES
State Budgets Remain Very Tight Even as the Recovery Begins By William F. Fox States’ fiscal environments continue to feel the devastating effects of the recession, even though many economists have concluded the recession ended last summer. Economic output —gross domestic product—rose during the third quarter of the 2009 calendar year, albeit at a modest 2.2 percent annual rate, and the economy is expected to continue growing. But state tax revenues have not shown evidence of an expansion as revenues are still falling in many states, and it will likely be a number of years before tax revenues recover. The Economic Environment State economies were not impacted evenly by the recession, but every state felt its effects. Impacts of recessions are often regional in nature with more limited fallout to other states, but the recent recession was much more diverse. The private sector in every state experienced employment losses and the overall economy has fallen in nearly every state during the past year (See Table A). Similarly, nearly every industry has seen employment declines, except for health care. The result has been a precipitous rise in unemployment rates, as the U.S. rate rose from 4.4 percent in March 2007 to 10.2 percent in October 2009 before falling back to 10.0 percent in November. Fifteen states have unemployment rates above 10 percent, led by Michigan at 14.7 percent. The economy began what is likely to be a modest recovery—often termed U-shaped to indicate a slow rebound as opposed to V-shaped, which would indicate a rapid recovery—during the summer as GDP began to grow again. Economic strength is initially coming from some improvement in consumer spending, construction of single family housing (which is growing, though at historically very low levels), exports, businesses rebuilding inventories and the economic stimulus package. Consumer spending, which represents about 70 percent of GDP, is the wild card in the recovery. Consumers have been key to the rebound in each recent recovery and it will be very difficult to sustain a strong economy without consumers getting aggressively involved. Consumers have plenty of reasons to be reticent about spending, including the decline in their balance sheets caused by the fall in housing prices and equity markets, large job losses, significant loss of confidence and tight credit. But consumers have proved their spending to be resilient in other economic environments, so
406 The Book of the States 2010
it is the hope that consumer spending will increase at least enough to fuel a slow recovery. The U.S. economy has lost 7.2 million jobs over the past two years and all signs are that employment will rebound only very slowly as GDP rises. Job losses have slowed but more are expected over the next several months. The job losses were so large because businesses, intent on limiting the recession’s effects on their bottom line, aggressively cut costs. One result is that many employers have learned to produce with fewer workers, and many are not likely to reverse these productivity improvements in coming years. Jobs will be added back slowly and only as demand for output increases sufficiently to justify more hiring. Further, employment in a number of industries, such as light vehicle production, housing construction, and financial services, is unlikely to return to the levels reached in earlier years because production in these industries will stay below the previous peaks. The job losses have put very heavy pressure on most states’ unemployment insurance systems as the number of weeks of unemployment compensation paid out rose dramatically. As a result, many states were forced to borrow funds from the federal government to pay out benefits, and 35 states have increased their unemployment tax either by raising the rates or by expanding the taxable wage base. As with other aspects of the recession, states will continue to pay out high weeks of benefits for several years and the unemployment trust funds will take years to recover to the levels necessary to finance benefits in another recession.
State Tax Revenue Performance Experience of the past two recessions suggests that state tax revenue is becoming increasingly volatile. For example, Tennessee did not experience a
State TAXES
Table A Change in U.S. Employment* October/November 2008 vs. October/November 2009 State Private
State and Local
Wyoming............. Michigan.............. Arizona................ Nevada................. Oregon.................
(8.00) (6.85) (6.60) (6.29) (6.14)
0.70 (1.88) (4.12) (4.18) (0.83)
Georgia................ Indiana................. Alabama.............. North Carolina.... Illinois..................
(5.82) (5.53) (5.51) (5.49) (5.30)
(1.43) (0.26) 0.54 1.95 (0.02)
Wisconsin............ Colorado.............. Kentucky............. Kansas................. Utah.....................
(5.22) (5.14) (5.09) (5.00) (4.99)
(0.26) 1.20 (0.87) (0.83) 0.89
Idaho.................... California............ Ohio..................... Florida................. Delaware.............
(4.94) (4.92) (4.69) (4.66) (4.59)
(2.07) (1.64) (0.36) (0.076) (0.08)
Rhode Island....... Tennessee............ Hawaii................. New Mexico........ Connecticut.........
(4.57) (4.56) (4.49) (4.42) (4.23)
(1.89) 0.20 (3.46) 0.99 (2.25)
Oklahoma............ Texas.................... Mississippi........... Washington......... Minnesota............
(4.19) (4.19) (4.10) (3.95) (3.92)
1.69 4.87 0.99 (0.38) (0.89)
Vermont............... South Carolina.... Pennsylvania....... Maine................... West Virginia.......
(3.70) (3.55) (3.50) (3.49) (3.37)
(0.18) 0.11 0.25 (1.72) 0.47
Missouri............... Arkansas.............. New Jersey.......... Nebraska............. Iowa.....................
(3.31) (3.16) (3.16) (3.12) (2.94)
0.75 2.24 (0.44) 1.97 (0.71)
Massachusetts..... New York............. New Hampshire.... Virginia................ South Dakota......
(2.88) (2.85) (2.84) (2.84) (2.69)
(2.41) (1.02) (0.20) 0.83 2.21
Louisiana............. Maryland............. Montana.............. Alaska.................. North Dakota......
(2.65) (2.52) (2.38) (1.72) (0.68)
(0.15) 0.99 1.33 0.65 2.02
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Not seasonally adjusted.
decline in revenue over the three decades leading up to 2002. In contrast, the 2010 fiscal year will mark the third year of negative growth in the past eight years. Some of this can be attributed to lower inflation rates, but there appears to be greater volatility in the underlying bases as well. Tax revenue in the states fell by 8.2 percent on average during the 20091 fiscal year as only Iowa, Oregon, North Dakota and South Dakota saw revenues rise compared with the previous year. Personal income taxes declined by 13.6 percent, the greatest loss among the major taxes. Corporate income declined by 10.9 percent and sales tax revenue declined by 4.8 percent. Local governments also experienced lower tax revenues, but not to the extent felt by the states. For example, local tax revenue only declined 2.8 percent in the last quarter of fiscal 2009, as the property tax actually increased. No simple relationship exists between tax revenue performance and the economy. Tax revenues and economic performance are correlated, but the relationship is imprecise when evaluated on a year-to-year basis, particularly at turning points in the economy. Even as GDP began growing again during the summer, revenue declines during the first quarter of the current fiscal year accelerated relative to the 2009 fiscal year.2 Tax revenues were down 10.7 percent as all of the major taxes were lower again. Tax revenues may lag improvements in the economy for many reasons. Loss carryforwards in the corporate income tax, failure of construction to grow fast as other parts of the economy rise, which is very important to sales tax revenues, and the time between financial market increases and the due date for personal income tax revenue are some of the reasons. Property tax revenues can respond slowly to economic growth as well because of factors such as property tax growth limits and lags between appraisals and tax payments. Tax revenues in many states will be growing again by the 2011 fiscal year but revenues will not reach the peaks attained in the 2008 fiscal year until 2012 or 2013, and it will be even longer before tax revenues return to their earlier share of the economy. Figure A illustrates that during the 2001 recession, tax revenues did not reach the 1990s norms relative to the economy until 2005 and 2006. This suggests that it will take at least five years after the recession for taxes to return to pre-recession levels relative to state economies. In some states it will take even more years. Tax revenue
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 407
State TAXES growth will coincide with the loss of the federal stimulus money, so state fiscal environments will generally remain very tight for the next four to five years, even without a double-dip recession.
Balancing Budgets: Strategies for Financing Revenue Shortfalls Near Term Every state except Vermont has a balanced budget requirement of some form, though the basis can be statutory, constitutional or judicial. The degree to which balanced budget requirements are binding varies, but they generally do not mandate that recurrent expenditures cannot exceed recurrent revenues. For example, states may be able to bond finance some capital expenditures that would otherwise be financed from recurrent revenues or may spend from reserves. Still, states generally must keep recurrent revenues and expenditures within a reasonably close relationship. States are using some combination of four strategies for balancing their budgets: expenditure cuts, federal stimulus money, reserves or policy-based revenue increases. The first option is to lower spending, which normally requires cuts in service levels. The other three options are alternative ways for states to maintain expenditures, at least to some extent.
Expenditure Cuts In general, states have been unable to maintain expenditure levels and expenditure growth trends in the face of substantial revenue declines, and unprecedented expenditure cuts are being used by states at levels not seen in recent history. Normally during recessions, states slowed the pace of spending growth but did not actually reduce spending levels. Actual cuts in nominal expenditures occurred during 2009 and are expected again during 2010 for the first time since very small cuts were enacted in 1983. States enacted expenditure reductions in many different ways, but the result is a reduction in service levels in many states. For example, 30 states reported making targeted expenditure cuts, 20 reduced aid to local governments, 17 laid off employees, and 15 instituted furloughs.3 Many states will need to make additional cuts in the 2011 fiscal year, and it is possible, though not likely, that aggregate state spending levels will be reduced for a third consecutive year. Federal Stimulus Program An estimated $560 billion will be spent (including tax cuts) as part of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, during 2009
Figure A State Tax Collections as a Percentage of Personal Income, 1993â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2009
Tax Revenue as % of PI
6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5%
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: Tax data for 2009 is by fiscal year; PI for 2009 is based on Global Insightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 10-year baseline forecast.
408â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
State TAXES and 2010. More than one-fourth of the funds are transfers to states and an additional one-seventh is infrastructure spending, some of which will also go to states. States benefited from federal transfers during other recessions, but the 2009 Recovery Act is providing much greater countercyclical transfers than occurred during the last recession. States have varying degrees of flexibility in spending the money, but it has clearly lessened the effects of declining revenues on state budgets. Still, the stimulus money was not sufficient to prevent the need for spending cuts. Most of the transfers to states will have been expended by the end of the 2011 fiscal year, just as state tax revenues are growing again. It may well be that states will have fewer resources in the 2012 fiscal year as the net effect of growing own source revenues and falling transfers.
Reserves Most states had rainy day funds and other reserves as the recession began, and in total the balances have already been cut in half. Use of reserves to lessen the impact of falling revenues can be good policy if implemented appropriately, and is an important reason why reserves were created. Reserves, however, should be thought of as one-time funds while the fiscal problems associated with the recession will last at least five years. States would have needed reserves of more than 30 percent of the revenues they raise to allow them to maintain expenditure patterns in the face of such significant revenue declines. Most states had much lower reserves. So reserves cannot be seen as the only solution to significant revenue reductions. In most cases, the reserves can only be used to prevent the most extreme cuts or to allow the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s books to be balanced if revenues fail to reach their estimated levels. Rapid use of reserves at the beginning of a recession only stalls the inevitable need to reduce spending and could leave states in a very difficult position if their revenue estimates fail to materialize once the reserves are expended. Tax Rate Increases A number of states have already increased tax rates to lessen the extent of budget cuts. In 2010, tax rate hikes and other policy-related revenue increases are expected to cause the largest policy increase in revenues, both in dollar terms and as a percent of revenues, in recent history.4 For example, at least eight states have raised their sales tax rate and nine have boosted their income tax
rates. Historically, income tax rate increases have been used less frequently than sales tax hikes to generate additional revenues, so this is a change from past norms. Further, a relatively strong trend decrease in income tax rates took place from the mid-1980s until these recent rate increases. The country had transitioned from 15 states with rates above 10 percent to where no state imposed a rate above 10 percent, until now. Past experience suggests that more rate increases are coming after the recession in an effort to return taxes to their former share of state economies. Thirty-three states raised sales tax rates in the five years around the recessions in the early 1980s, and 22 raised their sales tax rates in the years around the 1991 recession. Broad-based tax rate increases were less frequent around the 2001 recession. Tobacco tax hikes and other tools were more commonly employed to generate revenue during the 2001 recession.5 Tax structure changes should generally be made based on long-term revenue requirements and not as the result of economic cycles. States, however, often appear to use the tight revenue conditions during a recession as the justification to increase tax rates. When viewed from the longer term perspective, the sales tax rate changes are offsetting narrowing sales tax bases that are declining relative to the economy. This is due to growing remote sales (e-commerce, mail order, etc.), state policy choices to exempt additional transactions, and failure to tax many services as the service-based sector expands rapidly. These relative declines in state tax bases become most apparent during a recession and have led to rate increases. Still, the net result of narrower bases and higher rates has been falling sales tax revenues relative to GDP for more than a decade, even before the recession started. Further, states are left with higher tax rates that are more likely to cause buyers to move away from taxed alternatives through either evasion or avoidance causing a spiraling downward of the taxable bases and potentially upwards in rates. Maintenance of broader sales tax bases is certainly a preferred option.
Budget Balancing Alternatives to Avoid States should be particularly careful to avoid the use of many types of non-recurrent sources to finance recurrent expenditures. As noted previously, prudent use of reserves is an exception. But other options, such as financing what are essentially recurrent expenditures by issuing debt and The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 409
State TAXES underfunding pension accounts, should generally be avoided or used very judiciously. The sale of assets (such as highways or roads) or the sale of a revenue stream (such as lottery revenues), are particularly troublesome options. These strategies are likely to cause taxpayers not to understand the real costs of government and can result in government that is too large. The excessively large government in the short run can require cuts later or can result in higher tax rates. Even if taxpayers understand the costs of government, revenues in many states will only come back slowly from the recession and the states will not have additional revenues to finance these costs in the future once the revenues from assets sales are used up. The better strategy is that recurring revenues and recurring expenditures be kept in balance.
Conclusion Many states failed to learn lessons from the vola tility of tax revenues and resulting fiscal problems that arose from the 2001 recession. There is evidence that states did not adapt: They built reserves that were too small, continued to narrow tax bases (sales tax base exemptions and property tax base limits were frequent examples), and assumed that unusually rapid revenue growth in the middle years of this decade would continue unabated thereby allowing expenditure growth rates to be excessive. Perhaps the starker lessons from this recession will provide a clearer picture of how to design state fiscal structures and cause states to develop more effective strategies. Among the lessons and appropriate policy responses are: The worst case for revenue performance is much worse than previously expected. States had not seen such large revenue declines in their modern history and generally did not expect such a big problem. We have now seen that much larger revenue declines are possible and planning for this possibility must be a factor in the design of fiscal policy. Tax structures should be designed to provide sufficient revenue over the business cycle, and not with a focus on a year-to-year basis. This effectively means that tax revenues should grow fast enough to maintain desired service levels across the business cycle. Revenues will grow much faster during expansions than during recessions, so this requires states to build reserves during the expansion years, not reduce tax rates and narrow tax bases.
410 The Book of the States 2010
States must avoid building new programs and growing expenditures rapidly during expansion years, and instead design a size of government that is consistent with the demands for public services and the revenues that will be available over the long term. It is particularly important to ensure that all costs—including pension funds, debt service and others—are properly funded during expansion years because recessions will occur when financing choices are very difficult. States must build reserves that are much greater than 10 percent of tax revenues, and plans should be in place for efficient/appropriate expenditure from the reserves. Nonetheless, it will probably be politically difficult to build reserves to the level necessary to avoid a slowing of expenditures during recessions.
Notes 1 Lucy Dadayan and Donald J. Boyd, “State Tax Revenues Show Record Drop, for Second Consecutive Quarter,” State Revenue Report No. 77, (Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, October 2009). 2 Lucy Dadayan and Donald J. Boyd, “Old News is Bad News: Third Quarter Brings More Decline in Tax Revenues,” State Revenue Flash Report, (Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, November 23 2009). The percentage revenue decrease was larger than in fiscal year 2009 but not as great as the last quarter of fiscal 2009. 3 National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States, (June 2009). Retrieved December 21, 2009, from http:// www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/FSSpring2009.pdf. 4 Ibid. 5 See http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cig_inc02.html for a listing of tobacco tax rate increases.
About the Author Bill Fox is the William B. Stokely Distinguished Professor of Business and the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Tennessee. He is a past president and recipient of the Steven D. Gold Award from the National Tax Association and former chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Tennessee. He has held visiting appointments as professor at the University of Hawaii, scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and Distinguished Fulbright Chair at the University of Frankfurt, Germany. Fox has served as a consultant in more than 25 countries and 10 U.S. states on a wide range of public policy issues.
taxes
Table 7.9 state tax amnesty programs, 1982–2010 State or other Legislative jurisdiction Amnesty period authorization Major taxes covered
Accounts receivable Collections included ($ millions) (a)
Installment arrangements permitted (b)
Alabama.......................... 1/20/84–4/1/84 No (c) 2/1/09–5/15/09 Yes
All Ind. Income, Corp. Income, Business, Sales & Use
No N.A.
3.2 8.1
No N.A.
Arizona..........................
11/22/82–1/20/83 1/1/02–2/28/02 9/1/03–10/31/03 5/1/09–6/1/09
No (c) Yes Yes N.A.
All Individual income All (t) All
No No N.A. N.A.
6.0 N.A. 73.0 32
Yes No Yes N.A.
Arkansas........................
9/1/87–11/30/87 7/1/04–12/31/04
Yes Yes
All All
No N.A.
1.7 N.A.
Yes No
California...................... 12/10/84–3/15/85 2/1/05–3/31/05
Yes Yes Yes
Individual income Sales Income, Franchise, Sales
Yes No N.A.
154.0 43.0 N.A.
Yes Yes Yes
Colorado........................
9/16/85–11/15/85 6/1/03–6/30/03
Yes N.A.
All All
No N.A.
6.4 18.4
Yes Yes
Connecticut...................
9/1/90–11/30/90 9/1/95–11/30/95 9/1/02–12/2/02 5/1/09–6/25/09
Yes Yes N.A. Yes
All All All All
Yes Yes N.A. No
54.0 46.2 109.0 40
Yes Yes N.A. No
Delaware.......................
9/1/09–10/30/09
Yes
All
Yes
N.A.
Yes
Florida...........................
1/1/87–6/30/87 1/1/88–6/30/88 7/1/03–10/31/03
Yes Yes (d) Yes
Intangibles All All
No No N.A.
13.0 8.4 (d) 80.0
No No N.A.
Georgia..........................
10/1/92–12/5/92
Yes
All
Yes
51.3
No
Hawaii...........................
5/27/09–6/26/09
N.A.
All
No
14.0
No
Idaho..............................
5/20/83–8/30/83
No (c)
No
0.3
No
Illinois............................
10/1/84–11/30/84 10/1/03–11/17/03
Yes Yes
All (u) All
Yes N.A.
160.5 532.0
No N.A.
Individual income
Indiana...........................
9/15/05–11/15/05
N.A.
All
N.A.
255.0
Yes
Iowa...............................
9/2/86–10/31/86 9/4/07–10/31/07
Yes Yes
All All
Yes Yes
35.1 N.A.
N.A. N.A.
Kansas...........................
7/1/84–9/30/84 10/1/03–11/30/03
Yes Yes
All All
No Yes
0.6 53.7
No N.A.
Kentucky.......................
9/15/88–9/30/88 8/1/02–9/30/02
Yes (c) Yes (c)
All All
No No
100.0 100.0
No No
Louisiana.......................
10/1/85–12/31/85 10/1/87–12/15/87 10/1/98–12/31/98 9/1/01–10/30/01
Yes Yes Yes Yes
All All All All
No No No (q) Yes
1.2 0.3 1.3 192.9
Yes (f) Yes (f) No No
Maine.............................
11/1/90–12/31/90 9/1/03–11/30/03
Yes Yes
All All
Yes N.A.
29.0 37.6
Yes N.A.
Maryland.......................
9/1/87–11/2/87 9/1/01–10/31/01 9/1/09–10/31/09
Yes Yes Yes
All All Income, Withholding, Sales & Use
Yes Yes Yes
34.6 (g) 39.2 9.6
No No Yes
Massachusetts...............
10/17/83–1/17/84 10/1/02–11/30/02 1/1/03–2/28/03 TBD (v)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
All Yes 86.5 All Yes 96.1 All Yes 11.2 TBD
Michigan........................
5/12/86–6/30/86 5/15/02–6/30/02
Yes Yes
All All
Yes Yes
109.8 N.A.
No N.A.
Minnesota......................
8/1/84–10/31/84
Yes
All
Yes
12.1
No
Mississippi.....................
9/1/86–11/30/86 9/1/04–12/31/04
Yes Yes
All All
No No
1.0 7.9
No No
Missouri.........................
9/1/83–10/31/83 8/1/02–10/31/02 8/1/03–10/31/03
No (c) Yes Yes
All All All
No Yes Yes
0.9 76.4 20.0
No N.A. N.A.
Nebraska.......................
8/1/04–10/31/04
Yes
All
No
7.5
Nevada...........................
2/1/02–6/30/02 7/1/08–10/28/08
N.A. No
All Sales, business,license
N.A. 7.3 Yes
N.A. No
New Hampshire............
12/1/97–2/17/98 12/1/01–2/15/02
Yes Yes
All All
Yes Yes
No N.A.
13.5 13.5
Yes (h) Yes N.A.
No
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 411
taxes
state tax amnesty programs, 1982–2010—Continued State or other Legislative jurisdiction Amnesty period authorization Major taxes covered
Accounts receivable Collections included ($ millions) (a)
Installment arrangements permitted (b)
New Jersey....................
9/10/87–12/8/87 3/15/96–6/1/96 4/15/02–6/10/02 5/4/09–6/15/09
Yes Yes Yes Yes
All All All All
Yes Yes Yes N.A.
186.5 359.0 276.9 725
Yes No N.A. N.A.
New Mexico..................
8/15/85–11/13/85 8/16/99–11/12/99
Yes Yes
All (i) All
No Yes
13.6 45.0
Yes Yes
New York.......................
11/1/85–1/31/86 11/1/96–1/31/97 11/18/02–1/31/03 10/1/05–3/1/06
Yes Yes Yes N.A.
All (j) All All Income, corporate
Yes Yes Yes N.A.
401.3 253.4 582.7 349.0
Yes Yes (o) Yes (s) N.A.
Yes
North Carolina..............
9/1/89–12/1/89
All (k)
Yes
37.6
No
North Dakota................
9/1/83–11/30/83 10/1/03–1/31/04
No (c) Yes
All N.A.
No N.A.
0.2 6.9
Yes N.A.
Ohio...............................
10/15/01–1/15/02 1/1/06–2/15/06
Yes Yes
All All
No No
48.5 63.0
No No
Oklahoma......................
7/1/84–12/31/84 8/15/02–11/15/02 9/15/08–11/14/08
Yes N.A. Yes
Income, Sales All (r) All
Yes Yes Yes
13.9 N.A. 81.0
No (l) N.A. Yes
Oregon...........................
10/1/09–11/19/09
Yes
Personal, Corporate, Inheritance
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania.................
10/13/95–1/10/96 4/26/10–6/18/10
Yes Yes
All All
Yes Yes
N.A. N.A.
No No
Rhode Island.................
10/15/86–1/12/87 4/15/96–6/28/96 7/15/06–9/30/06
Yes Yes N.A.
All All All
No Yes Yes
0.7 7.9 6.5
Yes Yes Yes
South Carolina..............
9/1/85–11/30/85 10/15/02–12/2/02
Yes Yes
All All
Yes Yes
7.1 66.2
Yes N.A.
South Dakota................
4/1/99–5/15/99
Yes
All
Yes
0.5
N.A.
Texas..............................
2/1/84–2/29/84 3/11/04–3/31/04 6/15/07–8/15/07
No (c) No (c) No (c)
All (m) All (m) All (m)
No No No
0.5 N.A. N.A.
No No No
Vermont.........................
5/15/90–6/25/90 7/20/09–8/31/09
Yes Yes
All All
Yes N.A.
1.0 (e) 2.2
No N.A.
Virginia..........................
2/1/90–3/31/90 9/2/03–11/3/03 10/7/09–12/5/09
Yes Yes Yes
All All All
Yes Yes Yes
32.2 98.3 102.1
No N.A. No
West Virginia.................
10/1/86–12/31/86 9/1/04–10/31/04
Yes Yes
All All
Yes N.A.
15.9 10.4
Yes Yes
Wisconsin......................
9/15/85–11/22/85 6/15/98–8/14/98
Yes Yes
All All
Yes (n) Yes
27.3 30.9
Yes N.A.
Dist. of Columbia.........
7/1/87–9/30/87 7/10/95–8/31/95
Yes Yes
All All (p)
Yes Yes
24.3 19.5
Yes Yes (p)
No. Mariana Islands.....
9/30/05–3/30/06
Yes
All
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Source: The Federation of Tax Administrators, March 2010. Key: N.A. — Not available. (a) Where applicable, figure includes local portions of certain taxes collected under the state tax amnesty program. (b) “No” indicates requirement of full payment by the expiration of the amnesty period. “Yes” indicates allowance of full payment after the expiration of the amnesty period. (c) Authority for amnesty derived from pre-existing statutory powers permitting the waiver of tax penalties. (d) Does not include intangibles tax and drug taxes. Gross collections totaled $22.1 million, with $13.7 million in penalties withdrawn. (e) Preliminary figure. (f) Amnesty taxpayers were billed for the interest owed, with payment due within 30 days of notification. (g) Figure includes $1.1 million for the separate program conducted by the Department of Natural Resources for the boat excise tax. (h) The amnesty statute was construed to extend the amnesty to those who applied to the department before the end of the amnesty period, and permitted them to file overdue returns and pay back taxes and interest at a later date. (i) The severance taxes, including the six oil and gas severance taxes, the resources excise tax, the corporate franchise tax, and the special fuels tax were not subject to amnesty. (j) Availability of amnesty for the corporation tax, the oil company taxes, the
412 The Book of the States 2010
transportation and transmissions companies tax, the gross receipts oil tax and the unincorporated business tax restricted to entities with 500 or fewer employees in the United States on the date of application. In addition, a taxpayer principally engaged in aviation, or a utility subject to the supervision of the State Department of Public Service was also ineligible. (k) Local taxes and real property taxes were not included. (l) Full payment of tax liability required before the end of the amnesty period to avoid civil penalties. (m) Texas does not impose a corporate or individual income tax. In practical effect, the amnesty was limited to the sales tax and other excises. (n) Waiver terms varied depending upon the date the tax liability was assessed. (o) Installment arrangements were permitted if applicant demonstrated that payment would present a severe financial hardship. (p) Does not include real property taxes. All interest was waived on tax payments made before July 31, 1995. After this date, only 50% of the interest was waived. (q) Exception for individuals who owed $500 or less. (r) Except for property and motor fuel taxes. (s) Multiple payments could be made so long as the required balance was paid in full no later than March 15, 2003. (t) All taxes except property, estate and unclaimed property. (u) Does not include the motor fuel use tax. (v) The Massachusetts Department of Revenue is required to hold an amnesty to end before June 30, 2010.
taxes
Table 7.10 state excise tax rates (As of January 1, 2010) State or other jurisdiction
General sales and gross receipts tax (percent)
Cigarettes (cents per pack of 20)
Distilled spirits ($ per gallon)*
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
4.0 0.0 5.6 6.0 8.25 (h)
42.5 (b) 200 200 115 87
(c) 12.80 (d) 3.00 2.50 (d) 3.30 (d)
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
2.9 6.0 0.0 6.0 4.0
84 (i) 300 160 133.9 (j) 37
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
4.0 6.0 6.25 7.0 6.0
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
Motor fuel excise tax rates (cents per gallon) (a) Gasoline
Diesel
Gasohol
18.0 (e) 8.0 18.0 (f) 21.5 18.0 (g)
19.0 (e) 8.0 18.0 (f) 22.5 18.0 (g)
18.0 (e) 8.0 18.0 (f) 21.5 18.0 (g)
2.28 4.50 (d) 5.46 (d) 6.50 (k) 3.79 (d)
22.0 25.0 23.0 16.0 (g)(l) 16.8 (g)
20.5 37.0 22.0 29.6 (g)(l) 17.5 (g)
22.0 25.0 23.0 16.0 (g)(l) 16.8 (g)
260 (m) 57 98 (b) 99.5 136
5.98
(c) 8.55 (d) 2.68 (d) (c)
17.0 (e)(g) 26.0 (g)(n) 20.1 (e)(f)(g) 18.0 (f)(g) 22.5
17.0 (e)(g) 26.0 (g)(n) 22.6 (e)(f)(g) 16.0 (f)(g) 22.5
17.0 (e)(g) 26.0 (g)(n) 20.1 (e)(f)(g) 18.0 (f)(g) 19.0
5.3 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
79 60 (o) 36 200 200
2.50 (d) 1.92 (d)(k) 2.50 (d) (c) 1.50
24.0 24.1 (f)(g)(p) 20.0 29.5 (q) 23.5
26.0 21.1 (f)(g)(p) 20.0 30.7 (q) 24.25
24.0 24.1(f)(g)(p) 20.0 29.5 (q) 23.5
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
6.25 6.0 6.875 7.0 4.225
251 200 123 (t) 68 17 (b)
4.05 (k)(d) (c) 5.03 (d) (c) 2.00
21 .0 19.0 (g) 27.1 18.4 (g) 17.55 (g)
21.0 15.0 (g) 27.1 18.4 (g) 17.55 (g)
21.0 19.0 (g) 27.1 18.4 (g) 17.55 (g)
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
0.0 5.5 6.85 0.0 7.0
170 64 80 178 270
(c) 3.75 3.60 (d) (c) 5.50
27.0 27.7 (g)(q) 24.055 (e)(g) 19.625 (g) 14.5 (g)
27.75 27.1 (g)(q) 27.0 (e)(g) 19.625 (g) 17.5 (g)
27.0 27.7 (g)(q) 24.055 (e)(g) 19.625 (g) 14.5 (g)
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
5.0 4.0 5.75 5.0 5.5
91 275 (b) 45 44 125
6.06 6.44 (d) (c)(k) 2.50 (d) (c)
18.875 (g) 24.4(g) 30.55 (g)(p) 23.0 28.0 (g)
22.875 (g) 22.65 (g) 30.55 (g)(p) 23.0 28.0 (g)
18.875 (g) 24.4(g) 30.55 (g)(p) 23.0 28.0 (g)
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
4.5 0.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
103 118 160 346 7
5.56 (d) (c) (c) 3.75 2.72 (d)
17.0 (g) 24.0 (e) 31.2 (g) 31.0 (g) 16.0
14.0 (g) 24.0 (e) 38.1 (g) 31.0 (g) 16.0
17.0 (g) 24.0 (e) 31.2 (g) 31.0 (g) 16.0
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
4.0 7.0 6.25 4.7 6.0
153 62 (b)(o) 141 69.5 224
3.93(d) 4.40 (d) 2.40 (d) (c) (c)(d)
22.0 (e) 21.4 (e)(g) 20.0 24.5 24.5 (g)
22.0 (e) 18.4(e)(g) 20.0 24.5 29.0 (g)
22.0 (e) 21.4 (e)(g) 20.0 24.5 24.5 (g)
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
5.0 (r) 6.5 6.0 5.0 4.0
30 (b) 202.5 55 252 60
(c) (c)(k) (c)
17.5 (e)(s) 37.5 (g) 32.2 (g) 32.9 (g)(q) 14.0 (g)
17.5 (e)(s) 37.5 (g) 32.2 (g) 32.9 (g)(q) 14.0 (g)
17.5 (e)(s) 37.5 (g) 32.2 (g) 32.9 (g)(q) 14.0 (g)
Dist. of Columbia.........
6.0
250
20.0
20.0
20.0
3.25
(c)
1.50 (d)
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 413
taxes
state excise tax rates—Continued (As of January 1, 2010) Source: Compiled by The Federation of Tax Administrators from various sources, January 2010. Key: . . . — Tax is not applicable. (a) The tax rates listed are fuel excise taxes collected by distributor/supplier/retailers in each state. Additional taxes may apply to motor carriers. Carrier taxes are coordinated by the International Fuel Tax Association. (b) Counties and cities may impose an additional tax on a pack of cigarettes in Alabama 1¢ to 6¢; Illinois, 10¢ to 15¢; Missouri, 4¢ to 7¢; New York City $1.50; Tennessee 1¢; and Virginia 2¢ to 15¢. (c) In 18 states, the government directly controls the sales of distilled spirits. Revenue in these states is generated from various taxes, fees and net liquor profits. (d) Other taxes in addition to excise taxes for the following states: Alaska, under 21 percent—$2.50/gallon; Arkansas, under 5 percent—$0.50/gallon, under 21 percent—$1.00/gallon, $0.20/case and 3 percent off—14 percent on-premise retail taxes; California, over 50 percent—$6.60/gallon; Connecticut, under 7 percent—$2.05/gallon; Delaware, under 25 percent—$3.64/ gallon, Florida under 17.259%—$2.25/gallon, over 55.780%–$9.53/gallon and 6.67 cents ounce on-premise retail tax; Georgia, $0.83/gallon local tax; Illinois, under 20 percent—$1.39/gallon, $2.68/gallon in Chicago and $2.00/ gallon in Cook County; Indiana, under 15 percent—$0.47/gallon; Kansas, 8 percent off—and 10 percent on-premise retail tax; Kentucky, under 6 percent—$0.25/gallon, $0.05/case and 11 percent wholesale tax; Louisiana, under 6 percent—$0.32/gallon; Massachusetts, under 15 percent—$1.10/ gallon, over 50 percent alcohol—$4.05/proof gallon, 0.57 percent on private club sales; Minnesota, $0.01/bottle (except miniatures) and 9 percent sales tax; Nevada, under 14 percent—$0.70/gallon and under 21 percent—$1.30/ gallon; New York,under 24 percent—$2.54/gallon, $1.00/gallon New York City; North Dakota, 7 percent state sales tax; Oklahoma, 13.5 percent on-premise; South Carolina, $5.36/case and 9 percent surtax additional 5 percent on-premise tax; South Dakota, under 14 percent—$0.93/gallon, 2 percent wholesale tax; Tennessee, $0.15/case and 15 percent on-premise, under 7 percent—$1.10/gallon; Texas, 14 percent on-premise and $0.05/ drink on airline sales; Vermont, 10% on-premise sales tax and District of Columbia, 8 percent off—and 10 percent on-premise sales tax. (e) Tax rates do not include local option taxes. In Alabama, 1–3 cents; Hawaii, 8.8 to 18.0 cents; Illinois, 5 cents in Chicago and 6 cents in Cook County (gasoline only); Nevada, 4 to 9 cents; Oregon, 1 to 3 cents; South Dakota and Tennessee, one cent; and Virginia, 2 percent. (f) Carriers pay an additional surcharge: Arizona, 8 cents: Illinois, 12.3 cents (gasoline) , 13.5 cents (diesel): Indiana, 11 cents; Kentucky, 2 percent
414 The Book of the States 2010
(gasoline), 4.7 percent (diesel). (g) Other taxes and fees; California-sales tax applicable; Delaware-plus 0.5 percent GRT; Florida—sales tax added to excise; Georgia—sales tax added to excise; Hawaii—sales tax applicable; Idaho—clean water tax; Illinois—sales tax applicable, environmental fee and leaking underground storage tax (LUST); Indiana—sales tax applicable; Kentucky—environmental fee; Michigan—sales tax applicable; Mississippi—environmental fee; Missouri—inspection fee; Nebraska—petroleum fee; Nevada—Inspection fee; New Hampshire—oil discharge cleanup fee; New Jersey—petroleum fee; New Mexico—petroleum loading fee; New York—sales tax applicable and petroleum tax; North Carolina—inspection tax; Ohio—plus 3 cents commercial; Oklahoma—environmental fee; Pennsylvania—oil franchise tax; Rhode Island—leaking underground storage tank tax (LUST); Tennessee—petroleum tax and environmental fee; Vermont—petroleum cleanup fee and transportation fee; Washington—$0.5 percent privilege tax; West Virginia—sales tax added to excise; Wisconsin—petroleum inspection fee; Wyoming—license tax. (h) Tax rate may be adjusted annually according to a formula based on balances in the unappropriated general fund and the school foundation fund. (i) In addition there will be a 2.9% state sales tax on top of the stated per pack tax rate from July 1, 2009 through July 1, 2011. (j) Includes a $1 per pack surcharge. (k) Sales tax is applied to on-premise sales only. (l) Local taxes for gasoline and gasahol vary from 12.6 cents to 18.6 cents. Plus a $2.07 per gallon pollution tax. (m) Tax rate is scheduled to increase to $2.80 per pack effective July 1, 2010 and $3.00 per pack effective July 1, 2011. (n) Tax rate is reduced by the percentage of ethanol used in blending (reported rate assumes the maximum 10 percent ethanol). (o) Dealers pay an additional enforcement and administrative fee of 0.1 cent per pack in Kentucky and .05 cent in Tennessee. (p) Tax rate is based on the average wholesale price and is adjusted quarterly. The actual rates are: Kentucky, 9 percent and North Carolina, 17.5 cents plus 7 percent. (q) Portion of the rate is adjustable based on maintenance costs, sales volume, cost of fuel to state government, or inflation. (r) Includes statewide local tax of 1.0 percent in Virginia. (s) Large trucks pay an additional 3.5 cents. (t) Plus an additional 33 cent sales tax is added to the wholesale price of a tax stamp (total $1.56). This rate is determined annually by the Department of Revenue,
taxes
Table 7.11 food and drug sales tax exemptions (As of January 1, 2010)
Exemptions
State or other jurisdiction
Tax rate (percentage)
Food (a)
Prescription drugs
Nonprescription drugs
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California (c).......................
4.0 0.0 5.6 6.0 8.25
. . . N.A. H 2% (b) H
H N.A. H H H
... N.A. ... ... ...
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
2.9 6.0 0.0 6.0 4.0
H H N.A. H H(b)
H H N.A. H H
... H N.A. H ...
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
4.0 6.0 6.25 7.0 6.0
. . . . . . 1% H H
H H 1% H H
... ... 1% ... ...
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
5.3 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
. . . H H(b) H H
H H H H H
... ... ... ... H
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
6.25 6.0 6.875 7.0 4.225
H H H . . . 1.225%
H H H H H
... ... H ... ...
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
0.0 5.5 6.85 0.0 7.0
N.A. H H N.A. H
N.A. H H N.A. H
N.A. ... ... N.A. H
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
5.0 4.0 5.75 5.0 5.5
H H H (b) H H
H H H H H
... H ... ... ...
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
4.5 0.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
. . . N.A. H H H
H N.A. H H H
... N.A. H H ...
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
4.0 7.0 6.25 4.7 6.0
. . . 5.5% H 1.75 (b) H
H H H H H
... ... H ... H
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
5.0 (d) 6.5 6.0 5.0 4.0
2.5% (d) H 3% (b) H H
H H H H H
H ... ... ... ...
Dist. of Columbia...............
6.0
H
H
H
Source: The Federation of Tax Administrators, January 2010. Key: H — Yes, exempt from tax. . . . — Subject to general sales tax, N.A. — Not applicable. (a) Some states tax food, but allow a rebate or income tax credit to
compensate poor households. They are: Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming. (b) Food sales are subject to local sales tax. (c) The tax rate may be adjusted annually according to a formula based on balances in the unappropriated general fund and the school foundation fund. (d) Includes statewide local tax of 1.0 percent in Virginia.
The Council of State Governments 415
TAXES
Table 7.12 STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES (Tax rates for tax year 2010—as of January 1, 2010)
Tax rate range (in percents) State or other jurisdiction Low High
Income brackets Personal exemptions Number of of brackets Lowest Highest Single Married Dependents
Federal income tax deductible
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas (a).................. California (a).................
2.0 – 5.0 3 500 (b) – 3,000 (b) 1,500 3,000 300 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No state income tax–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2.59 – 4.54 5 10,000 (b) – 150,000 (b) 2,100 4,200 2,300 1.0 – 7.0 (e) 6 3,899 (b) – 32,600 (b) 23 (c) 46 (c) 23 (c) 1.25 – 9.55 (w) 6 7,300 (b) – 47,900 (b) 98 (c) 196 (c) 98 (c)
H ... ... ... ...
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware........................ Florida............................ Georgia..........................
4.63 1 –––––––– Flat rate–––––––– ––––––––––––––– None––––––––––––––– 3.0 – 6.5 3 10,000 (b) – 500,001 (b) 13,000 (f) 26,000 (f) 0 2.2 – 6.95 6 5,000 – 60,001 110 (c) 220 (c) 110 (c) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No state income tax–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1.0 – 6.0 6 750 (g) – 7,000 (g) 2,700 5,400 3,000
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii............................ Idaho (a)........................ Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa (a)..........................
1.4 – 11.0 1.6 – 7.8 3.0 3.4 0.36 – 8.98
Kansas............................ Kentucky........................ Louisiana....................... Maine (a)....................... Maryland........................
3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
6.45 6.0 6.0 8.5 6.25
3 6 3 4 8
Massachusetts (a).......... Michigan (a).................. Minnesota (a)................ Mississippi...................... Missouri.........................
5.3 4.35 5.35 – 7.85 3.0 – 5.0 1.5 – 6.0
1 1 3 3 10
Montana (a)................... Nebraska (a).................. Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.....................
1.0 – 6.9 7 2,600 – 15,401 2,110 4,220 2,110 2.56 – 6.84 4 2,400 (k) – 27,001 (k) 118 (c) 236 (c) 118 (c) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No state income tax–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– State income tax is limited to dividends and interest income only.– ––––––––––––––––––– 1.4 – 10.75 8 20,000 (l) – 1,000,000 (l) 1,000 2,000 1,500
New Mexico................... New York....................... North Carolina (n)........ North Dakota (a).......... Ohio (a).........................
1.7 – 4.0 – 6.0 – 1.84 – 0.618 –
4.9 8.97 7.75 (n) 4.86 6.24
4 7 3 5 9
5,500 (m) 8,000 (x) 12,750 (n) 34,000 (o) 5,000
Oklahoma...................... Oregon (a)..................... Pennsylvania.................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina (a)........
0.5 – 5.5 (q) 5.0 – 11.0 3.07 3.8 – 9.9 (y) 0 – 7.0
7 5 1 5 6
1,000 (q) – 8,701 (q) 2,000 (b) – 250,000(b) –––––––– Flat rate–––––––– 33,500 (y) – 372,950 (y) 2,740 – 13,701
South Dakota................ Tennessee....................... Texas............................... Utah................................ Vermont (a)...................
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No state income tax–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– State income tax is limited to dividends and interest income only.– ––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No state income tax–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.0 – 1 –––––––– Flat rate–––––––– (t) (t) (t) 3.55 – 8.95 5 33,950 (u) – 372,951 (u) 3,650 (d) 7,300 (d) 3,650 (d)
... ... ... ... ...
Virginia.......................... Washington.................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin (a)................. Wyoming........................
2.0 – 5.75 4 3,000 – 17,000 930 1,860 930 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (No state income tax)––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0 – 6.5 5 10,000 – 60,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 4.6 – 7.75 5 10,220 (v) – 225,001 (v) 700 1,400 700 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
... ... ... ... ...
Dist. of Columbia.......... 4.0
– – – – –
– 8.5
See footnotes at end of table.
416 The Book of the States 2010
12 8 1 1 9
3
2,400 (b) – 200,001 (b) 1,320 (h) – 26,418 (h) –––––––– Flat rate–––––––– –––––––– Flat rate–––––––– 1,407 – 63,316
1,040 3,650 (d) 2,000 1,000 40 (c)
2,080 7,300 (d) 4,000 2,000 80 (c)
1,040 3,650 (d) 2,000 1,000 40 (c)
... ... ... ... H
15,000 (b) 3,000 12,500 (b) 4,949 (b) 1,000
– 30,000 (b) – 75,000 – 50,000 (b) – 19,750 (b) – 1,000,001
2,250 20 (c) 4,500 (i) 2,850 2,400
4,500 40 (c) 9,000 (i) 5,700 4,800
2,250 20 (c) 1,000 (i) 2,850 2,400
... ... H ... ...
–––––––– Flat rate–––––––– –––––––– Flat rate–––––––– 22,770 (j) – 74,781 (j) 5,000 – 10,000 1,000 – 9,000
4,400 3,300 3,650 (d) 6,000 2,100
8,800 6,600 7,300 (d) 12,000 4,200
1,000 3,300 3,650 (d) 1,500 1,200
... ... ... ... H (r)
10,000
– – – – –
16,000 (m) 500,000 (x) 60,000 (n) 373,650 (o) 200,000
– 40,000
3,650 (d) 0 3,650 (d) 3,650 (d) 1,550 (p)
7,300 (d) 0 7,300 (d) 7,300 (d) 3,100 (p)
3,650 (d) 1,000 3,650 (d) 3,650 (d) 1,550 (p)
1,000 2,000 1,000 176 (c) 352 (c) 176 (c) ––––––––––––––– None––––––––––––––– 3,650 (d) 7,300 (d) 3,650 (d) 3,650 (d) 7,300 (d) 3,650 (d)
1,675
3,350
1,675
H (r) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... H (r) ... ... ...
...
TAXES
STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES—Continued (Tax rates for tax year 2010—as of January 1, 2010) Source: The Federation of Tax Administrators from various sources, January 2010. Key: H — Yes . . . — No (a) Sixteen states have statutory provision for automatic adjustment of tax brackets, personal exemption or standard deductions to the rate of inflation. Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and Ohio index the personal exemption amounts only. (b) For joint returns, the taxes are twice the tax imposed on half the income. (c) Tax credits. (d) These states allow personal exemption or standard deductions as provided in the IRC. (e) A special tax table is available for low-income taxpayers reducing their tax payments. (f) Combined personal exemptions and standard deduction. An additional tax credit is allowed ranging from 75% to 0% based on state adjusted gross income. Exemption amounts are phased out for higher income taxpayers until they are eliminated for households earning over $61,000. (g) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married households, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging range from $1,000 to $10,000. (h) For joint returns, the tax is twice the tax imposed on half the income. A $10 filing tax is charge for each return and a $15 credit is allowed for each exemption. (i) Combined personal exemption and standard deduction. (j) The tax brackets reported are for single individual. For married couples filing jointly, the same rates apply for income under $33,280 to over $132,221. A 6.4% AMT rate is also applicable. (k) The tax brackets reported are for single individual. For married couples filing jointly, the same rates apply for income under $4,800 to over $54,000. (l) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married couples filing jointly, the tax rates range from 1.4% to 10.75% (with 9 income brackets) applying to income brackets from $20,000 to over $1 million. (m) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married couples filing jointly, the same rates apply for income under $8,000 to over $24,000. Married households filing separately pay the tax imposed
on half the income. (n) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married taxpayers, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging from $21,250 to $100,000. Lower exemption amounts allowed for high-income taxpayers. For tax years 2009 and 2010, a surcharge that equals 2% of total liability for taxpayers with income over $60,000 single filer ($100,000 joint) and 3% of total liability for income over $150,000($250,000 joint). (o) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married taxpayers, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging from $56,850 to $373,650. An additional $300 personal exemption is allowed for joint returns or unmarried head of households. (p) Plus an additional $20 per exemption tax credit. (q) The rate range reported is for single persons. For married persons filing jointly, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging from $2,000 to $15,000. (r) Deduction is limited to $10,000 for joint returns and $5,000 for individuals in Missouri and Montana, and to $5,600 in Oregon. (s) Federal Tax Liability prior to the enactment of Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. Or, taxpayers have the option of computing tax liability based on a flat 7.0% (6.5% in 2009) of gross income. (t) Tax credits are equal to 6% of federal standard/itemized deductions (w/o state taxes paid) and 75% of Federal personal exemption amounts. The credit amount is phased out above $12,000 in income ($24,000 for joint returns). (u) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married couples filing jointly, the same rates apply for income under $56,700 to over $372,950. (v) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married taxpayers, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging from $13,620 to $300,000. (w) An additional 1% tax is imposed on taxable income over $1 million. Tax rates are scheduled to fall by 0.25% after 2011. (x) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. For married taxpayers, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging from $16,000 to $500,000. (y) Or an alternative flat rate of 6.5%. Rates reported are for a single filer calculated based on a tax of 25% of federal liability using IRC in 2001. For married taxpayers filing jointly, the same rates apply to income brackets ranging from $56,700 to $372,950.
The Council of State Governments 417
TAXES
Table 7.13 STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAXES: FEDERAL STARTING POINTS (As of January 1, 2010)
State or other jurisdiction
Relation to Internal Revenue Code
Tax base
Alabama........................................ Alaska............................................ Arizona.......................................... Arkansas........................................ California.......................................
. . . ... –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1/1/09 Federal adjusted gross income . . . ... 1/1/05 Federal adjusted gross income
Colorado........................................ Connecticut................................... Delaware........................................ Florida............................................ Georgia..........................................
Current Federal taxable income Current Federal adjusted gross income Current Federal adjusted gross income –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1/1/09 Federal adjusted gross income
Hawaii............................................ Idaho.............................................. Illinois............................................ Indiana........................................... Iowa................................................
12/31/08 2/17/09 Current 1/1/08 1/1/08
Federal adjusted gross income Federal taxable income Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income
Kansas............................................ Kentucky........................................ Louisiana....................................... Maine............................................. Maryland........................................
Current 12/31/06 Current 2/17/09 Current
Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income
Massachusetts................................ Michigan........................................ Minnesota...................................... Mississippi...................................... Missouri.........................................
1/1/05 Current (a) 3/31/09 ... Current
Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income Federal taxable income ... Federal adjusted gross income
Montana......................................... Nebraska........................................ Nevada........................................... New Hampshire............................ New Jersey.....................................
Current Federal adjusted gross income 2/26/09 Federal adjusted gross income –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– On interest and dividends only–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ... ...
New Mexico................................... New York....................................... North Carolina.............................. North Dakota................................ Ohio................................................
Current Current 1/1/09 Current 10/16/09
Federal adjusted gross income Federal adjusted gross income Federal taxable income Federal taxable income Federal adjusted gross income
Oklahoma...................................... Oregon........................................... Pennsylvania.................................. Rhode Island................................. South Carolina..............................
Current 5/1/09 ... 6/3/01 12/31/09
Federal adjusted gross income Federal taxable income ... Federal adjusted gross income Federal taxable income
South Dakota................................ Tennessee....................................... Texas............................................... Utah................................................ Vermont.........................................
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– On interest and dividends only–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Current Federal taxable income 1/1/08 Federal taxable income
Virginia.......................................... Washington.................................... West Virginia................................. Wisconsin....................................... Wyoming........................................
12/31/08 Federal adjusted gross income –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1/1/09 Federal adjusted gross income 12/31/08 Federal adjusted gross income –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––No state income tax–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Dist. of Columbia..........................
Current
Source: Compiled by the Federation of Tax Administrators from various sources, January 2010. Key: . . . — State does not employ a Federal starting point.
418 The Book of the States 2010
Federal adjusted gross income Current — Indicates state has adopted the Internal Revenue Code as currently in effect. Dates indicate state has adopted the IRC as amended to that date. (a) Or January 1, 1999, taxpayer’s option.
TAXES
Table 7.14 RANGE OF STATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATES (For tax year 2010, as of January 1, 2010) State or Tax rate Number other jurisdiction (percent) Lowest Highest of brackets
Financial institution tax rates (percent) (a)
Federal income tax deductible
Alabama.......................................... Alaska.............................................. Arizona............................................ Arkansas.......................................... California.........................................
6.5 1.0–9.4 6.968 (b) 1.0–6.5 8.84 (c)
---------- Flat Rate---------- 10,000 90,000 ---------- Flat Rate---------- 3,000 100,000 ---------- Flat Rate----------
1 10 1 6 1
6.5 1.0–9.4 6.968 (b) 1.0–6.5 10.84 (c)
H ... ... ... ...
Colorado.......................................... Connecticut..................................... Delaware.......................................... Florida.............................................. Georgia............................................
4.63 7.5 (d) 8.7 5.5 (f) 6.0
---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate----------
1 1 1 1 1
4.63 7.5 (d) 8.7–1.7 (e) 5.5 (f) 6.0
... ... ... ... ...
Hawaii.............................................. Idaho................................................ Illinois.............................................. Indiana............................................. Iowa..................................................
4.4–6.4 (g) 7.6 (h) 7.3 (i) 8.5 6.0–12.0
25,000 100,000 ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- 25,000 250,000
3 1 1 1 4
7.92 (g) 7.6 (h) 7.3 (i) 8.5 5.0
... ... ... ... H (k)
Kansas.............................................. Kentucky.......................................... Louisiana......................................... Maine............................................... Maryland..........................................
4.0 (l) 4.0–6.0 4.0–8.0 3.5–8.93 (n) 8.25
---------- Flat Rate---------- 50,000 100,000 25,000 200,000 25,000 250,000 ---------- Flat Rate----------
1 3 5 4 1
2.25 (l) (a) (a) 1.0 8.3
... ... H ... ...
Massachusetts.................................. Michigan.......................................... Minnesota........................................ Mississippi........................................ Missouri...........................................
8.75 (o) 4.95 (p) 9.8 (q) 3.0–5.0 6.25
---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- 5,000 10,000 ---------- Flat Rate----------
1 1 1 3 1
10.0 (o) (a) 9.8 (q) 3.0–5.0 7.0
... ... ... ... H (k)
Montana........................................... Nebraska.......................................... Nevada............................................. New Hampshire.............................. New Jersey.......................................
6.75 (r) ---------- Flat Rate---------- 1 6.75 (r) ... 5.58–7.81 100,000 2 (a) ... ------------------------------------------------------------------- See Note------------------------------------------------------------------8.5 (s) ---------- Flat Rate---------- 1 8.5 (s) ... 9.0 (t) ---------- Flat Rate---------- 1 9.0 (t) ...
New Mexico..................................... New York......................................... North Carolina................................ North Dakota.................................. Ohio..................................................
4.8–7.6 7.1 (u) 6.9 (v) 2.1–6.4 (w)
500,000 1 million ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- 25,000 50,000 (w)
3 1 1 3 2
4.8–7.6 7.1 (u) 6.9 (v) 7.0 (b) (w)
... ... ... H ...
Oklahoma........................................ Oregon............................................. Pennsylvania.................................... Rhode Island................................... South Carolina................................
6.0 6.6–7.9 (aa) 9.99 9.0 (b) 5.0
---------- Flat Rate---------- 250,000 ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate---------- ---------- Flat Rate----------
1 2 1 1 1
6.0 6.6 -7.9 (aa) (a) 9.0 (x) 4.5 (y)
... ... ... ... ...
South Dakota.................................. Tennessee......................................... Texas................................................. Utah.................................................. Vermont (b).....................................
. . . 6.5 (z) 5.0 (b) 6.0–8.5
. . . ---------- Flat Rate---------- . . . ---------- Flat Rate---------- 10,000 250,000
. . . 1 . . . . . . 3
6.0–0.25% (b) 6.5 (z) 5.0 (b) (a)
... ... ... ... ...
Virginia............................................ Washington...................................... West Virginia................................... Wisconsin......................................... Wyoming.......................................... Dist. of Columbia............................
6.0 ---------- Flat Rate---------- 1 6 ... ------------------------------------------------------------------- See Note------------------------------------------------------------------8.5 ---------- Flat Rate---------- 1 8.5 (bb) ... 7.9 ---------- Flat Rate---------- 1 7.9 ... ------------------------------------------------------------------- See Note------------------------------------------------------------------9.975 (cc)
---------- Flat Rate----------
. . .
9.975 (cc)
...
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 419
TAXES
RANGE OF STATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATES—Continued (For tax year 2010, as of January 1, 2010) Source: Compiled by the Federation of Tax Administrators from various sources January 2010. Key: H — Yes . . . — No Note: Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming do not have state corporate income taxes. (a) Rates listed include the corporate tax rate applied to financial institutions or excise taxes based on income. Some states have other taxes based upon the value of deposits or shares. (b) Minimum tax is $50 in Arizona, $50 in North Dakota (banks), $10 in Oregon, $500 in Rhode Island, $500 per location in South Dakota (banks), $100 in Utah, $250 in Vermont. (c) Minimum tax, $800. Banks and financial corporations, excepting financial S corporations, are subject to a 10.84% tax rate (the general corporation rate, plus 2%). A 3.5% tax rate applies to financial S corporations, and a 1.5% rate applies to all other S corporations. A 6.65% alternative minimum tax is imposed. (d) Or 3.1 mills per dollar of capital stock and surplus (maximum tax $1 million) or $250. A 10% surcharge is imposed in tax years 2009 and 2010 for corporations with gross sales of $100 million or more who are not paying the minimum tax. (e) The marginal rate decreases over 4 brackets ranging from $20 to $650 million in taxable income. Building and loan associations are taxed at a flat 8.7%. (f) Or 3.3% Alternative Minimum Tax. An exemption of $5,000 is allowed. (g) Capital gains are taxed at 4%. There is also an alternative tax of 0.5% of gross annual sales. (h) Minimum tax is $20. An additional tax of $10 is imposed on each return. Taxpayers under 100,000 or less of gross sales may pay 1% on such sales. (i) Includes a 2.5% personal property replacement tax. (k) Fifty percent of the federal income tax is deductible. (l) In addition to the 4% corporate tax income there is a 3.05% surtax on taxable income over $50,000. The current surtax is reduced to 3.0% for tax year 2011. Certain financial institutions pay a privilege tax at a rate of 2.25% of net income, plus a surtax of 2.125% (2.25% for trust companies and savings and loan associations) with net income in excess of $25,000. (n) The state franchise tax on financial institutions is either (1) the sum of 1% of the Maine net income of the financial institution for the taxable year, plus 8¢ per $1,000 of the institution’s Maine assets as of the end of its taxable year, or (2) 39¢ per $1,000 of the institution’s Maine assets as of the end of its taxable year. (o) The current business corporation (financial Institution) tax rate is reduced to 8.25% (9.5%) in 2011, and 8.0% (9.0%) in 2012. Rate includes 14% surtax, as does the following: an additional tax of $2.60 per $1,000 on taxable tangible property (or net worth allocable to state, for intangible
420 The Book of the States 2010
property corporations); minimum tax of $456. (p) Michigan Business Tax (MBT) imposed at rate of 4.95% and modified gross receipts tax imposed at rate of 0.8% on receipts of $350,000 or more. Plus a 21.99% surcharge, capped at $6 million per year. (q) Plus a 5.8% tax on any Alternative Minimum Taxable Income over the base tax. (r) A 7% tax on taxpayers using water’s edge combination. Minimum tax is $50. Taxpayers with $100,000 or less gross sales within state may pay 0.5% on such sales. (s) Plus a 0.75 percent tax on the enterprise base (total compensation, interest and dividends paid) for businesses with gross income over $150,000 or base over $75,000. Business profits tax is imposed on both corporations and unincorporated associations with gross income over $50,000. (t) Alternative minimum assessment if applicable or fixed dollar minimum tax based on gross receipts ranging from $500 to $2000. Small businesses with annual income under $100,000 pay a tax equal to 7.5% of taxable income while businesses with income under $50,000 pay a 6.5% tax on income. A 4% surtax also applies for tax periods ending before 7/1/10. (u) Alternative minimum tax base of 1.5%; capital tax base of 0.15% per dollar of allocated capital (up to $350,000 for qualified in-state manufacturers or $10 million for other taxpayers). Small business taxpayers pay 4.35% to 7.1% depending. Fixed dollar minimum tax ranges from $25 to $5000 depending on receipts. (v) For tax years 2009 and 2010, a 3% surcharge applies. Financial institutions are also subject to a tax equal to $30 per one million in assets. (w) Ohio does not levy a tax based on income, but imposes A Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) equals $150 for gross receipts between $150,000 and $1 million, plus 0.26% of gross receipts over $1 million. Banks will pay the Franchise tax based on net worth. An additional litter tax is imposed equal to 0.11% on the first $50,000 of taxable income, 0.22% on income over $50,000; or 0.14 mills on net worth. (x) For banks, the alternative tax is $2.50 per $10,000 of capital stock ($100 minimum). (y) Savings and Loans are taxed at a 6% rate. (z) Texas imposes a Franchise Tax, otherwise known as margin tax, imposed on entities with more than $1,000,000 total revenues at rate of 1%, or 0.5% for entities primarily engaged in retail or wholesale trade, on lesser of 70% of total revenues or 100% of gross receipts after deductions for either compensation or cost of goods sold. (aa) Taxpayers with $100,000 or less in Oregon gross sales and no property in the state pay a tax equal to 0.25% of gross sales. The top rate is scheduled to fall to 7.6% in 2011. (bb) Current rate is scheduled to for reduction, 7.75% after 2011, 7.0% after 2012, 6.5% after 2013. (cc) Minimum tax is $100. Includes surtax.
taxes
Table 7.15 STATE SEVERANCE TAXES: 2009
State
Title and application of tax (a)
Alabama �������������������������� Iron Ore Mining Tax Forest Products Severance Tax Oil and Gas Conservation & Regulation of Production Tax
Oil and Gas Privilege Tax on Production
Coal Severance Tax Coal and Lignite Severance Tax Local Solid Minerals Tax Uniform Natural Minerals Tax
Alaska ������������������������������ Cost Recovery Fisheries Assessment (b) Dive Fishery Management Assessment (b)
Fisheries Business Tax
Fishery Resource Landing Tax
Mining License Tax
Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT)
Salmon Enhancement Tax (b)
Seafood Development Tax (b)
Seafood Marketing Assessment (b)
Rate $.03/ton Varies by species and ultimate use. 2% of gross value at point of production, of all oil and gas produced. 1% of the gross value (for a 5-year period from the date production begins) for well, for which the initial permit issued by the Oil and Gas Board is dated on or after July 1, 1996 and before July 1, 2002, except a replacement well for which the initial permit was dated before July 1, 1996. 8% of gross value at point of production; 4% of gross value at point of incremental production resulting from a qualified enhanced recovery project; 4% if wells produce 25 bbl. or less oil per day or 200,000 cu. ft. or less gas per day; 6% of gross value at point of production for certain on-shore and off-shore wells. A 50% rate reduction for wells permitted by the oil and gas board on or after July 1, 1996 and before July 1, 2002 for 5 years from initial production, except for replacement wells for which the initial permit was dated before July 1, 1996. $.135/ton $.20/ton in addition to coal severance tax. Varies by county. $.10/ton. Elective; currently no assessments in place. Elective; currently 7% of value for select dive fishery species in select management regions. Tax based on unprocessed value of fishery resources processed in or exported from the state. 1% of value for shore-based processing in developing fisheries; 3% of value for floating processing in developing fisheries or shore-based processing in established fisheries; 4.5% of value for salmon cannery processing in established fisheries; 5% of value for floating processing in established fisheries. Tax based on unprocessed value of fishery resources processed outside and first landed in the state. 1% of value for developing fisheries; 3% of value for established fisheries. Up to 7% of net income and royalties received in connection with mining properties and activities in Alaska. New mining operations other than sand and gravel exempt for 3-1/2 years after production begins. 22.5% net value at wellhead (excludes capital costs, operating costs and other qualified expenditures) minus credits Additional 0.25% surcharge for each dollar that net value exceeds $40 per barrel; surcharge cannot exceed 25% of the monthly production tax value of taxable oil and gas. Conservation surcharge of 4 cents per barrel; plus another 1 cent per barrel surcharge if there is less than $50 million in the Hazardous Release Fund. Elective; 2% or 3% of value for salmon sold in or exported from select aquaculture regions. Elective; currently 1% of value for select commercial fish species in select seafood development regions. Elective; currently 0.3% of value for all commercial fish species.
Arizona ���������������������������� Severance Tax
2.5% of net severance base for mining (metalliferous minerals); $1.51/1000 board ft. ($2.13 for ponderosa pine) for timbering.
Arkansas �������������������������� Natural Resources Severance Tax Oil and Gas Conservation Tax
Separate rate for each substance. Natural gas 0.3 of $.01 cent per MCF; crude oil 4% to 5% depending on production levels. Maximum 43 mills/bbl. of oil and 9 mills per MCF produced of gas.
Oil and Gas Conservation Assessment
California ������������������������� Oil and Gas Production Assessment
Rate determined annually by Department of Conservation.
Colorado �������������������������� Severance Tax (c)
Taxable years commencing prior to July 1, 1999, 2.25% of gross income exceeding $11 million for metallic minerals and taxable years commencing after July 1, 1999, 2.25% of gross income exceeding $19 million for metallic minerals; on or after July 1,1999, $.05/ton for each ton exceeding 625,000 tons each quarter for molybdenum ore; 2% to 5% based on gross income for oil, gas, CO2, and coalbed methane; after July 1,1999, $.36/ton adjusted by the producers’ prices index for each ton exceeding 300,000 tons each quarter for coal; and 4% of gross proceeds on production exceeding 15,000 tons per day for oil shale. Maximum 1.5 mills/$1 of market value at wellhead. (d)
Oil and Gas Conservation Levy See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 421
taxes
STATE SEVERANCE TAXES: 2009—Continued
State
Title and application of tax (a)
Florida ������������������������������ Oil, Gas and Sulfur Production Tax
Solid Minerals Tax (e)
Rate 5% of gross value for small well oil, and 8% of gross value for all other, and an additional 12.5% for escaped oil; the gas base rate ($0.171) times the gas base adjustment rate each fiscal year for gas; and the sulfur base rate ($2.43) times the sulfur base rate adjustment each fiscal year for sulfur. 8% of the value of the minerals severed, except phosphate rock (rate computed annually at $1.62/ton times the changes in the producer price index) and heavy minerals (rate computed annually at a base rate of $1.34/ton times the base rate adjustment). Yet solid minerals, except phosphate rock and heavy minerals, upon which the sales tax is ultimately paid to the state are exempt from severance tax.
Idaho �������������������������������� Ore Severance Tax Oil and Gas Production Tax Additional Oil and Gas Production Tax
1% of net value Maximum of 5 mills/bbl. of oil and 5 mills/50,000 cu. ft. of gas. (f) 2% of market value at site of production.
Illinois ������������������������������ Timber Fee
4% of purchase price (g)
Indiana ����������������������������� Petroleum Production Tax (h)
1% of value or $.24 per barrel for oil or $.03 per 1000 cu. ft. of gas, whichever is greater.
Kansas ������������������������������ Severance Tax (i)
8% of gross value of oil and gas, less property tax credit of 3.67%; $1/ton of coal. 91.00 mills/bbl. crude oil or petroleum marketed or used each month; 12.9 mills/1,000 cu. ft. of gas sold or marketed each month. $50, plus per ton fee of between $.03 and $.10.
Oil and Gas Conservation Tax
Mined-Land Conservation & Reclamation Tax
Kentucky ������������������������� Oil Production Tax Coal Severance Tax Natural Resource Severance Tax (j)
4.5% of market value 4.5% of gross value, less transportation expenses 4.5% of gross value, less transportation expenses
Louisiana ������������������������� Natural Resources Severance Tax Oil Field Site Restoration Fee Freshwater Mussel Tax
Rate varies according to substance. Rate varies according to type of well and production. 5% of revenues from the sale of whole freshwater mussels, at the point of first sale.
Maine ������������������������������� Mining Excise Tax
The greater of a tax on facilities and equipment or a tax on gross proceeds.
Maryland ������������������������� Mine Reclamation Surcharge
$.17/ton of coal removed by open-pit, strip or deep mine methods. Of the $.15, $.06 is remitted to the county from which the coal was removed.
Michigan �������������������������� Gas and Oil Severance Tax
5% (gas), 6.6% (oil) and 4% (oil from stripper wells and marginal properties) of gross cash market value of the total production. Maximum additional fee of 1% of gross cash market value on all oil and gas produced in state in previous year.
Minnesota ������������������������ Taconite and Iron Sulfides Direct Reduced Iron (k)
$2.258 per ton of concentrates or pellets $2.258 per ton of concentrates plus an additional $.03 per ton for each 1% that the iron content exceeds 72%
Mississippi ����������������������� Oil and Gas Severance Tax
6% of value at point of gas production; 3% of gross value of occluded natural gas from coal seams at point of production for well’s first five years; also, maximum 35 mills/bbl. oil or 4 mills/1,000 cu. ft. gas (Oil and Gas Board maintenance tax). 6% of value at point of oil production; 3% of value at production when enhanced oil recovery method used. Varies depending on type of wood and ultimate use. 3% of value of entire production in state.
Timber Severance Tax Salt Severance Tax
Montana �������������������������� Coal Severance Tax Metalliferous Mines License Tax (l)
Oil or Gas Conservation Tax
Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax Micaceous Minerals License Tax Cement License Tax (n) Resource Indemnity Trust Tax
See footnotes at end of table.
422 The Book of the States 2010
Varies from 3% to 15% depending on quality of coal and type of mine. Progressive rate, taxed on amounts in excess of $250,000. For concentrate shipped to smelter, mill or reduction work, 1.81%. Gold, silver or any platinum group metal shipped to refinery, 1.6%. Maximum 0.3% on the market value of each barrel of crude petroleum oil or 10,000 cu. ft. of natural gas produced, saved and marketed or stored within or exported from the state. (m) Varies from 0.5% to 14.8% according to the type of well and type of production. $.05/ton $.22/ton of cement, $.05/ton of cement, plaster, gypsum or gypsum products. $25 plus 0.5% of gross value greater than $5,000. For talc, $25 plus 4% of gross value greater than $625. For coal, $25 plus 0.40% of gross value greater than $6,250. For vermiculite, $25 plus 2% of gross value greater than $1,250. For limestone, $25 plus 10% of gross value greater than $250. For industrial garnets, $25 plus 1% of gross value greater than $2,500.00
taxes
STATE SEVERANCE TAXES: 2009—Continued
State
Title and application of tax (a)
Rate
Nebraska ������������������������� Oil and Gas Severance Tax Oil and Gas Conservation Tax Uranium Tax
3% of value of nonstripper oil and natural gas; 2% of value of stripper oil. Maximum 15 mills/$1 of value at wellhead, as of January 1, 2000 (f) 2% of gross value over $5 million. The value of the uranium severed subject to tax is the gross value less transportation and processing costs.
Nevada ����������������������������� Minerals Extraction Tax
Between 2% and 5% of net proceeds of each geographically separate extractive operation, based on ratio of net proceeds to gross proceeds of whole operation. $50/mills/bbl. of oil and 50 mills/50,000 cu. ft. of gas.
Oil and Gas Conservation Tax
New Hampshire �������������� Refined Petroleum Products Tax Excavation Tax Timber Tax
0.1% of fair market value $.02 per cubic yard of earth excavated. 10% of stumpage value at the time of cutting.
New Mexico �������������������� Resources Excise Tax (o) Severance Tax (o)
Potash .5%, molybdenum .125%, copper .25%, all others .75% of value. Potash 2.5%, copper .5%, timber .125% of value. Pumice, gypsum, sand, gravel, clay, fluorspar and other non-metallic minerals, .125% of value. Gold, silver .20%; Lead, zinc, thorium, molybdenum, manganese, rare earth and other .125% of value. 3.75% of value of oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, natural gas and carbon dioxide. 3.15% of value of oil, other liquid hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide. 4% of value of natural gas. $0.0220/Mmbtu tax on volume. Varies, based on property tax in district of production. 0.19% of value.
Oil and Gas Severance Tax Oil and Gas Emergency School Tax
Natural Gas Processor’s Tax Oil and Gas Ad Valorem Production Tax Oil and Gas Conservation Tax (p)
North Carolina ��������������� Oil and Gas Conservation Tax Primary Forest Product Assessment Tax
Maximum 5 mills/barrel of oil and 0.5 mill/1,000 cu. ft. of gas. $.50/1,000 board ft. for softwood sawtimber, $.40/1,000 board ft. for hardwood sawtimber, $.20/cord for softwood pulpwood, $.12/cord hardwood pulpwood.
North Dakota ����������������� Oil Gross Production Tax Gas Gross Production Tax
5% of gross value at well. $.04/1000 cu.ft. of gas produced (the rate is subject to a gas rate adjustment each fiscal year). For FY05, the rate was 10.37 cents per mcf. $.375/ton plus $.02/ton. (q) 6.5% of gross value at well (with exceptions due to production volumes and production incentives for enhanced recovery projects).
Coal Severance Tax Oil Extraction Tax
Ohio ��������������������������������� Resource Severance Tax
$.10/bbl. of oil; $.025/1,000 cu. ft. of natural gas; $.04/ton of salt; $.02/ ton of sand, gravel, limestone and dolomite; $.09/ton of coal; and $0.01/ton of clay, sandstone or conglomerate, shale, gypsum or quartzite.
Oklahoma ������������������������ Oil, Gas and Mineral Gross Production Tax and Petroleum Excise Tax (r)
Rate: 0.75% levied on asphalt and metals. 7% (if greater than $2.10 mcf) 4% (if greater than $1.75 mcf, but less than $2.10 mcf) 1% (if less than $1.75 mcf) casinghead gas and natural gas as well as 0.95% being levied on crude oil, casinghead gas and natural gas. Oil Gross Production Tax is now a variable rate tax, beginning with January 1999 production, at the following rates based on the average price of Oklahoma oil: a) If the average price equals or exceeds $17/bbl, the tax shall be 7%; b) If the average price is less than $17/bbl, but is equal to or exceeds $14/bbl, the tax shall be 4%; c) If the average price is less than $14/bbl, the tax shall be 1%.
Oregon ����������������������������� Forest Products Harvest Tax
$3.89/1000 board ft. harvested from public and private land. (rate is for 2009 harvests) 6% of gross value at well. $3.40/1000 board ft. harvested from land under the Small Tract Forestland Option. $4.35/1000 board ft. harvested from land under the Small Tract Forestland Option.
Oil and Gas Production Tax STF Severance Tax—Eastern Oregon Forestland Option STF Severance Tax—Western Oregon Forestland Option
South Carolina ���������������� Forest Renewal Tax
Softwood products: 20 cents per 1,000 board feet or 25 cents per cord. Hardwood products: 25 cents per 1,000 board feet or 7 cents per cord.
South Dakota ������������������ Precious Metals Severance Tax
$4 per ounce of gold severed plus additional tax depending on price of gold; 10% on net profits or royalties from sale of precious metals, and 8% of royalty value. 4.5% of taxable value of any energy minerals. 2.4 mills of taxable value of any energy minerals.
Energy Minerals Severance Tax (s) Conservation Tax
Tennessee ������������������������ Oil and Gas Severance Tax Coal Severance Tax (t) Mineral Tax
3% of sales price. $.20/ton Up to $0.15 per ton, rate set by county legislative body.
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governments 423
taxes
STATE SEVERANCE TAXES: 2009—Continued
State
Title and application of tax (a)
Texas �������������������������������� Natural Gas Production Tax
Crude Oil Production Tax Sulphur Production Tax Cement Production Tax Oil-Field Cleanup Regulatory Fees Oyster Sales Fee
Utah ��������������������������������� Mining Severance Tax
Oil and Gas Severance Tax
Oil and Gas Conservation Fee
Rate 7.5% of market value of gas. Condensate Production Tax: 4.6% of market value of gas. 4.6% of market value or $.046/bbl. $1.03/long ton or fraction thereof. $0.55 per ton or $.0275/100 lbs. or fraction of 100 pounds of taxable cement. 5/8 of $.01/barrel; 1/15 of $.01/1000 cubic feet of gas. (u) $1 per 300 lb. barrel of oysters taken from Texas waters. 2.6% of taxable value for metals or metalliferous minerals sold or otherwise disposed of. 3% of value for the first $13 per barrel of oil, 5% from $13.01 and above; 3% of value for first $1.50/mcf, 5% from $1.51 and above; and 4% of taxable value of natural gas liquids. .002% of market value at wellhead.
Virginia ������������������������� Forest Products Tax Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Tax
Varies by species and ultimate use. Varies depending on balance of Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Fund.
Washington ������������������ Uranium and Thorium Milling Tax (tax reported as inactive) Enhanced Food Fish Tax Timber Excise Tax
$0.05/per pound.
West Virginia ���������������� Natural Resource Severance Taxes
Coal: State rate is greater of 5% or $.75 per ton (4.65% for state purposes and .35% for distribution to local governments). Special state rates for coal from new low seam mines. For seams between 37” and 45” the rate is greater of 2% or $.75/ton (1.65% for state purposes and .35% for distribution to local governments). For seams less than 37” the rate is greater of 1% or $.75/ton (.65% for state purposes and .35% for distribution to local governments). For coal from gob, refuse piles, or other sources of waste coal, the rate is 2.5% (distributed to local governments). Additional tax for workers’ compensation debt reduction is $.56/ton. Two special reclamation taxes at $.07/clean ton and $.02/clean ton. Limestone or sandstone, quarried or mined, and other natural resources: 5% of gross value. Natural gas: 5% of gross value (10% of net tax distributed to local governments), additional tax for workers’ compensation debt reduction is $.047/mcf of natural gas produced. Oil: 5% of gross value (10% of net tax distributed to local governments). Sand, gravel or other mineral products not quarried or mined: 5% of gross value. Timber: 1.22%, additional tax for workers’ compensation debt reduction is 2.78%.
Wisconsin ��������������������� Mining Net Proceeds Tax
Progressive net proceeds tax ranging from 3% to 15% is imposed on the net proceeds from mining metalliferous minerals. The tax brackets are annually adjusted for inflation based on the change in the GNP deflator. 7% of market value of oil or gas at the mouth of the well. 10% of stumpage. 5% yield tax. This tax will be waived for the first five years of most MFL land.
Oil and Gas Severance Tax Forest Crop Law Severance Tax Managed Forest Law Yield Tax
Wyoming ���������������������� Severance Taxes
See footnotes at end of table.
424 The Book of the States 2010
0.09% to 5.62% of value (depending on species) at point of landing. 5% of stumpage value for harvests on public and private lands.
Severance Tax is defined as an excise tax imposed on the present and continuing privilege of removing, extracting, severing or producing any mineral in this state. Except as otherwise provided by W.S. 39-14-205. The total Severance Tax on crude oil, lease condensate or natural gas shall be six percent (6%). Stripper oil is taxed at four percent (4%). Surface coal is taxed at seven percent (7%). Underground coal is taxed at three and one half percent (3.5%). Trona is taxed at four percent (4%). Bentonite, uranium, sand and gravel, and all other minerals are taxed at two percent (2%).
taxes
STATE SEVERANCE TAXES: 2009—Continued Sources: The Council of State Governments’ survey, September 2009. Note: Severance tax collection totals may be found in the Chapter Seven table entitled “State Government Revenue, By Type of Tax:2008” . Key: (a) Application of tax is same as that of title unless otherwise indicated by a footnote. (b) Tax rates and applicability for these severance taxes determined by a vote of the appropriate association within the seafood industry, by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, or by the Department of Revenue. Proceeds from these elective assessments are customarily appropriated for benefit of the seafood industry. (c) Metallic minerals, molybdenum ore, coal, oil shale, oil, gas, CO2, and coalbed methane. (d) As of July 1, 2004, set at .0005 mill/$1. (e) Clay, gravel, phosphate rock, lime, shells, stone, sand, heavy minerals and rare earths. (f) Actual rate set by administrative actions. Idaho—Current conservation rate is 5 mills (.005); Nebraska—Current conservation rate is 3 mills (.003). (g) Buyer deducts amount from payment to grower; amount forwarded to Department of Natural Resources. (h) Petroleum, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons. (i) Coal, oil and gas. (j) Coal and oil excepted. (k) Production is considered commercial when it exceeds 50,000 tons annually. There is a six-year phase-in of the tax. In years one and two, the rate is zero. In year three, it is 25% of the statutory rate and 50% and 75%
in years four and five respectively. An Aggregate Materials Tax is imposed by resolution of county boards. It is not required that any county impose the tax, which is $.10/cubic yard or $.07/ton on materials produced in the county. (l) Metals, precious and semi-precious stones and gems. (m) The maximum rate of 0.3% is split between the Oil or Gas Conservation Tax and the Oil, Gas and Coal Natural Resource Account Fund. Currently the Oil or Gas Conservation Tax is .18% and the Oil, Gas and Coal Natural Resource Account fund tax rate is .08%. (n) Cement and gypsum or allied products. (o) Natural resources except oil, natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide. (p) Oil, coal, gas, liquid hydrocarbons, geothermal energy, carbon dioxide and uranium. (q) Rate reduced by 50 percent if burned in cogeneration facility using renewable resources as fuel to generate at least 10 percent of its energy output. Coal shipped out of state is subject to the $.02/ton tax and 30% of the $.375/ton tax. The coal may be subject to up to the $.375/ton tax at the option of the county in which the coal is mined. (r) Asphalt and ores bearing lead, zinc, jack, gold, silver, copper or petroleum or other crude oil or other mineral oil, natural gas or casinghead gas and uranium ore. (s) Any mineral fuel used in the production of energy, including coal, lignite, petroleum, oil, natural gas, uranium and thorium. (t) Counties and municipalities also authorized to levy severance taxes on sand, gravel, sandstone, chert and limestone at a rate up to $.15/ton. (u) Fees will not be collected when Oil-Field Cleanup Fund reaches $20 million, but will again be collected when fund falls below $10 million.
The Council of State Governments 425
426â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
9,070,530 8,424,714 13,705,901 7,530,504 117,361,976
9,624,636 13,367,631 2,930,955 35,849,998 18,183,117
5,147,569 3,651,917 31,891,497 14,916,295 6,892,026
7,159,748 10,056,293 11,003,870 3,681,614 15,713,987
21,908,599 24,781,626 18,320,891 6,770,880 10,965,171
2,457,929 4,228,800 6,115,584 2,257,977 30,616,510
5,645,649 65,370,654 22,781,202 2,312,056 26,373,813
8,484,227 7,278,717 32,123,740 2,761,356 8,455,463
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
See footnotes at end of table.
$357,476,256
$780,689,445
United States................
3,033,802 760,579 15,306,013 1,381,115 4,279,163
2,663,292 20,150,046 8,929,847 873,406 12,745,395
544,402 2,035,441 4,930,452 792,947 12,519,601
6,056,422 11,920,372 7,433,063 4,229,443 4,770,631
3,091,221 4,718,517 5,538,890 1,713,325 6,248,816
3,302,179 1,743,294 15,471,663 8,196,096 2,960,567
3,519,589 5,177,376 484,515 29,297,023 7,688,845
4,433,108 279,569 8,146,095 3,778,217 39,825,808
Sales and gross receipts
State Total taxes
1,034,864 917,299 2,822,738 95,792 433,877
257,543 1,355,826 1,412,090 165,810 2,673,262
311,029 206,783 826,397 222,676 1,452,361
685,045 1,354,001 1,011,289 418,771 650,763
303,696 469,761 498,612 233,711 697,481
156,781 270,270 2,475,218 799,999 639,764
377,179 352,999 1,033,345 1,875,355 526,149
487,934 142,914 420,770 307,342 7,642,180
$49,797,817
Licenses
2,787,445 4,968,791 10,408,439 1,091,705 3,339,935
1,213,522 36,563,948 10,993,927 317,249 9,847,506
870,064 1,726,145 0 117,936 12,605,545
12,496,142 7,181,055 7,777,259 1,551,079 5,118,849
2,944,851 3,483,138 3,169,686 1,448,273 6,940,134
1,544,835 1,438,518 10,320,239 4,837,524 2,848,393
5,067,981 7,000,225 1,006,859 0 8,845,476
3,077,553 0 3,408,576 2,344,876 55,745,970
$278,230,889
Individual income
Table 7.16 STATE GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUE, BY SELECTED TYPES OF TAX: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
360,065 477,113 2,191,420 145,866 320,378
354,588 5,037,830 1,206,412 161,925 754,633
161,713 232,852 0 614,794 2,819,906
2,179,956 1,778,317 1,040,479 384,643 384,010
528,011 533,630 703,196 184,515 735,324
105,294 190,194 3,115,604 909,494 347,248
507,986 534,201 308,676 2,208,600 943,042
524,808 981,673 784,511 342,529 11,849,097
$50,688,869
1,184,765 11,815 0 0 0
1,089,836 0 1,889 791,692 9,420
347,221 4,968 74,130 0 0
0 113,506 31,821 135,248 21
168,696 293,334 1,035,695 0 0
0 6,758 0 430 0
151,474 0 0 56,000 0
197,581 6,939,040 43,757 27,820 13,515
$18,259,638
0 21,569 58,681 1,083 9,935
57,665 0 0 1,901 32,066
220,327 2,264 192,050 387,623 2,998
3,798 2,264,306 712,463 50,481 28,970
79,026 503,105 46,643 37,279 630,809
0 0 59,134 7,170 0
0 0 0 2,100 81,928
301,034 81,518 901,872 682,174 2,279,103
$12,722,922
Corporation net income Severance Property taxes
54,557 109,549 803,367 35,040 344
39 1,037,531 176,254 73 306,795
18 6,844 0 132 698,694
253,966 234 115,523 1,215 3,137
44,247 51,001 11,148 39,891 243,425
164 32 372,798 165,582 79,783
427 166,318 460 12,220 50
0 0 320 0 6,303
$5,346,116
Death and gift
16,138 12,002 507,369 10,461 71,831
0 1,225,473 60,783 0 4,736
0 13,503 92,555 121,869 517,405
188,170 169,835 198,994 0 8,728
0 3,807 0 24,620 154,491
38,316 0 76,841 0 16,271
0 136,512 95,966 2,398,700 14,421
48,512 0 0 35,219 0
$7,727,179
Documentary and stock transfer
Other
12,591 0 25,713 294 0
9,164 0 0 0 0
3,155 0 0 0 0
45,100 0 0 0 62
0 0 0 0 63,507
0 2,851 0 0 0
0 0 1,134 0 83,206
0 0 0 12,327 0
$439,759
taxes
18,408,276 17,944,925 4,879,151 15,088,662 2,168,016
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming....................... 6,093,335 14,400,668 2,266,891 6,317,062 879,034
1,072,252 8,612,382 33,365,192 2,644,034 855,261
Sales and gross receipts
653,176 938,205 190,711 909,664 120,773
172,165 1,287,826 7,173,996 206,923 124,702
Licenses
10,114,833 0 1,518,746 6,640,528 0
0 290,986 0 2,593,129 623,019
Individual income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.
1,321,368 11,538,430 44,675,953 5,944,879 2,544,163
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
State Total taxes
STATE GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUE, BY SELECTED TYPES OF TAX: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
2,060 44,038 347,592 5,290 883,786
6,838 2,357 4,131,185 106,060 0 22,153 1,741,691 4,627 124,513 278,812
0 0 0 0 810,051 153,377 110,602 46 158,790 880
113 103,464 5,580 95 15,688
Death and gift
455,719 709,721 11,699 59,448 0
121 199,971 0 0 26,972
Documentary and stock transfer
126,394 0 0 10,279 4,731
0 35,564 0 0 3,687
Other
html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
787,229 0 538,839 863,088 0
69,879 1,005,880 0 394,638 84,783
Corporation net income Severance Property taxes
taxes
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 427
428â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
3,519,589 5,177,376 484,515 29,297,023 7,688,845
3,302,179 1,743,294 15,471,663 8,196,096 2,960,567
3,091,221 4,718,517 5,538,890 1,713,325 6,248,816
6,056,422 11,920,372 7,433,063 4,229,443 4,770,631
544,402 2,035,441 4,930,452 792,947 12,519,601
2,663,292 20,150,046 8,929,847 873,406 12,745,395
3,033,802 760,579 15,306,013 1,381,115 4,279,163
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
See footnotes at end of table.
4,433,108 279,569 8,146,095 3,778,217 39,825,808
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
2,096,220 0 8,873,309 846,870 3,051,608
1,949,768 11,294,737 5,269,929 530,078 7,865,674
0 1,534,134 3,077,433 0 8,915,515
4,098,089 8,225,599 4,550,838 3,135,390 3,228,274
2,264,747 2,875,836 3,459,383 1,071,653 3,748,933
2,619,595 1,347,327 7,935,417 5,738,829 1,840,862
2,312,731 3,178,903 0 21,518,100 5,796,653
2,287,288 0 6,433,468 2,807,943 31,972,874
$240,415,097
United States................ $357,476,256
937,582 760,579 6,432,704 534,245 1,227,555
713,524 8,855,309 3,659,918 343,328 4,879,721
544,402 501,307 1,853,019 792,947 3,604,086
1,958,333 3,694,773 2,882,225 1,094,053 1,542,357
826,474 1,842,681 2,079,507 641,672 2,499,883
682,584 395,967 7,536,246 2,457,267 1,119,705
1,206,858 1,998,473 484,515 7,778,923 1,892,192
2,145,820 279,569 1,712,627 970,274 7,852,934
$117,061,159
General sales or gross receipts Total
State Total
384,814 413,521 2,102,168 126,718 534,252
250,418 527,840 1,582,400 143,389 1,842,595
205,819 294,149 311,953 137,206 563,266
672,654 994,937 648,565 442,119 736,303
431,755 617,826 604,377 229,849 808,964
94,080 239,881 1,334,664 856,301 442,183
637,193 450,095 117,746 2,289,166 1,011,202
545,726 41,985 731,345 471,214 3,421,457
$36,437,108
Motor fuels
Insurance premiums
146,982 50,034 698,200 52,553 125,696
144,256 1,137,058 506,003 37,426 443,861
65,419 37,250 256,814 85,820 542,920
396,196 223,198 347,045 193,872 283,960
133,913 151,809 478,288 90,221 414,233
99,158 83,213 316,282 188,794 111,647
190,750 199,297 93,974 714,400 348,218
293,955 54,698 470,297 147,434 2,172,936
$15,710,811
Table 7.17 STATE GOVERNMENT SALES AND GROSS RECEIPTs TAX revenue: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
30,499 22,803 1,354,940 100,332 26,458
35,777 763,658 388,780 34,438 1,141,926
48,843 56,592 12,084 78,723 930,457
24,148 21,317 47 1,954 0
851 56,906 13,965 32,685 133,513
127,481 1,599 1,919,902 14,842 0
11,810 173,058 49,805 3,159,400 0
782,444 4,091 38,010 0 754,799
$14,525,595
Public utilities
252,374 254,955 1,025,822 113,998 31,073
48,115 973,489 248,159 24,127 950,940
94,020 75,479 134,617 169,789 789,351
436,942 1,076,087 419,127 58,327 109,365
118,253 178,558 145,578 150,499 376,112
89,265 54,781 613,651 519,871 252,857
220,699 317,257 125,337 443,732 233,158
145,020 73,451 407,420 147,482 1,037,457
$16,050,425
Tobacco products
Selective sales taxes
86,433 15,543 277,427 11,495 150,065
41,230 205,253 260,382 6,916 92,696
27,166 26,254 40,401 12,508 104,104
71,935 138,779 72,563 42,092 31,173
106,299 107,507 54,993 20,673 28,966
45,620 7,562 158,067 44,707 14,449
35,472 42,311 14,735 609,185 165,640
164,827 39,103 64,556 42,843 327,260
$5,291,245
Alcoholic beverages
10,988 50 791,573 0 37,957
56,149 951 14,267 9,196 0
63,150 5,659 1,047,800 236 412,986
3,494 129,684 43,219 194,037 345,771
500 220 742,831 21,066 14,783
0 0 706,440 817,631 294,467
108,187 451,789 0 0 0
86 9,456 569 6,681 0
$6,377,239
1,805 3,673 23,230 2,806 0
660 30,875 0 548 10,714
73 234 0 2,916 0
3,496 8,188 967 0 0
1,948 5,670 4,474 3,000 1,806
0 1,650 8,358 4,226 4,102
2,747 8,308 143 28,108 0
2,668 0 430 5,282 34,949
$225,511
Amusements Pari-mutuels
Other
23,687 0 159,344 126,343 322,054
136,919 5,216,185 659,927 87,288 396,989
39,912 5,690 49,350 305,749 261,002
349,468 1,102,583 1,350,692 161,652 35,785
32,955 724,185 35,001 93,679 721,506
226,980 7,281 2,478,882 10,895 0
0 356,358 82,775 534,932 133,974
211,094 56,785 0 149,338 104,076
$22,443,225
taxes
6,093,335 14,400,668 2,266,891 6,317,062 879,034
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming....................... 2,436,546 3,056,046 1,157,069 2,048,994 134,663
920,063 1,169,900 404,221 1,001,339 75,013
129,619 872,892 3,103,170 377,261 91,535
Motor fuels
150,237 468,017 158,141 327,060 3,308
3,235 9,627 1,015,882 30,619 10,532
Public utilities
168,118 413,488 114,669 485,470 27,362
63,903 272,433 1,446,895 62,246 59,247
Tobacco products
Selective sales taxes
175,654 266,939 9,465 54,789 1,633
13,808 116,189 784,069 39,697 19,812
Alcoholic beverages
72 43 0 388 0
8,334 0 26,529 0 0
0 3,221 2,870 908 177
325 0 9,956 0 0
Amusements Pari-mutuels
625,544 319,410 353,547 6,967 1,130
58,789 106,296 3,904,662 37,638 277,927
Other
html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
396,858 415,028 114,156 172,073 26,040
61,801 401,997 1,405,057 132,454 57,267
Insurance premiums
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.
3,656,789 11,344,622 1,109,822 4,268,068 744,371
732,438 6,832,948 21,668,972 1,964,119 338,941
1,072,252 8,612,382 33,365,192 2,644,034 855,261
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont......................... 339,814 1,779,434 11,696,220 679,915 516,320
General sales or gross receipts Total
State Total
STATE GOVERNMENT SALES AND GROSS RECEIPTs TAX revenue: 2008â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued (In thousands of dollars)
taxes
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 429
430â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
487,934 142,914 420,770 307,342 7,642,180
377,179 352,999 1,033,345 1,875,355 526,149
156,781 270,270 2,475,218 799,999 639,764 303,696 469,761 498,612 233,711 697,481
685,045 1,354,001 1,011,289 418,771 650,763
311,029 206,783 826,397 222,676 1,452,361
257,543 1,355,826 1,412,090 165,810 2,673,262
1,034,864 917,299 2,822,738 95,792 433,877
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
See footnotes at end of table.
$49,797,817
United States................
631,732 484,291 814,486 52,248 142,120
179,367 860,519 609,158 88,453 811,167
143,972 90,845 169,896 93,679 432,164
287,738 892,817 511,513 123,203 269,443
172,111 212,037 87,189 85,762 442,018
111,262 124,369 1,368,331 190,165 404,006
219,590 201,364 46,413 1,153,139 296,648
212,687 53,453 218,763 140,112 2,704,632
$19,547,133
225,393 307,164 717,456 35,182 131,930
25,438 147,920 184,940 57,272 647,128
90,416 62,755 457,382 88,334 567,840
167,563 151,006 330,155 84,158 155,020
27,180 113,539 107,632 98,076 133,279
25,790 60,054 751,114 43,592 105,979
33,717 79,686 244,748 246,783 70,090
122,125 42,209 98,925 96,901 3,795,476
$12,983,037
52,713 13,494 813,344 4,255 77,908
19,941 70,094 447,501 0 1,011,434
3,128 7,157 72,249 4,390 313,322
23,561 20,347 7,400 129,770 88,705
54,786 75,832 252,900 7,969 74,455
1,575 2,279 234,492 3,364 39,825
13,115 17,399 618,856 220,112 62,302
103,042 878 23,226 22,835 61,467
$10,296,036
14,589 31,906 61,881 660 44,717
4,780 145,084 134,196 4,087 79,622
7,916 8,735 16,133 13,226 37,579
92,881 51,928 50,168 34,385 15,558
17,270 19,945 11,455 11,824 29,373
404 7,293 66,742 226,096 15,000
13,587 39,202 2,814 161,590 64,896
17,762 0 27,082 14,816 235,185
$2,168,895
17,674 38,919 71,095 1,986 17,157
23,104 43,277 16,410 15,460 37,535
46,797 15,490 8,563 9,720 13,211
5,289 47,073 57,947 15,398 30,544
21,478 25,520 30,902 16,616 15,247
424 36,403 35,343 16,709 26,549
75,023 3,485 1,995 15,501 20,907
15,835 33,280 29,232 20,167 95,460
$1,427,979
5 29,695 49,999 0 0
1,127 12,693 0 6 8,291
10 0 0 7,123 1,475
1,500 19,554 836 7,897 20,930
5,373 12,418 5,453 0 0
15,819 33,655 0 0 12,868
14,250 0 6,888 33,175 26
13,051 354 0 9,200 669,928
$1,125,300
5,030 2,999 16,458 266 7,377
3,061 61,082 14,751 247 38,668
2,944 453 0 3,061 7,804
3,081 14,124 1,682 2,929 4,771
2,653 6,136 0 4,148 1,022
0 1,655 11,488 10,719 10,704
6,085 6,478 804 36,833 2,343
3,431 1,924 11,994 1,959 47,839
$466,963
Occupation and Total license Motor vehicle business license, Corporation Motor vehicle Hunting and Public utility Alcoholic State tax revenue license revenue NEC license operatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s license fishing license license beverage license
Table 7.18 STATE GOVERNMENT LICENSE TAX REVENUE: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
86,727 1,239 261,229 710 2,041
531 79 0 285 17,775
8,220 363 96,682 322 76,272
439 0 1,137 4,826 743
148 245 0 747 30
0 411 1,200 304,930 22,917
714 35 434 5,040 136
0 1 37 308 12,555
$934,203
Amusement license
1,001 7,592 16,790 485 10,627
194 15,078 5,134 0 21,642
7,626 20,985 5,492 2,821 2,694
102,993 157,152 50,451 16,205 65,049
2,697 4,089 3,081 8,569 2,057
1,507 4,151 6,508 4,424 1,916
1,098 5,350 110,393 3,182 8,801
1 10,815 11,511 1,044 19,638
$848,271
Other license taxes
taxes
653,176 938,205 190,711 909,664 120,773
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming....................... 355,683 487,422 86,754 406,806 55,722
47,285 270,176 1,518,188 107,158 79,077 159,171 231,363 42,437 312,167 19,275
78,529 271,065 872,045 38,417 27,221 54,591 25,029 6,750 18,360 10,870
3,210 644,694 4,452,590 3,633 4,887
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.
172,165 1,287,826 7,173,996 206,923 124,702
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont......................... 22,368 31,944 16,457 69,615 32,691
27,733 32,401 92,462 27,417 6,166 0 21,521 20,811 59,542 0
0 5,770 24,057 0 0 11,335 11,217 16,327 1,360 0
319 12,222 52,864 1,934 382
119 15,457 15 549 0
93 252 8,210 0 0
Amusement license
4,484 52,274 213 4,874 0
12,483 7,419 37,645 6,107 1,929
Other license taxes
html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
45,425 61,978 947 36,391 2,215
2,513 43,827 115,935 22,257 5,040
Occupation and Total license Motor vehicle business license, Corporation Motor vehicle Hunting and Public utility Alcoholic State tax revenue license revenue NEC license operator’s license fishing license license beverage license
STATE GOVERNMENT LICENSE TAX REVENUE: 2008—Continued (In thousands of dollars)
taxes
The Council of State Governments 431
revenue and expenditure
Table 7.19 summary of financial aggregates, by state: 2008 (In millions of dollars) Revenue Expenditure Total debt Utilities Utilities outstanding & liquor Insurance & liquor Insurance at end of State Total General store trust Total General store trust fiscal year
Total cash and security holdings at end of fiscal year
United States........... $1,619,326 $1,513,362 $22,650
$1,004,753
$3,831,398
Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California.................
18,354 16,028 27,698 15,107 201,070
21,974 15,875 27,088 14,761 194,296
249 17 28 0 5,406
$83,314 -3,869 136 582 346 1,367
$1,735,949 $1,504,529 $31,018 $200,402 24,893 10,116 30,779 15,656 246,684
22,171 9,149 27,569 14,355 208,783
235 82 31 0 5,225
2,487 885 3,179 1,301 32,676
8,472 6,492 10,519 4,283 121,930
40,282 68,098 50,786 24,149 541,497
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia.....................
26,522 20,930 6,658 69,229 41,267
19,618 20,838 6,565 67,717 36,785
0 28 13 18 4
6,904 64 80 1,494 4,478
22,857 23,529 7,152 76,973 41,165
19,342 20,057 6,561 69,156 36,165
27 405 124 86 34
3,488 3,066 467 7,731 4,966
15,879 27,554 5,723 42,321 13,072
68,209 43,739 13,293 194,372 76,804
Hawaii...................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa..........................
9,299 7,107 58,524 29,115 15,940
9,302 6,764 55,257 29,044 15,014
0 116 0 0 192
-3 227 3,267 71 735
10,534 7,675 63,368 30,783 16,523
9,567 6,807 54,310 28,418 14,830
1 86 0 44 135
966 782 9,058 2,322 1,558
6,028 3,379 58,437 19,916 7,236
17,234 17,133 131,651 55,122 34,551
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
13,542 20,582 30,308 7,552 28,423
13,505 20,851 29,869 7,552 28,815
0 0 8 0 117
37 -269 431 0 -510
14,969 25,422 33,004 8,175 34,030
13,646 22,363 29,983 7,449 30,328
0 0 5 0 714
1,323 3,058 3,015 726 2,987
5,837 12,210 16,388 5,296 23,070
18,478 42,818 59,236 17,198 59,309
Massachusetts.......... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Mississippi................ Missouri....................
51,760 42,259 29,707 16,278 25,243
41,607 49,151 29,682 16,530 24,212
195 768 0 249 0
9,958 -7,660 25 -501 1,032
45,635 56,869 34,284 18,643 26,789
40,398 49,825 30,255 16,777 23,621
235 622 160 202 0
5,002 6,422 3,869 1,665 3,167
71,892 29,065 9,539 6,331 19,709
103,791 97,950 61,291 32,296 68,868
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
6,403 8,388 10,439 6,292 55,046
5,491 8,358 9,398 5,714 51,396
69 0 68 463 865
843 30 972 114 2,785
6,138 8,443 10,845 6,602 58,539
5,424 8,024 9,320 5,672 46,810
59 0 70 407 2,750
655 419 1,455 523 8,979
4,924 2,719 4,249 7,909 52,785
16,241 14,273 26,673 12,578 117,590
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina......... North Dakota........... Ohio..........................
12,893 147,340 51,421 5,019 65,860
13,713 133,010 43,097 4,655 54,682
0 7,807 0 0 713
-821 6,524 8,324 364 10,465
15,793 157,398 46,995 4,126 67,789
14,413 20 128,221 13,077 42,107 125 3,790 0 54,581 445
1,360 16,099 4,763 336 12,763
7,764 114,240 19,605 1,952 26,885
48,222 361,160 98,410 11,840 202,397
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
18,810 17,138 71,492 6,691 23,595
17,980 16,648 61,150 6,387 20,995
458 402 1,413 33 1,453
372 88 8,929 271 1,147
19,518 22,387 71,940 7,496 27,594
17,209 18,076 60,791 6,228 22,988
419 217 1,330 139 1,832
1,890 4,094 9,819 1,128 2,773
9,130 11,647 40,672 8,912 15,213
37,066 70,998 152,961 16,356 40,977
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont....................
2,910 25,699 119,141 15,243 5,149
3,426 25,178 99,021 13,019 4,857
0 0 0 218 43
-516 521 20,120 2,007 249
3,698 26,403 100,939 14,294 5,070
3,400 24,565 90,577 12,967 4,707
0 0 140 158 73
298 1,838 10,222 1,169 290
3,408 4,366 33,299 5,907 3,372
12,286 37,293 273,877 30,171 7,082
Virginia..................... Washington.............. West Virginia............ Wisconsin................. Wyoming..................
36,233 36,645 10,854 25,644 6,481
36,142 32,258 10,752 27,976 5,388
533 547 75 0 80
-442 3,841 27 -2,332 1,014
39,880 39,690 10,140 32,649 5,082
36,415 34,092 9,681 28,020 4,564
629 520 76 7 70
2,835 5,077 383 4,622 448
21,875 23,524 6,366 22,107 1,343
81,476 95,856 12,280 95,054 20,125
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
432â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Data presented are statistical in nature and do not represent an accounting statement. Therefore, a difference between an individual governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total revenue and expenditure does not necessarily indicate a budget surplus or deficit.
revenue and expenditure
Table 7.20 National totals of state government finances for selected years: 2004–2008
2008
2007
Revenue total...................................................................... General revenue............................................................. Taxes........................................................................... Intergovernmental revenue...................................... From Federal Government.................................. Public welfare................................................... Education.......................................................... Highways........................................................... Employment security administration............. Other................................................................. From local government........................................ Charges and miscellaneous revenue........................ Liquor stores revenue............................................... Utility revenue........................................................... Insurance trust revenue............................................ Employee retirement............................................ Unemployment compensation............................. Worker compensation........................................... Other......................................................................
Item
$1,619,325,776 1,513,361,538 780,689,445 446,478,718 423,178,152 243,512,900 74,232,848 35,689,545 3,952,385 65,790,474 23,300,566 286,193,375 6,128,282 16,521,947 83,314,009 21,404,664 34,359,648 18,695,989 8,853,708
$1,992,826,296 1,450,636,262 749,785,186 430,202,361 409,751,859 233,432,273 73,399,424 35,186,919 3,854,284 63,878,959 20,450,502 270,648,715 5,799,273 16,729,965 519,660,796 456,789,127 34,063,242 19,412,978 9,395,449
Expenditure and debt redemption.................................... Debt redemption....................................................... Expenditure total...................................................... General expenditure...................................................... Education................................................................... Intergovernmental expenditure........................... State institutions of higher education................. Other education.................................................... Public welfare............................................................ Intergovernmental expenditure........................... Cash assistance, categorical program.................. Cash assistance, other........................................... Other public welfare............................................. Highways.................................................................... Intergovernmental expenditure........................... Regular state highway facilities........................... State toll highways/facilities................................. Health and hospitals.................................................. Hospitals................................................................ Health.................................................................... Natural resources...................................................... Corrections................................................................. Financial administration........................................... Employment security administration....................... Police protection........................................................ Interest on general debt............................................ Veterans’ services...................................................... Utility expenditure......................................................... Insurance trust expenditure.......................................... Employee retirement................................................ Unemployment compensation................................. Other..........................................................................
1,829,448,328 93,498,938 1,735,949,390 1,504,529,418 546,825,678 314,612,137 197,573,148 349,252,530 412,141,472 58,093,847 5,620,630 5,560,563 400,960,279 107,190,485 16,545,920 99,013,779 8,176,706 114,639,378 53,682,058 60,957,320 22,522,407 49,897,531 23,638,591 4,071,956 13,594,279 44,755,353 1,083,098 26,072,981 200,402,341 145,973,459 35,470,883 18,957,999
1,732,595,151 97,793,975 1,634,801,176 1,423,311,388 514,923,754 298,883,069 180,483,441 334,440,313 393,142,174 56,945,447 6,406,925 4,100,539 382,634,710 103,166,635 14,844,331 95,809,797 7,356,838 106,098,820 48,284,647 57,814,173 21,981,075 46,490,177 22,449,589 3,964,905 12,875,855 40,812,038 1,030,506 24,367,151 182,458,527 135,759,777 28,854,007 17,844,743
1,647,861,131 96,285,125 1,551,576,006 1,347,150,647 481,877,471 279,403,028 170,053,080 311,824,391 376,762,874 53,891,394 9,833,025 2,660,348 364,269,501 99,518,879 15,230,034 92,641,261 6,877,618 95,920,791 44,799,566 51,121,225 20,034,067 42,720,103 21,666,571 4,608,709 12,232,958 37,808,472 953,623 24,904,119 175,182,982 127,492,686 28,008,860 19,681,436
1,551,947,283 81,484,825 1,470,462,458 91,532,787 455,104,018 263,155,197 152,556,732 276,158,620 368,806,663 51,512,090 10343253 2,474,923 331,289,629 90,273,738 14,486,020 83,854,936 6,418,802 92,060,367 43,103,003 48,957,364 18,360,179 40,689,366 22,811,548 4,377,732 11,362,668 34,362,180 1,349,107 22,785,073 167,974,677 118,332,771 29,776,222 19,865,684
1,497,114,170 90,938,903 1,406,175,267 1,209,435,776 429,340,569 248,356,196 152,783,448 276,557,121 339,408,778 47,440,301 9,924,609 2,358,980 279,851,755 86,165,985 13,972,060 78,751,658 7,414,327 90,600,268 40,349,143 50,251,125 18,651,542 39,313,812 21,386,771 4,673,666 9,471,421 32,953,170 1,503,741 21,676,258 171,139,160 111,375,680 43,173,792 16,589,688
Total expenditure by character and object....................... Direct expenditure......................................................... Current operation...................................................... Capital outlay............................................................ Construction.......................................................... Other capital outlay.............................................. Assistance and subsidies........................................... Interest on debt......................................................... Insurance benefits and repayments.......................... Intergovernmental expenditure....................................
1,735,949,390 1,257,461,437 864,654,503 113,078,527 92,081,784 20,996,743 32,572,852 46,753,214 200,402,341 478,487,953
1,634,801,176 1,177,424,507 810,498,421 110,302,205 90,728,130 19,574,075 31,362,708 42,802,646 182,458,527 457,376,669
1,551,576,006 1,122,651,290 774,651,394 101,452,960 83,857,561 17,595,399 31,644,069 39,719,885 175,182,982 428,924,716
1,470,462,458 1,066,995,248 738,068,643 94,550,657 72,609,708 21,940,949 30,307,592 36,093,679 167,974,677 403,467,210
1,406,175,267 1,016,469,065 691,651,637 90,950,079 73,372,464 17,577,615 28,104,471 34,623,718 171,139,160 389,706,202
Cash and security holdings at end of fiscal year............... Insurance trust............................................................... Unemployment fund balance................................... Debt offsets....................................................................
3,831,397,925 2,737,579,461 38,489,823 459,766,582
3,917,961,292 2,870,241,826 39,795,912 422,501,416
3,436,442,021 2,491,498,005 35,053,864 386,862,630
3,144,241,774 2,305,723,853 27,595,746 349,347,741
2,930,126,017 2,142,907,100 23,794,035 328,219,839
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html.
2006
2005
$1,773,012,744 $1,637,820,897 1,385,181,235 1,282,347,838 710,606,931 408,456,380 419,143,477 408,456,380 397,597,199 386,034,095 222,915,684 221,932,568 73,493,091 68216590 33,535,989 32,735,017 4,733,548 4,630,281 62,918,887 58,519,639 21,546,278 22,422,285 255,430,827 225,780,200 5,429,820 5,212,064 15,816,052 14,627,471 366,585,637 335,633,524 300,350,329 269,763,309 36,863,504 35,242,919 21,514,198 23,018,659 7,857,606 7,608,637
2004 $1,586,718,729 1,194,055,987 590,413,778 394,613,110 374,693,902 214,528,312 64,913,198 29,606,251 4,876,406 59,124,638 19,919,208 209,029,099 4,865,703 12,954,913 374,842,126 308,949,942 38,229,928 21,757,876 5,904,380
Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
The Council of State Governments 433
Taxes
434â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
21,974,194 15,874,933 27,087,538 14,761,215 194,295,986
19,617,888 20,837,566 6,565,092 67,717,478 36,784,634
9,301,983 6,764,195 55,256,729 29,043,689 15,013,513
13,504,781 20,850,510 29,869,122 7,552,020 28,815,445
41,607,421 49,151,148 29,682,086 16,530,098 24,211,890
5,490,621 8,357,739 9,398,456 5,714,022 51,395,700
13,713,205 133,009,806 43,097,343 4,655,088 54,681,803
17,979,653 16,648,004 61,150,215 6,387,409 20,995,455
Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California.................
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia.....................
Hawaii...................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa..........................
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
Massachusetts.......... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Mississippi................ Missouri....................
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina......... North Dakota........... Ohio..........................
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
See footnotes at end of table.
$1,513,361,538
United States...........
8,484,227 7,278,717 32,123,740 2,761,356 8,455,463
5,645,649 65,370,654 22,781,202 2,312,056 26,373,813
2,457,929 4,228,800 6,115,584 2,257,977 30,616,510
21,908,599 24,781,626 18,320,891 6,770,880 10,965,171
7,159,748 10,056,293 11,003,870 3,681,614 15,713,987
5,147,569 3,651,917 31,891,497 14,916,295 6,892,026
9,624,636 13,367,631 2,930,955 35,849,998 18,183,117
9,070,530 8,424,714 13,705,901 7,530,504 117,361,976
$780,689,445
3,033,802 760,579 15,306,013 1,381,115 4,279,163
2,663,292 20,150,046 8,929,847 873,406 12,745,395
544,402 2,035,441 4,930,452 792,947 12,519,601
6,056,422 11,920,372 7,433,063 4,229,443 4,770,631
3,091,221 4,718,517 5,538,890 1,713,325 6,248,816
3,302,179 1,743,294 15,471,663 8,196,096 2,960,567
3,519,589 5,177,376 484,515 29,297,023 7,688,845
4,433,108 279,569 8,146,095 3,778,217 39,825,808
$357,476,256
2,096,220 0 8,873,309 846,870 3,051,608
1,949,768 11,294,737 5,269,929 530,078 7,865,674
0 1,534,134 3,077,433 0 8,915,515
4,098,089 8,225,599 4,550,838 3,135,390 3,228,274
2,264,747 2,875,836 3,459,383 1,071,653 3,748,933
2,619,595 1,347,327 7,935,417 5,738,829 1,840,862
2,312,731 3,178,903 0 21,518,100 5,796,653
2,287,288 0 6,433,468 2,807,943 31,972,874
$240,415,097
384,814 413,521 2,102,168 126,718 534,252
250,418 527,840 1,582,400 143,389 1,842,595
205,819 294,149 311,953 137,206 563,266
672,654 994,937 648,565 442,119 736,303
431,755 617,826 604,377 229,849 808,964
94,080 239,881 1,334,664 856,301 442,183
637,193 450,095 117,746 2,289,166 1,011,202
545,726 41,985 731,345 471,214 3,421,457
$36,437,108
1,034,864 917,299 2,822,738 95,792 433,877
257,543 1,355,826 1,412,090 165,810 2,673,262
311,029 206,783 826,397 222,676 1,452,361
685,045 1,354,001 1,011,289 418,771 650,763
303,696 469,761 498,612 233,711 697,481
156,781 270,270 2,475,218 799,999 639,764
377,179 352,999 1,033,345 1,875,355 526,149
487,934 142,914 420,770 307,342 7,642,180
$49,797,817
631,732 484,291 814,486 52,248 142,120
179,367 860,519 609,158 88,453 811,167
143,972 90,845 169,896 93,679 432,164
287,738 892,817 511,513 123,203 269,443
172,111 212,037 87,189 85,762 442,018
111,262 124,369 1,368,331 190,165 404,006
219,590 201,364 46,413 1,153,139 296,648
212,687 53,453 218,763 140,112 2,704,632
$19,547,133
2,787,445 4,968,791 10,408,439 1,091,705 3,339,935
1,213,522 36,563,948 10,993,927 317,249 9,847,506
870,064 1,726,145 0 117,936 12,605,545
12,496,142 7,181,055 7,777,259 1,551,079 5,118,849
2,944,851 3,483,138 3,169,686 1,448,273 6,940,134
1,544,835 1,438,518 10,320,239 4,837,524 2,848,393
5,067,981 7,000,225 1,006,859 0 8,845,476
3,077,553 0 3,408,576 2,344,876 55,745,970
$278,230,889
360,065 477,113 2,191,420 145,866 320,378
354,588 5,037,830 1,206,412 161,925 754,633
161,713 232,852 0 614,794 2,819,906
2,179,956 1,778,317 1,040,479 384,643 384,010
528,011 533,630 703,196 184,515 735,324
105,294 190,194 3,115,604 909,494 347,248
507,986 534,201 308,676 2,208,600 943,042
524,808 981,673 784,511 342,529 11,849,097
$50,688,869
5,705,546 4,835,171 16,512,258 2,088,153 7,018,905
4,322,241 46,623,511 13,650,362 1,233,474 17,093,617
1,919,126 2,560,819 1,857,810 1,830,369 11,217,573
10,047,618 13,359,341 7,255,639 7,718,794 8,500,589
3,495,517 6,630,599 14,180,841 2,427,894 7,525,060
2,092,852 2,005,348 14,739,992 8,349,018 4,630,352
4,961,599 4,344,898 1,335,675 19,876,444 13,090,193
7,712,748 2,190,854 8,887,402 4,533,851 51,914,572
$446,478,718
3,789,880 4,534,116 12,514,217 1,537,900 5,521,087
3,745,315 21,015,641 6,665,779 1,109,558 11,214,373
1,113,566 1,568,120 1,425,062 1,625,676 9,561,617
9,651,204 11,010,181 4,105,556 2,040,424 4,746,130
2,849,516 4,163,618 4,684,411 1,442,512 5,576,398
2,061,562 1,106,930 8,625,240 5,778,376 3,491,135
5,031,653 3,125,037 2,298,462 11,991,036 5,511,324
5,190,916 5,259,365 4,494,235 2,696,860 25,019,438
$286,193,375
Charges and Sales and gross receipts Licenses miscellaneous Total general Motor Motor Individual Corporation Intergovernmental general State revenue (a) Total Total (b) General fuels Total (b) vehicle income net income revenue revenue
Table 7.21 state general revenue, by source and by state: 2008
revenue and expenditure
Taxes
36,142,162 32,257,919 10,751,555 27,976,030 5,387,523
Virginia..................... Washington.............. West Virginia............ Wisconsin................. Wyoming.................. 18,408,276 17,944,925 4,879,151 15,088,662 2,168,016
1,321,368 11,538,430 44,675,953 5,944,879 2,544,163 6,093,335 14,400,668 2,266,891 6,317,062 879,034
1,072,252 8,612,382 33,365,192 2,644,034 855,261 3,656,789 11,344,622 1,109,822 4,268,068 744,371
732,438 6,832,948 21,668,972 1,964,119 338,941 920,063 1,169,900 404,221 1,001,339 75,013
129,619 872,892 3,103,170 377,261 91,535
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected. html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
3,426,159 25,178,170 99,020,859 13,018,521 4,856,967
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont.................... 355,683 487,422 86,754 406,806 55,722
47,285 270,176 1,518,188 107,158 79,077 10,114,833 0 1,518,746 6,640,528 0
0 290,986 0 2,593,129 623,019 787,229 0 538,839 863,088 0
69,879 1,005,880 0 394,638 84,783
7,404,341 8,303,676 3,274,439 7,013,591 2,164,652
1,256,446 8,308,154 33,614,239 3,441,961 1,420,594
10,329,545 6,009,318 2,597,965 5,873,777 1,054,855
848,345 5,331,586 20,730,667 3,631,681 892,210
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. (a) Total general revenue equals total taxes plus intergovernmental revenue plus charges and miscellaneous revenue. (b) Total includes other taxes not shown separately in this table.
653,176 938,205 190,711 909,664 120,787
173,129 1,287,826 7,173,996 206,923 124,702
Charges and Sales and gross receipts Licenses miscellaneous Total general Motor Motor Individual Corporation Intergovernmental general State revenue (a) Total Total (b) General fuels Total (b) vehicle income net income revenue revenue
state general revenue, by source and by state: 2008â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
revenue and expenditure
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 435
436â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 9,251,815 19,512,603 11,188,797 5,111,703 5,638,642 1,318,649 1,981,940 3,860,236 1,451,976 10,927,571 4,348,451 52,820,634 13,364,918 805,351 18,105,626
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................. Minnesota............................... Mississippi.............................. Missouri..................................
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada.................................... New Hampshire..................... New Jersey.............................
New Mexico........................... New York................................ North Carolina....................... North Dakota......................... Ohio........................................
See footnotes at end of table.
4,214,475 4,700,971 6,022,791 1,335,469 8,509,003
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana................................ Maine...................................... Maryland................................
11,444,598 104,576,875 33,629,735 3,320,569 49,682,964
4,819,020 6,461,189 6,985,139 5,149,678 47,611,602
36,383,133 37,356,409 23,094,713 13,531,213 21,150,162
10,754,336 20,720,560 26,981,138 6,839,683 25,520,815
10,396,098 5,637,576 48,618,172 22,813,823 12,379,777
8,644,224 71,785,169 24,895,675 2,281,367 29,591,276
3,206,493 5,001,430 4,354,990 3,703,831 31,145,159
24,518,309 26,505,481 16,133,279 9,965,898 14,655,706
7,811,768 14,207,756 19,617,473 5,326,489 18,024,541
8,206,046 3,798,804 32,252,151 16,668,249 8,751,216
837,330 10,256,882 2,934,290 407,419 3,569,549
653,471 766,791 794,520 412,757 4,477,546
2,455,753 1,955,213 1,782,231 1,497,202 1,776,134
1,107,285 2,246,965 2,813,306 287,185 2,299,752
659,872 771,185 3,350,887 2,115,726 1,185,695
1,278,123 1,304,165 698,180 6,835,035 2,945,403
694,584 7,510,305 2,201,962 372,413 3,184,155
598,610 710,553 695,098 333,922 3,472,484
2,001,605 1,663,834 1,394,664 1,112,095 1,513,304
910,322 1,956,464 2,254,336 238,305 1,599,968
543,126 673,065 3,031,294 1,736,407 993,667
1,084,286 1,037,567 529,474 5,860,995 2,740,335
142,746 2,746,577 732,328 35,006 385,394
54,861 56,238 99,422 78,835 1,005,062
454,148 291,379 387,567 385,107 262,830
196,963 290,501 558,970 48,880 699,784
116,746 98,120 319,593 379,319 192,028
193,837 266,598 168,706 974,040 205,068
210,464 1,461,926 360,692 131,286 2,318,754
94,740 166,235 173,184 129,326 952,405
690,714 1,164,196 813,873 164,929 505,075
177,505 704,306 631,391 242,412 1,162,849
123,216 123,099 1,090,333 740,281 493,304
236,124 461,253 120,852 2,023,544 857,124
417,577 179,479 506,178 265,092 1,916,280
392,772 4,974,321 676,360 164,425 1,440,693
209,308 107,999 206,948 381,127 2,057,817
3,716,517 1,309,650 496,677 238,668 1,045,801
334,469 503,054 903,661 257,910 1,046,312
441,026 162,233 2,867,051 967,653 391,988
848,776 1,265,952 269,560 1,604,312 598,122
328,836 317,643 493,484 193,767 6,084,752
1,359,808 16,098,577 4,762,718 336,072 12,762,692
655,008 418,734 1,455,497 522,637 8,978,675
5,001,840 6,421,869 3,868,653 1,664,516 3,167,446
1,323,309 3,058,479 3,015,307 725,687 2,987,361
965,938 782,255 9,057,750 2,321,914 1,557,574
3,487,942 3,065,649 466,895 7,731,288 4,966,214
2,486,673 885,348 3,178,919 1,300,869 32,676,065
137,771 2,037,507 14,749,988 7,969,434 4,142,960
10,772,499 13,200,479 4,424,371 39,075,664 21,382,870
377,222 214,672 386,736 120,419 1,624,234
$46,753,214
Hawaii.................................... Idaho....................................... Illinois..................................... Indiana.................................... Iowa........................................
16,623,464 19,297,498 5,979,858 57,269,843 30,749,733
1,618,096 998,358 1,271,127 770,629 8,147,167
$32,572,852
6,233,384 4,231,032 1,172,083 19,703,095 10,415,395
1,995,318 1,213,030 1,657,863 891,048 9,771,401
$20,996,743
Colorado................................. Connecticut............................ Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia...................................
12,943,521 6,032,765 14,700,559 8,612,637 102,591,653
$92,081,784
$200,402,341
18,171,925 8,628,265 20,537,003 11,263,413 153,040,151
$113,078,527
6,720,814 1,487,649 10,241,927 4,392,340 93,643,800
Alabama................................. Alaska..................................... Arizona................................... Arkansas................................. California...............................
$864,654,503
$478,487,953
United States......................... $1,257,461,437
Insurance benefits and repayments
Capital outlay Intergovernmental Current Assistance Interest State expenditures Total operation Total Construction Other and subsidies on debt
Direct expenditures
Table 7.22 state expenditure, by character and object and by state: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
2,256,305 16,348,779 8,084,597 816,227 7,883,170
879,718 2,076,389 1,579,819 947,324 9,891,720
5,010,065 5,974,110 4,924,638 2,252,581 3,661,593
3,174,710 3,737,072 4,262,552 760,447 4,724,830
2,563,142 1,040,874 8,486,416 3,742,390 2,301,969
3,553,624 4,287,819 2,267,018 8,637,026 5,008,399
4,194,385 1,515,581 3,343,240 1,855,064 27,788,543
$229,818,658
Exhibit: Total salaries and wages
revenue and expenditure
21,125,768 19,936,695 6,312,808 14,380,839 2,227,936
2,730,605 3,128,379 893,891 1,965,324 515,364
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected. html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
28,827,551 30,546,049 8,008,599 22,556,056 3,312,577
408,481 1,587,503 8,751,072 1,286,208 202,115 2,052,115 2,648,570 775,771 1,757,547 502,066
366,877 1,247,457 6,904,015 1,074,488 174,466 678,490 479,809 118,120 207,777 13,298
41,604 340,046 1,847,057 211,720 27,649 1,253,817 1,364,393 163,971 526,773 59,787
66,176 1,177,378 1,890,823 399,606 130,981
882,679 1,039,159 255,121 1,060,901 61,973
136,008 214,413 1,189,733 275,837 181,054
517,306 450,490 1,984,366 419,869 784,661
2,834,682 5,077,423 382,808 4,622,219 447,517
298,190 1,838,220 10,221,943 1,168,581 289,842
1,890,135 4,094,059 9,819,464 1,127,934 2,773,146
6,214,596 6,254,115 1,441,006 4,203,579 633,251
843,292 3,695,776 14,102,858 2,449,264 733,895
11,052,058 9,143,766 2,131,100 10,093,198 1,769,009
2,109,612 15,069,109 52,795,841 8,113,264 2,925,409
322,559 317,207 1,950,815 132,802 1,005,766
Virginia................................... Washington............................ West Virginia.......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
3,018,467 19,886,623 74,849,412 11,243,496 3,729,401
373,790 378,871 978,062 52,412 698,102
679,868 6,516,598 26,089,474 3,050,173 1,340,755
1,277,640 944,934 4,862,419 393,334 1,645,509
South Dakota......................... Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont..................................
1,651,430 1,323,805 5,840,481 445,746 2,343,611
2,976,703 3,901,453 7,802,801 1,093,981 3,639,952
10,744,503 10,560,329 34,279,660 4,315,737 14,967,195
4,391,706 5,640,993 18,065,438 1,053,782 5,719,235
Oklahoma............................... Oregon.................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island.......................... South Carolina....................... 15,125,933 16,745,890 53,874,786 6,442,088 21,874,379
Exhibit: Total salaries and wages
Capital outlay Insurance Intergovernmental Current Assistance Interest benefits and State expenditures Total operation Total Construction Other and subsidies on debt repayments
Direct expenditures
state expenditure, by character and object and by state: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
revenue and expenditure
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 437
438â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 19,341,732 20,057,458 6,561,474 69,155,854 36,164,925 9,567,007 6,806,589 54,310,201 28,417,734 14,830,301 13,645,502 22,363,052 29,983,212 7,449,178 30,328,008 40,398,126 49,825,040 30,255,260 16,776,821 23,621,358 5,423,506 8,024,395 9,319,965 5,672,446 46,810,441 14,412,908 128,221,439 42,107,428 3,789,848 54,580,967
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
See footnotes at end of table.
22,170,605 9,148,545 27,568,941 14,354,884 208,782,657
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
United States...................... $1,504,529,418
5,024,928 39,764,174 17,438,492 1,325,310 20,120,162
1,839,799 2,909,668 4,069,362 2,019,883 15,432,044
10,714,000 21,962,651 12,424,773 5,471,275 8,604,958
5,750,358 8,718,692 9,083,468 2,018,539 10,991,254
3,393,565 2,774,669 16,342,627 10,616,678 5,790,799
7,985,963 5,850,358 2,263,320 23,192,406 16,179,676
10,658,472 2,165,387 9,408,525 6,311,833 73,276,865
$546,825,678
3,558,863 44,763,366 11,652,949 773,278 16,113,757
888,748 2,099,052 1,580,454 1,544,997 12,420,936
12,682,783 13,430,826 9,045,789 4,405,435 6,231,774
3,167,907 6,198,814 5,828,886 2,492,721 7,118,659
1,563,961 1,614,703 17,167,067 8,034,079 3,904,781
4,557,057 5,621,038 1,451,463 18,063,299 9,644,769
4,582,199 1,477,255 7,927,027 3,771,732 60,191,685
$412,141,472
895,994 4,380,808 3,253,678 458,616 3,215,512
617,439 631,028 609,250 440,079 2,736,419
2,245,666 2,763,775 2,136,933 1,284,377 2,034,235
1,213,980 2,241,275 2,132,077 479,580 2,510,419
407,711 696,062 4,510,194 1,996,582 1,381,730
1,281,596 795,191 496,382 7,163,763 2,287,471
1,373,098 1,315,648 2,367,086 915,510 12,173,649
$107,190,485
749,990 4,896,242 1,460,906 16,426 2,089,571
44,955 239,294 234,044 60,361 2,062,211
466,869 2,299,233 404,712 953,339 1,322,145
973,004 1,100,758 1,021,434 56,286 541,820
531,055 47,310 1,004,573 198,120 1,092,682
437,822 1,395,751 63,435 831,028 805,443
1,808,175 35,054 71,539 810,637 6,888,770
$53,682,058
221,810 547,896 679,216 166,129 362,226
279,698 180,968 137,372 68,642 613,651
338,037 363,826 511,888 285,285 347,965
205,394 373,489 579,131 167,216 562,098
113,560 213,597 272,110 293,931 288,799
323,226 123,842 94,329 1,833,040 516,792
309,369 284,520 321,173 249,560 4,885,087
$22,522,407
490,852 7,088,181 1,653,975 64,749 2,470,691
329,501 415,172 261,957 158,845 1,327,893
1,068,262 1,232,875 653,688 368,652 1,163,167
252,179 626,189 640,753 491,007 1,958,191
677,693 150,626 2,336,890 627,263 240,951
809,170 901,164 393,259 3,600,529 1,258,721
699,309 279,028 1,620,620 249,653 11,992,534
$60,957,320
376,627 3,135,187 1,324,484 61,368 1,668,729
168,127 219,278 367,241 112,265 1,496,976
1,332,960 1,863,464 536,760 369,248 754,740
361,648 527,311 773,076 141,982 1,366,211
219,070 244,504 1,244,230 676,633 291,406
996,266 723,346 280,710 2,770,179 1,571,961
525,281 243,961 1,023,693 361,537 8,829,940
$49,897,531
203,014 2,607,214 392,519 67,976 1,215,951
206,457 106,692 104,403 84,403 742,322
576,167 485,085 251,538 90,643 196,847
187,449 298,676 341,445 154,057 544,859
127,419 187,267 598,595 361,341 197,339
487,291 367,023 242,224 1,274,103 447,615
215,404 239,908 384,710 397,440 3,775,790
$23,638,591
18,205 276,737 164,146 9,110 261,305
16,115 39,791 41,650 30,370 164,887
50,281 191,565 76,295 76,284 24,941
25,522 85,442 80,574 18,632 47,249
54,032 26,392 116,521 116,856 35,543
57,675 85,744 14,624 81,049 90,175
79,565 35,416 59,703 57,656 384,231
$4,071,956
Employment Total general Public Natural Financial security State expenditures (a) Education welfare Highways Hospitals Resources Health Corrections administration administration
Table 7.23 state general expenditure, by function and by state: 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Police
140,759 958,637 567,801 27,949 264,055
47,166 84,698 105,594 52,148 510,798
569,777 346,258 343,342 117,202 214,579
110,231 193,185 349,563 72,231 405,655
13,808 51,314 437,448 254,012 96,991
140,723 216,795 113,596 453,620 317,358
182,955 82,585 273,533 81,440 1,642,063
$13,594,279
revenue and expenditure
7,354,674 7,612,755 2,565,426 6,524,417 656,176
3,146,902 2,924,464 1,015,587 1,901,463 521,164
2,849,911 1,743,784 106,482 1,106,220 2,384
60,769 407,688 3,570,780 823,297 20,092
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected. html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
14,053,415 14,109,473 3,676,900 10,329,906 1,537,792
429,629 1,668,715 7,915,817 1,061,364 324,868 958,002 1,605,753 356,647 703,266 281,247
126,093 1,282,165 2,248,068 383,324 167,140 1,547,571 1,205,895 241,996 1,084,127 164,617
110,268 768,711 3,565,217 332,828 120,328 490,444 415,133 183,520 273,045 84,964
91,127 328,832 602,130 252,887 53,625
150,869 177,790 22,583 88,131 30,688
20,292 110,582 191,885 19,463 19,567
46,929 46,366 75,705 17,010 59,813
689,989 319,335 65,468 132,283 15,862
31,514 156,050 720,014 129,182 77,177
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Key: (a) Does not represent sum of state figures because total includes miscellaneous expenditures not shown.
214,336 738,520 170,496 646,438 310,037
123,365 458,161 839,527 185,613 73,300
209,537 515,085 1,057,727 163,275 756,074
36,415,455 34,091,969 9,681,035 28,019,994 4,564,285
811,709 8,664,226 23,048,973 2,203,414 1,253,623
616,933 720,504 1,744,264 199,394 514,479
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
1,103,636 8,479,938 40,672,485 6,036,050 2,062,824
780,680 407,430 1,871,255 180,822 1,051,239
3,400,145 24,565,001 90,576,780 12,966,773 4,707,185
215,089 424,465 666,752 41,480 299,956
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
227,554 1,154,493 2,821,303 87,528 1,684,779
161,213 173,661 816,191 57,953 208,518
1,472,367 1,528,591 6,570,331 201,869 1,064,541
Police
4,821,034 4,311,257 19,032,829 2,230,969 5,477,881
17,208,905 18,076,076 60,791,234 6,228,442 22,988,332
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina.................... 7,046,621 6,768,386 19,199,292 1,702,825 8,151,202
Employment Total general Public Natural Financial security State expenditures (a) Education welfare Highways Hospitals Resources Health Corrections administration administration
state general expenditure, by function and by state: 2008 (In thousands of dollars)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Continued
revenue and expenditure
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 439
revenue and expenditure
Table 7.24 state debt outstanding at end of fiscal year, by state: 2008 (In thousands of dollars) State Total Long-term total Short-term
Net long-term total (a)
United States............................
1,004,753,030
990,572,225
14,180,805
530,805,643
Alabama.................................... Alaska........................................ Arizona...................................... Arkansas.................................... California..................................
8,472,097 6,491,713 10,519,389 4,283,024 121,929,578
8,446,101 6,379,554 10,478,474 4,283,024 121,889,578
25,996 112,159 40,915 0 40,000
6,348,787 2,159,996 6,354,609 1,984,721 89,506,603
Colorado.................................... Connecticut............................... Delaware................................... Florida....................................... Georgia......................................
15,879,387 27,554,245 5,722,757 42,320,929 13,072,416
15,398,143 27,549,957 5,722,757 42,287,570 13,032,916
481,244 4,288 0 33,359 39,500
2,992,232 15,129,621 2,717,634 30,028,213 9,502,205
Hawaii....................................... Idaho.......................................... Illinois........................................ Indiana....................................... Iowa...........................................
6,028,067 3,379,159 58,436,829 19,916,264 7,235,998
6,028,067 3,370,274 58,424,642 18,402,691 7,235,998
0 8,885 12,187 1,513,573 0
5,020,074 448,021 27,660,188 1,389,254 1,850,147
Kansas....................................... Kentucky................................... Louisiana................................... Maine......................................... Maryland...................................
5,836,651 12,209,861 16,387,658 5,296,282 23,070,309
5,831,951 12,182,392 16,378,128 5,292,792 22,971,562
4,700 27,469 9,530 3,490 98,747
3,571,898 6,166,303 7,891,558 941,800 9,860,212
Massachusetts........................... Michigan.................................... Minnesota.................................. Mississippi................................. Missouri.....................................
71,892,262 29,065,260 9,538,669 6,331,031 19,708,834
71,836,484 28,891,196 9,533,375 6,266,688 19,678,963
55,778 174,064 5,294 64,343 29,871
34,286,383 12,889,719 5,076,880 4,423,356 4,904,494
Montana.................................... Nebraska................................... Nevada....................................... New Hampshire........................ New Jersey................................
4,924,359 2,719,139 4,248,696 7,908,632 52,785,000
4,922,851 2,717,589 4,248,696 7,901,225 52,733,668
1,508 1,550 0 7,407 51,332
986,772 375,827 3,042,928 1,897,044 32,675,947
New Mexico.............................. New York................................... North Carolina.......................... North Dakota............................ Ohio...........................................
7,763,822 114,240,227 19,605,315 1,951,959 26,885,476
7,737,683 113,866,776 19,428,658 1,951,022 26,312,694
26,139 373,451 176,657 937 572,782
3,437,537 71,928,898 11,418,369 701,746 14,868,187
Oklahoma.................................. Oregon....................................... Pennsylvania............................. Rhode Island............................. South Carolina..........................
9,129,789 11,647,145 40,672,099 8,911,977 15,212,910
9,117,378 11,641,145 39,344,663 8,902,827 14,899,658
12,411 6,000 1,327,436 9,150 313,252
4,771,872 8,210,277 16,133,342 3,073,906 10,454,181
South Dakota............................ Tennessee.................................. Texas.......................................... Utah........................................... Vermont.....................................
3,408,138 4,366,410 33,299,313 5,907,105 3,371,915
3,407,733 3,934,341 25,370,140 5,874,964 3,304,370
405 432,069 7,929,173 32,141 67,545
578,022 1,911,297 13,387,003 1,650,833 943,459
Virginia...................................... Washington............................... West Virginia............................. Wisconsin.................................. Wyoming...................................
21,875,483 23,524,009 6,365,585 22,107,148 1,342,710
21,821,415 23,524,009 6,365,585 22,107,148 1,342,710
54,068 0 0 0 0
8,955,010 14,298,688 3,103,481 8,813,485 82,624
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of State Government Finances. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/state/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
440â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Key: (a) Long-term debt outstanding minus long-term debt offsets.
retirement
Table 7.25 number and membership of state and local government employee-retirement systems by state: fiscal year 2007â&#x20AC;&#x201C;08 Membership State and type of government Number of systems Total Active members Inactive members
Total beneficiaries receiving periodic benefit payments
United States......................... State................................... Local.................................. County............................. Municipality.................... Township......................... Special District............... School District................
2,550 218 2,332 160 1,659 395 106 12
19,097,226 17,215,183 1,882,043 576,572 1,148,991 38,634 45,777 72,069
14,701,442 13,073,495 1,627,947 483,239 1,005,863 35,116 41,620 62,109
4,395,784 4,141,688 254,096 93,333 143,128 3,518 4,157 9,960
7,553,373 6,405,199 1,148,174 274,556 777,903 21,930 28,700 45,085
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California...............................
11 5 7 35 59
272,340 60,731 504,971 158,067 2,330,929
244,496 44,080 276,638 131,058 1,779,811
27,844 16,651 228,333 27,009 551,118
113,363 40,615 119,159 58,073 1,032,360
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware................................ Florida.................................... Georgia..................................
60 61 6 162 31
376,160 138,223 46,573 723,964 599,029
222,691 133,646 43,918 640,739 389,992
153,469 4,577 2,655 83,225 209,037
99,473 89,574 24,480 333,374 148,998
Hawaii.................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa........................................
1 4 370 73 9
72,436 76,933 959,545 291,466 237,498
66,589 66,842 627,978 232,610 172,823
5,847 10,091 331,567 58,856 64,675
36,260 31,040 389,551 111,924 91,956
Kansas.................................... Kentucky................................ Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland................................
8 21 33 1 13
197,572 327,389 311,344 68,418 295,509
155,996 225,870 221,506 60,225 240,335
41,576 101,519 89,838 8,193 55,174
69,266 124,183 138,317 34,257 146,519
Massachusetts........................ Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi.............................. Missouri.................................
100 138 88 4 62
379,579 426,804 516,230 292,703 330,815
312,942 393,847 292,695 166,576 275,627
66,637 32,957 223,535 126,127 55,188
183,018 300,268 160,554 76,474 141,014
Montana................................. Nebraska................................ Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey.............................
9 13 2 4 10
73,672 99,809 117,794 57,483 583,366
52,308 74,980 106,168 52,640 512,015
21,364 24,829 11,626 4,843 71,351
31,478 23,239 38,197 23,552 239,221
New Mexico........................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio........................................
5 9 10 12 6
153,627 1,378,378 609,312 35,118 1,199,624
120,475 1,257,961 510,093 30,217 695,200
33,152 120,417 99,219 4,901 504,424
56,551 767,870 38,361 13,686 383,243
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania.......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
12 4 903 13 6
173,706 215,474 631,933 47,379 378,679
159,251 169,059 497,927 40,229 214,096
14,455 46,415 134,006 7,150 164,583
88,225 108,358 359,772 28,518 112,298
South Dakota........................ Tennessee............................... Texas....................................... Utah........................................ Vermont.................................
4 14 48 6 5
53,232 281,231 1,566,345 134,191 34,156
38,770 247,986 1,354,295 102,009 26,312
14,462 33,245 212,050 32,182 7,844
19,888 123,920 450,249 40,510 13,237
Virginia.................................. Washington............................ West Virginia......................... Wisconsin............................... Wyoming................................
14 23 41 3 6
442,793 301,813 50,988 424,016 45,443
393,614 258,540 37,515 278,950 39,903
49,179 43,273 13,473 145,066 5,540
166,667 131,566 22,272 155,385 19,453
Dist. of Columbia..................
6
12,436
11,399
1,037
3,587
Source: 2008 Survey of State and Local Public Employee Retirement Systems. Data users who create their own estimates using data from this report should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. The data in this table are based on information from public records and contain no confidential data. Although the data in this table come from
a census of retirement systems and are not subject to sampling error, the census results do contain nonsampling error. Additional information on nonsampling error, and response rates may be found at http://www.census. gov/govs/retire/how_data_collected.html. Created: March 23, 2010; Last Revised: March 23, 2010
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 441
RETIREMENT
Table 7.26 FINANCES OF STATE-ADMINISTERED EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, BY STATE: FISCAL YEAR 2008 (In thousands of dollars)
Receipts during fiscal year State and type of government
Government contributions Total Employee From state From local Earnings on receipts contributions Total governments governments investments
Payments during fiscal year
Total payments
Benefits
Withdrawals Other
United States........... $56,419,735 $31,639,290 $63,869,874 $35,755,522 $28,114,352
-39,089,429 $157,410,232 $143,453,487 $3,211,317 $10,745,428
Alabama................... -3,210,665 Alaska....................... 110,185 Arizona..................... -129,223 Arkansas................... 271,075 California.................. -6,204,256
516,891 175,137 1,081,129 146,450 6,039,098
1,072,486 300,774 1,136,836 603,599 11,371,374
911,423 148,288 283,479 220,230 4,691,795
161,063 152,486 853,357 383,369 6,679,579
-4,800,042 -365,726 -2,347,188 -478,974 -23,614,728
2,400,859 865,220 2,487,426 1,142,025 21,397,173
2,169,141 758,517 2,240,874 970,730 20,194,042
Colorado................... 5,931,995 Connecticut.............. 2,669,281 Delaware.................. 83,723 Florida....................... -2,921,299 Georgia..................... 4,724,249
579,284 319,573 45,761 96,767 609,998
803,541 3,282,801 110,389 3,192,699 1,319,723
274,813 3,243,549 101,660 672,484 1,019,805
528,728 39,252 8,729 2,520,215 299,918
4,549,170 -933,093 -72,427 -6,210,765 2,794,528
3,251,120 2,612,134 357,019 6,526,230 4,182,422
2,569,811 2,403,299 348,070 5,226,433 4,009,150
140,975 540,334 2,788 206,047 3,336 5,613 222,523 1,077,274 62,620 110,652
68,919 14,351 128,241 10,845 482,035
162,799 92,352 118,311 160,450 721,096
Hawaii....................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa...........................
220,762 -73,145 3,118,957 436,775 430,048
161,328 159,922 1,693,516 324,378 271,033
488,770 273,784 2,758,970 1,276,002 446,875
365,755 90,600 2,027,474 938,556 94,382
123,015 183,184 731,496 337,446 352,493
-429,336 -506,851 -1,333,529 -1,163,605 -287,860
838,438 484,006 7,350,232 1,799,335 1,206,729
792,313 483,753 6,933,590 1,550,706 1,204,006
3,669 0 114,300 10,463 1,360
42,456 253 302,342 238,166 1,363
Kansas....................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
103,458 -180,707 1,085,523 165,299 -560,746
262,707 539,558 711,349 150,523 420,461
458,153 810,656 1,512,665 317,758 1,072,208
326,862 559,393 1,253,643 305,359 965,020
131,291 251,263 259,022 12,399 107,188
-617,402 -1,530,921 -1,138,491 -302,982 -2,053,415
1,096,469 2,583,548 2,888,144 648,282 2,312,708
1,007,713 2,493,509 2,666,698 576,346 2,180,241
48,473 41,433 88,138 27,309 16,223
40,283 48,606 133,308 44,627 116,244
Massachusetts.......... 9,519,178 Michigan................... -8,847,278 Minnesota................. -768,493 Mississippi................ -396,289 Missouri.................... 836,550
1,119,813 471,619 668,547 419,483 665,781
1,424,402 1,700,189 755,689 708,791 1,200,930
1,283,736 466,070 170,325 261,888 471,033
140,666 1,234,119 585,364 446,903 729,897
6,974,963 -11,019,086 -2,192,729 -1,524,563 -1,030,161
2,930,797 5,031,919 3,254,183 1,780,061 2,827,199
2,788,969 4,439,600 2,962,044 1,450,185 2,564,596
7,571 40,106 54,516 72,790 64,360
134,257 552,213 237,623 257,086 198,243
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
568,663 -50,154 739,892 115,280 2,582,448
148,191 131,035 131,333 158,552 1,584,264
184,234 161,998 1,167,578 189,441 2,595,994
88,059 52,741 174,655 73,600 2,539,130
96,175 109,257 992,923 115,841 56,864
236,238 -343,187 -559,019 -232,713 -1,597,810
501,288 335,342 1,243,467 483,034 6,301,243
423,696 310,445 1,033,622 395,070 6,107,512
23,504 16,268 16,830 32,297 141,345
54,088 8,629 193,015 55,667 52,386
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina........ North Dakota.......... Ohio..........................
-575,095 3,004,389 7,790,113 135,181 8,051,034
394,760 443,636 1,107,104 48,550 2,714,973
588,978 3,838,937 658,668 70,975 2,967,177
387,863 2,197,949 411,668 17,559 1,655,291
201,115 1,640,988 247,000 53,416 1,311,886
-1,558,833 -1,278,184 6,024,341 15,656 2,368,884
1,279,913 13,629,223 3,774,348 194,970 9,482,087
1,144,704 11,791,480 3,628,958 176,471 8,987,214
Oklahoma................. 353,749 Oregon...................... -1,488,592 Pennsylvania............ 6,733,030 Rhode Island............ 149,181 South Carolina......... 1,030,886
406,231 11,937 1,230,908 175,893 618,576
983,266 763,165 1,026,810 380,393 898,417
525,050 118,761 637,633 245,374 316,974
458,216 644,404 389,177 135,019 581,443
-1,035,748 -2,263,694 4,475,312 -407,105 -486,107
1,628,286 3,393,498 7,422,559 781,622 2,448,171
1,443,872 2,768,305 7,024,581 687,704 2,088,879
65,311 50,661 15,189 10,840 93,094
119,103 574,532 382,789 83,078 266,198
South Dakota........... -515,648 Tennessee................. 678,596 Texas......................... 19,915,519 Utah.......................... 1,996,894 Vermont.................... 223,323
92,819 245,853 2,783,012 41,495 51,440
89,972 838,259 3,141,325 597,184 47,111
33,597 593,412 1,906,127 597,184 47,111
56,375 244,847 1,235,198 0 0
-698,439 -405,516 13,991,182 1,358,215 124,772
276,440 1,385,894 8,857,812 832,344 204,619
276,098 1,332,716 8,281,147 803,097 187,677
0 45,976 422,167 6,734 3,838
342 7,202 154,498 22,513 13,104
Virginia..................... -264,060 Washington.............. 993,398 West Virginia............ 64,691 Wisconsin.................. -2,880,043 Wyoming.................. 652,103
24,843 519,560 114,665 717,057 92,497
2,122,864 937,048 509,589 613,999 96,428
575,850 863,226 366,598 164,366 18,122
1,547,014 73,822 142,991 449,633 78,306
-2,411,767 -463,210 -559,563 -4,211,099 463,178
2,717,641 2,758,434 757,033 4,194,668 272,618
2,427,543 2,485,745 701,628 3,689,046 271,941
98 45,444 9,448 0 63
290,000 227,245 45,957 505,622 614
Source: 2008 Survey of State and Local Public Employee Retirement Systems. Data users who create their own estimates using data from this report should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. The data in this table are based on information from public records and contain no confidential data. Although the data in this table come from
442â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
60,849 74,360 22,792 1,814,951 123,902 21,488 5,500 12,999 271,823 223,050
a census of retirement systems and are not subject to sampling error, the census results do contain nonsampling error. Additional information on nonsampling error, and response rates may be found at http://www.census. gov/govs/retire/how_data_collected.html. Created: March 23, 2010; Last Revised: March 23, 2010
retirement
Table 7.27 NATIONAL SUMMARY OF STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FINANCES: SELECTED YEARS, 2003–2008 Amount (in millions of dollars)
2007– 2008
2006– 2007
2005– 2006
2004– 2005
Percentage distribution 2003– 2004
2007– 2006– 2005– 2004– 2003– 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 46.37 5.87 8.32 8.91 7.56 102.95 12.56 16.40 16.84 14.97 45.53 5.27 6.71 6.84 7.65 57.42 7.29 9.69 10.00 7.32 -49.31 81.57 75.27 74.24 77.47
Total Receipts............................................ Employee contributions................... Government contributions.............. From State Government............. From Local Government............ Earnings on investments (a)............
79,649,581 36,929,944 81,996,539 36,261,593 45,734,946 -39,276,902
580,451,170 34,054,270 72,913,582 30,608,843 42,304,739 473,483,318
392,754,067 351,454,866 32,688,995 31,324,625 64,421,776 59,197,693 26,364,650 24,050,633 38,057,126 35,147,060 295,643,296 260,932,548
407,335,732 30,785,801 60,995,984 31,159,060 29,836,924 315,553,947
Total Payments.......................................... Benefits paid...................................... Withdrawals....................................... Other payments.................................
193,808,914 175,423,416 4,634,335 13,751,163
182,972,467 162,715,716 5,233,579 15,023,172
166,325,971 155,325,508 152,071,780 141,341,189 4,107,721 3,777,732 10,146,470 10,206,587
145,449,071 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 133,106,842 90.51 88.93 91.43 91.00 91.51 4,430,593 2.39 2.86 2.47 2.43 3.05 7,911,636 7.10 8.21 6.10 6.57 5.44
Total cash and investment holdings at end of fiscal year................... 3,190,072,194 3,377,382,371 2,912,494,412 2,657,525,869 2,495,352,487 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 Cash and short-term investments...........
91,188,031
118,027,997
92,891,182
89,741,655
84,811,257
2.86
Total Securities.......................................... 2,674,888,614 2,911,338,315 2,564,247,428 2,355,561,132 2,213,581,060 83.85 Government securities..................... 226,774,621 264,970,849 244,881,577 231,482,987 223,412,871 7.11 Federal government.......................... 225,184,841 263,034,370 242,996,381 229,937,493 215,159,724 7.06 United States Treasury..................... 141,841,399 160,245,054 148,981,749 169,551,462 134,943,113 4.45 Federal agency ................................. 83,343,442 102,789,316 94,014,632 60,386,031 80,216,611 2.61 State and local government............. 1,589,780 1,936,479 1,885,196 1,545,494 8,253,147 0.05
3.49
3.19
3.38
3.40
86.20 88.04 88.64 7.85 8.41 8.71 7.79 8.34 8.65 4.74 5.12 6.38 3.04 3.23 2.27 0.06 0.06 0.06
88.71 8.95 8.62 5.41 3.21 0.33
Nongovernment securities....................... 2,448,113,993 2,646,367,466 2,319,365,851 2,124,078,145 1,990,168,189 76.74 78.36 79.64 Corporate bonds............................... 519,686,464 448,533,332 411,366,986 390,101,290 421,340,923 16.29 13.28 14.12 Corporate stocks............................... 1,118,138,665 1,231,684,279 1,126,012,368 1,033,302,329 930,524,635 35.05 36.47 38.66 Mortgages.......................................... 9,588,453 13,080,308 13,254,459 11,674,518 17,754,616 0.30 0.39 0.46 Funds held in trust............................ 72,651,615 79,665,260 91,171,541 79,922,026 52,227,528 2.28 2.36 3.13 Foreign and international ............... 468,133,959 518,304,128 437,928,142 375,064,878 311,642,945 14.67 15.35 15.04 Other nongovernmental................... 259,914,837 355,100,159 239,632,355 234,013,104 256,677,542 8.15 10.51 8.23 Other investments..................................... Real property.................................... Miscellaneous investments..............
423,995,549 90,155,487 333,840,062
348,016,059 99,158,659 248,857,400
255,355,802 212,223,082 66,783,925 41,978,140 188,571,877 170,244,942
Source: 2008 Survey of State and Local Public Employee Retirement Systems. Data users who create their own estimates using data from this report should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. The data in this table are based on information from public records and contain no confidential data. Although the data in this table come from a census of retirement systems and are not subject to sampling error, the census results do contain nonsampling error. Additional information on nonsampling error, and response rates may be found at http://www.census. gov/govs/retire/how_data_collected.html.
196,960,170 13.29 43,715,769 2.83 153,244,401 10.46
10.30 2.94 7.37
8.77 2.29 6.47
79.93 14.68 38.88 0.44 3.01 14.11 8.81
79.75 16.89 37.29 0.71 2.09 12.49 10.29
7.99 7.89 1.58 1.75 6.41 6.14
Key: (a) The total of “net earnings” is a calculated statistic (the item code in the data file is X08), and thus can be positive or negative. Net earnings is the sum of earnings on investments plus gains on investments minus losses on investments. The change made in 2002 for asset valuation from book to market value in accordance with Statement 34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board is reflected in the calculated statistics. Created: March 23, 2010; Last Revised: March 23, 2010
The Council of State Governments 443
Chapter Eight
STATE MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographics
Migration Slowdown in America: Trends and Impacts* By William H. Frey While much attention has been given to the overall decline of migration in the United States, its impact was strongest on particular regions, states, metropolitan areas, cities and suburbs. Shedding further light on the nature of the recent migration slowdown, this report details how different types of households and parts of the country have been affected and provides some insights on what may happen if and when migration again heats up.
Introduction America has always been known as one of the most mobile countries in the world. Historically, Americans’ pioneering spirit has led their migration westward; from the rural South to the industrial North; into the suburbs; to the Sun Belt; and most recently to interior frontiers in the Intermountain West and Southeast. Today, Americans’ migration rates remain higher than those of most developed countries.1 But recent events have challenged that narrative, as migration in America slowed considerably. The trend relates to several factors. First, in many parts of the country, including large parts of Florida, Nevada and Arizona, a housing “bubble” arose during the middle part of the decade due to overbuilding and easy mortgage credit. Second, the financial market crisis that began in September 2008 led to sharp reductions in credit. As a result, potential buyers had difficulty obtaining mortgages and potential sellers saw reductions in the values of their homes. Third, the financial crisis greatly exacerbated the national recession that had begun in December 2007, reducing job availability in most regions of the country. This triple whammy of forces made it riskier for would-be homebuyers to find financing, would-be sellers to receive good value for their home and potential long-distance movers to find employment in areas where jobs were previously plentiful.
Methodology Data and Measures This report utilizes the most recent government statistics on domestic and international migration. Three of the data sources used are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau: the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement to the Current Population Survey; the American Community Survey; and the Population Estimates Program. A further source is the annual state-to-state migration flow data provided by the Internal Revenue Service.2
Each covers moves over one-year periods, with end points ranging from 2008 to early 2009. Current Population Survey (CPS). The migration data for this report uses the “residence one year ago” question from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the CPS, drawn from approximately 100,000 households representing the civilian non-institutionalized population of the United States in March of each year. The most recent data in this report pertains to the period between March 2008 and March 2009. American Community Survey (ACS). The American Community Survey provides information on migration for a sample large enough to examine social and demographic attributes for migrants into and out of states and other large geographic areas. This report uses ACS data to compare the social and demographic attributes of net migration for 2004–05 with 2007–08. Population Estimates. The Census Bureau’s Population Estimates program provides information on net domestic migration and net international migration for lower levels of geography (states, metropolitan areas and counties) than are available with either the CPS or single-year ACS data. The estimates are not based directly on surveys but on models and administrative data. IRS State-to-State Migration. Annual state-tostate domestic migration flows are available from the Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income Division, based on a comparison of tax filer addresses in consecutive years. Estimates of migration flows are based on the number of exemptions claimed by tax filers, which provide a proxy for persons in their families. The data include only those who filed taxes in successive years, and therefore omit some elderly individuals who do not file tax returns and new filers who did not file in the previous year.
The Council of State Governments 447
Demographics Geography This report presents migration statistics for states, the four Census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), large metropolitan areas, and selected urban counties. (See Tables B and C for 2000–01 to 2007–08 net migration statistics for all U.S. states and the 25 largest metropolitan areas.) Metropolitan areas are defined according to Office of Management and Budget guidance issued in November 2008.
Findings A. In 2007–2008, the overall U.S. migration rate reached its lowest point since World War II. The past two years marked the least mobile period in postwar American society. In 2007–08, only 11.9 percent of Americans changed residences, and this rose to just 12.5 percent in 2008–09. Together,
these are the lowest rates of annual mobility since migration statistics were collected in 1947–48 (Figure A). The rates are down from 13 to 14 percent earlier this decade, and even more so from the 16 to 17 percent rates that prevailed in the 1990s. Back in the 1950s, almost one-fifth of all Americans changed residences annually. Since then, the American public has become somewhat more rooted due to higher rates of homeownership and the aging of the baby boom generation. Declines in both long-distance and short-distance migration contributed to this historic U.S. migration slowdown. Long-distance migrants move among broader geographies, such as metropolitan areas or states. For people of working age, these moves tend to be associated with changes in employment. In contrast, local or short-distance migration, sometimes called residential mobility, often accompanies a change in housing needs. This might include a move from renting to owning a
Figure A: Annual Domestic Migration Rate, United States, 1947–48 to 2008–09 25
20
Rate
15
10
5
0 1947–48
1952–53
1957–58
1962–63
1967–68
1975–76
Note: Annual data not collected from 1971–75 and 1976 –80. Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data.
448 The Book of the States 2010
1983–84 1988–89 1993–94 1998–99 2003–04 2008–09
Demographics home, to a different kind of house or neighborhood, or changes in family status such as getting married or having children.3 Roughly three in five moves are short-distance moves; one in five is a long-distance move; and the remaining one in five is an inter-county, within-state move. The rate at which people move within a county, a proxy for short-distance migration, reached 7.8 percent of the population in 2007–08, the lowest rate since the end of World War II. It ticked up in 2008–09 to 8.4 percent, though it remains low by historical standards (Figure B). In much of the 1990s, greater than 10 percent of the population moved within county lines, as did well over 13 percent of Americans for much of the 1950s and 1960s. Residential mobility has declined gradually as homeownership rates have risen and the population has aged, but the sharp downturn in the past two years relates very much to the housing market meltdown. At the other end of the spectrum, the rate at which people move across state lines can serve as a proxy for long-distance migration. In both 2007–08 and 2008–09, annual interstate migration reached its lowest rates since the end of
World War II (Figure B). The recent decline in between-state migration is far more dramatic than that for within-county residential mobility. In fact, the 1.6 percent interstate migration rate for the past two years was half the value exhibited in 1999–2000, and far lower than the rate in the 1950s, when between 3 and 4 percent of the population moved across state lines annually. As migration declined, housing became a notably less important driver for relocation. In 2004– 05, amid the housing bubble period, 62 percent of within-county movers and 22 percent of interstate movers cited housing-related reasons as most important in explaining their move. By 2008–09, those shares had declined to 57 and 14 percent, respectively. Job-related reasons explained fully 46 percent of the fewer interstate moves undertaken in the latter period (see Table A for details). Although short-distance moves are more frequent, long-distance migration acts as an engine of growth in many metropolitan areas. It affects not only the sizes of their overall populations but also those of key social and demographic segments that impact the economic vitality of these areas.
Figure B: Within-County and Interstate Migration Rates, United States, 1990–91 to 2008–09 12
Within-County Migration Rate
Interstate Migration Rate
10
Rate
8
6
4
2
0 1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data.
The Council of State Governments 449
Demographics The demographic attribute most related to migration is age; younger adults are far more likely to move than older individuals. Figure C indicates that in 2000–01, as in most years, individuals in their 20s showed the highest rate of interstate migration, a rate which tapered dramatically as individuals age into their late 30s and thereafter, with a small peak in the early 60s related to retirement moves. It was young adults—those with the highest rates of mobility—who showed the steepest declines in interstate migration by 2008–09, with rates almost halving for 20 to 29 year-olds. Youth migration rates appear to have fallen in response to both a weakened job market and reduced home buying activity. Even the small bump in migration for seniors at retirement age disappeared in 2008–09. Other demographic and economic attributes are associated with migration as well (Figure D). For instance, the most educated segments of the
population are more likely to make long-distance moves, largely because college graduates and professionals operate in more of a national labor market, attuned to opportunities in different regions of the country. Less-educated workers are more likely to change jobs within a labor market and thus make shorter-distance moves.4 These differences have persisted during the migration slowdown, though all groups have been affected. Those with at least a college degree had higher rates of interstate mobility than other groups in 2008–09. Yet each educational group experienced at least a 1 percentage point decline in its rates over the course of the decade. Married couples, (generally older) widows, and widowers generally exhibit lower levels of interstate migration than single and divorced persons, and this remained true in 2008–09. Single individuals by virtue of their relative youth and lack of dependents may be the most “footloose” of
Table A: Reasons for Moving: Total, Within County, and Between States, 2004–05 and 2008–09
Total moves* Reasons
Within county
Between states
2004– 05
2008– 09
2004– 05
2008– 09
2004– 05
2008– 09
Housing related Wanted to own home, not rent Wanted new or better housing Wanted better neighborhood For cheaper housing Other housing reason
47.1 9.3 17.8 4.0 6.6 9.4
45.8 5.5 14.5 5.0 11.1 9.7
61.8 12.2 24.4 4.8 8.7 11.7
57.2 6.6 18.6 6.2 13.9 11.9
22.4 4.0 7.3 2.0 3.5 5.6
13.7 1.5 2.5 1.6 3.9 4.2
Job related New job or job transfer To look for work or lost job For easier commute Retired Other job-related reason
17.6 10.4 1.9 3.4 0.5 1.4
17.8 8.7 2.7 5.0 0.4 1.0
6.7 2.3 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.4
8.9 2.1 1.0 5.0 0.2 0.6
34.0 25.5 3.0 1.6 1.4 2.5
46.1 33.2 7.3 1.9 1.2 2.5
Family related Change in marital status To establish own household Other family reason
27.1 7.1 7.8 12.2
26.4 5.4 9.5 11.5
26.3 7.0 9.5 9.8
26.6 5.5 11.6 9.5
30.4 6.7 5.0 18.7
25.4 3.7 2.7 19.0
8.2 3.2 0.6 1.6 2.8 0.0
10.0 2.6 0.5 1.6 4.9 0.4
5.2 1.8 0.2 1.4 1.8 0.0
7.3 1.5 0.1 1.4 3.8 0.5
13.2 5.3 2.3 2.4 3.2 0.0
14.8 3.6 2.6 1.8 6.8 0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Other Attend/leave college Change of climate Health reasons Other reasons Natural disaster Total
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data. *Includes movement within county, between counties but within state, between states, and from abroad.
450 The Book of the States 2010
Demographics marital status groups. However, those individuals experienced the most substantial decline in longdistance migration, perhaps deciding to live with parents or other friends and relatives as a result of the economic downturn and not making as many long-distance labor-market-related moves. Finally, economic attributes such as employment status and homeownership also relate to migration, with the unemployed and renters typically undertaking long-distance moves more frequently. Both employed and unemployed interstate migration rates dropped significantly during the decade. Renters, meanwhile, showed a much more substantial fall-off in long-distance migration than their homeowner counterparts, perhaps reflecting their own worsened economic prospects, but also the reluctance of owners to sell their homes and move during a period of nationwide home price declines.5 Overall, the last few years brought a sharp decline in migration, particularly over long distances. A freeze in the housing market coupled with a fairly pervasive nationwide recession led to a sharp and historic decline in long-distance migration that has deeply affected more economically vulnerable members of society.
B. From 2007 to 2008, 23 states, mostly in the Intermountain West and Southeast, showed reduced in-migration or a switch from in- to out-migration. The recent downturn in interstate migration has had variable impacts on different parts of the country. States that grew fastest during the middecade “bubble” years have experienced the greatest downturns in recent in-migration. By the same token, several states that were considered unaffordable and exported migrants during those bubble years have seen out-migration decline considerably. State-level migration patterns between 2006– 07 and 2007–08 demonstrate the impacts of the downturn on different types of states (Map A). The greatest shifts occurred in states that had benefitted most from the mid-decade housing boom, especially the southern state of Florida and the Intermountain West states of Arizona and Nevada. Among the 28 states that gained migrants in 2006– 07, 19 gained fewer in 2007–08, and an additional four, including Florida, flipped from gaining to losing domestic migrants. Many of these high-cost coastal states lost migrants during the middle part of the decade to
Figure C : Interstate Migration Rate by Age, United States, 2000–01 and 2008–09 7
2000–2001
2008–2009
6 5
Rate
4 3
2 1 0 Under 5
5–9
10–14
15–19
20–24
25–29
30–34
35–39
40–44
45–49
50–54
55–59
60–64
65 & over
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data.
The Council of State Governments 451
Demographics interior states where housing seemed more affordable. In 2004–05, California and New York each lost about a quarter million migrants to other parts of the country. As more Americans stayed put in 2007– 08, California’s migration loss shrank to 144,000 and New York’s roughly halved to 126,000. A similar retention of potential out-migrants occurred in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut, as evidently many young couples, empty nesters and retirees waited until new opportunities arose elsewhere. During much of the post-World War II period, when Northerners contemplated moving to the Sun Belt, three states tended to stand out— Florida for Easterners; Texas for Midwesterners and California for people from all parts of the country. Florida and Texas kept their luster in attracting migrants up through the first decade of
this century (Table F). California began to lose its magnetism for domestic migrants during the 1990s, first due to a sharp economic downturn and later to high housing costs. The recent migration downturn has impacted each of these states somewhat differently.
Florida Florida, of the three, is a poster child for the recent housing slump. Long a magnet for retirees and more recently for broader segments of the population, Florida led the nation in domestic migration for the first half of this decade. Yet overbuilding and a high level of foreclosures made it one of the first states to show dramatic declines in migration, including a surprising switch from net in- to net out-migration between 2006 – 07 and 2007– 08. This devastated the state’s economy, which had
Figure D: Interstate Migration Rate by Demographic/Economic Attributes, United States, 2000–2001 to 2008–09 Marital Status 4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
Rate
Rate
Educational Attainment 4.0
2.0 1.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09
Labor Force Status (Men)
Tenure/Homeownership Status
6
7
5
6 5
Rate
Rate
4 3 2
4 3 2
1 0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Never Married Divorced or Separated Married Widowed
More than College Graduate College Graduate Some College HS Graduate LT HS
1 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Unemployed Full-time Employed Part-time Employed Not in Labor Force
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data.
452 The Book of the States 2010
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Renters Owners
Demographics
Map A: Change in Migration Level, 2006–07 to 2007–08
Reduced In-Migration Reduced Out-Migration Change from In to Out All Others
relied heavily on the construction and real estate industries.6 The major contributor to Florida’s migration loss was its exchange with the Northeast (Figure F). In-migration from that region and especially from New York and its metropolitan areas, dominated that from other regions through 2005, then fell precipitously through 2008. Meanwhile, Florida began to export migrants on net to other parts of the South by 2005–06, a pattern that accelerated the following year. Major migration gainers from Florida include Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. (See Table C for the top and bottom five state contributors to Florida’s migration.) The shift from net in-migration to net outmigration in Florida was especially strong for whites, Hispanics, younger people, married couples and persons with some college education (Table D). Despite its total net out-migration, Florida still attracted people aged 55 and over in 2008–09. Of course, the considerable reduction in the in-migration of younger age groups stands to rob Florida of some of its traditionally vibrant, youthful, middle-class labor force.
Texas Texas provides a sharp contrast to Florida. It is part of an economically different Sun Belt than Florida, one largely insulated from the mortgage
crisis, steep home price declines and employment losses.7 Texas’ more diverse economy and stricter home mortgage regulation (which itself resulted from excesses of the previous decade) have produced far fewer job losses and foreclosures than Florida, Arizona and Nevada.8 As a result, Texas’ migration patterns differ sharply from Florida’s and California’s (Figure E). Buffeted to some degree by in-migration from post-Katrina New Orleans, the state has shown consistent net in-migration over the past few years (Figure F). From 2004 to 2008, aside from Louisiana (where gains were strong post-Katrina but short-lived), California and Florida contributed the most migrants to Texas, while smaller but significant gains came from Illinois and New York. A broad array of demographic groups, including whites, Hispanics, children and younger married couples drove Texas’ recent migration gains (Table D). Its reduced black in-migration can be attributed, in part, to Katrina-related return migration to Louisiana. Notably, Texas displayed heightened attraction for college graduates in 2008– 09 compared with 2004– 05, which could benefit the state economically over the long run.
California The third traditional Sun Belt state, California, continues to show net domestic out-migration, The Council of State Governments 453
Demographics
Table B: Net Domestic Migration and International Migration, Large Metro Areas by Region, 2000 to 2008* Region/ metro area**
2000– 08 Total 2008 Annual domestic migration population Domestic International (1,000s) 2000– 01 2001– 02 2002– 03 2003– 04 2004– 05 2005– 06 2006 – 07 2007– 08 migration migration
North New York.................. Philadelphia............. Boston...................... Pittsburgh................. Providence...............
19,007 5,838 4,523 2,351 1,597
-176,418 -14,758 -13,945 -8,085 3,047
-207,800 -7,821 -35,445 -5,404 5,679
-236,767 -7,039 -47,036 -4,654 3,428
-248,028 -8,118 -46,821 -8,698 -7,485
-284,253 -13,995 -46,088 -11,148 -13,530
-273,991 -16,119 -32,988 -9,860 -14,282
-219,104 -18,598 -22,508 -5,062 -13,766
Midwest Chicago..................... Detroit...................... Minn-St.Paul............ St. Louis.................... Cincinnati................. Cleveland................. Kansas City.............. Columbus................. Indianapolis............. Milwaukee................
9,570 4,425 3,230 2,817 2,155 2,088 2,002 1,773 1,715 1,549
-55,164 -25,209 7,571 -4,420 -1,560 -14,943 4,294 5,670 9,196 -8,619
-68,856 -33,974 -4,601 -4,495 -4,901 -13,586 5,848 430 6,437 -7,139
-72,424 -30,532 -9,151 -2,145 -3,657 -13,684 196 3,333 6,026 -7,866
-65,555 -31,013 -4,184 -4,724 -2,075 -14,597 1,047 2,288 7,102 -10,040
-77,736 -38,727 -7,224 -7,880 -1,837 -17,697 1,401 2,672 7,720 -12,903
-69,542 -46,477 -2,764 -3,670 -680 -20,487 3,798 3,473 10,113 -11,551
-55,355 -59,081 -1,965 -6,901 -1,354 -16,829 4,529 3,222 8,815 -7,844
-42,110 -62,160 -3,440 -5,567 -3,569 -14,896 1,413 2,499 6,707 -6,443
-506,742 -327,173 -25,758 -39,802 -19,633 -126,719 22,526 23,587 62,116 -72,405
385,958 91,394 72,601 26,547 17,287 25,432 28,730 30,262 20,679 23,709
South Dallas........................ Houston.................... Miami........................ Atlanta...................... Washington, D.C...... Tampa....................... Baltimore................. Orlando.................... San Antonio............. Charlotte.................. Virginia Beach......... Austin....................... Nashville................... Jacksonville..............
6,300 5,728 5,415 5,376 5,358 2,734 2,667 2,055 2,031 1,702 1,658 1,653 1,551 1,313
48,552 4,570 -3,665 47,792 15,922 30,512 -235 30,423 5,651 17,355 -4,711 34,655 8,171 14,164
13,919 24,498 -1,766 26,219 1,296 34,285 4,108 27,098 16,252 14,067 12,208 4,780 4,164 17,992
-1,303 2,895 -20,134 22,507 -8,500 32,262 3,556 27,184 16,578 13,749 22,181 6,916 7,332 17,543
8,504 6,427 -3,199 32,297 -14,535 49,427 -6,434 44,365 15,025 18,992 332 14,624 13,458 19,733
23,455 6,187 -9,923 51,462 -16,790 52,008 -5,883 51,939 15,605 31,342 -4,659 22,537 16,605 17,781
71,433 88,885 -50,595 95,661 -45,148 39,331 -6,573 34,307 31,421 43,295 -3,727 38,918 22,834 18,753
52,260 19,981 -84,268 75,098 -35,337 16,117 -11,158 11,570 30,910 45,549 -14,556 40,561 20,638 11,405
43,175 36,724 -46,997 43,051 -18,259 6,510 -12,352 3,153 22,791 34,387 -15,523 35,041 16,625 4,768
259,995 190,167 -220,547 394,087 -121,351 260,452 -34,971 230,039 154,233 218,736 -8,455 198,032 109,827 122,139
293,077 266,850 423,136 181,920 245,228 59,852 31,238 72,270 28,977 42,720 -2,681 59,259 25,388 11,101
West Los Angeles.............. Phoenix..................... San Francisco........... Riverside.................. Seattle....................... San Diego................. Denver...................... Portland.................... Sacramento.............. Las Vegas.................. San Jose....................
12,873 4,282 4,275 4,116 3,345 3,001 2,507 2,207 2,110 1,866 1,819
-104,034 49,818 -24,917 57,212 4,962 6,446 16,883 17,123 37,274 41,311 -36,884
-109,505 49,846 -79,116 66,484 -7,177 3,674 -5,212 14,485 35,844 37,491 -58,476
-119,876 44,673 -74,174 85,910 -12,931 1,133 -12,539 4,025 25,874 35,714 -44,179
-140,949 66,231 -64,659 95,221 -10,269 -38,101 -7,127 485 18,293 53,848 -33,479
-200,728 98,699 -51,236 72,502 5,125 -36,060 -429 12,335 4,757 39,186 -22,154
-227,993 102,954 -40,504 61,177 21,252 -35,785 10,161 18,366 1,779 44,436 -17,797
-221,144 65,949 -20,536 29,715 10,281 -15,553 15,772 17,101 3,757 32,876 -11,903
-115,037 -1,239,266 51,077 529,247 5,506 -349,636 -7,608 460,613 11,869 23,112 420 -113,826 17,872 35,381 17,996 101,916 4,524 132,102 14,365 299,227 -2,625 -227,497
815,517 168,765 249,902 96,382 103,670 98,650 93,190 68,655 63,544 65,758 162,882
-144,099 -1,790,460 -21,848 -108,296 -8,261 -253,092 -2,432 -55,343 -10,626 -47,535
1,102,658 95,882 165,260 15,576 29,689
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data. *Forty largest metro areas based on 2008 population estimates. **Official name as defined by the Office of Management and Budget is abbreviated.
which began in the 1990s (Figure E). A significant portion of that population loss has been attributed to the high cost of living in coastal California, which tended to spread migrants to other nearby states—Nevada, Arizona, Oregon and Washington—as well as to other parts of the Intermountain West and Texas.9 While Florida attracted many more domestic in-migrants during the mid-decade housing bubble, California showed accelerated out-migration
454 The Book of the States 2010
during those years. As the bubble began to burst, domestic out-migration from California slowed considerably. Migration away from areas stretching from San Francisco to San Diego, where high housing prices fueled “middle class flight” to the interior West, has now retrenched as home foreclosures rise and job opportunities diminish in Nevada and Arizona. Those Western states very much drive California’s overall migration trend (Figure F). The
Demographics
Figure F: Contribution to Net Domestic Migration by Region for Florida, Texas, and California, 2000–01 to 2007–08
200,000
Florida
Northeast South
Midwest West
150,000 100,000 50,000 0 -50,000 -100,000
100,000
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
Texas
80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 -20,000
40,000 20,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000 -80,000 -100,000 -120,000 -140,000 -160,000 -180,000
2000–01
California
2000–01
2001–02
Source: Brookings analysis of Internal Revenue Service Migration Flow data.
The Council of State Governments 455
Demographics
Figure E: Net Domestic Migration, Florida, Texas, and California, 2000–01 to 2007–08 300000
200000
100000
0
-100000
-200000
-300000 Florida
Texas
California
-400000 2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data.
lion’s share of domestic net out-migration was absorbed by other Western states during the first half of the decade, but between 2006 and 2008, the annual losses dropped by roughly half. Among these states, California lost the most migrants to Arizona and Nevada during the “bubble” year of 2004–05. Now, Texas absorbs the greatest number of California out-migrants. In 2007–08, California experienced net out-migration to 36 states and the District of Columbia, and received small net migration gains from Northeastern and Midwestern states including New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Michigan (Table C). During the middle part of the decade, younger couples and singles with moderate education levels dominated the groups leaving California for lower-cost housing and job opportunities (Table D). Now, the state seems to be retaining many of these same groups, particularly younger whites and Hispanics who are married couples or singles, as housing cost pressures ease. Among educational groups, college graduates flipped
456 The Book of the States 2010
from considerable net out-migration to modest net in-migration, as the housing market and job opportunities dried up in other parts of the country. For the moment, the national migration slowdown appears to have benefited California, as more of its younger, well-educated residents have remained.
C. The metro areas that experienced the greatest recent migration declines were those that reaped the most migrants during the mid-decade housing bubble. Metropolitan areas provide a sharper contrast between the “winners” and “losers” in the recent migration slowdown. For example, the Riverside metropolitan area in southern California experienced a housing bubble similar to those in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and migration trends there have differed from those occurring in coastal California metropolitan areas. Several metropolitan areas that gained substantial numbers of in-migrants during the hous-
Demographics
Table C : Top Five Sources and Destinations for Net Domestic Migration, Selected States, 2004–05 to 2007–08, continued on next page
States/sources or destinations
Florida Sources New York........................... New Jersey......................... Massachusetts.................... Michigan............................ Pennsylvania...................... Destinations Georgia.............................. North Carolina.................. Tennessee........................... Texas.................................. South Carolina.................. Texas Sources California........................... Louisiana........................... Florida................................ Illinois................................ New York........................... Destinations Arkansas............................ District of Columbia......... Montana............................. California Sources New York........................... New Jersey......................... Massachusetts.................... Michigan............................ Illinois................................ Destinations Arizona.............................. Texas.................................. Nevada............................... Oregon............................... Washington........................ New York Sources Michigan............................ Massachusetts.................... North Dakota.................... Destinations Florida................................ New Jersey......................... North Carolina.................. Pennsylvania...................... Georgia..............................
Contributions to net domestic migration
Total
2003– 04
2004– 05
2005– 06
2006 – 07
2007– 08
2003– 08
53,145 23,841 15,902 9,036 11,960
62,600 27,300 16,838 10,020 13,400
52,073 23,563 13,117 10,521 10,197
32,800 16,639 8,072 10,205 6,629
18,018 11,236 3,931 8,286 4,626
218,636 102,579 57,860 48,068 46,812
1,098 -269 -340 2,967 583
-3,008 -2,703 -4,045 1,672 -524
-15,828 -11,398 -9,679 -6,232 -4,734
-27,487 -17,573 -12,691 -13,293 -7,081
-19,995 -15,804 -10,479 -15,142 -6,403
-65,220 -47,747 -37,234 -30,028 -18,159
11,990 3,576 -2,967 4,172 3,015
23,270 5,617 -1,672 4,753 3,782
41,164 79,791 6,232 5,676 5,179
50,647 -6,708 13,293 6,257 5,799
32,406 -192 15,142 6,675 5,218
159,477 82,084 30,028 27,533 22,993
-933 -164 -242
-1,559 -110 175
-622 -168 -78
698 -145 -126
1,628 56 30
-788 -531 -241
2,641 2,193 2,404 1,418 2,744
3,842 2,762 2,663 1,237 1,287
3,779 3,041 3,062 2,226 1,415
3,467 2,557 2,846 2,931 1,172
3,303 2,988 2,498 4,218 2,298
17,032 13,541 13,473 12,030 8,916
-24,620 -11,990 -30,374 -11,072 -7,554
-45,265 -23,270 -31,610 -18,159 -14,211
-49,026 -41,164 -30,925 -21,667 -16,986
-31,408 -50,647 -24,743 -16,549 -13,099
-15,533 -32,406 -12,094 -12,577 -11,890
-165,852 -159,477 -129,746 -80,024 -63,740
13 693 2
68 71 53
648 12 34
1,044 -446 -31
1,331 -152 29
3,104 178 87
-53,145 -26,488 -10,273 -15,115 -8,692
-62,600 -26,923 -14,418 -15,437 -10,648
-52,073 -24,144 -16,968 -15,613 -12,681
-32,800 -18,529 -17,862 -12,094 -12,742
-18,018 -15,737 -15,970 -7,759 -8,904
-218,636 -111,821 -75,491 -66,018 -53,667
Source: Brookings analysis of Internal Revenue Service Migration Flow data.
ing bubble years seem to have lost their attractive power (Table E). In both 2003–04 and 2004–05, Riverside, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tampa, Orlando and Atlanta led all metropolitan areas in net domestic migration. By 2005–06, Tampa and Orlando had already dropped to eighth and ninth as Florida’s housing bubble began to burst, while Riverside fell but remained in the top six. But by 2007–08, Riverside had turned from a domestic migration gainer to one of the biggest losers (ranked 350 out
of 363); Tampa and Orlando plummeted further down the list; and Las Vegas dropped to 13th. As migration to Florida and the Intermountain West waned in the wake of the mortgage crisis, other metro areas climbed the list of top gainers. Chief among these were metro areas in Texas. Yet recent migration gains among the top-ranked metro areas were not nearly as high as those in the middle of the decade. Phoenix continued to lead all other metro areas in domestic migration in 2007–
The Council of State Governments 457
Demographics
Table C : Top Five Sources and Destinations for Net Domestic Migration, Selected States, 2004–05 to 2007–08, continued
States/sources or destinations
Arizona Sources California........................... Illinois................................ Michigan............................ New York........................... Ohio................................... Destinations Texas.................................. Idaho.................................. Arkansas............................ North Carolina.................. Tennessee........................... Nevada Sources California........................... New York........................... Illinois................................ Michigan............................ Hawaii................................ Destinations Arizona.............................. Idaho.................................. Texas.................................. Utah................................... Oregon...............................
Contributions to net domestic migration
Total
2003– 04
2004– 05
2005– 06
2006 – 07
2007– 08
2003– 08
24,620 5,138 2,347 3,067 2,008
45,265 5,430 2,922 3,532 2,274
49,026 5,261 3,757 3,992 2,855
31,408 3,616 4,674 3,221 2,581
15,533 3,224 5,096 2,121 2,197
165,852 22,669 18,796 15,933 11,915
1,621 129 -145 322 -48
2,016 -390 -140 136 -169
-565 -631 -360 -523 -325
-3,536 -914 -309 -622 -396
-3,524 -739 -323 -562 74
-3,988 -2,545 -1,277 -1,249 -864
30,374 2,330 2,261 896 981
31,610 2,624 2,010 985 1,355
30,925 2,344 2,059 1,534 1,288
24,743 1,738 1,277 2,031 1,821
12,094 1,243 1,051 2,382 1,066
129,746 10,279 8,658 7,828 6,511
-307 -194 729 1,381 681
-2,224 -720 74 -413 -254
-2,136 -1,207 -767 -875 -588
-965 -1,011 -1,412 -1,323 -633
-733 -902 -1,754 -1,768 -687
-6,365 -4,034 -3,130 -2,998 -1,481
Source: Brookings analysis of Internal Revenue Service Migration Flow data.
Table D: Net Domestic Migration by Demographic Characteristics, Florida, Texas and California, 2004–05 to 2007–08 Florida
Texas
California
2004– 05
2007– 08
2004– 05
2007– 08
Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian
112,217 13,593 45,178 9,908
-7,790 9,462 -13,375 -1,715
54,624 49,252 8,292 4,649
Age Under 15 15 – 24 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65 –
24,488 23,477 22,428 21,395 27,298 41,784 16,209
-8,380 -8,727 -19,948 -2,227 264 14,306 8,766
Educational Attainment Less than HS HS Grad Some College College Grad
15,584 37,741 35,745 40,044
Marital Status Never married Currently married Divorced/Separated Widowed
49,982 94,780 13,923 202
2004– 05
2007– 08
66,162 17,252 33,882 10,103
-160,452 -21,648 -91,423 -4,232
-65,340 -13,063 -45,007 3,957
33,938 12,775 20,887 13,367 11,965 7,003 12,721
49,675 10,104 37,123 19,456 4,970 2,111 6,460
-88,709 -11,753 -44,598 -54,905 -30,277 -28,416 -22,315
-39,285 -2,770 -22,716 -20,927 -12,783 -10,891 -8,121
3,649 4,760 -9,449 2,201
8,698 18,269 29,726 9,250
12,365 11,678 25,927 20,150
-27,272 -53,144 -59,052 -41,043
-16,335 -20,699 -42,641 4,237
-4,821 -551 3,498 -4,947
18,116 43,607 17,434 3,288
23,265 48,795 8,990 2,769
-22,631 -131,581 -38,002 -9,193
-18,417 -45,790 -16,689 -2,626
Source: Brookings analysis of American Community Survey data.
458 The Book of the States 2010
Demographics
Table E: Metro Areas with Highest Annual Net Domestic Migration, 2003–04 to 2007–08*
2003– 04
2004– 05
2005– 06
2006 – 07
2007– 08
1 Riverside
95,221
1 Phoenix
98,699
1 Phoenix
102,954
1 Atlanta
75,098
1 Phoenix
51,077
2 Phoenix
66,231
2 Riverside
72,502
2 Atlanta
95,661
2 Phoenix
65,949
2 Dallas
43,175
3 Las Vegas
53,848
3 Tampa
52,008
3 Houston
88,885
3 Dallas
52,260
3 Atlanta
43,051
4 Tampa
49,427
4 Orlando
51,939
4 Dallas
71,433
4 Charlotte
45,549
4 Houston
36,724
5 Orlando
44,365
5 Atlanta
51,462
5 Riverside
61,177
5 Austin
40,561
5 Austin
35,041
6 Atlanta
32,297
6 Las Vegas
39,186
6 Las Vegas
44,436
6 New Orleans 36,155
6 Charlotte
34,387
8 Tampa
39,331
7 Las Vegas
32,876
13 Las Vegas
14,365
10 Orlando
34,307
10 Riverside
29,715
25 Tampa
15 Tampa
16,117
57 Orlando
3,153
19 Orlando
11,570
350 Riverside
-7,608
6,510
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data. *Bold denotes metro areas ranking one to six in 2003– 04.
08, but its net annual inflow was only about half what it was just two years earlier. The same held for Atlanta, the second-largest gainer in 2007–08. Large metro areas in Texas, including Dallas, Houston and Austin, exhibit an entirely different pattern. They experienced far greater net inmigration in the latter years of this decade, at the same time that the migration bubble burst in Florida. Large gains in Houston, and to a lesser extent Dallas, in 2005–06 reflect in part temporary gains from Louisianans displaced by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even as interstate migration plummeted nationwide, the three metro areas each still managed to post net gains of between 35,000 and 45,000 migrants in 2007–08. Coastal California metro areas display something of a mirror-image migration pattern. While the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego and especially Los Angeles saw increasing out-migration through the middle part of the decade, that trend moderated along with home prices during the past few years. San Francisco and San Diego each posted small migration gains in 2007– 08. Los Angeles lost only about half as many migrants that year as it did in 2005–06. Its pattern roughly inverts that of the Phoenix metro area, the destination for many Angelinos in the early to mid2000s. Las Vegas and Riverside also received many of their migrants from coastal California during that earlier period, but have since seen inflows plummet. As Map A demonstrates, the impact of the migration slowdown was hardly limited to these Sun Belt destinations (Figure G). The Boston and
Chicago metro areas shed increasing numbers of migrants through the middle part of the decade, but began to stanch the outflow in 2005–06. The same held for the New York area; while net outmigration reduced its population by 144,000 in 2007–08, that was only about half the migration loss it sustained just three years prior. Pittsburgh posted its smallest decline from net migration in more than a decade, while rising outflows from Buffalo, Cleveland and Providence moderated after peaking in 2005–06. The latter two metro areas have among the weakest regional economies in the United States today, however, and their migration fortunes may slip once again as longdistance household mobility begins to rise.10
D. Although international migration to the U.S. has also declined, it continued to offset losses from domestic migration in many large metropolitan immigrant gateways. Recent data suggest that the size of the U.S. foreign-born population may have stood almost still between 2007 and 2008, after increasing by about 500,000 the prior year and by an average of 1 million annually between 1990 and 2006. 11 This is attributable in part to a slowdown in Mexican immigrants.12 Despite this reduced flow, immigration remained an important contributor to population gains in large metropolitan gateways, which retain a high concentration of the nation’s foreign born. From 2000 to 2008, 25 percent of all net immigrant gains occurred in the two largest metropolitan magnets, New York and Los Ange-
The Council of State Governments 459
Demographics
Figure G : Net Domestic Migration, Selected Metro Areas by State/Region, 2000–01 to 2007–08 Florida Metros 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000 -80,000 -100,000
Major Northern Metros 0 -50,000 -100,000 -150,000 -200,000 -250,000
2000– 2001– 2001 2002 Orlando
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Tampa
Cape Coral
-300,000
Miami
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
New York
Texas Metros
Boston
Chicago
Other Industrial Metros
100,000
10,000
80,000
5,000 0
60,000
-5,000
40,000
-10,000
20,000
-15,000
0 -20,000
2000– 2001– 2001 2002
-20,000 2000– 2001– 2001 2002
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Dallas
Houston
-25,000
Austin
2000– 2001– 2001 2002 Buffalo
Coastal California Metros
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Providence
Interior Western Metros
50,000
120,000
0
100,000 80,000
-50,000
60,000
-100,000
40,000
-150,000
20,000
-200,000
0
-250,000
-20,000
2000– 2001– 2001 2002 Los Angeles
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 San Francisco
San Jose
2000– 2001– 2001 2002
San Diego
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data.
460 The Book of the States 2010
Phoenix
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Las Vegas
Riverside
Demographics
Table F: Net Domestic Migration and International Migration, U.S. States, 2000 to 2008 2000 – 08 Total Annual domestic migration State or Domestic International other jurisdiction 2000 – 01 2001– 02 2002– 03 2003– 04 2004– 05 2005– 06 2006 – 07 2007– 08 migration migration Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California.................
-8,850 -2,891 56,868 -318 -38,896
-8,616 1,916 69,983 341 -114,576
4,821 2,619 63,038 5,175 -96,329
5,123 629 90,745 10,961 -161,077
16,248 -868 132,123 15,405 -250,028
32,945 -1,981 137,697 21,361 -285,494
18,496 -3,909 87,245 7,946 -268,809
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia.....................
44,912 -7,175 2,835 157,832 55,256
14,441 -2,754 4,193 185,226 43,308
-7,517 47 5,814 170,864 36,629
-3,332 -14,320 6,090 266,157 51,800
8,600 -17,357 7,813 266,850 62,318
31,864 -15,125 5,792 174,416 120,420
33,021 -24,218 4,615 37,650 98,666
36,878 -14,985 4,126 -9,286 56,674
158,867 -95,887 41,278 1,249,709 525,071
137,152 99,037 13,669 668,040 233,520
Hawaii...................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa..........................
-6,518 7,422 -69,865 -6,499 -13,271
-724 6,847 -79,082 -13,033 -13,252
5,019 9,068 -78,604 -2,231 -8,497
-1,972 13,170 -72,343 -4,363 -3,840
1,058 20,215 -85,236 3,423 -5,533
-3,461 22,049 -72,434 6,530 -598
-11,849 19,975 -56,984 628 -2,491
-3,752 12,767 -52,349 -1,979 411
-22,199 111,513 -566,897 -17,524 -47,071
29,355 17,142 409,865 68,416 35,444
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
-13,837 -1,329 -33,945 6,260 8,893
-9,577 4,543 -18,993 8,664 12,872
-9,750 10,926 -10,584 9,194 7,579
-11,929 5,941 -9,846 3,711 -10,944
-10,937 13,606 -14,335 2,586 -12,488
-6,743 10,464 -271,330 395 -25,890
-3,280 17,044 27,500 -963 -33,716
284 11,828 13,555 -2,063 -32,161
-65,769 73,023 -317,978 27,784 -85,855
44,788 29,943 22,128 5,142 131,327
Massachusetts.......... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Mississippi................ Missouri....................
-15,550 -25,441 7,441 -9,340 2,387
-30,885 -34,999 -5,144 -7,206 3,731
-43,558 -32,954 -9,347 -1,200 5,355
-54,506 -39,853 -7,504 3,660 4,621
-55,443 -57,267 -12,513 553 7,804
-44,064 -73,991 -5,269 -16,819 11,302
-32,607 -95,787 -5,028 3,833 4,501
-18,675 -109,257 -7,136 -753 -2,384
-295,288 -469,549 -44,500 -27,272 37,317
204,945 151,589 86,871 10,116 50,449
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
-399 -8,364 47,859 10,507 -32,148
1,376 -5,419 44,015 8,365 -31,049
4,566 -2,685 43,286 5,499 -42,275
6,102 -5,123 67,007 5,454 -51,221
5,731 -3,515 52,331 2,722 -67,340
6,568 -5,168 53,827 1,790 -77,639
6,308 -5,367 40,312 -2,374 -72,370
5,986 -1,491 16,316 -2,473 -56,208
36,238 -37,132 364,953 29,490 -430,250
2,075 26,464 82,157 13,702 370,173
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina......... North Dakota........... Ohio..........................
-9,406 -165,928 46,295 -6,796 -37,792
4,542 -180,276 43,785 -4,061 -37,723
4,383 -188,515 47,499 -1,385 -33,067
4,966 -209,755 44,338 955 -37,675
6,981 -248,647 73,418 -3,390 -45,033
7,703 -233,306 110,632 -2,087 -50,275
8,082 -185,638 116,245 -2,251 -47,350
1,032 28,283 -126,209 -1,538,274 98,074 580,286 -381 -19,396 -49,752 -338,667
32,959 844,299 182,816 3,083 92,711
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
-10,013 13,654 -24,247 2,181 14,333
1,072 23,342 -6,556 3,053 19,287
-1,758 11,582 1,211 1,563 26,053
-3,966 2,444 -3,061 -5,659 29,254
-531 22,821 -3,334 -10,937 30,133
15,688 33,735 3,312 -11,100 48,538
14,736 25,297 -5,056 -12,013 54,115
7,954 24,756 -11,462 -8,816 49,736
23,182 157,631 -49,193 -41,728 271,449
40,913 88,851 128,650 23,946 39,552
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont....................
-1,715 11,645 40,485 -6,435 666
-1,387 11,546 45,853 -4,321 1,471
361 20,658 30,039 -8,162 557
1,712 24,066 32,414 -2,438 67
160 42,720 53,582 9,373 -556
1,988 50,821 219,742 18,428 -654
2,146 47,193 138,088 23,846 -1,767
2,194 31,198 140,862 17,605 -1,703
5,459 239,847 701,065 47,896 -1,919
4,400 59,377 818,866 61,465 4,914
Virginia..................... Washington.............. West Virginia............ Wisconsin................. Wyoming..................
16,126 16,751 -7,062 872 -3,173
29,478 14,763 1,998 5,042 2,136
40,783 9,318 4,423 602 148
20,517 14,793 2,294 1,700 1,050
29,335 23,579 2,283 -2,042 325
10,184 47,614 2,614 -5,560 3,207
3,796 31,774 2,449 -4,995 6,638
2,678 40,588 3,788 -7,022 5,390
152,897 199,180 12,787 -11,403 15,721
154,105 159,211 4,209 57,253 1,999
Dist. of Columbia....
-4,277
-7,556
-10,261
-7,014
-6,766
-2,638
-3,323
-1,622
-43,457
25,027
15,118 75,285 -3,732 -8,217 62,980 700,679 6,934 67,805 -144,061 -1,359,270
29,910 3,947 208,005 26,388 1,754,946
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data.
les. The top eight metro areas accounted for 49 percent of the net gains (Table G). Metropolitan New York and Los Angeles each withstood considerable domestic out-migration, especially during the “bubble years” when many of their residents were drawn to growing, more afford-
able destinations in the South and West. During those years, international migration gains countered domestic migration declines. And as net domestic out-migration fell rapidly from its mid-decade peak by 2007–08, immigration—while down from its own peak early in the decade—held relatively steady.
The Council of State Governments 461
Demographics
Table G: Annual Net International and Domestic Migration, Largest Immigrant Destination Metro Areas, 2000–01 to 2007–08 Metro area/ type of migration
2000 – 2001
2001– 2002
2002– 2003
2003– 2004
2004– 2005
2005– 2006
2006 – 2007
2007– 2008
Total
New York International Domestic
166,837 -176,418
157,472 -207,800
138,747 -236,767
125,810 -248,028
132,549 -284,253
135,277 -273,991
122,908 -219,104
123,058 -144,099
1,102,658 -1,790,460
Los Angeles International Domestic
124,689 -104,034
117,720 -109,505
103,045 -119,876
93,827 -140,949
98,800 -200,728
98,254 -227,993
89,508 -221,144
89,674 -115,037
815,517 -1,239,266
Miami International Domestic
64,038 -3,665
60,445 -1,766
53,088 -20,134
48,357 -3,199
50,887 -9,923
51,971 -50,595
47,144 -84,268
47,206 -46,997
423,136 -220,547
Chicago International Domestic
58,856 -55,164
54,871 -68,856
46,195 -72,424
45,673 -65,555
46,934 -77,736
47,735 -69,542
42,647 -55,355
43,047 -42,110
385,958 -506,742
Dallas International Domestic
44,845 48,552
42,217 13,919
36,784 -1,303
33,813 8,504
35,473 23,455
35,458 71,433
32,194 52,260
32,293 43,175
293,077 259,995
Houston International Domestic
40,772 4,570
38,474 24,498
33,667 2,895
30,705 6,427
32,283 6,187
32,227 88,885
29,330 19,981
29,392 36,724
266,850 190,167
San Francisco International Domestic
38,223 -24,917
35,981 -79,116
31,542 -74,174
28,792 -64,659
30,288 -51,236
30,138 -40,504
27,434 -20,536
27,504 5,506
249,902 -349,636
Washington International Domestic
38,132 15,922
33,480 1,296
24,643 -8,500
32,068 -14,535
29,807 -16,790
31,879 -45,148
27,244 -35,337
27,975 -18,259
245,228 -121,351
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data.
Similar patterns defined Miami, Chicago and Washington, D.C. In each metro area, domestic outmigration dropped approaching 2008, while international migration remained positive amid small but steady declines. Those three metro areas, unlike New York and Los Angeles, posted international migration gains that exceeded domestic migration losses in 2007–08, reversing trends from the previous year. In San Francisco, the early decade “dotcom bust” fueled domestic out-migration which moderated over the course of the 2000s, even as annual immigration to the region remained positive and relatively stable. Two Texas metro areas, Dallas and Houston, rank fifth and sixth among U.S. metropolitan areas in attracting international migrants. Like the other large gateways, Dallas and Houston showed steadily declining levels—though positive and significant levels—of migration from abroad. Unlike those other gateways, however, net domestic migration to these metro areas remained positive, and by 2007–08, contributed more to these areas’ population gains than international migration.
462 The Book of the States 2010
Conclusion On a variety of dimensions, migration in the United States has come to a standstill. In the past two years, fewer Americans have moved long distances and locally than was the case for most of the postWorld War II period. Some of this decline reflects the continuation of long-term trends, such as aging of the population and increased homeownership. Yet the recent sharp downturn in Americans’ mobility can be attributed to the bursting housing bubble and the financial crisis that precipitated a global recession. The great migration slowdown generated distinct regional impacts. Several areas whose economies depended greatly on continued in-migration and growth—in the South and West regions and outer suburbs and exurbs nationwide—suddenly saw their economic engines and tax bases wither. Other areas that had lost large numbers of migrants to these fast growing magnets—previously “unaffordable” coastal metropolitan areas, declining manufacturing areas and urban cores everywhere—have seen a recent reduction in their
Demographics out-migration and potential economic gains from the migration slowdown. How long will the current migration slowdown last? Some observers believe this is the beginning of a long-term trend, while others assert that the current migration downturn is simply a blip and that historical American mobility rates will soon resume.13 Meanwhile, commentators have voiced strong opinions about what “the other side” will look like if and when migration rates pick back up. Some view the bursting of the housing bubble and the areas it propped up—“cities in the sand” to use Richard Florida’s phrase for superheated middecade growth areas—as the demise of a narrow form of development that depended primarily on real estate growth, fueled by the excesses of easy credit and relatively affordable housing. Such areas, Florida suggests, will have a hard time achieving their past migration attractiveness unless more diverse economies emerge in these areas.14 Christopher Leinberger sees the recent suburban housing busts as the beginning of fundamental structural change in housing markets with the pendulum swinging back to urban core living, where at the extreme, suburbs will become uninhabited “slums.”15 Joel Kotkin sees the recent migration downturn as ushering in a “new localism” trend in America, a rootedness associated with an aging population, the Internet and an increased focus on family life.16 If migration did continue to stagnate at the recent 2007–09 levels, it would mark a sharp deviation from the long-term mobility and pioneering spirit that has characterized generations of Americans. The fact that, once again, new waves of immigrants and their children are populating large sections of our country and the younger segments of our age structure, suggests that the restlessness that has long linked aspirations of upward social mobility with geographic mobility is likely to continue. Domestic migration levels will probably not hit the high-water mark seen in the immediate post-World War II period, but there is reason to believe that when the housing market clears and recovery is well underway, more “normal” 1990s levels of migration will revive. Which areas of the country will benefit will depend greatly on the preferences of more globally aware, diverse, “Millennial” 20-somethings, who will comprise an estimated 40 percent of adult migrants in the years immediately ahead. It is probably true that the attractiveness of previous real estate-fueled
growth magnets will not return to mid-decade levels anytime soon. Yet other metropolitan areas could be major draws. Already, there are signs of relatively strong economic performance in both Sun Belt and Snow Belt areas with diversified, new economy industries, or specializations in “eds and meds.”17 These areas include Seattle, Austin, Washington, D.C., Houston, Dallas, San Jose and RaleighDurham, as well as traditional young professional magnets like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Within these broad areas, there probably will also be movement to outer suburbs and exurbs, though at reduced levels, and accompanied by a further “filling in” of their vibrant urban cores. Moving ahead in America has long meant moving on, across both long distances (to new or better jobs) and short distances (to new or better homes). The betting here is that even the Great Recession and the great migration slowdown that accompanied it have not fundamentally altered this uniquely American idea. Migration rates eventually will rise again, but the winners and losers may look slightly different than during the last boom. *This article is excerpted from the report: William H. Frey, The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional and Metropolitan Dimensions, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution, December 2009.
The Council of State Governments 463
Demographics
Notes 1 Charles B. Nam, William J. Serow and David F. Sly, International Handbook on Internal Migration (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990); Catherine Moye, “Moving Stories.” Financial Times, August 21, 2009; Larry H. Long, Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988). 2 More information on these sources can be found at: ASEC (http://www.census.gov/cps); ACS (http://www.cen sus.gov/acs/www); Population Estimates Program (http:// www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html); IRS migration data (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96943, 00.html). See also: Emily Gross, “Internal Revenue Service Area-to-Area Migration Data: Strengths, Limitations and Current Trends” (Internal Revenue Service, 2005). 3 Reasons for moving across different distances and among different demographic groups are explored in Jason Schachter, Why People Move: Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001); and D’Vera Cohn and Rich Morin, American Mobility: Who Moves? Who Stays Put? Where’s Home? (Washington: Pew Research Center, 2008). 4 Among local residential movers, those with the least education are most likely to move. In 2007–08, withincounty migration rates for individuals with less than a high school education was 8.5 percent, compared with 6.3 percent for those who only graduated from high school and 4.5 percent for those who had schooling beyond college. This reflects the fact that less educated groups are more likely to be renters, who are much more prone to move than homeowners. Homeownership is less of a barrier for long-distance migrants. 5 Among racial groups, blacks, Asians and Hispanics showed bigger declines in interstate migration than whites. 6 “Sorrow In the Sunshine.” The Economist, July 11, 2009, page 33. Recent estimates produced by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic Business Research also show that the state sustained an overall population loss between April 2008 and April 2009. “Preliminary 2009 Florida Population Estimates” (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 2009). 7 Alan Berube and others, MetroMonitor: Tracking Economic Recession and Recovery in America’s 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas, (Brookings, September 2009). 8 “Lone Star Rising: A special report on Texas.” The Economist. July 11, 2009. 9 Hans Johnson and Richard Lovelady, “Migration Between California and Other States: 1985–1994” (Sac ramento: California Research Bureau of the California State Library and the Demographic Unit of the California Department of Finance, 1995); James P. Allen and Eugene Turner, “Migrants Between California and Other States.” The California Geographer 47 (2007): 1–26; William H. Frey and Kao Lee Liaw, “Migration Within the United States: Role of Race-Ethnicity.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (2005): 207–262; Dowell Meyers, John Pitkin and Ricardo Ramirez, “The New Homegrown Majority in California: Recognizing the New Reality of Growing Com-
464 The Book of the States 2010
mitment to the Golden State” (Los Angeles: USC School of Policy, Planning and Development, 2009). 10 Berube and others, MetroMonitor. 11 The 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) recorded a U.S. foreign-born population of 37,960,935, lower than the 38,059,694 total for 2007. The 98,759-person decline is within sampling error, but it is the first recorded decline in the U.S. foreign-born population in the ACS since 2000, or the decennial census since 1970. Nonetheless, the size of the foreign-born population is affected by mortality and fertility of long-term foreign-born residents as well as recent international movement in both directions. Thus there continue to be new immigrant flows into the United States from more direct annual international migration estimates presented in this section. 12 Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, Mexican Immigrants: How Many Come? How Many Leave? (Washington: Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). 13 Todd Lewan, “Has Twilight Come to the Sun Belt?” The Gainesville Sun, May 30, 2009. 14 Richard Florida, “How the Crash Will Reshape America.” The Atlantic, March, 2009, pp. 44–56. 15 Christopher B. Leinberger, “The Next Slum?” The Atlantic, March 2008, pp. 70–75. 16 Joel Kotkin, “There is No Place Like Home.” Newsweek, October, 19, 2009, pp. 42–43. 17 Berube and others, MetroMonitor.
About the Author William H. Frey is an internationally regarded demogra pher known for his research on urban populations, migration, immigration, race, aging, political demographics and his expertise on the U.S. Census. Frey is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution and a research professor at the Population Studies Center, University of Michigan. He has also been a consultant to the U.S. Census Bureau, and a contributing editor to American Demographics magazine.
Performance Measurement
Statewide Performance Measurement Initiatives By Jennifer Burnett Measuring how well states are performing is increasingly important as states face shrinking revenues and rising demand for services. Citizens want and expect results from their governments, even in the face of fewer resources. Measuring performance and using performance data to strategically place resources is key to implementing the accountable, transparent and results-focused governance policies that citizens demand. Comprehensive, state-wide performance management initiatives are one of the newest strategies states are taking to ensure services are delivered efficiently and outcomes are being achieved.
You can’t improve what you don’t measure.
Developing a Successful Program
What is measured gets done.
While developing a performance management program is a complex and time-consuming task that requires considerable expertise and input from a wide range of voices, ranging from citizens to executive branch officials, there are several primary components that can be identified for all successful programs.
The performance measurement movement and clichés like these have now become the norm in many state government agencies. Measuring performance is an essential tool for managing performance, providing the necessary information for informed, outcome-driven strategies. Integrating well-designed performance measurement and management systems into state governance practices is especially important now that states are experiencing one of the most difficult economic situations seen in decades. Although budgets are squeezed, citizens still demand that their state agencies continue to deliver services effectively and further—that they continually improve. Even in the face of severe budgetary problems, if child abuse rates go up or the safety of roads goes down, states will still be held accountable for performance. Moving forward in the new fiscal reality requires state leaders to recognize and understand the most effective methods to measure and manage performance that drive them toward goals. According to Harry Hatry, director of the Public Management Program at the Urban Institute, strategically managing performance is now a mainstream idea, as public managers have shifted away from short-term, process-oriented goals and moved toward focusing on outcomes and results. “It’s something that clearly has become widely accepted,” said Hatry at a recent CSG session on transforming state government. “It’s just obvious that you should be concerned about results for citizens.” What is not so obvious is how to approach developing a successful state-level program.
Purpose At the core of any successful performance management program is a razor-sharp focus on purpose: identifying the specific goals and outcomes that need to be accomplished is paramount. Before any data collection effort can take place, the architects of any performance management program must fully understand what it is they are ultimately trying to accomplish. Identifying clear long-term goals based on organizational priorities will dictate what data should be collected and how that data should be analyzed to be meaningful. Statewide goals should identify which agencies will contribute to the process—including how agencies can collaborate around cross cutting goals. In turn, individual agency-level goals should align with state-level priorities. Measurement More is not always better when it comes to measuring performance. Establishing a few high value measures that focus on outcomes is better than measuring hundreds of indicators and outputs, which may not be relevant to achieving defined goals. Measures should directly relate back to societal, statewide and agency-level long-term strategic goals. The Council on Virginia’s Future has developed the following model to help identify the key The Council of State Governments 465
Performance Measurement questions that drive measures in four areas: agency key measures, service area measures, administrative measures and productivity measures.
Continual Oversight, Evaluation and Accountability Once goals and measures have been established, regular and consistent oversight and evaluation of those measures is vital. Continual monitoring of outcome trends allows policy makers to track progress over time, adjusting policies and strategies to correct deficiencies based on evidence-based practices and to hold agency leaders accountable for performance. Maintaining consistent measures over time is important to establish benchmarks and track trends, but modifying or replacing those measures periodically may be necessary to more accurately reflect evolving goals and strategies. Both legislators and executive branch officials should integrate performance data into their decision making and strategic processes, including budget allocation decisions.
Are We Accomplishing What Matters Most?
Communication Even the best data is of very little benefit if it is not effectively communicated to stakeholders. A successful performance measurement program must communicate performance measures in a concise, intuitive manner to all stakeholders—including agency managers, executive branch and legislative officials—by providing context and relating back to overall strategic goals. In addition, communicating performance information to citizens is an important part of maintaining accountability and transparency while soliciting feedback in a statewide management strategy. Understandable and accessible performance measurement data provides the information citizens need to not only hold their governments accountable, but to recognize and appreciate the vast array of services provided to them. When citizens recognize what their governments provide, they can more effectively engage in the political process, thereby providing valuable feedback to policy makers and practitioners.
Figure A: What Questions Are We Trying to Answer?
Employment Growth Obesity Rates Water Qualtiy
Agency Key Measures
Service Area Measures
Are Agency Services Delivering Results? Workforce Training Provided Eligible Low-Income Families Receiving Nutrition Guidance Rates of Compliance with Water Permitting Regulations
Long-Term Goals Administrative Measures
Productivity Measures
Are Agencies Well Managed?
Are Agencies Becoming More Efficient?
Recurring Audit Findings Employee Turnover IT Security
Cost per Vital Record Cost per Tax Return
Source: The Council on Virginia’s Future.
466 The Book of the States 2010
Performance Measurement
Comprehensive State Performance Management Programs Every state uses some form of performance management built into the oversight and evaluation of its programs; however the sophistication, breadth and quality of those programs vary significantly. Several states have started to develop compre hensive, statewide performance management programs that integrate agency-level data into an overall program tied to major, long-term goals identified by policymakers, agency managers and citizens. These comprehensive programs are one of the newest strategies used by states to ensure op timal service delivery and outcomes. The following statewide performance measurement efforts illustrate the wide range of approaches states have taken. Although varied, they all have
The National Performance Management Advisory Commission recommends following these seven principles of good design when developing a performance management program: A results focus permeates strategies, processes and decisions; Information, measures, goals, priorities and activities are relevant to the government and the community; Information, decisions and processes are transparent to stakeholders; Goals, programs, activities and resources are aligned with the mission, priorities and desired results; Decisions and processes are driven by timely, accurate and pertinent data; Processes are sustainable over time and across organizational changes; and Performance management transforms the organization, its management and the policy making process. The commission is a collaborative effort of 11 public sector management organizations, including The Council of State Governments and leading practitioners and scholars of performance management, who are tasked with creating a performance management framework for state and local governments.
the same primary goal: to improve and inform the decision-making process by providing quality information to policymakers and other stakeholders, such as citizens.
Washington Continual oversight and evaluation is an important component of state-level performance management programs. Washington designed its program to make sure data is not simply collected and stuck on a shelf—it is consistently used in an ongoing and systematic dialogue among stakeholders to improve results. Winner of CSG’s 2008 Governance Transformation Award, Washington’s Government Management Accountability and Performance program, GMAP for short, was created by Gov. Chris Gregoire through an executive order and works with agencies to develop performance-based reports for the governor, agency managers and citizens. Each quarter, the governor personally convenes reviews with agency leaders to not only hold leaders accountable for performance, but also to analyze problems, brainstorm solutions and highlight strategies that are successful. The reviews center on a set of outcome priorities that require the collaboration of multiple agencies and other organizations, including public safety, economic vitality and the protection of vulnerable children. Performance data is also available for citizens through its Web site, which posts the full performance reports used in GMAP meetings and in a user-friendly “dashboard,” which highlights performance and trends in six high-priority areas. According to the governor’s office, a number of tangible successes have come from the program, including: Washington’s children are safer because of major improvements to how social workers operate. Officials now respond to reports of child abuse within 24 hours more than 96 percent of the time, up from 65 percent in 2004. As a result, repeat instances of child abuse declined by a third. A state-sponsored health care program, the Prescription Drug Consortium, used evidencebased and bulk purchasing strategies to save the state $46 million on prescription drug costs. The state’s effort to contain costs for prescription drugs has saved more than $85 million since 2005 and has contained growth in state health care costs.
The Council of State Governments 467
Performance Measurement Administrative improvements eliminated a waiting list for injured workers to access rehabilitation services, thus allowing workers to receive treatment more quickly.
Idaho Ensuring that a quality performance measurement program is sustainable and capable of withstanding organizational adjustments—including changes in executive leadership—is paramount to its longterm success. Developing a statutory mandate is one mechanism that helps to guarantee the integration of a performance measurement program into the public policy process. However, once integrated, a performance management program must be able to successfully communicate with stakeholders to remain relevant. The Office of Performance Evaluations in Idaho is an example of such a program that was created through statute, but adapted its processes to successfully implement its mission of communicating performance data to legislators. Idaho’s office was created in 1994 and provides information to the legislature by conducting performance evaluations of state agencies and programs. It is a nonpartisan, independent office working under the direction of the bipartisan Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. The mission of the office is to assess whether agencies are in compliance with the law and legislative intent, determine if state services are being delivered efficiently, and evaluate the extent to which programs are achieving intended results. Although Idaho’s Office of Performance Evaluations was made permanent and integrated into the legislative process by statute, it was not working as effectively as it was intended until the process was reformed in 2004. Prior to the adjustments made that year, the office produced a large publication containing statistics on state agency performance that was made available to legislators and other officials. Unfortunately, that static method of sharing the data was unsuccessful at communicating the wealth of information collected by state agencies and was not being used effectively. In 2008, representatives from state agencies started presenting their performance data personally to legislative committees—a method mandated by law in 2005. The interactive presentation format eventually led to greater utilization of performance data and collaboration between agencies and legislators, which in turn prompted the development of more meaningful, targeted and relevant performance measures. 468 The Book of the States 2010
Virginia Virginia’s primary performance measurement initiative was developed under the Council on Virginia’s Future, which strives to facilitate the process of setting goals, especially those goals considered integral to long-term success and state performance. The Council on Virginia’s Future was established in 2003 to develop a vision for the state, as well as a performance leadership and accountability system for state government that aligns with and supports that vision. The Council serves as an advisory board to the governor and the General Assembly that supports the development and implementation of a “roadmap” for the state, which includes the following: Provide a long-term focus on high-priority issues; Create an environment for improved policy and budget decision-making; Increase government accountability and transparency; Improve government performance; and Engage citizens in dialogue about Virginia’s future. Agencies in Virginia must submit two-year strategic plans that outline the mission, goals, strategies and the appropriate key performance measures and how those align with the overall state vision. Those plans, along with performance trend data, can be found on the Web site of the initiative’s trademark program, Virginia Performs. Virginia Performs is an interactive Web site launched in 2007 that allows citizens to track the performance of agencies in seven areas: economy, education, health and family, public safety, natural resources, government and citizens, and transportation. In some cases, comparative data is available for states in Virginia’s region or at the national level. Information can be accessed using an intuitive “scorecard” which highlights the seven areas of agency performance, provides the primary goal of each area, and indicates at a glance whether a particular measure is improving, maintaining or worsening.
Florida Florida has developed a performance measurement system that not only emphasizes gathering and distributing key outcome data to policymakers, but also strives to make that information accessible to citizens. A key component of their
Performance Measurement program is the Florida Performs Web site which was launched in 2007 by Gov. Charlie Crist. At the launch of the site, Gov. Crist explained its purpose: “The money government spends should make a difference, and this new Web site will help our bosses—the people of Florida—measure how well we are doing.” The site allows citizens to access timely and easy-to-understand data on how the state is performing in six key areas—public safety, health and family, education, economy and taxes, transportation and environment/conservation—using scorecards. Each measure is presented graphically and is accompanied by definitions and contextual data. In addition, each measure identifies a single person as the “owner” of that measure and provides contact information for that person. One of the most unique aspects of Florida Performs is how it was developed. Florida Performs was created using minimal resources, pulling ideas from other successful programs such as Virginia Performs. The site was designed in-house by two existing personnel, with technical help from two executive agencies that had performance measurement software and server space to host the site. Each agency designated a “point person” to work with Deputy Chiefs of Staff and Agency Chiefs of Staff to identify categories and the key measures to be included on the site. Because most of the data that populates the site was preexisting—provided by agencies and the Legislature’s Office of Demographic Research—the site was launched after only three months of preparation.
About the Author Jennifer Burnett is a senior research analyst at The Council of State Governments. She coordinates the State Comparative Performance Measurement Project, a collaborative initiative between The Council of State Governments and the Urban Institute. Ms. Burnett holds Bachelor of Arts degrees in economics and finance from the University of Kentucky and a Master of Arts from the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. She is currently pursuing a Juris Doctor from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law.
The Council of State Governments 469
Human Resources
Utah’s Four-Day Workweek: A Win-Win Solution By Jeff C. Herring Former Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. launched the Working 4 Utah initiative with Executive Order 2008-0006 in August 2008, which shifted a majority of state employees to a four-day, 10-hour workweek. The goal was to make a positive impact in the areas of customer service hours, energy consumption, employee recruitment and retention, and a reduction in the environmental impact of state government operations. The initiative was also intended to extend state government services that are not already available during extended hours and weekends, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Critical to Huntsman’s Working 4 Utah initiative was the desire to provide residents with greater access to state services, while continuing to reap the benefits of the modified workweek. Its continued success relies heavily on data collected during an approximately 18-month pilot period. Armed with that data, current Gov. Gary R. Herbert recently decided to keep the Working 4 Utah initiative in effect—with a few modifications. Overwhelmingly, state employees and the general public favored the four days a week, 10 hours a day schedule; however, citizens expressed frustration with the inability to access services at the Divisions of Motor Vehicles and Driver’s License on Fridays. “Our top priority is to provide the best possible customer service to Utah citizens,” Herbert said. “Utahns have told us they like the extra hours in the morning and evening, but that they also need access to these two areas of state government on Fridays and we’ve listened.”
Handling Possible Pitfalls Back in 2008, as the state prepared to move approximately 17,000 employees to the new work schedule, several areas of focus emerged. Specifically, child care and public transportation activities were identified as areas of concern for employees. To address some of these concerns, the state’s Office of Childcare formed partnerships with private providers to help employees negotiate extended child care hours with current providers or to find child care providers that already offered extended hours. Concerns about the availability of public transportation also arose during the collection of baseline data on employee attitudes. Armed with information such as the zip code of employee homes and work addresses, the state worked with public transportation partners at the Utah Transit
470 The Book of the States 2010
Authority to make adjustments to the public transportation schedules and increase availability for state employees. The Utah Department of Human Resource Management also conducted two follow-up surveys of state employees during the pilot period to determine employee attitudes regarding the new work schedule. The baseline survey identified a large group of employees who were unsure whether the move to a four-day workweek was a positive or negative action. By the first follow-up employee survey in November 2008, however, not only had the number of employees with negative feelings about the new work schedule decreased, but there was also a dramatic shift of those uncertain employees who had moved toward having positive feelings regarding the new work schedule. By the time of the last employee survey in May 2009, more than 82 percent of the state of Utah’s work force indicated that they would prefer to remain on the new work schedule rather than revert to the traditional, fiveday workweek.
New Workweek Saves the State Money A primary motivation for Utah’s move to a fourday workweek was to find cost savings for the state. When this initiative was launched, energy rates were high and anticipated to increase. As the economy took a downturn, however, energy rates ended up decreasing. Therefore, Utah’s actual savings from reduced energy use for the year was approximately $500,000, as opposed to the $3 million originally estimated. While the dollar figure goal was not achieved, the reduction in energy equates to a decrease in the state’s overall energy consumption of more than 10 percent. The state also has experienced other cost savings through the initiative. For example, state agencies reduced janitorial contracts, resulting in an annual
Human Resources savings of $250,000. Fleet services of state vehicles also saw a dramatic decrease in usage, resulting in a savings of $1.4 million for the year. While not all of the fleet savings can be directly attributed to the four-day workweek, it was a factor in the savings. Lastly, Utah experienced a significant decrease in overtime paid to employees. During the first year of the four-day workweek, overtime decreased by $4.1 million. Again, while not all of the overtime savings can be directly tied to the modified work schedule, it accounted for a significant portion of the savings. It is a rare success when an initiative that is viewed as a benefit by employees not only does not cost the organization, but actually saves money. This is especially true in these difficult economic times where employee compensation has generally stalled and employee insurance and other benefits are deteriorating. With the move to a four-day workweek, Utah has found a way to help maintain employee engagement and satisfaction while also helping maintain funds in the state budget. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Utah conducted an examination on the impacts of the four-day workweek on the residents of Utah, the true customers of state services. Toward the end of the pilot project, the state retained an independent research organization, Dan Jones & Associates, to conduct a statewide citizen survey. Results indicated Utahns preferred the new work schedule. Sixty-two percent of the population thought the switch to a four-day workweek was a good idea, with another 11 percent had no opinion on the issue. Sixty percent indicated the extended operation hours from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. was a good thing, with another 29 percent indicating the extended service hours made no difference. Seventy-two percent of the population indicated the modified work schedule was a good way for the state to save money, with another 8 percent didn’t specify. The final question in the citizen survey asked if residents wanted Utah to continue with the current four-day workweek. Sixty-six percent wanted it to continue, while another 14 percent didn’t specify. From these numbers, it was clear that the citizens believed the four-day work schedule was a benefit to the state and a good and innovative approach for government. As previously mentioned, the citizen survey did identify two areas for improvement. Utahns clearly wanted greater access to the Division of Motor Vehicles and the Driver’s Licenses Divi-
sion. Therefore, beginning Feb. 12, 2010, a centrally located, joint motor vehicles and driver’s license office will be open and fully staffed on Fridays. This office is located in a building where both the departments are co-housed and in the center of the two most populous counties in Utah. This modification allows for critical services to be obtained by as many individuals as possible throughout the entire week, while still allowing for energy reduction and other cost savings to be maximized.
Things to Consider Before Making the Change While the four-day workweek has been a positive experience in Utah, it is important that the organization have the proper infrastructure to support a change such as this. Prior to the launch of the four-day workweek, Utah provided more than 800 services online. Citizens could renew their vehicle registration, create a business, receive unemployment assistance, pay their taxes and much more without ever visiting a brick-and-mortar state building or waiting in a line. These online services are also available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The move to the new work schedule has only served to enhance this online capacity and also helped focus efforts to increase citizen awareness and usage of these convenient services. Finally, the switch has helped Utah improve its energy efficiency and save money at a time when finding savings was crucial. Herbert declared the initiative a success in announcing the extension of the Working 4 Utah initiative Dec. 2, 2009. “This is a ‘win-win-win’ all the way around. It is a win for the citizens, who will continue to have extended service hours Monday through Thursday, and now access to the DMV and Driver’s License Division on Fridays,” Herbert said in the announcement. “It is a win for the state’s work force, with 82 percent of employees saying they want to see the program extended, and it is a win for the state and the taxpayers in terms of cost savings and other benefits.”
About the Author Jeff C. Herring is currently serving as the executive director of Utah’s Department of Human Resource Management (DHRM). His duties as director include administering a human resource system for the state’s 24,000 person workforce. Herring is a graduate of the University of Utah and the California Western School of Law. Prior to joining DHRM, Herring worked in the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office.
The Council of State Governments 471
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Table 8.1 SUMMARY OF STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT: 1953–2008 Employment (in thousands) Total, full-time and part-time
Year (October)
1953........................ 1954........................ 1955........................ 1956........................ 1957 (April)........... 1958........................ 1959........................ 1960........................ 1961........................ 1962........................ 1963........................ 1964........................ 1965........................ 1966........................ 1967........................ 1968........................ 1969........................ 1970........................ 1971........................ 1972........................ 1973........................ 1974........................ 1975........................ 1976........................ 1977........................ 1978........................ 1979........................ 1980........................ 1981........................ 1982........................ 1983........................ 1984........................ 1985........................ 1986........................ 1987........................ 1988........................ 1989........................ 1990........................ 1991........................ 1992........................ 1993........................ 1994........................ 1995........................ 1996........................ 1997 (March)......... 1998 (March)......... 1999 (March)......... 2000 (March)......... 2001 (March)......... 2002 (March)......... 2003 (March)......... 2004 (March)......... 2005 (March)......... 2006 (March)......... 2007 (March)......... 2008 (March).........
All 1,082 1,149 1,199 1,268 1,300 1,408 1,454 1,527 1,625 1,680 1,775 1,873 2,028 2,211 2,335 2,495 2,614 2,755 2,832 2,957 3,013 3,155 3,271 3,343 3,491 3,539 3,699 3,753 3,726 3,747 3,816 3,898 3,984 4,068 4,115 4,236 4,365 4,503 4,521 4,595 4,673 4694 4,719 (a) 4,733 4,758 4,818 4,877 4,985 5,072 5,043 5,041 5,078 5,128 5,200 5,270
Education Other 294 310 333 353 375 406 443 474 518 555 602 656 739 866 940 1,037 1,112 1,182 1,223 1,267 1,280 1,357 1,400 1,434 1,484 1,508 1,577 1,599 1,603 1,616 1,666 1,708 1,764 1,800 1,804 1,854 1,925 1,984 1,999 2,050 2,112 2115 2,120 (a) 2,114 2,173 2,229 2,259 2,329 2,414 2,413 2,432 2,459 2,493 2,538 2,593
788 839 866 915 925 1,002 1,011 1,053 1,107 1,126 1,173 1,217 1,289 1,344 1,395 1,458 1,501 1,573 1,609 1,690 1,733 1,798 1,870 1,910 2,007 2,032 2,122 2,154 2,123 2,131 2,150 2,190 2,220 2,267 2,310 2,381 2,440 2,519 2,522 2,545 2,562 2579 2,598 (a) 2,619 2,585 2,588 2,618 2,656 2,658 2,630 2,609 2,620 2,635 2,663 2,677
Full-time equivalent All
Education
Other
966 1,024 1,081 1,136 1,153 1,259 1,302 1,353 1,435 1,478 1,558 1,639 1,751 1,864 1,946 2,085 2,179 2,302 2,384 2,487 2,547 2,653 2,744 2,799 2,903 2,966 3,072 3,106 3,087 3,083 3,116 3,177 2,990 3,437 3,491 3,606 3,709 3,840 3,829 3,856 3,891 3,917 3,971 (a) 3,987 3,985 4,034 4,083 4,173 4,223 4,191 4,188 4,209 4,251 4,307 4,363
211 222 244 250 257 284 318 332 367 389 422 460 508 575 620 694 746 803 841 867 887 929 952 973 1,005 1,016 1,046 1,063 1,063 1,051 1,072 1,091 945 1,256 1,264 1,309 1,360 1,418 1,375 1,384 1,436 1,442 1,469 (a) 1,484 1,511 1,541 1,563 1,615 1,659 1,656 1,673 1,684 1,708 1,740 1,780
755 802 837 886 896 975 984 1,021 1,068 1,088 1,136 1,179 1,243 1,289 1,326 1,391 1,433 1,499 1,544 1,619 1,660 1,725 1,792 1,827 1,898 1,950 2,026 2,044 2,024 2,032 2,044 2,086 2,046 2,181 2,227 2,297 2,349 2,432 2,454 2,472 2,455 2,475 2,502 (a) 2,503 2,474 2,493 2,520 2,559 2,564 2,534 2,515 2,525 2,542 2,566 2,582
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
472 The Book of the States 2010
Monthly payrolls (in millions of dollars) All $278.6 300.7 325.9 366.5 372.5 446.5 485.4 524.1 586.2 634.6 696.4 761.1 849.2 975.2 1,105.5 1,256.7 1,430.5 1,612.2 1,741.7 1,936.6 2,158.2 2,409.5 2,652.7 2,893.7 3,194.6 3,483.0 3,869.3 4,284.7 4,667.5 5,027.7 5,345.5 5,814.9 6,328.6 6,801.4 7,297.8 7,842.3 8,443.1 9,083.0 9,437.0 9,828.0 10,288.2 10,666.3 10,926.5 (a) 11,413.1 11,845.2 12,564.1 13,279.1 14,136.3 14,837.8 15,116.4 15,477.5 16,061.6 16,769.4 17,788.7 18,725.9
Education $73.5 78.9 88.5 108.8 106.1 123.4 136.0 167.7 192.4 201.8 230.1 257.5 290.1 353.0 406.3 477.1 554.5 630.3 681.5 746.9 822.2 932.7 1,021.7 1,111.5 1,234.4 1,332.9 1,451.4 1,608.0 1,768.0 1,874.0 1,989.0 2,178.0 2,433.7 2,583.4 2,758.3 2,928.6 3,175.0 3,426.0 3,550.0 3,774.0 3,999.3 4,176.8 4,173.3 (a) 4,372.0 4,632.1 4,957.0 5,255.3 5,620.7 5,996.6 6,154.4 6,411.8 6,668.9 6,960.9 7,418.9 7,883.2
Other $205.1 221.8 237.4 257.7 266.4 323.1 349.4 356.4 393.8 432.8 466.3 503.6 559.1 622.2 699.3 779.6 876.1 981.9 1,060.2 1,189.7 1,336.0 1,476.9 1,631.1 1,782.1 1,960.1 2,150.2 2,417.9 2,676.6 2,899.5 3,153.7 3,357.0 3,637.0 3,884.9 4,226.9 4,539.5 4,913.7 5,268.1 5,657.0 5,887.0 6,054.0 6,288.9 6,489.3 6,753.2 (a) 7,041.1 7,213.1 7,607.7 8,023.8 8,515.6 8,841.2 8,962.0 9,065.7 9,392.6 9,808.6 10,369.9 10,842.7
Average monthly earnings of full-time employees All $289 294 302 321 320 355 373 386 409 429 447 464 484 522 567 602 655 700 731 778 843 906 964 1,031 1,096 1,167 1,257 1,373 1,507 1,625 1,711 1,825 1,935 2,052 2,161 2,260 2,372 2,472 2,479 2,562 2,722 2,776 2,854 (a) 2,968 3,088 3,236 3,374 3,521 3,657 3,751 3,845 3,966 4,098 4,276 4,445
Education Other $320 325 334 358 355 416 427 439 482 518 545 560 571 614 666 687 743 797 826 871 952 1,023 1,080 1,163 1,237 1,311 1,399 1,523 1,671 1,789 1,850 1,991 2,155 2,263 2,396 2,490 2,627 2,732 2,530 2,607 3,034 3,073 3,138 (a) 3,251 3,382 3,544 3,692 3,842 4,007 4,115 4,256 4,390 4,505 4,670 4,853
$278 283 290 309 309 333 352 365 383 397 410 427 450 483 526 544 597 605 686 734 805 855 909 975 1,031 1,102 1,193 1,305 1,432 1,551 1,640 1,740 1,834 1,956 2,056 2,158 2,259 2,359 2,433 2,521 2,578 2,640 2,725 (a) 2,838 2,947 3,087 3,219 3,362 3,479 3,566 3,631 3,745 3,883 4,063 4,222
Key: . . . — Not applicable. (a) Due to a change in the reference period, from October to March, the October 1996 Annual Survey of Government Employment and Payroll was not concluded. This change in collection period was effective beginning with the March 1997 survey.
public employment
Table 8.2 EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY FUNCTION: MARCH 2008 All employees, full-time and March payrolls Average March part-time (in thousands) (in millions of dollars) earnings of State Local State Local full-time Functions Total government government Total government government employees All functions............................................. 19,693 Education: Higher education................................. 3,001 Instructional personnel only........... 1,065 Elementary/Secondary schools........... 7,916 Instructional personnel only........... 5,366 Libraries................................................ 196 Other Education.................................. 101 Selected functions: Streets and Highways.......................... Public Welfare...................................... Hospitals............................................... Police protection.................................. Police Officers.................................. Fire protection...................................... Firefighters only............................... Natural Resources............................... Correction............................................. Social Insurance................................... Financial Admin................................... Judicial and Legal................................ Other Government Admin.................. Utilities................................................. State Liquor stores............................... Other and unallocable.........................
562 546 1,084 1,019 734 449 415 209 759 81 452 456 460 523 9 1,867
5,270
14,423
$67,796,380
$18,725,893
$49,070,486
$4,207
2,426 787 65 46 1 101
575 278 7,851 5,320 195 0
8,748,602 4,060,907 25,623,403 20,174,943 419,927 390,019
7,256,312 3,265,492 236,833 196,246 1,866 390,019
1,492,290 795,415 25,386,571 19,978,696 418,060 0
4,893 6,653 3,867 4,338 3,511 4,208
242 248 441 110 68 0 0 159 486 81 177 181 61 38 9 444
320 299 643 909 666 449 415 50 274 0 275 276 399 486 0 1,423
2,155,125 1,891,841 4,277,450 4,699,462 3,799,086 1,894,637 1,777,226 747,627 2,983,993 322,287 1,688,044 1,978,187 1,209,715 2,411,206 23,328 6,331,527
1,011,694 868,327 1,756,708 540,920 385,891 0 0 587,833 1,921,350 319,735 718,678 862,368 242,935 213,812 23,328 1,773,175
1,143,431 1,023,514 2,520,742 4,158,542 3,413,194 1,894,637 1,777,226 159,795 1,062,643 2,553 969,366 1,115,818 966,780 2,197,394 0 4,558,351
4,024 3,662 4,314 5,031 5,414 5,606 5,682 4,130 4,004 4,092 4,198 4,650 4,249 4,889 3,184 4,112
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.html.
Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 473
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Table 8.3 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, BY STATE: MARCH 2008
All employees (full-time and part-time) Full-time equivalent employment State or other jurisdiction Total State Local Total State Local
United States........................
19,692,805
5,269,579
14,423,226
16,668,184
4,362,688
12,305,496
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona.................................. Arkansas................................ California..............................
324,365 62,644 373,696 190,155 2,256,634
107,930 29,148 89,451 70,338 489,068
216,435 33,496 284,245 119,817 1,767,566
288,830 53,513 324,168 166,044 1,845,608
89,456 25,885 73,004 61,103 393,989
199,374 27,628 251,164 104,941 1,451,619
Colorado................................ Connecticut........................... Delaware............................... Florida................................... Georgia..................................
320,650 227,433 58,822 1,049,028 604,002
89,634 79,153 31,994 216,127 156,341
231,016 148,280 26,828 832,901 447,661
264,696 191,593 50,682 909,649 539,073
69,400 66,183 26,756 189,226 129,749
195,296 125,410 23,926 720,423 409,324
Hawaii................................... Idaho...................................... Illinois.................................... Indiana................................... Iowa.......................................
90,599 102,779 800,539 423,601 232,004
74,742 28,603 162,483 116,031 67,507
15,857 74,176 638,056 307,570 164,497
74,727 81,301 647,750 354,182 182,333
59,868 22,721 128,605 91,166 54,547
14,859 58,580 519,145 263,016 127,786
Kansas................................... Kentucky............................... Louisiana............................... Maine..................................... Maryland...............................
241,713 279,962 314,294 102,812 339,137
57,167 96,199 106,747 28,916 94,573
184,546 183,763 207,547 73,896 244,564
195,117 246,292 282,279 78,134 300,139
45,989 81,190 91,854 23,075 89,153
149,128 165,102 190,425 55,059 210,986
Massachusetts....................... Michigan................................ Minnesota.............................. Mississippi............................. Missouri.................................
403,808 600,755 360,790 218,186 391,994
118,202 178,350 93,971 64,233 105,824
285,606 422,405 266,819 153,953 286,170
342,979 475,014 280,399 191,687 328,324
97,601 140,585 79,128 57,337 89,349
245,378 334,429 201,271 134,350 238,975
Montana................................ Nebraska............................... Nevada................................... New Hampshire.................... New Jersey............................
70,094 143,208 135,957 87,006 585,379
25,411 37,576 35,441 25,724 180,174
44,683 105,632 100,516 61,282 405,205
55,191 117,027 114,287 72,187 506,476
19,881 32,251 28,437 19,753 156,373
35,310 84,776 85,850 52,434 350,103
New Mexico.......................... New York............................... North Carolina...................... North Dakota........................ Ohio.......................................
144,852 1,410,211 655,598 60,528 750,760
56,776 288,617 170,330 23,107 188,628
88,076 1,121,594 485,268 37,421 562,132
129,362 1,235,728 566,792 41,252 620,383
48,532 254,883 145,881 17,983 142,727
80,830 980,845 420,911 23,269 477,656
Oklahoma.............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania......................... Rhode Island......................... South Carolina......................
249,724 240,869 696,616 59,761 290,428
89,190 74,332 193,288 25,091 89,516
160,534 166,537 503,328 34,670 200,912
216,152 190,867 595,202 52,004 261,048
71,971 60,387 161,528 20,426 77,957
144,181 130,480 433,674 31,578 183,091
South Dakota........................ Tennessee.............................. Texas...................................... Utah....................................... Vermont.................................
60,891 369,578 1,522,294 179,899 49,997
18,115 103,100 336,455 65,632 17,231
42,776 266,478 1,185,839 114,267 32,766
43,439 328,347 1,370,719 134,939 39,871
13,410 86,099 290,022 50,879 15,103
30,029 242,248 1,080,697 84,060 24,768
Virginia.................................. Washington........................... West Virginia......................... Wisconsin.............................. Wyoming...............................
526,602 427,078 117,327 379,539 59,238
159,164 154,620 45,901 98,318 15,110
367,438 272,458 71,426 281,221 44,128
450,997 349,729 101,681 283,351 49,400
127,645 122,541 39,065 69,019 13,016
323,352 227,188 62,616 214,332 36,384
Dist. of Columbia.................
48,969
0
48,969
47,240
0
47,240
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.
474â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
public employment
Table 8.4 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAYROLLS AND AVERAGE EARNINGS OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, BY STATE: MARCH 2008
Amount of payroll (in thousands of dollars) State or other jurisdiction Total
United States........ $62,500,070
Percentage of March payroll State government
Average earnings of full-time state and local government employees (dollars)
State government
Local governments
Local government All
Education employees
$16,974,809
$45,525,261
27
73
$4,207
$4,065
$4,357
Other
Alabama................ Alaska.................... Arizona.................. Arkansas................ California..............
224,039 1,211,330 478,079 9,043,021
111,280 268,569 193,973 2,002,723
112,759 942,762 284,106 7,040,298
50 22 41 22
50 78 59 78
4,655 4,182 3,080 5,707
4,431 3,807 3,204 5,405
4,850 4,605 2,919 5,961
Colorado................ Connecticut........... Delaware............... Florida................... Georgia..................
971,010 851,897 189,914 3,302,955 1,728,268
263,525 309,941 97,843 653,344 427,055
707,485 541,956 92,071 2,649,612 1,301,214
27 36 52 20 25
73 64 48 80 75
4,264 5,057 4,325 3,969 3,468
3,938 4,941 4,695 3,643 3,579
4,595 5,204 4,012 4,228 3,322
Hawaii................... Idaho...................... Illinois.................... Indiana................... Iowa.......................
287,266 249,486 2,491,829 1,112,586 605,192
218,195 77,874 536,205 318,030 219,778
69,071 171,611 1,955,624 794,556 385,414
76 31 22 29 36
24 69 78 71 64
4,218 3,482 4,396 3,587 3,973
4,000 3,259 4,108 3,610 3,814
4,412 3,709 4,748 3,556 4,175
Kansas................... Kentucky............... Louisiana............... Maine..................... Maryland...............
584,592 738,430 890,537 238,496 1,275,724
156,508 279,030 336,546 81,348 364,067
428,084 459,401 553,990 157,148 911,657
27 38 38 34 29
73 62 62 66 71
3,395 3,278 3,393 3,486 4,783
3,323 3,218 3,348 3,314 4,952
3,490 3,368 3,437 3,730 4,593
Massachusetts....... Michigan................ Minnesota.............. Mississippi............. Missouri.................
1,408,423 1,789,955 1,043,515 536,981 974,911
414,972 544,989 329,798 174,556 261,861
993,451 1,244,966 713,717 362,425 713,049
29 30 32 33 27
71 70 68 67 73
4,604 4,512 4,490 3,010 3,302
4,382 4,638 4,388 2,969 3,277
4,837 4,343 4,617 3,057 3,331
Montana................ Nebraska............... Nevada................... New Hampshire.... New Jersey............
161,278 376,570 486,420 241,494 2,459,243
64,336 99,654 119,913 71,259 798,286
96,942 276,915 366,507 170,236 1,660,956
40 26 25 30 32
60 74 75 70 68
3,464 3,676 4,894 3,933 5,288
3,408 3,528 4,216 3,833 5,391
3,518 3,839 5,458 4,072 5,172
New Mexico.......... New York............... North Carolina...... North Dakota........ Ohio.......................
403,244 5,564,155 1,839,724 125,556 2,188,568
161,467 1,206,532 505,860 53,904 553,812
241,777 4,357,623 1,333,864 71,652 1,634,755
40 22 27 43 25
60 78 73 57 75
3,399 4,899 3,606 3,652 4,060
3,252 4,870 3,495 3,911 4,035
3,569 4,921 3,730 3,367 4,087
Oklahoma.............. Oregon................... Pennsylvania......... Rhode Island......... South Carolina......
630,492 697,534 2,152,543 225,222 826,764
234,177 238,183 595,061 89,357 253,140
396,315 459,351 1,557,481 135,865 573,625
37 34 28 40 31
63 66 72 60 69
3,171 4,293 4,066 4,716 3,420
3,018 4,106 4,184 4,884 3,470
3,366 4,457 3,931 4,553 3,364
South Dakota........ Tennessee.............. Texas...................... Utah....................... Vermont.................
124,923 1,043,980 4,561,363 445,209 136,337
42,494 296,175 1,045,888 177,405 60,701
82,429 747,806 3,515,475 267,804 75,635
34 28 23 40 45
66 72 77 60 55
3,198 3,408 3,585 3,969 3,844
3,244 3,266 3,482 4,042 3,675
3,141 3,544 3,733 3,888 4,114
Virginia.................. Washington........... West Virginia......... Wisconsin.............. Wyoming...............
1,577,251 1,403,475 288,640 998,312 163,483
450,584 470,921 117,395 263,901 44,803
1,126,668 932,554 171,245 734,411 118,680
29 34 41 26 27
71 66 59 74 73
3,919 4,883 3,094 4,147 3,821
3,852 4,837 3,304 4,084 3,847
4,001 4,913 2,839 4,229 3,799
Dist. of Columbia.
241,753
0
241,753
0
100
5,403
4,558
5,639
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the
U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. Note: Statistics for local governments are estimates subject to sampling variation.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 475
public employment
Table 8.5 state government employment (full-time equivalent) for selected functions, by state: 2008 Selected functions Education Financial Higher Other and other Judicial All education education Public Police Natural governmental and legal State functions (a) (b) Highways welfare Hospitals Corrections protection resources administration administration United States........ 4,362,688 1,633,702 146,559 236,977 242,925 414,537
481,390
108,044
145,825
227,228
176,319
Alabama................ Alaska.................... Arizona.................. Arkansas................ California..............
89,456 25,885 73,004 61,103 393,989
38,046 5,321 28,444 24,346 150,347
3,285 3,520 3,375 1,532 4,136
4,634 3,022 2,981 3,588 20,847
4,446 1,814 5,726 3,987 3,842
11,812 225 749 5,882 40,864
5,147 1,824 10,482 5,240 60,659
1,354 415 2,182 1,221 13,163
2,322 2,388 2,901 1,943 14,358
3,296 1,834 4,559 2,712 26,345
3,601 1,371 2,330 1,484 4,806
Colorado................ Connecticut........... Delaware............... Florida................... Georgia..................
69,400 66,183 26,756 189,226 129,749
36,841 18,531 7,694 57,166 53,209
1,242 2,741 373 3,727 3,254
3,164 3,113 1,597 7,439 5,885
2,202 5,756 1,834 9,435 8,813
5,247 9,864 1,846 3,851 7,772
7,150 7,718 2,974 29,044 20,446
1,181 2,073 1,029 4,442 2,090
1,497 1,112 527 9,746 4,584
2,703 4,333 1,227 9,365 5,318
4,167 4,875 1,738 20,942 3,678
Hawaii................... Idaho...................... Illinois.................... Indiana................... Iowa.......................
59,868 22,721 128,605 91,166 54,547
9,046 8,167 56,660 55,753 25,038
28,492 525 2,108 1,187 1,152
859 1,594 6,640 4,610 2,410
948 1,811 10,019 4,931 3,138
4,339 794 10,888 2,590 8,295
2,420 1,993 12,062 7,478 3,446
0 487 3,922 2,098 984
1,220 2,080 3,824 2,562 1,724
1,489 1,591 7,823 3,028 1,789
2,683 481 2,610 1,382 2,370
Kansas................... Kentucky............... Louisiana............... Maine..................... Maryland...............
45,989 81,190 91,854 23,075 89,153
20,584 34,863 29,709 7,509 26,936
583 2,683 7,013 310 2,268
3,413 4,590 4,832 2,419 4,784
2,478 6,496 6,013 3,137 6,738
3,146 5,352 14,721 598 4,831
3,822 4,108 7,662 1,319 12,285
1,143 2,289 1,747 538 2,391
847 3,403 4,702 1,147 2,125
2,630 3,791 4,823 1,935 5,057
2,173 5,345 1,516 761 5,040
Massachusetts....... Michigan................ Minnesota.............. Mississippi............. Missouri.................
97,601 140,585 79,128 57,337 89,349
30,058 69,632 36,215 19,532 28,222
1,337 547 3,815 1,602 1,715
3,594 2,899 4,382 3,312 6,467
7,084 9,612 3,019 2,534 8,117
7,784 18,666 5,406 12,105 11,630
6,100 16,016 4,120 3,618 12,284
6,666 2,686 981 1,280 2,420
1,275 4,003 3,081 3,369 2,769
5,949 5,899 3,758 1,876 4,202
10,141 1,480 3,516 697 3,470
Montana................ Nebraska............... Nevada................... New Hampshire.... New Jersey............
19,881 32,251 28,437 19,753 156,373
6,912 12,376 10,694 6,553 32,685
381 581 146 314 22,464
2,173 2,106 1,764 1,777 7,034
1,670 2,552 1,581 1,630 9,091
586 3,925 1,486 772 18,906
1,244 2,890 3,771 1,335 10,268
451 741 821 516 4,597
1,502 2,188 925 413 2,420
1,418 1,084 2,446 1,297 7,940
693 725 662 1,000 14,416
New Mexico.......... New York............... North Carolina...... North Dakota........ Ohio.......................
48,532 254,883 145,881 17,983 142,727
19,212 50,455 55,963 7,908 69,464
1,224 4,785 3,170 289 2,604
2,571 12,748 11,144 1,102 7,084
1,883 6,540 2,139 477 2,906
6,871 45,870 17,643 874 15,411
4,115 34,224 21,654 724 16,559
734 6,704 3,959 184 2,700
1,155 3,519 4,184 1,666 2,859
1,728 17,248 5,222 846 8,906
3,336 20,835 6,735 541 3,005
Oklahoma.............. Oregon................... Pennsylvania......... Rhode Island......... South Carolina......
71,971 60,387 161,528 20,426 77,957
30,491 20,411 57,694 5,814 29,424
1,981 759 4,451 1,159 2,774
2,988 3,407 13,417 776 4,946
7,062 6,931 11,976 1,588 4,519
2,914 4,990 11,821 1,052 7,378
5,705 5,475 17,523 1,711 8,057
1,979 1,326 6,431 306 2,057
1,945 2,698 6,570 497 2,163
2,573 5,278 11,110 1,405 4,181
2,845 3,229 3,055 1,239 729
South Dakota........ Tennessee.............. Texas...................... Utah....................... Vermont.................
13,410 86,099 290,022 50,879 15,103
4,716 33,275 114,289 22,868 5,069
389 2,314 4,773 1,183 603
995 4,297 15,557 1,663 1,045
1,071 8,194 24,354 3,225 1,358
943 6,546 29,008 6,964 301
900 7,361 44,622 3,251 1,189
303 2,250 4,302 862 618
870 4,067 10,672 1,379 629
766 4,492 11,630 2,936 1,307
588 2,480 5,519 1,648 626
Virginia.................. Washington........... West Virginia......... Wisconsin.............. Wyoming...............
127,645 122,541 39,065 69,019 13,016
54,522 54,306 13,138 33,924 3,670
2,996 2,112 1,269 1,111 205
8,753 7,801 5,190 1,713 1,851
2,660 10,027 3,305 1,496 760
15,201 9,825 1,638 3,420 935
15,043 9,497 3,379 10,503 973
3,184 2,047 990 912 288
2,905 5,320 2,312 2,516 942
5,041 4,656 2,285 3,299 802
3,707 1,967 1,412 2,132 538
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
476â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Key: (a) Includes instructional and other personnel. (b) Includes instructional and other personnel in elementary and secondary schools.
public employment
Table 8.6 state government payrolls for selected functions, by state: march 2008 (In thousands of dollars) Selected functions Education Financial Higher Other and other Judicial All education education Public Police Natural governmental and legal State functions (a) (b) Highways welfare Hospitals Corrections protection resources administration administration United States......... $18,725,893 $7,256,312 $626,852 $1,011,694 $868,327 $1,756,708 $1,921,350 $540,920 $587,833
$961,614
$862,368
Alabama................ Alaska.................... Arizona.................. Arkansas................ California...............
345,200 117,630 296,741 206,269 2,235,947
161,760 25,560 127,725 93,728 827,661
11,352 15,164 12,897 14,980 10,988 12,044 4,911 12,412 20,126 146,126
15,142 6,886 18,695 10,190 18,043
45,267 1,074 3,087 18,521 254,108
15,330 8,368 39,382 13,784 381,891
5,405 2,305 10,990 4,155 79,573
8,602 10,547 13,237 5,860 74,615
13,236 8,395 17,191 9,048 121,879
14,665 6,791 10,285 4,771 29,345
Colorado................ Connecticut........... Delaware................ Florida.................... Georgia..................
317,357 346,681 109,879 707,932 469,606
171,595 95,094 35,653 260,171 228,057
5,514 14,787 2,058 12,629 13,537
14,368 17,385 5,493 30,455 18,302
9,773 30,736 6,323 28,726 24,995
20,438 54,583 6,263 11,795 21,163
29,967 40,655 11,486 89,284 54,982
5,986 10,521 6,133 17,271 7,928
7,612 5,641 1,987 31,397 14,287
12,384 21,326 4,525 36,562 20,457
20,118 23,468 7,847 84,991 17,896
Hawaii.................... Idaho...................... Illinois.................... Indiana................... Iowa........................
240,594 87,909 588,076 350,314 255,120
45,126 102,584 31,587 2,074 228,974 9,936 219,293 4,505 115,856 5,412
3,850 5,567 34,997 15,871 10,722
3,596 6,247 48,339 16,694 12,993
18,711 2,377 50,507 8,563 41,946
10,468 7,611 58,600 25,364 14,883
0 1,880 22,709 8,125 5,399
5,308 8,023 14,894 9,134 8,766
5,895 6,511 39,735 12,849 7,901
11,739 3,168 20,772 9,097 11,686
Kansas.................... Kentucky................ Louisiana............... Maine..................... Maryland...............
172,463 307,712 357,604 89,150 398,767
87,016 147,064 121,640 28,621 128,575
2,271 10,771 27,478 1,096 10,568
11,130 16,114 17,922 9,237 20,771
7,620 20,365 20,710 10,814 25,830
9,209 20,198 53,997 2,420 18,713
11,411 11,383 27,924 5,489 51,919
4,831 9,245 8,735 2,685 11,994
3,145 11,054 17,918 4,604 9,741
8,959 15,695 18,780 7,237 23,745
8,377 18,392 6,161 3,452 26,003
Massachusetts....... Michigan................ Minnesota.............. Mississippi............. Missouri.................
462,155 618,952 374,975 186,463 284,331
134,101 308,769 180,939 72,445 105,208
6,973 2,668 18,367 5,128 5,255
19,359 12,838 20,538 9,488 23,574
34,337 38,379 11,155 6,405 20,446
31,527 80,442 22,233 34,885 33,868
28,796 71,817 17,354 9,502 30,697
37,996 11,147 4,511 4,073 8,676
6,843 16,741 13,745 10,128 8,390
28,206 25,897 17,484 6,709 13,902
49,963 9,415 17,563 3,917 10,108
Montana................. Nebraska................ Nevada................... New Hampshire.... New Jersey.............
72,273 109,899 130,967 81,678 843,344
24,358 1,401 43,558 2,193 48,294 702 29,757 1,242 197,434 131,406
8,944 7,216 8,081 6,948 35,490
5,615 7,213 6,213 5,864 43,279
1,959 12,953 7,528 2,899 79,610
4,192 8,888 17,734 6,010 55,517
1,432 2,928 4,526 2,516 30,275
5,507 6,633 4,200 1,764 13,451
5,117 3,822 10,253 5,383 36,930
2,915 3,280 4,279 4,002 78,853
New Mexico.......... New York............... North Carolina...... North Dakota........ Ohio........................
175,483 1,272,229 557,130 60,965 619,554
64,332 236,638 225,917 27,665 285,885
4,397 21,846 12,813 964 12,647
8,644 59,691 37,234 3,863 31,538
6,175 28,632 8,719 1,437 15,178
26,487 207,104 65,398 2,400 68,111
14,821 166,201 69,020 2,260 68,777
3,924 46,722 16,517 667 13,348
4,975 17,009 15,304 4,960 11,348
7,289 77,131 20,099 2,948 43,097
12,506 126,333 30,322 2,229 15,834
Oklahoma.............. Oregon................... Pennsylvania......... Rhode Island......... South Carolina......
257,786 265,233 669,324 95,602 269,583
117,342 95,850 266,560 24,670 115,278
7,113 3,125 18,034 5,679 10,132
9,052 14,898 46,877 3,627 14,688
20,162 25,684 42,924 7,021 12,453
8,581 27,398 38,135 4,719 17,598
18,638 21,151 69,411 8,614 22,774
8,396 5,882 33,927 1,937 7,323
6,369 10,352 27,475 2,403 6,935
9,274 21,357 43,602 6,636 14,280
12,068 13,785 15,522 6,290 3,486
South Dakota........ Tennessee.............. Texas....................... Utah........................ Vermont.................
47,466 317,593 1,149,682 203,000 64,667
20,349 124,797 514,535 99,138 22,459
1,236 8,128 20,084 4,338 2,542
3,118 14,991 58,725 6,714 4,672
2,872 26,723 72,123 10,736 5,456
2,709 28,705 135,662 25,559 1,243
2,468 21,477 119,313 10,849 4,807
1,063 7,893 16,995 3,348 3,210
2,761 14,907 44,986 4,933 2,891
2,653 18,023 45,843 12,764 5,057
2,171 12,421 26,926 7,234 2,842
Virginia.................. Washington............ West Virginia......... Wisconsin............... Wyoming................
510,139 541,674 126,814 308,878 47,103
231,129 240,959 50,054 153,696 13,440
12,869 9,253 4,729 5,220 873
36,633 40,594 16,165 7,955 6,631
10,528 33,152 8,195 5,821 2,716
55,393 50,593 3,851 13,903 2,313
46,363 39,568 7,921 43,081 3,151
14,231 12,488 3,658 4,143 1,300
12,588 22,873 7,380 10,199 3,414
20,309 20,563 6,794 14,549 3,336
17,339 10,326 5,804 13,128 2,481
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create their own estimates from this table should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.
Key: (a) Includes instructional and other personnel. (b) Includes instructional and other personnel in elementary and secondary schools.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 477
Chapter Nine
SELECTED STATE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
emergency management
Protecting Past Investments and Developing Creative Solutions in a Troublesome Budget Environment By Beverly Bell
In the world of state emergency management and homeland security, 2009 was a year of new faces, new threats and new opportunities. It began with the Obama administration tapping several state officials for the top jobs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This was followed by the first flu pandemic in 40 years, with tens of millions of Americans contracting the H1N1 virus. Technology continued to extend its long tentacles with some 40 states using social media Web sites such as Facebook and Twitter to connect with citizens about disaster preparedness and safety. All of this occurred as the country experienced its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The challenge in 2010 will be to protect investments to date and still move forward with creative problem solving while state and federal budgets make their way back from the brink. Looking Back In early 2009, even as the nation moved further into the depths of the recession, the state emergency management and homeland security communities were heartened by the selection of several state leaders to fill significant positions in the new Washington administration. Not only did the president pick Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, he also selected several well-respected state emergency managers to fill top jobs at FEMA, including Florida State Director Craig Fugate as FEMA administrator. These choices demonstrated to state emergency management and homeland security the president’s commitment to experienced individuals handling the critical life-saving responsibilities of FEMA and DHS. One of the first challenges under the new administration was the onset of the H1N1 influenza virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the virus infected about 47 million Americans between April and November 2009. Nearly 10,000 people died from it. Unlike seasonal flu, children and young adults were most vulnerable to H1N1. The prolonged outbreak demonstrated the critical role of federal grants, such as the Emergency Management Performance Grant. It is often this type of funding that states use to develop their pandemic and other emergency plans. While many states have made progress in their pandemic preparations, more work is needed in stabilizing federal and state funding, and creating better coordination between emergency
management and public health officials at all levels of government. As with every year, states dealt with a variety of disasters in 2009. These included wildfires in Oklahoma, record snow storms in North Dakota, a tsunami in American Samoa and flooding in Alabama. One event, the emergency landing of a commercial aircraft on the Hudson River in New York, was notable because it didn’t become a major disaster. The plane stayed intact and everyone on board was rescued. The decade concluded with the most presidential declarations since FEMA started keeping records more than 50 years ago, averaging 56 a year. It’s unclear if there are in fact more disasters that warrant a declaration or if because of growing political pressures and societal expectations, federal declarations are made more frequently. The period of 2000–2009 also represented the warmest decade on record and 2009 is expected to rank as one of the top 10 warmest years since 1850, when instruments were first used to track temperature.1 As a result of these trends, several state emergency management agencies are now actively involved in developing adaptive measures that address climate change repercussions. The backdrop to everything in 2009 was of course the contraction of the economy. State revenues have plummeted while demand for government assistance is higher than ever. Regardless of state coffers, however, if a disaster occurs, state emergency management and homeland security are responsible for protecting lives and property.
The Council of State Governments 481
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Emergency Management and Homeland Security Structures When a disaster strikes, emergency management becomes one of the most important functions of state government. It is the central coordination point for all resources and assistance provided during disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism. It also has the overarching responsibility of saving lives, protecting property and helping citizens recover once a disaster has occurred. Typically, emergency management comes to the forefront once an event has taken place. In reality, much of the critical work comes before—in the form of disaster drills and exercises, hazard mitigation programs, public warning tests and preparedness education. Emergency Management includes four main parts, referred to as the “Four Pillars:” • Mitigation—Activities that reduce or eliminate the degree of risk to human life and property; • Preparedness—Pre-disaster activities to develop and maintain a capability to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies and disasters; • Response—Activities to assess and contain the immediate effects of disasters; provide life support to victims and deliver emergency services; and • Recovery—Activities to restore damaged facilities and equipment, and support the economic and social revitalization of affected areas to their pre-emergency status. On the state level, these four elements encompass many different aspects, from planning and implementation to training and exercising. A state emergency manager will interact with all sectors of the population, including other state agencies, elected officials, local jurisdictions, all public safety personnel, the private sector and the general public.
Emergency Management Organizations/Budgets/Staff Unlike the organizational structure for many state agencies, emergency management is not static—most states design their organizational structure based on their specific and changing needs. In 14 states,2 the emergency management agency is currently located within the department of public safety; in 18 states it is located within the military department under the auspices of the adjutant general; and in 12 states it is within the governor’s office. It should be noted that in seven
482 The Book of the States 2010
of the 10 states with the most disaster declarations since 1953, the emergency management director reports directly to the governor.3 Regardless of agencies’ organizational structure for daily operations, emergency management ranks high among governors’ priorities. In 32 states, the emergency management director is appointed by the governor. This is especially relevant in 2010 because 36 states and two territories will hold gubernatorial elections, which could affect these appointments. In eight other states, the position is appointed by the adjutant general and by the secretary of public safety in an additional eight states. Agency operating budgets for FY 2010 range up to about $47 million. Twenty-four states saw their emergency management budgets shrink. Depending on the size and speed of the economic recovery, this trend could continue. State emergency management full-time equivalents (FTEs) also fell, from 5,217 in FY 2009 to 5,020. It should be noted that the current total represents a growing number of states that combine their emergency management/homeland security personnel. More than half of the state emergency management agency directors have been in their current position for three years or less. Since this is a politically appointed position in most states, turnover is not unusual. Despite the uncertainty, 27 states have directors with a wealth of experience, bringing 12 or more years to the job. As their tenure grows, their likelihood of experiencing a presidentialdeclared disaster increases. Last year, nine directors had not had such a declaration. The number now stands at 10. On average, each director has experienced almost 19 gubernatorial declarations, and about seven presidential declarations.
Homeland Security Structures and Funding Most states formally established their homeland security offices in the early part of this decade. Yet after several years, there is still no clear consensus of how these offices are organized. They include a wide range of structures and responsibilities. In some cases, state homeland security directors manage grants and budgets; in other cases, they have very limited roles. All states have a designated homeland security point of contact and this position has become a critical component of a governor’s staff. It has the enormous job of preparing citizens, businesses and governments for the next emergency or large-scale disaster.
emergency management
Table A: State Emergency Management: Agency Structure, Budget and Staffing State or other Position Appointed/ jurisdiction appointed selected by Organizational structure Alabama.......................... Alaska ............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
H H H H H
G G ADJ G G
Agency operating budget FY 2009
Governor’s Office Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs Governor’s Office Governor’s Office
$ 3,300,000 3,041,400 1,398,429 2,705,374 39,652,000
Full-time employee positions 100 60 (c) 58 100 551 (c)
Colorado.......................... … ED Department of Local Affairs 640,676 29 Connecticut..................... … HSEMC Governor’s Office 4,716,587 34(c) Delaware.......................... ............................................................................................... (a).................................................................................................... Florida . ........................... H G Governor’s Office 47,957,247 136 Georgia............................ H G Governor’s Office 3,850,788 106 Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa .................................
H H H H H
ADJ ADJ G G G
Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs Governor’s Office Department of Homeland Security Adjutant General/Military Affairs
1,500,000 1,300,000 34,856,844 12,150,000 2,723,553
80 65 (c) 229 (c) 250 (b) 61
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
H H H H H
G G G G ADJ
Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs Governor’s Office Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs
988,477 1,741,000 18,746,837 1,244,114 2,500,000
35 93 167 (c) 23 (c) 65
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota ....................... Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
H H H H H
G G PSS G PSS
Public Safety State Police Public Safety Governor’s Office Public Safety
2,096,704 4,965,000 5,696,000 6,518,995 3,472,000
77 79 (c) 70.5 (c) 117 62
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
… H H H H
ADJ G PSS G G
Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs Public Safety Public Safety State Police
775,000 1,474,191 604,561 3,492,855 1,265,000
23 (c) 36 34 (c) 53 (c) 353
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
H H H H H
G G G ADJ PSS
Stand Alone Agency Governor’s Office Public Safety Adjutant General/Military Affairs Public Safety
3,332,000 5,800,000 10,300,000 6,400,000 5,028,474
82 (c) 106 180 58 93
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
H H H H H
G ADJ G G ADJ
Governor’s Office Adjutant General/Military Affairs Governor’s Office Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs
800,000 2,248,271 11,886,000 955,000 2,473,956
32 40 141 28 (c) 74
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
H H … H H
PSS G PSS PSS PSS
Public Safety Adjutant General/Military Affairs Public Safety Public Safety Public Safety
653,464 3,000,000 16,100,000 1,028,300 1,913,000
19 99 236 53 21
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming . ....................... Dist. of Columbia............ Guam................................ Puerto Rico.....................
H G Public Safety 6,974,792 150 H G Adjutant General/Military Affairs 4,668,798 92 (c) H G Adjutant General/Public Safety 5,620,118 53 H G Adjutant General/Military Affairs 8,530,100 52 .............................................................................................. (a).................................................................................................... H H H
M G G
Combined Homeland Security/Emerg. Mgt. Agency Department of Homeland Security Public Safety
Source: The National Emergency Management Association, January 2010. Key: H — Yes … — No G — Governor ADJ — Adjutant General ED — Executive Director, Dept. of Local Affairs M — Mayor
3,700,000 0 6,401,000
54 (c) 17 198
HSEMC — Homeland Security/Emergency Management Commissioner PSS — Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner/Director (a) Not a member of NEMA, and therefore is not represented in the survey data. (b) Includes homeland security, emergency management and other positions. (c) Includes both homeland security and emergency management positions.
The Council of State Governments 483
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Who takes on this responsibility varies from state to state. Currently, 14 states assign the homeland security advisor role to their homeland security director. In another 15 states, either the emergency management director or a combined emergency management/homeland security director is the primary point of contact. Seven states have the adjutant general serving in this capacity. Eight public safety secretaries/commissioners are in this role. Many states are also modifying the structure of their homeland security office, moving the day-today operations away from their actual homeland security department. Only four states house the daily functions in a homeland security agency or office, the same number as last year. In 14 states, either emergency management or a combined emergency management/homeland security office oversees daily operations. Eight states run it out of the governor’s office while another eight have it in the adjutant general/military affairs department. Fourteen states keep the homeland security function in their public safety department. As in the past few years, states are providing more of the funding for their homeland security offices. In 2009, 34 states received 60 percent or more of their homeland security funding from federal dollars. This compares with 36 states in 2008; 39 in 2007 and 46 in 2006. Of the 34 states this year, 13 operate with 100 percent federal funding, which is down from 18 last year. The change reflects a steady decline in various federal homeland security grants and the decision by state legislatures to commit to these programs by investing more state dollars.
The New and the Tried and True Mutual Aid In the current tough economic environment, mutual aid remains a critical component in disaster response and recovery. These interstate agreements—also called compacts—allow support across lines of jurisdictions when a disaster is too large for an individual jurisdiction to manage. All states as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are members of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). Through EMAC, states can share available equipment and personnel to bridge the gap between demand and supply when a disaster occurs. EMAC’s effectiveness was demonstrated in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The state-to-state agreement deployed nearly 66,000 people from 48 states, at a cost of more than $830 484 The Book of the States 2010
million. This represented the largest deployment of mutual aid assistance in United States history. Last year, states were moving to the next level of mutual aid, developing intrastate agreements, which are geared toward a local jurisdiction, such as a city or county, rather than a state. Now, a growing number of states along both borders are forming international mutual aid agreements with Canada and Mexico. Because disasters don’t respect political boundaries, these agreements are essential for prompt response and recovery efforts.
A Resilient Approach The idea of resiliency continues to gain momentum in emergency management and homeland security circles. This is particularly true as economic pressures persist, the number of natural disasters increases and communities are faced with new dangers such as those posed by climate change. From an emergency management perspective, resiliency refers to the ability of a local jurisdiction, state or region to withstand or quickly rebound from a disaster. Mitigation—those activities that reduce or eliminate the degree of risk to human life and property—plays into this concept. It shifts the focus from re-building an area after a disaster in exactly the same way to restoring communities in a smarter, stronger and sustainable manner. Using Social Networking to Save Lives One of the biggest trends in state emergency management and homeland security agencies is the adoption of new technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube to reach out to citizens when a disaster strikes. Recent examples include Arkansas, which used Twitter to talk directly to the public when several tornadoes hit the state in 2009; the District of Columbia communicating with residents and visitors via Twitter during the week-long celebration for President Obama’s inauguration; and Florida posting daily and weekly situational reports on YouTube as a way for Floridians to get the latest on any kind of hazard or weather event. There are concerns about controlling erroneous information and having adequate staff to provide timely updates, but despite these, states are incorporating social media into their traditional communications plans.
The Road Ahead Two initiatives with deadlines for the states have been extended, though for one of the projects it’s uncertain that it will make a difference. The
emergency management
Table B: Homeland Security Structures State homeland security advisor
Homeland security organizations
State or other Designated Day-to-day jurisdiction homeland security advisor operations under
Full-time employee positions
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
Homeland Security Director Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Homeland Security Director Emergency Management Director Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware....................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
Homeland Security Director Governor’s Office 14 Commissioner of Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Governor’s Office 34 (c) ............................................................................................... (a).................................................................................................... Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement Governor’s Office 66 Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Governor’s Office 4
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
Adj. General/Director of Civil Defense Adjutant General Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Lieutenant Governor
Adjutant General/Military Affairs Adjutant General/Military Affairs Emergency Management Homeland Security (stand-alone office) Emergency Management/Homeland Security
10 65 (c) 229 (c) 250 (b) 8.5
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
Adjutant General Homeland Security Director Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Adjutant General Homeland Security Director
Adjutant General/Military Affairs Governor’s Office Governor’s Office Emergency Management Adjutant General/Military Affairs
5 22 167 (c) 3 3
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner State Police Lieutenant Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner Homeland Security Director Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner
Public Safety State Police Public Safety Public Safety Public Safety
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Lieutenant Governor Homeland Security Director Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Homeland Security Director
Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Attorney General
23 (c) 10 34 (c) 53 (c) 135
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner Homeland Security Director Homeland Security Director
Emergency Management/Homeland Security Homeland Security (stand-alone office) Emergency Management Adjutant General/Military Affairs Public Safety
82 (c) 118 27 (d) 17 28
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
Homeland Security Director Adjutant General Emergency Management Director Adjutant General State Police Superintendent/Director/Commander
Public Safety Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management State Police
19 7 3 28 (c) 14
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
Homeland Security Director Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Homeland Security Director
Public Safety Public Safety Public Safety Public Safety Public Safety
3 28 5 65 8
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming.......................
Special Assistant to Governor Governor’s Office 8 Adjutant General Adjutant General/Military Affairs 92 (c) Public Safety Secretary/Commissioner Public Safety 8 Adjutant General Adjutant General/Military Affairs 0 ............................................................................................... (a)....................................................................................................
Dist. of Columbia............ Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Guam................................ Homeland Security Advisor/Director Puerto Rico..................... Combined Emerg. Mgt./Homeland Security Director Source: The National Emergency Management Association, January 2010. Key: (a) Not a member of NEMA, and therefore is not represented in the survey data.
Governor’s Office Adjutant General/Military Affairs Homeland Security (stand-alone office) Emergency Management Emergency Management
14 60 (c) 17 6 551 (c)
8 79 (c) 70.5 (c) 15 14
Emergency Management/Homeland Security Homeland Security (stand-alone office) Public Safety
54 (c) 17 0
(b) Includes homeland security, emergency management and other positions. (c) Includes homeland security and emergency management positions. (d) Part of emergency management personnel.
The Council of State Governments 485
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Real ID Act of 2005 requires national standards for driver’s licenses and identification cards. After much pushback from governors, DHS moved the December 2009 deadline to May 2011. The program remains problematic for many states, essentially because it’s viewed as an unfunded federal mandate. It’s estimated that Real ID will cost almost $10 billion, with $4 billion of it coming from the states. A quarter of the states have passed legislation, disallowing participation in the program. In addition, the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program was extended, allowing states to spend funds through fiscal year 2012. Initially scheduled to expire in December 2010, the PSIC grant can be used for advanced technologies and improved communications in areas with a high risk for disasters or terrorism. This grant is important because it helps the states address the expensive issue of interoperability—all emergency responders being able to talk to each other through both voice and data systems. FEMA as well as the states will be weighing in on a review of the entire disaster recovery process in 2010, with a focus on long-term recovery. As evident with Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 Iowa floods, disasters that require months or even years of rebuilding pose special challenges and require creative solutions. To accomplish this, FEMA has initiated the development of a National Disaster Recovery Framework, which was required by Congress. Every aspect of disaster recovery assistance—roles, programs, responsibilities—will be scrutinized with states closely engaged throughout. It is expected that this will result in modifications, though the degree is unknown. In addition, DHS completed its Quadrennial Homeland Security Review in 2009, a comprehensive evaluation of the department. A full report on the congressionally mandated assessment was due at the end of December 2009. It is expected to outline the future direction of DHS, at least for the next four years. Budget issues will remain with most states throughout 2010. The financial collapse has meant the loss of sales, income and property taxes, which are used to fund important state functions such as emergency management and homeland security. Agencies will continue to face budget cuts, hiring freezes, travel restrictions and be forced to furlough employees. Financial shortfalls also will impact those federal grants that require a state match. The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)
486 The Book of the States 2010
program, for example, is a core state emergency management funding mechanism. As the only source of federal money directed to state and local governments for planning, training, exercises and personnel for all-hazards emergency preparedness, it requires a 50-50 match. If states aren’t able to provide the match, they will lose out on critical dollars. Investments made thus far in terrorismpreparedness programs, response equipment, planning efforts and training could be jeopardized without adequate money to sustain them. States are already seeing the ramifications at the local emergency management level. Because local EM programs can’t provide their EMPG cost share, they are turning down grant funding, which will jeopardize local agencies across the country and seriously compromise the response capability. There is concern that because of the growing number of disasters along with the sizeable deficits, federal regulations will be interpreted more narrowly to reduce the government’s financial exposure in assistance programs. In the past, states and their legislatures have tried to make up the difference by committing more dollars to both emergency management and homeland security, and by establishing state-funded assistance programs, but these are threatened as well by revenue shortfalls. Integrating the private sector into the emergency management framework has become more urgent since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Much of the nation’s infrastructure, including dams, bridges and utilities are controlled by private entities. In addition, they have vast experience in logistics and distribution that are essential in an emergency. The interface between the private sector and public officials will expand, from disaster pre-planning all the way through recovery. States will continue to push the message of personal responsibility in a disaster. Years ago, citizens were told to prepare supplies for the first 72 hours following a disaster. That approach waned after major events such as Hurricane Andrew when the federal response was criticized and government began assuming a more active role. The unintended consequence was citizens relying too heavily on government and not enough on themselves. States believe that adequate public resources must be in place to manage a disaster, but individuals have to take more initiative in protecting themselves, their families and their property. This tenet is mirrored by the current administration, which also maintains that prepared citizens are a resource in a disaster, not a liability.
emergency management
Notes 1 2000–2009,The Warmest Decade, World Meteorological Organization, http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/ pr_869_en.html; (December 2009). 2 This data is based on an annual NEMA survey of state emergency management directors. There were a total of 51 responses which included 48 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico. The term “state” throughout the text refers to all respondents. 3 Declared Disasters by Year or State, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
About the Author Beverly Bell is the senior policy analyst for the National Emergency Management Association, an affiliate of The Council of State Governments. In her position, she coordinates and conducts research, interacts with the states on changing federal policy and acts as an information clearinghouse for emergency management and homeland security issues.
The Council of State Governments 487
Education
Overcoming Adolescent Literacy Hurdles Should be a Priority, Experts Say By Tim Weldon A majority of students in America’s public schools fail to meet national reading standards. The lack of strong literacy skills is a factor in the nation’s high dropout rate. It’s also a barrier to preparing students for a rigorous college curriculum or a career. Education experts say policymakers should take actions to ensure middle and high school students are taught reading skills in every subject and every grade.
Elementary schools in the U.S. have a successful track record of teaching literacy skills in early grades. Compared to other nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization reports U.S. fourth-grade students have among the best reading scores in the world. The organization also reports that by 10th grade, U.S. students score among the lowest in the world.1 Less than one-third of America’s eighth-grade public school students meet the National Assessment of Educational Progress standard of reading proficiency for their grade level, according to the U.S. Department of Education.2 Furthermore, the national data shows while fourth-grade reading proficiency rates increased between 1998 through 2007, the percentage of eighth-graders who score at or above the proficient level declined. A mere 2 percent of eighth-graders read at an advanced level, according to Department of Education data.3 “The bad news is all the data is correct,” said Mel Riddile of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. “Half of entering ninthgraders cannot read their textbooks. They are not illiterate. They can read the words, but they can’t process their meaning on a higher level.” Riddile served as principal at a high school in Falls Church, Va., that improved from a failing high school to an award-winning one in four years by changing methods for teaching literacy skills. Table A provides a comparison of eighth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores for each state. The scores on the table are disaggregated according to gender, race and socioeconomic groupings. They show alarming disparities among each group. Specifically: Eighth-grade girls on average score more than 10 points higher than boys;
488 The Book of the States 2010
White students average approximately 27 points higher than African-Americans and 25 points higher than Hispanics; and Students who qualify for free and reduced-price school lunch average 23 points lower than their more affluent counterparts who do not qualify for free and reduced-price lunch.4 Numerous studies shed light on the problems associated with adolescent literacy disparities and the effect poor adolescent literacy has on preparedness for postsecondary education and the work force. In Re-conceptualizing Extra Help for High School Students in a High Standards Era, Robert Balfanz and other authors of the report concluded that about half of incoming ninth-graders in urban, high-poverty schools read three years or more below grade level.5 Furthermore, according to a Department of Education study, a mere 15 percent of low-income eighth-graders read at or above a proficient level.6 The lack of adolescent literacy has far-reaching impacts. Roughly one-third of high school graduates are not ready to succeed in an introductorylevel college writing course, according to American College Testing’s Crisis at the Core: Preparing All Students for College and Work.7 At the nation’s four-year colleges, nearly 8 percent of all entering students are required to take at least one remedial reading course and only about one-third of those students are likely to graduate within eight years, according to a Department of Education report.8 Former Virginia Delegate Kristen Amundson said, “Not surprisingly at all, kids who can’t meet the ACT college-ready benchmark in reading do horribly on the math and science portions of the
Education
Table A: NAEP Comparisons—2007 Eighth-Grade Reading Scores State or other National All African- School lunch School lunch jurisdiction rank students Male Female White American Hispanic eligible non-eligible U.S. Average..................
261.01
256.01
266.07
270.28
243.83
245.77
247.19
270.72
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
46 37 43 40 48
251.94 258.80 254.83 257.96 251.29
247.09 253.39 250.62 252.61 246.08
256.84 264.40 259.10 263.18 256.70
261.48 270.00 269.22 266.39 265.98
235.90 250.47 247.86 235.77 237.01
249.97 257.18 241.14 248.73 239.50
240.59 244.39 241.13 247.39 239.06
263.05 267.63 265.12 269.01 263.62
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Deleware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
17 14 23 33 38
266.41 267.06 264.54 259.79 258.70
261.54 262.42 259.91 253.86 253.33
271.40 271.53 269.19 266.13 263.98
274.56 275.93 273.82 267.91 270.95
252.39 246.13 250.47 243.77 245.96
249.41 242.64 256.74 255.85 249.88
251.31 243.44 253.84 249.15 246.86
273.47 275.4 269.87 267.61 269.82
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
47 22 28 25 12
251.33 264.89 262.83 264.10 267.45
244.16 260.41 258.62 258.56 263.39
258.53 269.56 266.89 269.64 271.82
261.90 268.11 270.79 268.03 269.53
254.73 * 243.55 242.29 247.15
248.92 243.20 250.21 255.24 250.41
242.85 255.93 248.9 250.71 252.95
257.12 269.85 271.74 271.37 273.88
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
13 30 44 5 20
267.41 261.97 253.24 269.92 265.24
262.71 257.43 248.38 263.95 260.34
272.33 266.20 258.11 275.95 269.87
272.37 264.10 263.80 270.35 275.77
245.70 246.84 240.47 * 249.03
248.13 * * * 257.57
253.37 252.20 245.12 260.67 250.91
275.39 270.90 264.93 274.32 270.99
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
1 32 8 50 27
273.28 260.32 268.20 250.06 263.44
268.58 254.96 262.59 245.55 258.99
278.29 265.64 274.10 254.90 267.97
278.02 266.99 272.51 263.58 269.84
253.07 235.92 244.59 238.41 241.97
250.61 240.54 244.51 * 247.75
255.94 243.7 253.62 242.01 251.54
279.45 268.21 273.47 265.76 271.25
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
3 15 45 6 4
270.94 267.03 252.35 269.73 270.14
264.94 262.01 245.04 264.02 266.01
277.56 272.07 259.34 275.48 274.37
274.10 270.85 262.72 270.07 278.33
* 242.86 247.58 * 249.13
* 254.82 238.48 251.66 256.53
259.85 253.57 240.24 257.17 250.86
276.67 273.33 260.03 272.19 277.14
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
49 26 36 9 10
250.75 263.55 259.14 268.02 267.98
247.30 258.07 253.86 264.19 263.82
254.50 269.02 264.81 272.00 272.09
265.21 274.40 270.33 269.93 273.61
248.25 245.57 240.93 * 246.35
245.54 245.81 245.90 * 259.65
241.99 250.42 245.53 257.78 251.28
264.09 275.45 270.41 271.71 275.44
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
34 19 11 39 41
259.55 265.71 267.67 258.32 257.42
255.30 260.20 264.82 255.51 252.85
264.12 271.16 270.46 261.08 261.96
265.69 269.91 272.49 267.31 268.10
243.38 249.73 247.70 238.75 241.76
241.12 243.50 244.39 233.36 243.68
251.51 253.18 252.53 241.58 244.56
267.68 273.93 274.58 266.68 269.13
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
7 35 31 29 2
269.60 259.16 260.81 262.23 273.05
265.60 253.70 255.98 257.99 267.60
273.53 264.44 265.53 266.71 278.22
272.22 266.79 274.84 266.04 272.86
* 239.79 248.65 * *
* 251.96 250.91 241.89 *
259.03 247.31 249.35 251.79 260.34
274.29 268.79 273.20 266.85 277.58
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
16 21 42 24 18
266.88 264.95 255.00 264.18 266.23
261.69 259.50 247.98 256.80 261.22
271.96 270.16 262.33 271.63 271.28
272.59 269.96 255.60 269.51 268.90
252.22 247.00 240.74 231.33 *
258.42 246.92 * 247.44 248.26
252.47 250.63 245.87 245.82 255.42
271.99 272.10 262.75 271.79 270.21
Dist. of Columbia.........
51
240.79
235.21
245.25
*
237.92
249.06
234.27
252.77
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (*) — Reporting Standards not met.
The Council of State Governments 489
Education test. You can’t do math if you can’t read.” The data supports her. Among students who failed to meet the ACT reading benchmark for college readiness in 2006, only 16 percent met the college benchmark in math and only 5 percent in science.9 Even students who are not college-bound lack literacy skills needed to be successful in the workplace, according to multiple studies. Achieve Inc., an education think tank, states in Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work?, that approximately 40 percent of high school graduates lack the literacy skills that employers seek.10 As educational and financial experts predict jobs in the future will demand increased numbers of students with a postsecondary education, clearly state policymakers as well as local educators have critical roles in identifying, enacting and implementing policies and programmatic strategies to improve literacy education, particularly in middle and high schools.
Recommended Actions for State Policymakers What’s behind the seeming freefall in adolescent literacy is the subject of a recent report by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success. It examines factors responsible for a decline in adolescent literacy scores and recommends policies and strategies that can be enacted and implemented at the federal, state and local levels to address the issue. Time to Act points out that states with targeted funding for adolescent literacy interventions are seeing positive benefits for their efforts. The report cites a 2007 study from the Center for Educational Policy that shows Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts and New Jersey have each made targeted investments in adolescent literacy and have seen significant gains in eighth-grade reading scores on both national and state assessments.11 The report lists the following actions state policymakers can take to support adolescent literacy efforts: Align the content of state standards to models promoted by the International Reading Association adolescent literacy coaching standards (available at: http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/597coaching_standards.pdf) and the American Diploma Project’s high school standards (available at: http://www.achieve.org/ node/331).
490 The Book of the States 2010
Align the challenge level of statewide reading assessments to National Assessment of Educational Progress standards and to states making progress on those national outcomes, such as Florida and Massachusetts, in order to move toward a common, national understanding of literacy expectations. Work to revise teacher certification standards, content of pre-service teacher education programs and professional development and support to districts. According to the Education Commission of the States, at least 17 states have strengthened the teacher preparation/certification requirements to reflect adolescent literacy. http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=1710. Define and provide mechanisms for districts and schools to identify and intervene with middle and high school students who are not demonstrating grade-level literacy skills within specific content areas, as well as across all content areas. Require credit-bearing reading intervention classes for students who are reading two or more years behind grade level. Fund all the elements essential to making those classes effective, including diagnostic assessments, hiring teachers to teach those classes, and providing professional development for those teachers and the broader school faculty. According to an Education Commission of the States database, at least 23 states provide student interventions when a student’s reading skills are not improving. Build statewide data systems to ensure that data collected from districts are captured in a central place. Enable links between district databases so assessments and instructional plans are available when students cross district lines. In some states, this will mean introducing or upgrading the data management system and providing guidance on how to access, analyze and interpret available data. Develop a system of tracking the Response to Intervention approach shown by students receiving supportive or intervention services in order to maintain accountability and to improve the system over time. States that have already launched adolescent literacy initiatives should institutionalize them while conducting ongoing evaluations to ensure they continue to work well.12 Andrés Henríquez, program officer at the Carnegie Corporation, explained the importance of
Education creating data systems to track the reading needs of individual students and progress of literacy programs. “We’re putting in a number of data systems in states,” he said. “What we don’t have is basically what the reading level of those kids are after the third grade or so. Teachers, particularly at the secondary level need to understand the struggles of those students and the way in which they need to attack the problem. So it just needs to be a much more robust system of that kind of literacy data, but also an opportunity to perform what we might call formative testing.” In addition to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, several organizations representing state policymakers have addressed the need for actions to improve adolescent literacy. In its issue brief, Supporting Adolescent Literacy Achievement, released in 2009, the National Governors Association recommends five policy strategies: 1. Build support for a state focus on adolescent literacy; 2. Raise literacy expectations across the curriculum; 3. Encourage and support school and district literacy plans; 4. Build educators’ capacity to provide adolescent literacy instruction; and 5. Measure progress in adolescent literacy at the school, district and state levels.13 Barbara Elzie, interim director of Just Read Florida, a state program that promotes adolescent reading skills, agrees that state-level policymakers must play an important role in supporting district and school-level adolescent literacy reforms. “I think it’s essential that states establish policies that support adolescent literacy,” she said. “That has been the success of Just Read Florida, strong state policy, laws, state board rules, that went into place to ensure that there’s professional development for those teachers, that those students are in intense reading interventions, if that’s what’s needed for them.” The National Association of State Boards of Education report, From State Policy to Classroom Practice: Improving Literacy Instruction for All Students, explains how states and districts can exercise policy levers and leadership to generate improvement in literacy instruction. State policymakers must become well-grounded in the issues—what’s at stake, the research base in literacy instruction, and the roles that must be played at all levels, including the state, dis-
tricts, schools, teachers and higher education. “It is critical to secure agreements from these stakeholders about what is worth achieving, and set in motion those policies and practices that will enable people to learn what they must do to improve how teachers and students learn and apply literacy skills to content area learning,” the report states. States must craft comprehensive literacy plans that provide all students with reading and writing instruction across the curriculum, as well as a continuum of supports and interventions for struggling readers. States must take a comprehensive approach to ensure the training and supports for teachers improve the quality of key dimensions of instruction linked with improving literacy achievement and content learning, including: Alignment of content standards, curricula and assessments; Use of formative assessment to identify student needs and monitor the efficacy of instruction; Use of research-based literacy support strategies in all content areas; Quality professional development and supports; and Design of organizational structures and leadership capacities to sustain and enact these elements strategically.14
What Steps States are Already Taking Legislatures have responded to the adolescent literacy crisis in recent years by adopting measures in several states. Some examples of legislation enacted in 2009 include: Kentucky Senate Bill 1 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/ record/09rs/SB1.htm) expands and strengthens existing professional development requirements pertaining to literacy. The bill, signed into law in March, replaces a provision that teacher professional development may address phonics with a provision that teacher professional development must include instruction in reading, including phonics, phonemic awareness, comprehension, fluency and vocabulary. Texas House Bill 4328 (http://www.legis.state. tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB04328F.pdf) established the Interagency Literacy Council in order to study, promote and enhance literacy in
The Council of State Governments 491
Education the state. The bill, signed into law in June, specifies one of the duties of the council is to study current research to assess the adult literacy needs in the state. It also directs the council to develop a comprehensive statewide action plan for the improvement of literacy, including a recommended timeline for implementation. Minnesota House File 2 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bld.bill.php?bill=ccrhf0002. html&session=1s86), signed into law in May, includes an assessment of reading instruction for teacher licensure of prekindergarten and elementary school candidates as part of the Board of Teaching’s licensure exams. Washington Senate Bill 6016 (http://apps.leg. wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/ Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6016-S. PL.pdf), signed into law in April, requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop an educator training program to enhance the reading, writing and spelling skills of students with dyslexia by implementing the findings of the dyslexia pilot program and to develop a dyslexia handbook to be used as reference for teachers and parents of students. It also requires each educational service district to report to the office the number of individuals who participate in the training.
Just Read Florida Results in Huge Gains It would probably be a stretch to call Florida’s landmark adolescent literacy program a rags-to-riches success story. After all, the state still ranks below the national average in eighth-grade reading scores. However, Elzie recalls when Florida was at the bottom of national rankings less than 10 years ago. That was before the enactment of Just Read Florida, which was created in 2001 by executive order 01-260. “At that time, we were at the bottom of NAEP. We were not competitive. We were one of the lowest states. So in a short period of time we have been able to turn it around,” Elzie points out. The results have been impressive by any standard. Florida was one of only six states that made significant improvements between 1998 and 2007 in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on National Assessment of Educational Progress standards. It also was one of just six states that demonstrated improvement between 2005 and 2007 and the only state in the country to show improvement in both comparisons, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics.15
492 The Book of the States 2010
Florida legislators took further action in 2006, enacting House Bill 7087, commonly referred to as A++. (The text to HB 7087 can be accessed at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/ billsdetail.aspx?BillId=3387&BillText=7087&Ho useChamber=H&SessionId=42&.) A provision of the law requires high school students who score at Level 1, or the lowest level of the state’s reading assessment, to complete an intensive reading course the following year. It also provides placement of Level 2 readers in either an intensive reading course or a content area course in which reading strategies are delivered. Some of the key components of Just Read Florida include: Training highly effective reading coaches; Using scientifically based reading research to define effective reading instruction; Encouraging all teachers to integrate reading instruction into their content areas; Providing technical assistance to school districts in the development and implementation of district literacy plans; Periodically reviewing state curriculum standards for reading at all grade levels; and Reviewing teacher certification examinations to determine whether the examinations measure the skills needed for research-based reading instruction and instructional strategies for teaching reading in the content areas.16 Perhaps most important, to ensure a long-term commitment to academic literacy, in 2006 the legislature passed a bill, signed into law by then-Gov. Jeb Bush, that designated a permanent budget allocation in the state education finance program. That allocation ensures reading education is a permanent part of the annual state funding formula. According to Elzie, the highest allocation has been $116 million. Despite financial challenges in the state budget, the program still receives $100 million. Laurie Lee, the state’s middle school reading specialist, insists it’s an investment that’s important for the state to make. “We’re either going to invest in our students now or we’re going to pay for them later,” Lee said. “Because many of them will end up in institutions, and if they can’t read they can’t function well in society and we’re going to be paying a lot for them later.” More information about Just Read Florida is available at http://www.justreadflorida.com.
Education
Conclusion Although reading instruction has been, and will in all likelihood continue to be, a matter left largely to schools and local school districts, the role of state policymakers is evolving in this area. An increasing number of states have expanded their roles in adolescent literacy, attempting to provide local districts with heightened levels of support and technical assistance to improve literacy skills among middle and high school students. Policymakers recognize students must improve their literacy skills to be better prepared for postsecondary education and the work force, and this belief clearly is supported by data. Reports, such as the Carnegie Corporation’s Time to Act, point to a need for state-level actions. Additionally, recent legislative activities demonstrate in many states, legislators understand that they, too, have a role to play in ensuring students graduate from high school with literacy skills needed for college or a career. Building capacity to ensure literacy skills are taught in all grades and subject areas will require systemic changes that must come from state and federal levels in order to be implemented in individual schools. But the case is clear: Schools can no longer focus reading efforts entirely on the early grades. In short, when it comes to literacy skills, the early years of elementary education can no longer be viewed as the end, but rather as a foundation upon which teachers must continue to build the reading skills required for academic success.
J. McCombs, S. Kirby, H. Barney, H. Darilek, and S. Magee, Achieving State and National Literacy Goals, A Long Uphill Road, a report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education, 2005). 7 ACT, Crisis at the Core: Preparing All Students for College and Work (Iowa City, IA: Author, 2005). 8 C. Adelman, The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006); Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972–2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2004). 9 ACT. Reading Between the Lines. (2006) Accessed at http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading_re port.pdf. 10 Achieve, Inc., Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? (Washington, DC: Author, 2005). 11 Center on Educational Policy, Answering the question that matters most: Has student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind, (2007). Accessed at http://www.cep dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentB yID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=200. 12 The Carnegie Corporation of New York, A Time to Act, (2009).Accessed at http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Pub lications/PDF/tta_Main.pdf. 13 National Governor’s Association, Supporting Adolescent Literacy Achievement, (2009). Accessed at http://www. nga.org/Files/pdf/0902ADOLESCENTLITERACY.PDF. 14 National Association of State Boards of Education, From State Policy to Classroom Practice: Improving literacy instruction for all students, (2008). Accessed at http:// nasbe.org/index.php/file-repository/func-finishdown/132/. 15 National Assessment of Educational Progress Report for Florida (2007). Accessed at http://www.fldoe.org/asp/ naep/pdf/Gr8_R_Brief%20v3%20co.pdf. 16 See note 12.
Notes 1 UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Global education digest: Comparing education statistics across the world, (2007). Accessed at http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/ged/2007 /EN_web2.pdf. 2 National Center for Education Statistics, Achievement in the United States: Progress since a nation at risk, (1998). Accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/Pressrelease/reform/pdf/re form.pdf. 3 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Reading, (2007). Accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main 2007/2007496.pdf. 4 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress state reports, (2007). Accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/. 5 R. Balfanz, J.M. McPartland, and A. Shaw, “Re-Conceptualizing Extra Help for High School Students in a High Standards Era” (Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 2002). 6 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Reading, 2007;
About the Author Tim Weldon is an education policy analyst at The Council of State Governments. He has authored several reports and articles on a variety of issues related to college preparation and postsecondary access. He is a former high school social studies teacher and holds a master’s degree in education.
The Council of State Governments 493
EDUCATION
Table 9.1 NUMBER and types oF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, BY STATE OR JURISDICTION: SCHOOL YEAR 2007–08 Type of school
State or other jurisdiction
Total number of schools Regular
Special education
Vocational education
Alternative education Charter Magnet Title I (a)
Title I schoolwide
Reporting states (b).....
98,916
88,274
2,267
1,409
6,966
4,388
2,715
60,978
39,760
Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
1,605 501 2,135 1,121 9,983
1,373 448 1,880 1,082 8,438
40 1 10 4 144
73 3 166 24 76
119 49 79 11 1,325
n/a 23 457 25 691
27 13 n/a 10 440
866 361 1,024 821 7,556
768 323 633 681 6,337
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
1,757 1,117 235 3,935 2,452
1,650 1,019 177 3,268 2,196
9 36 19 159 70
5 17 6 51 3
93 45 33 457 183
141 16 17 364 67
22 49 19 328 n/a
615 474 207 2,359 1,293
376 149 113 2,121 1,097
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
287 727 4,399 1,970 1,511
283 622 3,927 1,883 1,431
3 11 227 37 10
0 11 55 29 0
1 83 190 21 70
28 32 35 40 10
n/a 2 341 25 n/a
193 510 2,871 1,534 943
170 415 1,220 799 304
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Maine............................. Maryland.......................
1,422 1,528 1,470 670 1,453
1,406 1,231 1,267 640 1,303
14 10 41 3 50
1 126 6 27 24
1 161 156 0 76
29 n/a 51 n/a 30
33 43 79 1 84
1,069 1,069 1,146 538 366
671 963 1,061 331 313
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
1,878 4,096 2,679 1,068 2,417
1,790 3,489 1,653 913 2,190
27 252 290 4 65
39 55 11 89 63
22 300 725 62 99
61 281 169 1 39
0 449 73 15 39
1,001 3,506 836 697 1,131
489 1,323 249 669 473
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
831 1,143 610 488 2,591
824 1,102 571 488 2,343
2 38 8 0 74
0 0 1 0 55
5 3 30 0 119
n/a n/a 27 12 57
n/a n/a 3 n/a N.R.
653 474 150 232 1,332
364 213 134 37 359
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
851 4,631 2,516 528 3,924
803 4,447 2,385 487 3,754
6 127 33 35 75
2 29 10 6 75
40 28 88 0 20
67 96 98 n/a 329
3 184 122 n/a n/a
577 3,228 1,043 326 2,771
475 1,610 883 68 1,765
Oklahoma...................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. South Carolina..............
1,798 1,295 3,246 328 1,195
1,788 1,247 3,133 298 1,122
5 3 13 3 10
0 0 87 12 40
5 45 13 15 23
15 80 125 11 29
n/a 0 55 0 36
1,156 574 2,397 229 929
940 382 660 110 867
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
730 1,718 8,758 1,010 329
692 1,651 7,317 827 313
9 20 23 82 0
0 22 1 8 15
29 25 1,417 93 1
n/a 12 450 58 n/a
n/a 34 n/a 17 n/a
360 1,335 5,547 238 218
187 1,150 5,228 214 140
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
2,027 2,311 762 2,268 368
1,856 1,863 696 2,159 339
12 117 7 9 5
31 11 31 8 0
128 320 28 92 24
3 n/a n/a 232 3
160 n/a n/a 5 n/a
720 1,252 360 1,475 188
358 543 343 385 80
Dist. of Columbia......... DoDDS: DoDs Overseas (c)..... DDESS: DoDs Domestic (c).... Bureau of Indian Ed. . .. American Samoa..........
244
210
15
5
14
77
4
228
217
130
130
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
0
0
67 174 31
67 174 29
0 0 1
0 0 1
0 0 0
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
N.A. 174 N.A.
N.A. 174 N.A.
Guam............................. No. Mariana Islands..... Puerto Rico................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
36 31 1,511 34
36 30 1,448 32
0 0 28 0
0 0 27 1
0 1 8 1
n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a
N.A. N.A. 1,493 N.A.
N.A. N.A. 1,385 N.A.
See footnotes at end of table.
494 The Book of the States 2010
EDUCATION
NUMBER and types OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, BY STATE OR JURISDICTION: SCHOOL YEAR 2007–08—Continued Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2007-08, Version 1a. Note: Every school is assigned a school type. A school may also be included under the Charter, Magnet, and/or Title I statuses, which are independent of one another and of school type. Key: N.A. — Not available. n/a — Not applicable. Some states do not have charter school authorization and some states do not designate magnet schools. N.R. — Reporting standards not met. Information about whether or
not a school was a magnet school was missing for 18.2 percent of schools in the 50 states and District of Columbia. (a) Number of Title I eligible schools includes those with and without schoolwide Title I programs. (b) New Jersey did not meet the reporting standard for magnet school status. A total is shown for “reporting states” if data for any item in the table were missing for some, but not more than 15 percent, of all schools in the United States. (c) DoDDS and DDESS are the Department of Defense dependents schools (overseas) and the Department of Defense dependents schools (domestic), respectively.
The Council of State Governments 495
EDUCATION
Table 9.2 TOTAL STUDENT MEMBERSHIP, STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO, AND NUMBER OF STAFF FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: SCHOOL YEAR 2007–08 Type of school
State or other jurisdiction
Total number of students (a) Regular
Special education
Vocational education
Alernative education Charter Magnet Title I (b)
Title I schoolwide
Reporting states (c).........
48,910,025
47,962,492
207,030
163,003
577,500
29,326,331
19,627,290
Alabama........................... Alaska............................... Arizona............................. Arkansas........................... California..........................
743,778 131,029 1,087,263 479,016 6,070,428
738,324 117,271 1,071,277 476,966 5,879,151
1,396 50 709 224 27,522
115 612 2,795 434 873
3,943 13,096 12,482 1,392 162,882
n/a 4,772 99,478 5,361 241,017
13,714 4,222 n/a 6,982 510,428
400,838 69,920 584,110 320,015 4,571,485
346,180 57,123 398,415 256,973 3,840,432
Colorado........................... Connecticut...................... Delaware........................... Florida............................... Georgia.............................
801,867 568,405 122,574 2,666,811 1,649,589
787,848 551,421 112,798 2,606,666 1,640,877
983 2,757 2,104 17,009 1,596
663 9,971 6,466 2,802 960
12,373 4,256 1,206 40,334 6,156
56,772 3,743 8,512 105,223 33,702
8,287 18,861 12,945 375,975 n/a
213,792 223,263 122,574 1,637,345 815,047
143,518 68,933 57,948 1,402,823 684,016
Hawaii............................... Idaho................................. Illinois............................... Indiana.............................. Iowa...................................
179,897 271,976 2,112,805 1,045,927 482,204
179,621 266,251 2,074,359 1,043,028 477,035
97 114 24,791 399 996
0 53 3,480 0 0
179 5,558 10,175 2,500 4,173
6,663 10,768 24,753 11,120 691
n/a 719 230,062 11,592 n/a
110,834 188,337 1,383,148 820,671 275,136
91,812 149,126 650,911 384,371 100,281
Kansas............................ Kentucky........................... Louisiana.......................... Maine................................ Maryland...........................
468,295 666,225 680,911 190,737 845,700
467,878 658,018 651,094 190,676 820,236
366 670 1,377 61 6,104
n/a 0 0 n/a 8,134
51 7,537 28,440 n/a 11,226
3,047 n/a 21,055 n/a 7,149
13,352 39,757 45,456 101 73,016
303,616 544,230 531,838 143,690 158,155
210,607 476,713 484,604 78,015 130,338
Massachusetts................... Michigan........................... Minnesota......................... Mississippi......................... Missouri............................
962,806 1,665,742 837,578 494,122 917,188
919,159 1,609,398 804,832 493,918 910,624
5,805 20,998 13,993 204 2,570
34,255 2,171 1 0 1,928
3,587 33,175 18,752 0 2,066
25,036 100,046 28,034 375 14,877
0 201,012 35,614 3,217 16,825
464,659 1,610,785 313,734 339,471 369,610
215,664 544,858 86,577 324,836 150,792
Montana............................ Nebraska........................... Nevada.............................. New Hampshire............... New Jersey........................
142,823 291,244 429,362 200,772 1,379,853
142,700 289,990 423,077 200,772 1,344,216
37 1,238 700 0 8,916
0 0 74 0 24,097
86 16 5,511 n/a 2,624
n/a n/a 6,065 478 17,498
n/a n/a 161 n/a N.R.
114,199 103,518 82,970 78,572 692,273
52,286 52,397 78,748 10,842 192,641
New Mexico...................... New York.......................... North Carolina................. North Dakota................... Ohio...................................
327,670 2,765,435 1,458,035 95,052 1,821,635
322,526 2,691,002 1,445,047 94,992 1,812,624
605 28,549 3,014 60 7,333
310 38,498 478 n/a 834
4,229 7,386 9,496 n/a 844
10,324 30,963 32,607 n/a 81,539
46 108,452 86,574 n/a n/a
195,603 1,777,301 504,978 50,539 1,193,471
167,362 966,478 414,959 11,178 711,233
Oklahoma......................... Oregon.............................. Pennsylvania..................... Rhode Island.................... South Carolina.................
642,065 558,791 1,787,813 146,228 712,319
640,661 552,388 1,767,900 142,110 710,340
247 160 2,129 161 840
0 0 16,350 1,845 n/a
1,157 6,243 1,434 2,112 1,139
5,362 11,740 67,275 2,995 5,487
n/a 0 27,813 0 28,427
382,025 206,999 1,255,637 118,996 535,894
294,501 144,682 354,246 52,227 482,564
South Dakota................... Tennessee.......................... Texas.................................. Utah................................... Vermont............................
120,271 963,839 4,673,455 576,244 91,728
119,098 958,578 4,595,440 552,811 91,712
55 1,471 1,796 7,572 0
0 2,417 0 0 n/a
1,118 1,373 76,219 15,861 16
n/a 2,742 113,760 19,685 n/a
n/a 17,686 n/a 5,952 n/a
54,762 701,532 3,001,541 109,129 51,870
25,353 592,323 2,840,234 99,834 32,674
Virginia............................. Washington....................... West Virginia.................... Wisconsin.......................... Wyoming...........................
1,230,809 1,030,247 282,512 874,478 86,364
1,228,483 983,649 281,360 868,863 84,867
274 4,177 262 61 67
n/a 4 13 637 0
2,052 42,417 877 4,917 1,430
240 n/a n/a 35,291 255
154,309 n/a n/a 1,803 n/a
321,442 531,769 101,948 527,152 37,800
157,670 225,556 96,448 144,935 17,004
Dist. of Columbia............. DoDDS: DoDs Overseas (d)........ DDESS: DoDs Domestic (d)....... Bureau of Indian Ed. ...... American Samoa............. Guam.............................. No. Mariana Islands........ Puerto Rico...................... U.S. Virgin Islands...........
78,108
68,560
4,411
1,733
3,404
20,231
2,116
78,108
73,049
56,585
56,585
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
24,735 N.A. N.A. N.A. 11,299 526,565 15,903
24,735 N.A. N.A. N.A. 11,262 507,255 15,844
0 0 N.A. 0 0 3,124 0
0 0 N.A. 0 0 16,186 n/a
0 0 0 0 37 0 59
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 526,172 N.A.
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 482,517 N.A.
See footnotes at end of table.
496 The Book of the States 2010
1,276,731 2,055,476
EDUCATION
TOTAL STUDENT MEMBERSHIP, STUdENT/TEACHER RATIO, AND NUMBER OF STAFF FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: SCHOOL YEAR 2007–08—Continued Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2007-08, Version 1a. Key: N.A. — Not available. n/a — Not applicable. Membership reported as not applicable or some states do not have charter school authorization and some states do not designate magnet schools. N.R. — Reporting standards not met. (a) Individual state total number of students are included only if the state reports data for regular, special education, vocational education, and
alternative school types. (b) Number of Title I eligible schools includes those with and without schoolwide Title I programs. (c) New Jersey did not meet the reporting standard for magnet school status. A total is shown for “reporting states” if data for any item in the table were not available for some, but not more than 15 percent, of all schools in the United States. (d) DoDDS and DDESS are the Department of Defense dependents schools (overseas) and the Department of Defense dependents schools (domestic), respectively.
The Council of State Governments 497
EDUCATION
Table 9.3 PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATION AND DROPOUT RATES: SCHOOL YEAR 2006–07
State or other jurisdiction
Number of graduates (b) Averaged freshman graduation rate (a) 2006 – 07 graduates Males Females
Number of of dropouts
Dropout rate (d)
United States (c)............................
73.9
2,892,351
1,355,748
1,418,401
617,948
4.4
Alabama......................................... Alaska............................................. Arizona........................................... Arkansas......................................... California.......................................
67.1 69.1 69.6 74.4 70.7
38,912 7,666 55,954 27,166 356,641
18,694 3,718 27,005 6,193 165,225
20,188 3,948 28,949 6,429 177,157
4,978 3,089 23,188 6,456 108,723
2.3 7.3 7.6 4.6 5.5
Colorado......................................... Connecticut.................................... Delaware........................................ Florida............................................ Georgia...........................................
76.6 81.8 71.9 65.0 64.1
45,628 37,541 7,205 142,284 77,829
22,199 18,555 3,495 67,846 36,504
23,429 18,986 3,710 72,166 40,034
16,265 3,637 2,020 30,542 21,101
6.9 2.1 5.5 3.8 4.6
Hawaii............................................ Idaho............................................... Illinois............................................. Indiana............................................ Iowa................................................
75.4 80.4 79.5 73.9 86.5
11,063 16,242 130,220 59,887 34,127
5,563 8,099 63,223 28,713 17,077
5,500 8,143 65,958 30,249 17,050
2,938 2,108 25,500 5,459 3,607
5.4 2.6 4.0 2.7 2.3
Kansas............................................ Kentucky........................................ Louisiana........................................ Maine.............................................. Maryland........................................
78.9 76.4 61.3 78.5 80.0
30,139 39,099 34,274 13,151 57,564
14,780 N.A. 15,746 6,563 27,874
14,597 N.A. 18,528 6,588 29,690
3,857 5,958 13,535 3,254 10,298
2.7 3.0 7.4 5.3 3.8
Massachusetts................................ Michigan......................................... Minnesota....................................... Mississippi...................................... Missouri..........................................
80.8 77.0 86.5 63.6 81.9
63,903 111,838 59,497 24,186 60,275
31,188 54,328 29,332 10,913 29,854
31,953 56,985 30,124 13,273 30,421
11,431 40,778 8,483 5,915 10,688
3.8 7.4 3.0 4.3 3.7
Montana......................................... Nebraska........................................ Nevada............................................ New Hampshire............................. New Jersey.....................................
81.5 86.3 52.0 81.7 84.4
10,122 19,873 16,455 14,452 93,013
5,065 10,141 7,851 7,079 46,682
5,057 9,732 8,604 7,373 46,040
1,777 2,594 5,502 2,177 7,539
3.7 2.8 4.5 3.2 2.0
New Mexico................................... New York........................................ North Carolina............................... North Dakota................................. Ohio................................................
59.1 68.8 68.6 83.1 78.7
16,131 168,333 76,031 7,159 117,658
7,549 81,150 35,720 3,593 57,988
8,118 86,802 39,081 3,522 58,148
5,818 35,588 23,619 751 25,436
6.1 5.3 5.7 2.3 4.5
Oklahoma....................................... Oregon............................................ Pennsylvania.................................. Rhode Island.................................. South Carolina...............................
77.8 73.8 83.0 78.4 58.9
37,100 33,446 128,603 10,384 35,108
18,234 N.A. 64,336 5,077 15,857
18,866 N.A. 34,267 5,307 18,863
6,292 7,489 N.A. 2,835 8,102
3.5 4.6 N.A. 5.8 3.9
South Dakota................................. Tennessee....................................... Texas............................................... Utah................................................ Vermont..........................................
82.5 72.6 71.9 76.6 88.6
8,346 54,502 241,193 28,276 7,317
4,177 26,221 120,351 13,948 3,193
4,169 28,130 120,842 14,328 3,149
1,463 9,116 50,824 4,765 N.A.
3.9 3.1 4.0 3.1 N.A.
Virginia........................................... Washington.................................... West Virginia.................................. Wisconsin....................................... Wyoming........................................
75.5 74.8 78.2 88.5 75.8
73,997 62,801 17,407 63,968 5,441
35,065 30,303 8,648 31,924 2,747
38,128 32,036 8,759 32,044 2,688
9,983 16,945 3,335 6,440 1,378
2.6 5.1 4.0 2.2 5.1
Dist. of Columbia.......................... DoDDS: DoDs Overseas (e)........ DDESS: DoDs Domestic (e)........ Bureau of Indian Education......... American Samoa...........................
54.9 N.A. N.A. N.A. 84.6
2,944 N.A. N.A. N.A. 954
162 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
293 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
1,342 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
7.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Guam.............................................. No. Marianas Islands..................... Puerto Rico.................................... U.S. Virgin Islands.........................
N.A. 73.6 66.7 57.7
N.A. 643 31,718 820
N,A, N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. 99 N.A. 271
N.A. 3.1 N.A. 5.4
See footnotes at end of table.
498 The Book of the States 2010
EDUCATION
PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATION AND DROPOUT RATES: SCHOOL YEAR 2006–07—Continued Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2002–03, Version 1b; 2003–04, Version 1b; 2004–05, Version 1a. “NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey Dropout and Completion RestrictedUse Data File,” School Year 2006–07, Version 1a. “NCES Common Core of Data State Dropout and Completion Data File,” School Year 2006–07, Version 1a. Key: N.A. — Not available. (a) Averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR) is an estimate of the percentage of an entering freshman class graduating in 4 years. For 2006–07, it equals the total number of diploma recipients in 2006–07 divided by the average membership of the 8th-grade class in 2002–03, the 9th-grade class in 2003–04, and the 10th-grade class in 2004–05.
(b) Graduate counts were calculated using district-level data. Totals may differ from graduate counts on in other columns/tables due o different reporting levels. (c) U.S. totals include the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Totals for male and female graduates and dropout rates include only those states that reported data. (d) Ungraded students (students not in a standard grade) who drop out of school are assigned by the local education agency (LEA) to the graded dropout count that most closely matches the grade they would have been enrolled based on their age. Ungraded student enrollments are prorated by NCES into grades based on graded enrollments to calculate denominators for dropout rates. (e) DoDDS and DDESS are the Department of Defense dependents schools (overseas) and the Department of Defense dependents schools (domestic), respectively.
The Council of State Governments 499
EDUCATION
Table 9.4 TOTAL REVENUES, PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION, AND REVENUES PER PUPIL FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, BY SOURCE AND STATE OR JURISDICITION: FISCAL YEAR 2007
State or other jurisdiction
Revenues (in thousands of dollars) Total
Local (a)
State
Percentage distribution Federal
Local (a)
State
Federal
United States (b).................
$554,055,266
$242,941,971
$264,226,896
$46,886,400
43.9
47.6
8.5
Alabama................................ Alaska.................................... Arizona................................. Arkansas............................... California..............................
7,100,169 1,896,849 9,638,544 4,459,921 69,557,257
2,308,785 466,016 3,603,645 1,402,900 20,092,712
4,070,907 1,146,630 4,958,859 2,556,917 42,754,127
720,476 284,203 1,076,040 500,105 6,710,418
32.5 24.6 37.4 31.5 28.9
57.3 60.4 51.4 57.3 61.5
10.1 15.0 11.2 11.2 9.6
Colorado............................... Connecticut.......................... Delaware............................... Florida................................... Georgia.................................
7,717,989 9,050,539 1,631,426 27,372,359 17,714,805
3,853,289 5,121,138 479,658 13,705,030 8,263,930
3,323,182 3,509,495 1,029,607 11,133,826 7,941,066
541,519 419,906 122,161 2,533,503 1,509,809
49.9 56.6 29.4 50.1 46.6
43.1 38.8 63.1 40.7 44.8
7.0 4.6 7.5 9.3 8.5
Hawaii (c).............................. Idaho...................................... Illinois................................... Indiana.................................. Iowa........................................
2,950,803 2,039,338 24,026,545 10,062,766 5,009,516
48,976 458,466 14,840,104 3,903,283 2,329,024
2,646,792 1,371,187 7,316,138 5,354,404 2,279,210
255,035 209,685 1,870,304 805,079 401,282
1.7 22.5 61.8 38.8 46.5
89.7 67.2 30.5 53.2 45.5
8.6 10.3 7.8 8.0 8.0
Kansas................................... Kentucky............................... Louisiana.............................. Maine..................................... Maryland...............................
5,259,228 6,141,245 7,142,552 2,537,228 11,612,299
1,833,684 1,969,993 2,865,633 1,158,242 6,251,624
2,980,534 3,483,546 3,043,752 1,147,116 4,684,823
445,010 687,706 1,233,167 231,870 675,852
34.9 32.1 40.1 45.6 53.8
56.7 56.7 42.6 45.2 40.3
8.5 11.2 17.3 9.1 5.8
Massachusetts...................... Michigan............................... Minnesota............................. Mississippi............................ Missouri................................
14,179,328 19,584,946 9,715,233 4,157,666 9,345,716
6,774,829 6,524,196 2,637,953 1,230,120 5,447,172
6,641,467 11,484,249 6,488,998 2,214,691 3,111,235
763,031 1,576,501 588,282 712,855 787,309
47.8 33.3 27.2 29.6 58.3
46.8 58.6 66.8 53.3 33.3
5.4 8.0 6.1 17.1 8.4
Montana................................ Nebraska............................... Nevada................................... New Hampshire................... New Jersey............................
1,474,331 3,123,329 4,008,036 2,502,258 24,190,490
571,611 1,839,830 2,650,058 1,427,049 12,940,313
709,781 990,277 1,077,524 937,660 10,194,361
192,940 293,223 280,453 137,549 1,055,816
38.8 58.9 66.1 57.0 53.5
48.1 31.7 26.9 37.5 42.1
13.1 9.4 7.0 5.5 4.4
New Mexico.......................... New York.............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota....................... Ohio.......................................
3,352,094 49,749,322 11,991,073 995,395 22,242,577
484,280 24,796,956 3,180,903 491,706 10,764,666
2,399,420 21,632,213 7,613,227 353,519 9,888,710
468,393 3,320,153 1,196,942 150,169 1,589,201
14.4 49.8 26.5 49.4 48.4
71.6 43.5 63.5 35.5 44.5
14.0 6.7 10.0 15.1 7.1
Oklahoma............................. Oregon................................... Pennsylvania........................ Rhode Island........................ South Carolina.....................
5,233,050 5,661,558 23,988,602 2,145,821 7,130,019
1,762,962 2,206,031 13,551,260 1,107,376 3,283,202
2,820,218 2,908,103 8,675,316 865,044 3,147,685
649,871 547,425 1,762,026 173,402 699,132
33.7 39.0 56.5 51.6 46.0
53.9 51.4 36.2 40.3 44.1
12.4 9.7 7.3 8.1 9.8
South Dakota....................... Tennessee............................. Texas...................................... Utah....................................... Vermont................................
1,138,701 7,725,838 43,282,278 3,777,931 1,441,199
587,342 3,548,204 22,466,902 1,338,242 105,364
374,228 3,349,705 16,349,077 2,104,005 1,238,582
177,130 827,929 4,466,298 335,684 97,252
51.6 45.9 51.9 35.4 7.3
32.9 43.4 37.8 55.7 85.9
15.6 10.7 10.3 8.9 6.7
Virginia................................. Washington........................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin.............................. Wyoming...............................
13,962,224 10,450,101 3,039,383 10,069,345 1,476,046
7,258,658 3,195,998 875,926 4,293,873 642,857
5,813,437 6,383,843 1,808,685 5,197,595 721,925
890,128 870,261 354,772 577,878 111,264
52.0 30.6 28.8 42.6 43.6
41.6 61.1 59.5 51.6 48.9
6.4 8.3 11.7 5.7 7.5
Dist. of Columbia (c).......... American Samoa................. Guam..................................... No. Marianas Islands......... Puerto Rico.......................... U.S. Virgin Islands.............
1,282,317 61,984 228,202 66,691 3,290,513 215,970
1,127,298 242 178,898 671 106 177,881
n/a 16,089 n/a 36,354 2,339,194 n/a
155,019 45,653 49,305 29,666 951,213 38,088
87.9 0.4 78.4 1.0 0.0 82.4
n/a 26.0 n/a 54.5 71.1 n/a
12.1 73.7 21.6 44.5 28.9 17.6
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS),” fiscal year 2007, Version 1a. Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Key: n/a.— Not applicable.
500 The Book of the States 2010
(a) Local revenues include intermediate revenues. (b) U.S. totals include the 50 states and the District of Columbia. (c) Both the District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to other states. Local revenues in Hawaii consist almost entirely of student fees and charges for services, such as food services, summer school, and student activities.
education
Table 9.5 total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools: fiscal year 2007 Expenditures (in thousands of dollars)
State or other jurisdiction Total
Current for elementary/ Facilities acquisitions secondary education (a) and construction
Replacement equipment
Other programs (b)
Interest on debt
United States (c).............
$562,252,677 (d)(e)
$476,825,866 (d)
Alabama........................... Alaska............................... Arizona............................. Arkansas........................... California..........................
7,211,897 1,940,429 9,539,185 (e) 4,644,397 70,071,235
6,245,031 1,634,316 7,815,720 3,997,701 57,352,599
602,605 241,069 1,142,947 427,948 9,739,585
87,520 17,597 300,232 (e) 85,924 241,160 (d)
Colorado........................... Connecticut...................... Delaware.......................... Florida............................... Georgia.............................
8,067,005 9,300,606 (e) 1,739,840 30,107,621 17,301,301
6,579,053 7,855,459 1,437,707 22,887,024 14,828,715
936,388 1,045,277 241,136 5,807,462 2,043,840
153,170 105,797 (d)(e) 13,321 (d) 185,889 228,100
53,486 140,237 (e) 16,357 (d) 497,754 36,425
344,908 153,836 31,319 729,492 164,222
Hawaii (f)......................... Idaho................................. Illinois............................... Indiana.............................. Iowa...................................
2,300,383 2,148,752 23,157,195 10,869,170 (d) 4,991,024
1,998,913 1,777,491 20,326,591 9,497,077 4,231,932
82,018 288,216 1,569,987 720,801 551,256
57,164 28,566 512,253 144,891 101,031
62,647 4,324 152,743 59,077 27,150
99,643 50,155 595,621 447,323 (d) 79,655
Kansas............................... Kentucky.......................... Louisiana.......................... Maine................................ Maryland..........................
4,868,048 6,386,594 6,828,819 2,420,878 11,547,486
4,339,477 5,424,621 6,040,368 2,258,764 10,198,084
199,153 598,751 507,354 56,761 1,083,933
179,418 151,208 121,943 36,864 115,867
4,762 81,339 56,749 24,061 24,872
145,239 130,676 102,405 44,429 124,730
Massachusetts.................. Michigan........................... Minnesota......................... Mississippi........................ Missouri............................
13,409,188 19,931,731 9,944,675 4,086,883 9,345,921
12,453,611 17,013,259 8,060,410 3,692,358 7,957,705
612,924 1,533,998 929,182 158,051 702,879
5,122 226,627 138,690 136,399 (d) 223,806
51,117 345,899 376,478 29,547 174,707
286,414 811,948 439,914 70,527 286,825
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada.............................. New Hampshire............... New Jersey.......................
1,447,251 3,242,741 4,278,047 2,512,692 24,911,786
1,320,112 2,825,608 3,311,471 2,246,692 22,448,262
85,711 263,988 665,091 176,251 1,817,856
21,061 83,962 (d) 70,180 31,757 93,148
7,220 2,785 (d) 22,790 5,949 197,857
13,148 66,399 208,516 52,043 354,663
New Mexico..................... New York.......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
3,240,023 49,552,219 12,829,210 946,658 21,729,555
2,904,474 43,679,908 11,248,336 838,221 18,251,361
318,376 2,608,051 1,402,354 63,221 2,199,866
14,301 332,717 61,770 26,968 379,064
2,701 1,833,250 49,765 6,028 453,159
171 1,098,293 66,985 12,220 446,105
Oklahoma......................... Oregon.............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island.................... South Carolina.................
5,229,868 5,573,769 24,459,545 2,169,474 7,676,692
4,750,536 5,039,632 20,404,304 2,039,633 6,023,043
349,723 255,006 2,290,028 28,796 1,183,223
66,464 38,272 285,230 13,803 80,209
14,074 19,703 581,392 52,235 68,883
49,071 221,154 898,591 35,007 321,335
South Dakota................... Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont............................
1,106,123 7,755,934 (d) 45,189,026 3,807,310 1,393,637
977,006 6,975,099 (d) 36,105,784 2,987,810 1,300,149
72,806 451,584 6,204,938 583,414 47,863
32,582 114,993 449,146 60,961 22,852
3,074 53,063 316,528 89,863 7,525
20,655 161,196 2,112,630 85,262 15,247
Virginia............................. Washington...................... West Virginia.................... Wisconsin.......................... Wyoming..........................
14,234,484 10,814,992 (d) 2,845,230 10,372,911 1,383,239
12,465,858 8,752,007 (d) 2,742,344 9,029,660 1,124,564
1,238,396 1,534,893 20,375 317,605 204,994
280,959 95,636 33,833 130,891 41,700
76,783 49,955 37,156 258,456 8,779
172,487 382,500 11,521 636,298 3,203
19,260 4,227 0 375 103,478 1,670
0 0 782 0 13,025 0
Dist. of Columbia (f)....... American Samoa............. Guam................................ No. Marianas Islands...... Puerto Rico...................... U.S. Virgin Islands...........
1,389,995 67,085 224,611 60,363 3,465,934 180,028
1,130,006 57,093 219,881 55,048 3,268,200 157,446
$56,409,429
201,500 3,938 0 4,546 24,101 19,755
$6,500,246 (d)(e) $7,804,253 ( d)(e) $14,712,882 (d)
39,229 (d) 1,826 3,948 395 57,129 1,157
137,255 7,754 53,296 (d)(e) 25,899 1,122,084
139,486 39,694 226,990 106,925 1,615,807
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 501
education
total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools: fiscal year 2007 —Continued Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS),” fiscal year 2007, Version 1a. Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. (a) Include instruction, instruction-related, support services, and other elementary/secondary current expenditures, but exclude expenditures on capital outlay, other programs, and interest on long-term debt. (b) Includes expenditures for community services, adult education,
502 The Book of the States 2010
community colleges, private schools, and other programs that are not part of public elementary and secondary education. (c) U.S. totals include the 50 states and the District of Columbia. (d) Value affected by redistribution of reported values to correct for missing data items and/or to distribute state direct support expenditures. (e) Value contains imputation for missing data. (f) Both the District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to other states.
EDUCATION
Table 9.6 CURRENT EXPENDITURES and percentage distribution FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Education, by function and state or jurisdiction: FISCAL YEAR 2007 Current expenditures (in thousands of dollars) (a) State or other jurisdiction Total
Percentage distribution
Instruction and instruction Student related (b) support (c) Admin. Ops.
Instruction Student and instruction support related (b) (c) Admin. Ops.
United States (d)............ $476,825,866 (e) $313,862,823 (e) $25,200,234 (e) $51,724,435 (e) $86,038,374 (e)
65.8
5.3
10.8
18.0
Alabama......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California........................
6,245,031 1,634,316 7,815,720 3,997,701 57,352,599
3,960,248 1,022,198 4,936,967 (e) 2,651,821 (e) 38,276,679 (e)
330,677 105,339 554,492 (e) 189,033 (e) 2,731,324 (e)
678,635 181,212 826,969 (e) 418,924 (e) 6,893,014 (e)
1,275,472 325,567 1,497,292 (e) 737,923 (e) 9,451,582 (e)
63.4 62.5 63.2 66.3 66.7
5.3 6.4 7.1 4.7 4.8
10.9 11.1 10.6 10.5 12.0
20.4 19.9 19.2 18.5 16.5
Colorado........................ Connecticut..................... Delaware......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
6,579,053 7,855,459 1,437,707 22,887,024 14,828,715
4,155,564 5,190,598 (e) 881,451 15,180,148 (e) 10,133,310 (e)
297,656 476,950 (e) 72,979 1,061,831 (e) 695,559 (e)
1,026,637 779,389 (e) 186,510 2,160,418 (e) 1,579,920 (e)
1,099,197 1,408,521 (e) 296,767 4,484,626 (e) 2,419,925 (e)
63.2 66.1 61.3 66.3 68.3
4.5 6.1 5.1 4.6 4.7
15.6 9.9 13.0 9.4 10.7
16.7 17.9 20.6 19.6 16.3
Hawaii (f)....................... Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
1,998,913 1,777,491 20,326,591 9,497,077 4,231,932
1,246,664 1,170,971 (e) 12,906,634 (e) 5,989,952 (e) 2,742,371
240,925 99,815 (e) 1,322,640 (e) 421,863 (e) 242,162
207,385 174,319 (e) 2,423,429 (e) 1,099,532 (e) 507,670
303,939 332,386 (e) 3,673,888 (e) 1,985,730 (e) 739,730
62.4 65.9 63.5 63.1 64.8
12.1 5.6 6.5 4.4 5.7
10.4 9.8 11.9 11.6 12.0
15.2 18.7 18.1 20.9 17.5
Kansas............................ Kentucky......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland.........................
4,339,477 5,424,621 6,040,368 2,258,764 10,198,084
2,830,175 3,519,095 3,819,786 (e) 1,561,823 (e) 6,808,734 (e)
244,480 232,617 260,297 (e) 89,734 (e) 427,815 (e)
491,313 538,419 642,708 (e) 201,409 (e) 1,036,481 (e)
773,509 1,134,490 1,317,578 (e) 405,797 1,925,054
65.2 64.9 63.2 69.1 66.8
5.6 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.2
11.3 9.9 10.6 8.9 10.2
17.8 20.9 21.8 18.0 18.9
Massachusetts............... Michigan.......................... Minnesota....................... Mississippi....................... Missouri...........................
12,453,611 17,013,259 8,060,410 3,692,358 7,957,705
8,617,436 (e) 10,495,173 5,574,400 (e) 2,347,146 (e) 5,174,953
698,998 (e) 1,264,116 218,944 (e) 169,541 (e) 380,342
1,096,282 2,164,797 835,323 (e) 395,360 (e) 849,775
2,040,895 3,089,173 1,431,744 (e) 780,312 (e) 1,552,634
69.2 61.7 69.2 63.6 65.0
5.6 7.4 2.7 4.6 4.8
8.8 12.7 10.4 10.7 10.7
16.4 18.2 17.8 21.1 19.5
Montana......................... Nebraska......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire............. New Jersey......................
1,320,112 2,825,608 3,311,471 2,246,692 22,448,262
849,987 1,889,049 2,105,054 1,517,393 14,088,042 (e)
73,700 121,838 120,117 153,969 2,053,895 (e)
143,048 306,394 508,684 219,603 2,139,210 (e)
253,377 508,326 577,616 355,727 4,167,114 (e)
64.4 66.9 63.6 67.5 62.8
5.6 4.3 3.6 6.9 9.1
10.8 10.8 15.4 9.8 9.5
19.2 18.0 17.4 15.8 18.6
New Mexico................... New York......................... North Carolina............... North Dakota................. Ohio..................................
2,904,474 43,679,908 11,248,336 838,221 18,251,361
1,734,677 31,392,067 (e) 7,435,928 513,113 11,628,759
283,957 1,405,184 (e) 633,899 35,790 1,094,606
357,798 3,798,036 (e) 1,239,838 101,074 2,394,344
528,042 7,084,621 (e) 1,938,670 188,244 3,133,651
59.7 71.9 66.1 61.2 63.7
9.8 3.2 5.6 4.3 6.0
12.3 8.7 11.0 12.1 13.1
18.2 16.2 17.2 22.5 17.2
Oklahoma...................... Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................. Rhode Island.................. South Carolina...............
4,750,536 5,039,632 20,404,304 2,039,633 6,023,043
2,931,941 3,163,791 13,262,302 1,323,688 (e) 3,885,166
305,355 352,399 1,000,133 236,532 (e) 426,341
517,971 700,525 2,234,494 176,710 (e) 609,265
995,268 822,917 3,907,375 302,702 (e) 1,102,272
61.7 62.8 65.0 64.9 64.5
6.4 7.0 4.9 11.6 7.1
10.9 13.9 11.0 8.7 10.1
21.0 16.3 19.1 14.8 18.3
South Dakota................ Tennessee........................ Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
977,006 6,975,099 (e) 36,105,784 2,987,810 1,300,149
609,080 4,838,021 (e) 23,452,450 (e) 2,020,640 872,828
53,780 242,800 1,759,204 (e) 111,389 95,756
119,578 655,301 3,891,272 (e) 287,895 148,516
194,569 1,238,978 7,002,858 (e) 567,886 183,049
62.3 69.4 65.0 67.6 67.1
5.5 3.5 4.9 3.7 7.4
12.2 9.4 10.8 9.6 11.4
19.9 17.8 19.4 19.0 14.1
Virginia.......................... Washington..................... West Virginia.................. Wisconsin........................ Wyoming..........................
12,465,858 8,752,007 (e) 2,742,344 9,029,660 1,124,564
8,453,779 5,595,506 (e) 1,738,798 (e) 5,965,270 737,415
597,727 569,081 98,801 (e) 415,956 65,890
1,105,501 1,000,655 261,204 (e) 1,140,480 126,249
2,308,851 1,586,765 644,261 (e) 1,507,954 195,010
67.8 63.9 63.4 66.1 65.6
4.8 6.5 3.6 4.6 5.9
8.9 11.4 9.5 12.6 11.2
18.5 18.1 23.5 16.7 17.3
663,782 (e) 31,936 134,937 (e) 43,742 (e) 2,275,134 100,822
62,726 (e) 1,519 24,317 843 (e) 252,424 10,022
144,960 (e) 8,182 21,291 1,762 (e) 60,108 20,036
258,538 (e) 15,456 39,337 8,700 (e) 680,534 26,566 (e)
58.7 55.9 61.4 79.5 69.6 64.0
5.6 2.7 11.1 1.5 7.7 6.4
12.8 14.3 9.7 3.2 1.8 12.7
22.9 27.1 17.9 15.8 20.8 16.9
Dist. of Columbia (f)... American Samoa........... Guam................................ No. Marianas Islands.... Puerto Rico..................... U.S. Virgin Islands........
1,130,006 57,093 219,881 55,048 3,268,200 157,446
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 503
EDUCATION
CURRENT EXPENDITURES and percentage distribution FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Education, by function and state or jurisdiction: FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS),” fiscal year 2007, Version 1a. Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. (a) Include instruction, instruction-related, support services, and other elementary/secondary current expenditures, but exclude expenditures on capital outlay, other programs, and interest on long-term debt. (b) Include current expenditures for classroom instruction (including teachers and teaching assistants), libraries, in-service teacher training,
504 The Book of the States 2010
curriculum development, student assessment and instruction technology. (c) Include attendance and social work, guidance, health, psychological services, speech pathology, audiology, and other student support services. (d) U.S. totals include the 50 states and the District of Columbia. (e) Value affected by redistribution of reported expenditure values to correct for missing data items, and/or to distribute stte direct support expenditures. (f) Both the District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to other states.
EDUCATION
Table 9.7 current instruction and instruction-related expenditures for public elementary and secondary education, by object and state or jurisdiction: fiscal year 2007 Current instruction and instruction-related expenditures (in thousands of dollars)(a) State or other Employee Purchased jurisdiction Total Salaries benefits services
Tuition to out-of-state and private schools
Instructional supplies
United States (b).........
$313,862,823 (c)
$210,650,225 (c)
$68,376,527 (c)
$4,021,575 (c)
$15,219,529 (c)
$1,526,752 (c)
Alabama....................... Alaska........................... Arizona......................... Arkansas....................... California......................
3,960,248 1,022,198 4,936,967 (c) 2,651,821 (c) 38,276,679 (c)
2,555,323 607,019 3,642,641 (c) 1,819,529 (c) 25,436,939 (c)
947,994 281,354 765,178 (c) 467,061 (c) 7,779,904 (c)
132,536 66,254 202,448 (c) 110,623 (c) 2,162,298 (c)
2,292 189 5,264 9,734 721,724
304,731 57,727 184,383 (c) 226,424 (c) 2,169,798 (c)
17,372 9,655 137,052 (c) 18,440 (c) 6,015 (c)
Colorado....................... Connecticut.................. Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia.........................
4,155,564 5,190,598 (c) 881,451 15,180,148 (c) 10,133,310 (c)
2,901,832 3,365,801 (c) 566,810 9,682,319 (c) 6,975,455 (c)
692,631 1,191,393 (c) 251,413 2,810,902 (c) 2,298,616 (c)
140,777 181,654 (c) 15,048 1,823,719 (c) 251,755 (c)
50,423 296,937 6,262 700 5,658
304,818 145,170 (c) 34,495 735,819 (c) 542,193 (c)
65,082 9,642 (c) 7,423 126,689 (c) 59,632 (c)
Hawaii (d)..................... Idaho............................. Illinois........................... Indiana.......................... Iowa...............................
1,246,664 1,170,971 (c) 12,906,634 (c) 5,989,952 (c) 2,742,371
786,822 799,428 (c) 9,035,792 (c) 3,757,454 (c) 1,949,435
280,541 252,842 (c) 2,530,929 (c) 1,891,616 (c) 585,911
82,543 50,426 (c) 575,822 (c) 115,798 (c) 70,140
0 1,060 241,544 17 20,653
84,506 66,453 (c) 502,736 (c) 192,820 (c) 112,577
12,251 761 (c) 19,810 (c) 32,247 (c) 3,655
Kansas........................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana...................... Maine............................ Maryland......................
2,830,175 3,519,095 3,819,786 (c) 1,561,823 (c) 6,808,734 (c)
2,063,737 2,490,331 2,586,471 (c) 960,667 4,520,436
483,079 757,431 887,914 (c) 398,693 (c) 1,588,445 (c)
97,312 81,633 86,009 (c) 67,112 206,161
2,072 195 755 80,313 240,505
165,700 166,373 247,441 (c) 47,523 240,573
18,276 23,131 11,194 (c) 7,515 12,614
Massachusetts.............. Michigan....................... Minnesota..................... Mississippi.................... Missouri........................
8,617,436 (c) 10,495,173 5,574,400 (c) 2,347,146 (c) 5,174,953
5,522,371 6,466,805 3,842,466 (c) 1,621,518 (c) 3,628,500
2,398,948 (c) 3,013,979 1,156,517 (c) 480,909 (c) 894,499
49,857 633,148 282,048 (c) 81,339 (c) 189,587 (c)
435,507 113 54,448 4,284 9,142
192,489 354,116 222,283 (c) 147,533 (c) 426,772
18,264 27,011 16,638 (c ) 11,563 (c) 26,453 (c)
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada.......................... New Hampshire........... New Jersey....................
849,987 1,889,049 2,105,054 1,517,393 14,088,042 (c)
555,208 1,296,544 1,335,972 958,396 8,863,721
157,451 421,307 456,685 345,553 3,644,376 (c)
59,031 77,762 61,049 45,652 416,514
265 12,818 930 117,393 581,835
73,191 65,116 162,094 47,220 454,971
New Mexico................. New York...................... North Carolina............. North Dakota............... Ohio...............................
1,734,677 31,392,067 (c) 7,435,928 513,113 11,628,759
1,200,588 20,590,335 (c) 5,509,871 364,558 7,627,647
344,766 8,150,999 (c) 1,270,907 102,067 2,564,154
64,044 1,367,210 (c) 226,785 17,351 644,537
0 260,392 0 1,768 157,676
124,798 1,018 ,900 (c) 420,926 24,599 475,124
481 4,231 (c) 7,439 2,770 159,621
Oklahoma..................... Oregon.......................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island................ South Carolina.............
2,931,941 3,163,791 13,262,302 1,323,688 (c) 3,885,166
2,075,415 1,906,409 8,529,225 857,933 (c) 2,713,940
546,248 870,256 3,049,189 341,472 (c) 755,706
73,668 155,115 862,179 25,474 (c) 161,437
1,284 23,020 238,906 70,019 740
220,211 191,567 558,021 26,925 (c) 223,487
15,115 17,425 24,782 1,866 (c) 29,855
South Dakota............... Tennessee..................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont........................
609,080 4,838,021 (c) 23,452,450 (c) 2,020,640 872,828
407,957 3,371,277 17,725,939 (c) 1,316,848 537,961
113,272 925,626 2,814,241 (c) 545,964 195,836
30,093 131,438 996,482 (c) 46,376 50,550
49,524 386,188 1,642,932 (c) 106,131 26,325
1,474 23,229 231,886 (c) 4,884 2,227
Virginia......................... Washington................... West Virginia................ Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
8,453,779 5,595,506 (c) 1,738,798 (c) 5,965,270 737,415
5,801,369 3,868,764 1,057,060 (c) 3,694,317 486,918
1,963,380 1,158,851 526,692 (c) 1,801,262 172,392
256,301 282,920 46,686 (c) 122,801 36,122
5,271 9,182 564 100,289 664
420,826 236,049 106,982 (c) 232,464 40,041
6,632 39,740 814 (c) 14,139 1,278
Dist. of Columbia(d)... American Samoa......... Guam............................ No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico.................. U.S. Virgin Islands.......
663,782 (c) 31,936 134,937 (c) 43,742 (c) 2,275,134 100,822
410,150 (c) 19,326 101,067 30,138 (c) 1,831,293 78,111
49,173 (c) 3,464 27,266 8,285 (c) 279,250 20,848
54,589 (c) 2,534 2,107 3,191 (c) 67,832 221
140,410 0 0 0 0 0
9,460 (c) 3,619 4,014 (c) 2,077 (c) 43,868 1,581
0 (c) 2,994 482 50 (c) 52,891 62
$14,068,214
6,760 264 (c) 40,970 436 59,928
Other
4,841 15,501 88,324 3,178 126,624
See footnotes at end of table.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 505
EDUCATION
current instruction and instruction-related expenditures for public elementary and secondary education, by object and state or jurisdiction: fiscal year 2007—Continued Source:U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS),” fiscal year 2007, Version 1a. Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. (a) Includes salaries and benefits for teachers, teaching assistants, librarians and library aides, in-service teacher trainers, curriculum development, student assessment, technology, and supplies and purchased services related
506 The Book of the States 2010
to these activities. (b) U.S. totals include the 50 states and the District of Columbia. (c) Value affected by redistribution of reported values to correct for missing data items, and/or to distribute state direct support expenditures. (d) Both the District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to other states.
Higher EDUCATION
Community Colleges Struggling with Tighter Budgets and Record-High Enrollments By Jennifer Ginn
Community colleges are in crisis mode in the wake of the Great Recession. They are at the center of work force retraining for those left unemployed by the economic collapse and at the same time are experiencing large increases in enrollment of 18-year-olds looking to start their higher education careers. Underfunded for years, community colleges also are being hit with more budget cuts as states struggle to close massive budget deficits—leading to tuition increases and enrollment caps just as the services community colleges offer are needed most.
In the midst of the nation’s ailing economy, community colleges are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. And for at least the next couple of years, the outlook for improvement doesn’t look very good. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 pumped nearly $4 billion into state coffers for retraining programs to help unemployed workers gain the new skills they need to get back into the work force. The majority of those tens of thousands of new students received that training at community colleges. In addition, there has been a rapid increase in high school graduates looking to start their higher education careers at community colleges, which usually are less expensive than four-year institutions. Unpublished data from an annual survey of state community college directors conducted by the University of Alabama Education Policy Center show that nationally, there will be 1 million more 18- to 24-year-olds and 3 million more young adults ages 25 to 34 by 2012 than there are now. That means the prospect for even larger enrollments at community colleges is likely in the next few years. While the number of students has been climbing, states have been slashing funding for community colleges as they struggle to close massive budget deficits. According to the Education Policy Center, just two states reported midyear cuts to their operating budgets in the 2006–2007 fiscal year. In the 2007–2008 fiscal year, that number increased to nine states, including California and Florida, which have two of the largest community college systems in the country. But for 2008–2009, the figures only got worse. Community college systems in 34 states, or 71 percent, reported taking midyear cuts to their operating budgets.1
Funding Cuts Are Nothing New While the devastating collapse of the world economy certainly affected funding, community colleges have seen their funding slashed over the past few years. “It’s unfair to say this is a new thing because in Florida, funding for community colleges has been on a decreasing scale for many years,” said Eduardo Padrón, president of Miami Dade College, the nation’s largest community college. “This is a culmination of many years of underfunding. But it has become very, very severe because of the economic downturn in the national economy. … It has been a crisis in the making.” Robert Keys, president of Rockingham Community College in North Carolina, said the economic situation is grim. He has worked at community colleges for 40 years and has been president for 22 of them. “I’ve never seen an economic situation as bad as this in those years,” Keys said. “… We’ve had some recessions here and there, but I’ve never seen it this bad. I don’t see a lot of optimism for this … year. We’re going to have to really tighten our belts and do a lot of things unconventionally to get through this year.” According to a report from the Delta Cost Project,2 state and local funding for community colleges—and all higher education institutions in general—has been on the decline for years. Between 2002 and 2005, funding for community colleges has dropped $500 per full-time equivalent student. Although funding rebounded slightly in 2006, it did not make up for the loss in the previous years. “And stress on state budgets from the economic meltdown of late 2008 will undoubtedly result in further declines in higher education
The Council of State Governments 507
Higher EDUCATION appropriations in the upcoming years,” the report concludes.3 According to the American Association of Community Colleges, state appropriations make up the largest source of revenue for community colleges at 38 percent. Coming in at a close second was tuition and fees, which provided 20 percent of all community college revenues.4 As state funding has decreased, the price of tuition and fees has risen to take up the slack. Between 2002 and 2005, tuition revenue increased by an average of $124 per student. Even when state funding picked up slightly in 2006, tuition continued to increase at a slower rate of $75 per student.5 In Alabama, for example, community college tuitions will be going up 27 percent in a two-step increase.6 In Washington, the legislature approved letting community colleges increase tuition up to 7 percent each year for the next two years.7 And just because state and local funding has been dropping at community colleges, don’t think that federal funds have stepped in to take over. Community colleges educate 45 percent of the nation’s college students, but they receive markedly less funding from the federal government than universities. A report from the Brookings Institution shows that universities receive more than three times as much federal funding per full-time student than community colleges.8 While tuition and fees have risen faster at universities, the effects of tuition increases at the community college level are more severe and strike at the most vulnerable groups of students. Thirty-five percent of the students attending community colleges are minorities and nearly 40 percent of them are the first in their families to attend college. A total of 17 percent of community college students nationwide are single parents.9 “We’re the largest sector of higher education,” said George Boggs, president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges. “… Our colleges are the ones that are most closely aligned with local business and industry to provide students with the technical skills needed. The unemployed auto workers aren’t going to Harvard to pick up these skills they need. They’re going to their local community colleges in droves.”
The Open Door is Closing Community colleges are not only cheaper, they also can be an entrance into the world of higher education for those with less than sterling academic careers in high school because of their open admission policies. Sixty-one percent of the students
508 The Book of the States 2010
enrolled at a community college take at least one remedial course.10 At some community colleges, the need for remedial education is even higher. At Miami Dade College, 75 percent of freshmen need remedial classes in either reading or math.11 These are students that without community colleges may not get into more selective four-year universities. Opportunities at community colleges, however, are drying up—something that was unthinkable just a decade ago. Thousands of students were denied entrance to Miami Dade for the fall 2009 semester because of the college’s inability to add teachers or sections to classes once they were filled.12 Wayne County Community College, which sits in the heart of the economic collapse in Detroit, was forced to put a cap on student enrollment for the first time in its history after experiencing a 25 percent increase in enrollment.13 The Idaho legislature’s budget director informed policymakers in fall 2009 that they may have to cap community college enrollments. The College of Western Idaho was nearly $2 million in the red for the school year after a shocking enrollment increase of 286 percent in just one year.14 President Obama offered his solution announcing in July 2009 a new American Graduation Initiative that would pump $12 billion into community colleges over the next decade. He said now was not the time to begin limiting who can attend classes. “At the same time, community colleges are under increasing pressure to cap enrollments and scrap courses and cut costs as states and municipalities face budget shortfalls,” Obama said in the announcement. “And this is in addition to the challenges you face in the best of times, as these schools receive far less funding per student than typical four-year colleges and universities. So community colleges are an undervalued asset in our country. Not only is that not right, it’s not smart.”15
More Hard Times are Coming While times have been hard, the 2011 fiscal year is looming large in the minds of community college directors because that’s when extra funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stops. The vast majority of community college directors surveyed by the University of Alabama said stimulus money was used to fill in for funding that otherwise would have been cut from community college budgets.16 “A lot of them say they will face further cuts in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011,” said Steve Katsinas, professor of higher education and direc-
Higher EDUCATION tor of the Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama. “Time and time again, the concern is about 2011. Everybody is talking about it.” In fact, several community college directors specifically mentioned the end of stimulus funding in 2011 in the Education Policy Center survey. “All new funding is coming from budget reserves (one-time money). What about FY 2011,” Arkansas questioned. An Iowa survey respondent said, “The (Recovery Act) funds will allow the state to stay on an even footing for 2009–2010. The true concern is with FY2011.” And a Florida survey respondent said, “For the third year in a row, the FY2009–2010 budget year will be a combination of strong enrollment increases, reduced college operating budgets and significant tuition increases. The state does not have the revenue to fund these enrollment increases, but expects us to do our best to accommodate student growth.” The Florida respondent said the Recovery Act money has helped, “but it is likely that our state economy will not be able to replace the loss of those funds after the 2010 fiscal year. The capacity of our colleges to expand job training programs beyond current levels has been diminished by these factors and new resources, particularly for new faculty positions, will be needed for our colleges to increase our contribution to the economic recovery of Florida.” A full 80 percent of community college state directors said they were concerned about a shortfall in their base budget for the 2011 fiscal year.17 That’s already happening in Illinois. The state’s 39 community colleges may not get up to half of their funding from the state for this school year. Funding is disbursed by the state in installments in August, November, February and May. This year, however, the first payment, scheduled in August, was delayed by almost four months and the second installment may not come until May. That means community colleges may not get their final two disbursements because they already will be into another school year.18 Padrón of Miami Dade College said it is easy to look at funding for education as being more negotiable than other budget areas, but it is an essential part of economic recovery. “The problem is when it comes to education,” he said, “everything else is a priority. Nobody is dying because of education. That’s the way politicians look at it. They postpone education and concentrate on other things. For a state and a community to really survive and thrive economically is directly related to how well your work force is educated.”
And Boggs stressed that education isn’t just a line item in a budget; it’s an investment. “(Legislators) really need to look at the long term, because the dollars they invest in educating students at a community college has a tremendous return on investment,” Boggs said. “These are people who get higher-paying jobs, who stay employed in high-demand industries. All that money circulates to improve the economies of communities and states and ultimately, the nation. “It really is a long-term investment in the state and in the nation that we all will benefit from. A better trained work force helps raise all boats.”
Notes 1 The Education Policy Center, Funding and Access Issues in Public Higher Education: A Community College Perspective, (2009), 11 (accessible at http://www.insidehighered.com/content/download/317858/4098893/version/1/file/ report.pdf). 2 The Delta Cost Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving college affordability by controlling costs and improving productivity. For more information, visit http://www.deltacostproject.org/index.asp. 3 Delta Cost Project, “Trends in College Spending: Where does the money come from? Where does it go?” (2009), 14 (accessible at http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/ trends_in_spending-report.pdf). 4 American Association of Community Colleges, “Public College Revenues by Source of Revenue,” (accessible at http://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index_institutions.htm). 5 Delta Cost Project, 15. 6 Stan Diel, “Alabama community college tuition to go up,” The Birmingham News, Oct. 23, 2009 (accessible at http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?/ base/news/125628575180840.xml&coll=2). 7 SB 6562 Senate Bill Report (accessible at http://apps.leg. wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/ Senate/6562%20SBA%20WM%2010.pdf). 8 Brookings, “Transforming America’s Community Colleges: A Federal Policy Proposal to Expand Opportunity and Promote Economic Prosperity,” 5 (accessible at http:// www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/0507_community_college_goldrick_rab.aspx). 9 American Association of Community Colleges, “Community College Fast Facts,” (accessible at http://www.insidehighered.com/). 10 Brookings, 9. 11 Robert A. Jones, “Turning Students Away: The Plight of Florida’s Community Colleges Suggests the Depth of the State’s Financial Crisis,” National Crosstalk, Volume 17, No. 2, December 2009,15. 12 Ibid. 13 Robin Erb, “WCCCD caps spring enrollment, school overloaded by economy,” Detroit Free-Press,
The Council of State Governments 509
Higher EDUCATION (accessible at http://www.freep.com/article/20100112/.../ WCCCD-caps-spring-enrollment). 14 Times-News, “Enrollment caps on campus? That’s a higher ed horror story,” (accessible at http://www.magicvalley.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_651652a5-4a3a5354-bf07-e6a2bcb854d5.html). 15 Speech by President Barack Obama at Macomb Community College, July 14, 2009, (accessible at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-thePresident-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative-in-Warren-MI/). 16 Education Policy Center, 17. 17 Ibid. 18 Madhu Krishnamurthy and Bob Susnjara, “Community colleges could lose half of state funding,” Daily Herald, Dec. 4, 2009, (accessible at http://www.dailyherald.com/ story/?id=341640).
About the Author Jennifer Ginn is an education policy analyst at The Council of State Governments. She is a former newspaper editor and reporter and has covered education issues for more than 15 years.
510 The Book of the States 2010
15,386 13,148 12,583 10,686 14,515 13,780 11,138 10,634 16,902 10,013 11,230 12,729
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa............................... Kansas........................... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Nebraska....................... North Dakota................ Ohio............................... South Dakota................ Wisconsin...................... Regional average..........
The Council of State Governments 511
See footnotes at end of table.
10,686 9,799 10,418 10,320 11,902 9,021 10,049 12,585 10,471 9,825 14,194 10,534 11,810 13,143 10,620 11,025
15,454 15,203 12,869 15,209 15,211 16,606 18,705 13,683 16,311 15,034 17,271 15,596
Southern Region Alabama........................ Arkansas........................ Florida........................... Georgia.......................... Kentucky....................... Louisiana....................... Mississippi..................... Missouri......................... North Carolina.............. Oklahoma...................... South Carolina.............. Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Virginia.......................... West Virginia................. Regional average..........
$12,797
Eastern Region Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Maine............................. Maryland....................... Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.................... New York....................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional average..........
State or other jurisdiction Total
United States................
4,716 4,954 3,009 3,773 5,824 3,761 4,456 6,317 4,040 4,174 7,905 5,006 5,093 6,450 4,099 4,905
8,044 6,287 6,020 4,959 7,505 7,447 5,184 5,473 8,995 5,062 6,045 6,456
7,148 7,414 6,564 7,068 7,635 9,023 9,333 5,015 9,124 6,719 9,774 7,711
$5,666
11,035 10,598 10,709 10,984 12,641 9,479 10,776 13,385 10,889 10,600 15,089 11,340 12,367 13,928 11,426 11,683
16,795 14,096 13,191 11,338 16,003 14,188 11,852 11,134 16,354 10,522 11,747 13,384
16,263 16,165 14,791 15,644 16,159 18,293 19,548 14,140 17,187 15,775 18,245 16,565
$13,424
4,907 5,427 2,980 4,006 6,342 3,835 4,762 6,643 4,301 4,471 8,389 5,366 5,538 6,887 4,377 5,215
8,982 6,604 6,219 5,406 8,471 7,707 5,443 5,765 8,090 5,395 6,177 6,751
7,465 7,823 7,250 7,141 7,922 9,610 9,702 5,065 9,593 7,120 10,401 8,099
$5,950
3,107 2,926 4,385 4,139 3,403 3,113 3,200 4,218 3,648 3,243 4,159 3,312 3,575 3,862 3,730 3,601
4,032 3,585 3,426 2,925 3,817 3,392 3,174 2,227 4,703 2,378 3,376 3,367
4,722 4,954 3,760 4,815 4,764 5,120 6,209 5,381 4,327 4,779 5,021 4,896
$4,072
3,022 2,244 3,345 2,839 2,896 2,530 2,815 2,523 2,939 2,886 2,542 2,662 3,254 3,178 3,319 2,866
3,781 3,907 3,546 3,007 3,715 3,089 3,235 3,141 3,561 2,750 2,195 3,266
4,076 3,388 3,781 3,687 3,473 3,563 3,637 3,693 3,267 3,876 2,824 3,569
$3,402
19,380 19,213 26,524 27,188 20,968 28,896 17,640 23,421 27,545 21,559 23,560 24,377 25,295 24,632 21,026 23,415
29,275 29,019 24,075 21,621 20,725 28,671 21,779 14,195 28,422 19,816 27,185 24,071
38,010 19,081 30,976 34,579 39,391 32,972 33,170 34,317 33,927 35,808 30,708 32,994
$28,919
13,061 13,371 18,299 18,889 14,735 21,100 12,193 16,472 20,220 15,228 17,195 17,453 18,285 17,821 14,571 16,593
20,398 21,784 17,865 15,763 13,912 21,497 15,673 9,764 21,038 14,463 20,225 17,489
27,666 11,710 22,609 25,683 28,890 23,946 23,428 24,410 25,068 25,401 22,399 23,746
$20,517
21,014 20,096 27,534 29,046 22,303 30,363 18,395 25,008 29,141 22,780 24,914 25,802 27,116 26,170 22,022 24,780
30,833 29,953 25,057 22,653 21,874 30,135 23,022 15,156 30,093 20,605 28,422 25,255
40,245 20,170 32,753 36,171 41,458 34,643 35,182 36,228 36,019 36,476 33,879 34,839
$30,393
14,116 14,178 19,167 20,175 15,713 22,162 12,693 17,464 21,497 16,128 18,289 18,509 19,626 18,892 15,296 17,594
21,508 22,396 18,556 16,619 14,827 22,657 16,596 10,465 22,337 15,274 21,334 18,415
29,360 12,474 23,900 26,865 30,487 25,281 24,877 25,885 26,645 26,701 25,111 25,235
$21,588
3,319 2,884 4,554 5,119 3,360 4,637 2,941 3,818 3,921 3,370 3,261 3,871 4,044 3,740 3,203 3,736
5,322 3,845 3,041 2,707 3,556 3,925 3,281 2,090 3,939 2,655 3,660 3,456
6,036 4,094 4,473 5,609 6,044 5,460 5,540 6,112 5,162 5,423 4,741 5,336
$4,812
3,578 3,033 3,813 3,752 3,230 3,564 2,762 3,726 3,723 3,281 3,364 3,422 3,446 3,537 3,523 3,450
4,003 3,711 3,460 3,327 3,491 3,552 3,146 2,601 3,816 2,676 3,429 3,383
4,849 3,601 4,380 3,697 4,927 3,902 4,765 4,231 4,212 4,351 4,027 4,267
$3,993
2,802 1,901 1,968 1,730 2,630 1,526 1,710 2,278 1,303 2,260 3,108 2,474 1,370 2,361 2,665 2,139
2,250 2,713 3,137 1,941 2,091 4,339 1,993 3,454 3,250 3,542 3,168 2,898
2,672 2,364 3,037 2,950 2,975 5,593 2,914 3,289 3,093 2,686 4,204 3,253
$2,018
2,814 1,928 1,862 1,876 2,772 1,641 1,726 2,385 1,377 2,356 3,223 2,631 1,436 2,484 2,700 2,214
2,377 2,819 3,264 2,029 2,186 4,535 2,128 3,606 3,197 3,730 3,369 3,022
2,829 2,490 3,270 3,010 3,071 5,972 3,054 3,423 3,181 2,846 4,420 3,415
$2,063
Public 2-year Private 4-year tuition only (in-state) 2006 –2007 2007–2008 (a) Tuition 2007– (in-state) (b) Room Board Total Tuition (b) Total Tuition (b) Room Board 2006 –2007 2008 (a)
Public 4-year 2007–2008 (a)
Tuition (in-state) (b) Total
2006 –2007
Table 9.8 AVERAGE UNDERGRADUATE TUITION AND FEES AND ROOM AND BOARD RATES IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION AND STATE: 2006–2007 AND 2007–2008
HIGHER EDUCATION
512 The Book of the States 2010 4,293
11,345 …
Dist. of Columbia.........
…
11,981
11,719 12,289 14,893 13,314 12,202 9,871 11,609 12,168 10,610 13,868 9,706 13,478 10,068 11,984
3,140
4,559
4,747 4,954 4,879 5,250 4,653 4,381 5,418 3,053 4,143 5,939 4,046 5,353 2,990 4,600
…
3,675
4,104 4,477 5,212 3,946 3,785 2,507 2,861 5,243 3,495 3,954 2,291 3,882 3,158 3,763
…
3,747
2,868 2,858 4,802 4,118 3,763 2,983 3,330 3,872 2,973 3,976 3,369 4,242 3,920 3,621
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006–07 and 2007–08 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2006, Fall 2007, Spring 2007. (This table was prepared July 2008.) Note: Data are for the entire academic year and are average charges. Tuition and fees were weighted by the number of full-time equivalent undergraduates, but are not adjusted to reflect student residency. Room and board are based on full-time students. Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees
2,670
4,422 4,665 4,445 4,645 3,923 4,154 5,382 2,827 3,937 5,584 3,783 5,552 2,951 4,328
23,755
14,602
16,301 14,450 23,258 18,832 10,756 5,656 13,777 13,706 14,324 22,378 5,768 21,557 10,500 14,712
35,747
24,412
26,883 21,809 35,006 30,409 21,452 10,788 21,072 25,562 24,023 31,810 12,913 31,090 … 24,402
25,010
15,552
18,904 13,186 24,453 19,879 11,348 5,933 14,729 14,786 15,666 23,952 6,240 23,127 10,890 15,623
6,926
4,202
3,700 4,759 5,812 5,633 4,360 1,765 2,872 5,568 4,407 4,016 3,318 4,268 … 4,206
3,811
4,197
4,279 3,864 4,741 4,897 5,743 3,089 3,471 5,208 3,950 3,842 3,354 3,695 … 4,178
…
1,955
2,883 1,451 674 2,034 1,395 2,006 2,827 1,695 1,239 2,832 2,287 2,666 1,820 1,985
…
2,036
3,161 1,478 588 2,076 1,566 2,111 2,983 1,763 1,271 2,887 2,419 2,773 1,918 2,076
and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Key: . . . — Not applicable (a) Peliminary data based on fall 2006 enrollment weights. (b) Tuition includes required fees.
34,071
22,977
23,618 22,160 33,207 28,834 20,301 11,851 19,891 23,189 21,786 29,936 11,647 29,144 … 22,964
Public 2-year Private 4-year tuition only (in-state) 2006 –2007 2007–2008 (a) Tuition 2007– (in-state) (b) Room Board Total Tuition (b) Total Tuition (b) Room Board 2006 –2007 2008 (a)
Public 4-year 2007–2008 (a)
Tuition (in-state) (b) Total
11,395 11,966 14,349 12,079 11,032 9,528 11,294 11,581 9,947 13,185 9,052 13,070 9,627 11,393
State or other jurisdiction Total
Western Region Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... California...................... Colorado........................ Hawaii .......................... Idaho.............................. Montana........................ Nevada........................... New Mexico.................. Oregon........................... Utah............................... Washington................... Wyoming....................... Regional average ......... Regional average without California......
2006 –2007
AVERAGE UNDERGRADUATE TUITION AND FEES AND ROOM AND BOARD RATES IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION AND STATE: 2006–2007 AND 2007–2008—Continued
HIGHER EDUCATION
39 33 40 74 24 52 26 34 75 29 33 22 109 39 23 652
Southern Region Alabama........................... 68 Arkansas........................... 49 Florida.............................. 184 Georgia............................. 135 Kentucky.......................... 71 Louisiana.......................... 84 Mississippi........................ 42 Missouri............................ 128 North Carolina................. 130 Oklahoma......................... 59 South Carolina................. 66 Tennessee......................... 105 Texas................................. 214 Virginia............................. 112 West Virginia.................... 44 Regional total.................. 1,491
See footnotes at end of table.
60 29 19 32 45 42 15 14 61 12 31 360
177 106 65 60 105 112 42 22 207 24 73 993
Midwestern Region Illinois............................... Indiana.............................. Iowa.................................. Kansas.............................. Michigan........................... Minnesota......................... Nebraska.......................... North Dakota................... Ohio.................................. South Dakota................... Wisconsin......................... Regional total..................
22 5 15 29 31 12 33 78 65 3 6 299
46 10 30 57 122 28 60 307 263 14 25 962
1,685
Eastern Region Connecticut...................... Delaware.......................... Maine................................ Maryland.......................... Massachusetts.................. New Hampshire............... New Jersey....................... New York.......................... Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island.................... Vermont............................ Regional total..................
United States (e)............. 4,352
14 11 19 24 8 17 9 13 16 17 13 9 45 15 12 242
12 15 3 8 15 11 7 7 30 7 14 129
10 2 8 13 15 5 14 43 44 2 5 161
653
4 2 8 4 2 4 4 4 6 2 3 4 11 6 1 65
5 5 2 3 7 1 1 2 10 2 2 40
1 1 1 3 3 1 3 6 4 1 1 25
165
9 5 2 13 5 9 4 6 6 6 4 5 21 6 1 102
7 6 1 4 7 8 3 1 1 0 9 47
4 1 1 8 7 2 9 20 16 1 2 71
264
1 3 8 6 1 1 0 3 3 7 5 0 5 3 9 55
0 4 0 0 1 2 2 3 15 3 3 33
4 0 6 1 2 2 1 13 22 0 2 53
177
0 1 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 8 0 1 20
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 9
1 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 2 0 0 12
47
25 22 21 50 16 35 17 21 59 12 20 13 64 24 11 410
48 14 16 24 30 31 8 7 31 5 17 231
12 3 7 16 16 7 19 35 21 1 1 138
1,032
18 12 55 34 27 10 11 56 45 14 25 49 57 35 9 457
85 43 36 22 52 37 19 6 78 8 30 416
18 5 13 21 83 14 23 185 116 10 17 505
1,624
18 11 54 31 27 10 11 52 44 14 23 46 53 35 9 438
81 42 35 21 52 36 17 5 71 7 28 395
16 4 12 21 79 13 23 165 101 10 16 460
1,532
1 0 4 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 4 1 0 22
6 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 15
3 1 0 1 9 2 3 17 7 1 0 15
105
2 1 11 4 3 2 3 12 5 3 4 10 16 7 2 85
16 9 5 6 9 6 3 1 18 1 10 84
6 1 3 4 14 2 9 39 30 4 5 117
344
10 9 21 17 14 4 4 12 28 5 14 17 17 20 6 198
24 21 20 12 23 11 9 1 26 3 10 160
5 1 6 7 25 6 3 30 36 1 9 129
534
5 1 18 8 9 3 4 26 9 4 5 17 16 7 1 133
35 11 10 3 19 16 5 3 24 3 7 136
2 1 3 9 31 3 8 79 28 4 2 170
549
0 1 1 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 3 4 0 0 19
4 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 7 1 2 21
2 1 1 0 4 1 0 20 15 0 1 45
92
11 4 89 27 20 22 5 38 10 16 8 34 48 38 12 382
32 34 10 6 8 33 8 2 68 4 12 217
6 0 2 7 8 2 4 44 82 1 2 158
1,043
8 3 52 18 7 4 0 17 7 8 5 17 13 20 2 181
19 18 9 3 5 28 5 2 7 4 8 108
4 0 0 4 4 1 3 14 8 0 2 40
490
3 1 37 9 13 18 5 21 3 8 3 17 35 18 10 201
13 16 1 3 3 5 3 0 61 0 4 109
2 0 2 3 4 1 1 30 74 1 0 118
553
Public 4-year institutions Not-for-profit 4-year institutions All not-for- Not-for- For profit institutions State or other All public Doctoral Master’s Bacalaureate Special Public profit Doctoral Master’s Baccalaureate Special profit jurisdiction Total institutions Total (a) (b) (c) focus (d) 2-year institutions Total (a) (b) (c) focus (d) 2-year Total 4-year 2-year
Table 9.9 degree granting institutions and branches, by type and control of institution, 2007–2008
higher education
The Council of State Governments 513
514 The Book of the States 2010 1 2
1 3
1 1 1 74 1
Marshall Islands............... No. Marianas Islands....... Palau ................................ Puerto Rico ..................... U.S. Virgin Islands............
0 1 0 14 1
0 1
2 5 1
79
3 6 35 12 4 4 6 6 8 9 7 13 1 114
0 0 0 1 0
0 0
0 0 0
26
1 3 9 5 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 35
0 0 0 1 0
0 1
1 0 0
24
2 3 19 2 0 1 1 0 4 3 2 6 0 43
0 1 0 9 1
0 0
0 5 1
26
0 0 5 5 3 1 3 4 1 2 3 4 0 31
0 0 0 3 0
0 0
1 0 0
3
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-08 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2007. (This table was prepared July 2008.) Note: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Key: . . .— Not applicable. (a) Institutions that award at least 20 doctor’s degrees per year. (b) Institutions that award at least 50 master’s degrees per year.
1 1 1 17 1
2 5 1
220
469
16 5 1
5 27 147 27 10 7 18 7 28 26 14 43 8 367
7 76 416 80 22 14 23 23 42 60 36 76 10 885
Dist. of Columbia ........... U.S. Service Schools......... American Samoa............. Fed. States of Micronesia ............... Guam ...............................
Western Region Alaska............................... Arizona............................. California......................... Colorado........................... Hawaii ............................. Idaho................................. Montana........................... Nevada.............................. New Mexico..................... Oregon.............................. Utah.................................. Washington...................... Wyoming.......................... Regional total.................. Regional total.................. without California........
0 0 0 40 0
0 1
11 0 0
93
1 10 142 13 6 4 5 2 5 25 4 18 0 235
0 0 0 36 0
0 1
11 0 0
90
1 10 138 12 6 4 4 2 5 25 3 18 0 228
0 0 0 2 0
0 0
5 0 0
4
0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 19
0 0 0 5 0
0 0
3 0 0
28
1 2 27 3 2 1 1 0 4 3 1 10 0 55
0 0 0 19 0
0 0
0 0 0
25
0 2 22 3 1 2 2 1 1 9 1 3 0 47
0 0 0 10 0
0 1
3 0 0
33
0 6 74 5 3 1 1 1 0 11 0 5 0 107
0 0 0 4 0
0 0
0 0 0
3
0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
0 0 0 17 0
0 0
3 0 0
156
1 39 127 40 6 3 0 14 9 9 18 15 2 283
0 0 0 8 0
0 0
3 0 0
99
1 25 59 22 4 2 0 7 8 5 12 12 1 158
0 0 0 9 0
0 0
0 0 0
57
0 14 68 18 2 1 0 7 1 4 6 3 1 125
(c)Institutions that primarily emphasize undergraduate education. (d) Four-year institutions that award degrees primarily in single fields of study, such as medicine, business, fine arts, theology, and engineering. Includes some institutions that have 4-year programs, but have not reported sufficient data to identify program category. Also includes institutions classified as 4-year under the IPEDS system, which had been classified as 2-year in the Carnegie classification system because they primarily award associate’s degrees. (e) U.S. totals include the District of Columbia and U.S. Service Schools.
1 0 1 3 0
1 1
0 0 0
141
2 21 112 15 6 3 12 1 20 17 7 30 7 253
Public 4-year institutions Not-for-profit 4-year institutions All not-for- Not-for- For profit institutions State or other All public Doctoral Master’s Bacalaureate Special Public profit Doctoral Master’s Baccalaureate Special profit jurisdiction Total institutions Total (a) (b) (c) focus (d) 2-year institutions Total (a) (b) (c) focus (d) 2-year Total 4-year 2-year
degree granting institutions and branches, by type and control of institution, 2007–2008—Continued
higher education
State or other jurisdiction Total
70,404 65,052 61,109 58,274 72,106 65,826 59,691 50,399 65,507 52,532 64,208 62,283
59,770 52,062 65,065 62,839 56,845 56,546 52,277 61,001 60,919 58,120 57,941 59,855 63,709 66,590 53,951 59,166
Midwestern Region Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa............................. Kansas......................... Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Nebraska..................... North Dakota.............. Ohio............................. South Dakota.............. Wisconsin.................... Regional average........
Southern Region Alabama...................... Arkansas...................... Florida......................... Georgia........................ Kentucky..................... Louisiana..................... Mississippi................... Missouri....................... North Carolina............ Oklahoma.................... South Carolina............ Tennessee.................... Texas............................ Virginia........................ West Virginia............... Regional Average.......
See footnotes at end of table.
83,336 79,208 63,082 69,179 85,179 70,125 82,559 76,918 73,112 77,582 64,256 74,958
Eastern Region Connecticut................. Delaware..................... Maine........................... Maryland..................... Massachusetts............. New Hampshire.......... New Jersey.................. New York..................... Pennsylvania............... Rhode Island............... Vermont....................... Regional Average.......
United States.............. $68,585
61,275 52,266 64,937 61,588 58,316 55,663 52,717 58,962 58,457 58,433 59,066 58,674 62,671 69,492 55,810 59,222
66,256 64,808 64,789 60,739 74,322 67,608 61,745 51,834 67,000 54,228 65,578 63,537
78,435 79,532 58,878 67,656 71,086 68,214 80,743 71,056 71,254 68,594 62,444 70,717
$66,566
66,081 56,690 70,234 64,564 62,394 57,562 57,986 61,508 70,680 62,085 66,001 62,640 68,262 74,723 57,430 63,923
68,723 67,966 74,060 66,825 75,205 74,139 66,528 54,564 70,691 56,877 65,241 67,347
82,998 83,758 60,937 71,421 76,905 74,202 86,547 74,337 74,028 71,993 62,444 74,506
$70,460
74,593 62,198 74,011 75,190 73,170 63,670 60,180 70,719 75,940 70,720 74,854 65,151 74,252 81,927 66,896 70,898
74,186 72,867 77,504 71,879 81,982 95,702 76,404 58,899 72,604 58,575 77,761 74,397
93,230 85,856 66,577 83,365 86,304 79,914 94,185 86,054 82,044 78,161 69,186 82,261
$76,921
56,347 50,443 62,297 54,312 56,441 50,053 48,785 54,570 63,704 54,129 57,825 58,169 58,165 60,899 54,921 56,071
57,091 55,391 62,470 55,738 61,206 63,189 58,258 46,641 64,265 57,363 55,885 57,954
72,791 64,908 64,721 60,936 67,214 64,824 81,386 71,454 70,075 60,921 50,180 66,310
$62,298
62,794 51,835 60,068 49,951 … 55,787 … 53,916 60,194 45,015 51,851 … 45,825 63,124 50,444 54,234
… 52,910 … 51,521 52,714 57,904 … 43,397 55,838 40,023 … 50,615
… … 50,886 61,073 71,727 66,116 … 65,323 60,440 … 47,037 60,372
$59,057
4-year All public institutions Total Doctoral (a) Master’s (b) Other
Public institutions
49,532 41,526 50,621 43,324 48,188 44,589 45,886 50,812 43,013 45,505 44,544 45,774 50,598 51,509 43,635 46,604
61,757 42,901 46,661 46,308 70,544 57,818 45,663 40,469 54,322 41,264 66,126 52,167
64,740 61,852 51,415 60,762 56,351 46,913 66,371 64,478 56,006 57,407 … 58,630
$57,466
Public 2-year
Table 9.10 AVERAGE SALARY OF FULL-TIME FACULTY ON 9-MONTH CONTRACTS: 2006–2007
51,667 50,914 65,243 66,395 50,613 60,963 48,322 65,178 68,888 56,810 52,827 62,371 68,661 59,399 44,730 58,199
76,943 65,582 55,009 42,954 59,466 61,709 54,312 41,791 62,301 46,125 58,652 56,804
89,272 76,162 69,846 74,222 91,648 73,975 87,070 82,704 75,323 83,430 65,948 79,055
$73,581
51,667 51,165 65,243 66,582 50,613 60,963 48,322 65,502 69,071 56,810 52,997 62,558 68,839 59,399 44,730 58,297
77,105 65,741 55,009 43,410 59,466 61,725 54,376 43,661 62,357 46,125 58,751 57,066
89,272 76,162 70,070 74,222 91,800 73,975 87,070 82,934 75,606 83,430 69,176 79,429
$73,769
64,460 … 76,312 92,851 57,906 64,394 52,084 88,400 91,893 63,602 … 82,564 80,522 57,486 49,223 72,468
94,231 90,663 55,497 … 41,145 62,193 66,285 … 76,192 … 73,225 69,929
102,964 58,121 … 88,795 104,004 88,121 103,753 94,461 96,017 102,503 … 93,193
$91,291
52,658 52,723 64,047 59,006 45,468 62,336 38,392 50,788 52,775 56,534 60,439 46,599 64,056 60,953 43,917 54,959
62,692 57,282 52,328 46,970 58,049 57,713 50,962 45,556 56,061 46,961 53,427 53,455
78,867 92,816 52,967 59,700 75,740 63,019 66,738 64,596 62,897 72,142 73,764 69,386
$62,518
40,041 49,950 49,412 50,812 52,679 49,818 … 46,920 50,741 40,925 48,920 50,557 52,210 58,429 43,585 48,226
55,206 55,518 56,420 37,475 60,699 63,444 46,711 41,923 61,994 45,669 52,587 52,513
68,564 … 77,852 65,201 75,371 57,354 63,176 73,775 67,241 79,242 52,111 67,989
$60,500
4-year All not-for-profit Total Doctoral (a) Master’s (b) Other
Not-for-profit institutions
… 26,814 … 51,781 … … … 45,082 37,289 … 42,454 28,380 32,328 … … 37,733
37,858 40,023 … 34,936 … 46,965 34,360 32,908 51,749 … 45,233 40,504
…. … 51,030 … 44,816 … … 44,065 42,962 … 39,644 44,503
$42,043
Not-for-profit 2-year
53,542 … / … / / … 40,987 59,090
… … 82,742 … … …
24,234 35,347 … … … / … … 29,621 34,333 … 30,884
… 40,994
43,033 42,110 38,139 41,570 37,257
43,854 … …
$46,053
For-profit institutions
higher education
The Council of State Governments 515
516 The Book of the States 2010 71,442 108,062 … … 57,538
71,442 108,062 28,461 21,373 53,436 27,188 41,174 17,079 57,482 60,214
Marshall Islands.......... No. Marianas Islands.. Palau............................ Puerto Rico................. U.S. Virgin Islands.......
… … … … …
… …
… … …
70,920
64,251 78,802 95,397 72,767 75,582 57,434 59,833 80,293 69,279 64,478 70,560 89,376 68,382 72,803
… … … 63,319 60,214
… 57,538
69,938 … …
56,524
61,496 65,007 70,081 53,113 … 55,965 51,084 … 52,760 48,877 54,667 65,744 …. 57,879
… 41,174 …. 52,338 …
… …
79,879 108,062 …
52,428
… 66,957 69,953 51,469 57,647 42,519 45,134 60,163 40,650 51,893 54,399 53,453 … 54,022
… … … 28,527 …
… …
83,489 … ….
60,199
47,355 61,562 87,836 69,531 63,275 47,260 42,731 59,057 64,721 62,441 81,097 63,163 … 62,502
… … … 28,527 …
… …
83,489 . . . …
60,375
47,355 61,562 87,950 69,531 63,275 47,260 44,341 59,057 64,721 62,441 81,419 63,163 … 62,673
… … … 24,472 …
… …
84,048 . . . …
70,941
… … 98,319 72,055 … … … … … 56,967 83,802 … … 77,786
… … … 30,435 …
… ….
76,680 . . . …
59,019
51,310 65,760 73,091 67,820 58,651 46,563 42,633 59,057 68,479 65,046 60,590 63,299 … 60,192
… … … … …
… …
… . . . …
55,403
37,961 56,933 80,755 48,364 78,288 47,810 45,328 … 60,512 61,348 … 62,079 … 57,938
4-year All not-for-profit Total Doctoral (a) Master’s (b) Other
Not-for-profit institutions
… … … … …
… …
… . . . …
41,138
… … 59,976 … … … 29,845 … … … 52,430 … … 47,417
Not-for-profit 2-year
… … … … …
… …
47,660 … …
….
…. … … … … … 78,566
… … 78,566 … …. …
For-profit institutions
Key: . . .— Not applicable. / —Reporting standards not met. (a) Institutions that awarded 20 or more doctor’s degrees during the previous academic year. (b) Institutions that awarded 20 or more master’s degrees, but less than 20 doctor’s degrees, during the previous calendar year.
27,188 … 17,079 …. …
21,373 45,579
… … 28,461
52,895
72,865 63,628 76,114 44,582 57,933 49,217 39,438 61,097 44,999 56,707 45,802 50,579 47,891 54,681
Public 2-year
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006–07 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 2006–07. (This table was prepared August 2007.) Note: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Data include imputations for nonrespondent institutions.
… 41,174 … 57,482 60,214
66,814
62,533
62,730
Dist. of Columbia....... 81,791 U.S. Service Schools.... 108,062 American Samoa........ 28,461 Fed. States of Micronesia................ 21,373 Guam........................... 53,436
27,188 41,174 17,079 56,942 60,214
62,629 77,243 81,796 66,209 71,589 55,661 56,783 74,268 63,062 60,913 63,204 81,927 68,282 67,967
4-year All public institutions Total Doctoral (a) Master’s (b) Other 62,694 72,220 79,122 62,285 67,462 54,675 54,499 72,723 57,625 59,130 60,184 68,542 58,362 63,809
61,861 71,965 80,843 63,281 66,635 54,070 52,901 72,581 57,946 59,944 65,763 67,453 58,362 64,123
State or other jurisdiction Total
Western Region Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ California.................... Colorado...................... Hawaii......................... Idaho............................ Montana...................... Nevada......................... New Mexico................ Oregon......................... Utah............................. Washington................. Wyoming..................... Regional Average....... Regional Average without California...
Public institutions
AVERAGE SALARY OF FULL-TIME FACULTY ON 9-MONTH CONTRACTS, 2006–2007—Continued
higher education
health care
Health Care Reform: Six Ways It Will Affect States By Kate Tormey and Debra Miller There are varying perspectives on the more than 2,500-page health care reform law, signed by President Obama in late March 2010, but most state policymakers can agree on one thing: A lot is going to change in the next four years.
The changes brought about by the health care reform law will have huge implications for state governments, even if not everyone sees the implications the same way. For instance, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who appeared at the bill signing ceremony, believes the bill could ultimately save his state $1 billion over the next decade. But in Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s administration estimates the bill’s Medicaid provisions alone could cost his state $1 billion over 12 years beginning in 2014. Six main provisions will have great importance to state policymakers.
1. Law will overhaul Medicaid Medicaid will be expanded in 2014 to cover all citizens and legal immigrants under age 65 who earn up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level— $14,404 for an individual and $29,327 for a family of four in 2009. The new population to be covered in Medicaid will be largely made up of childless adults, who typically have not been eligible for the state-federal program. Less than half the states provide any health insurance for those people, and most of the programs are very limited in scope, whether they are Medicaid waiver programs or state-funded only programs. (See Table A for more details.) An estimated 17 million adults—or 37 percent of the nation’s uninsured population—could gain coverage through the mandated Medicaid expansion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the states will have some help paying for it. The federal government will cover 100 percent of the cost of insuring newly eligible people from 2014 through 2016, but the federal share drops to 95 percent in 2017, 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019, and 90 percent in 2020 and beyond. But there are other anticipated expenses with this expansion. State Medicaid administrators know that outreach efforts for the newly eligible populations will also bring into the program individuals who were previously eligible but didn’t know it. States will receive only their traditional
Medicaid match rates for those people—even though Congress intended to minimize states’ new financial obligations. In addition, the increased administrative expenses of outreach and claims processing for a larger population will continue to be matched at regular rates. So for some states the federal promise of minimal state expenses due to new mandates may seem hollow. For a number of states, income eligibility levels for adults with children have remained constant since the welfare reform mandates of 1988. In less wealthy Southern states, especially, eligibility has changed little—and parents, whether working or jobless, are not eligible if their income is more than one-third or one-half the federal poverty level. (See Table A for more details.) But some states—such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine and Massachusetts—already had expanded Medicaid coverage beyond existing federal requirements, and the health care bill recognizes those states by providing a separate package of Medicaid financial assistance. Current state matching levels will be reduced 50 percent in 2014, 60 percent in 2015, 70 percent in 2016, 80 percent in 2017 and 90 percent in 2018 when all states will reach the same matching formula for adults, except for pregnant women. Until 2014, states must maintain their current eligibility levels for Medicaid using the current federalstate funding agreement. The so-called enhanced Medicaid matching rates provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are set to expire Dec. 31, 2010, with Congress expected to extend them only to June 30, 2011. States are exempt from this “maintenance of effort” requirement if they can prove that they are experiencing a budget deficit. Under another provision of the law, Medicaid reimbursements to primary care providers will be increased to match Medicare rates in 2013 and 2014, an increase that will be fully funded by the federal government in those years. After that, states likely will be responsible for setting, and funding, their own reimbursement rates.
The Council of State Governments 517
Health Care
Table A: Income Eligibility Level as a Percent of Federal Poverty Level Childless Adults CHIP More Medicaid/CHIP Expansion Medicaid Separate Comparable limited State or other Infants Children Children state Pregnant Jobless Working to benefit jurisdiction (0 –1) (1–5) (6 –19) program women parents parents Medicaid package Alabama........................ Alaska............................ Arizona.......................... Arkansas........................ California......................
133% 175% 140% 200% 200%
133% 175% 133% 200% 133%
100% 175% 100% 200% 100%
300% NA 200% NA 250%
133% 175% 150% 200% 200%
11% 77% 106% 13% 100%
24% 81% 106% 17% 106%
NA NA 100% NA NA
NA NA NA 200% (a)(c) NA
Colorado........................ Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Florida........................... Georgia..........................
133% 185% 200% 200% 200%
133% 185% 133% 133% 133%
100% 185% 100% 100% 100%
205% 300% 200% 200% 235%
200% 250% 200% 185% 200%
60% 185% 100% 20% 28%
66% 191% 121% 53% 50%
NA NA 100% NA NA
NA 300% (c) NA NA NA
Hawaii........................... Idaho.............................. Illinois............................ Indiana........................... Iowa...............................
300% 133% 200% 200% 300%
300% 133% 133% 150% 133%
300% 133% 133% 150% 133%
NA 185% 200% 250% 300%
185% 133% 200% 200% 300%
100% 21% 185% 19% 28%
100% 27% 185% 25% 83%
100% (b) NA NA NA NA
NA 185% (a) NA 200% (b) 200%
Kansas........................... 150% 133% 100% 241% 150% 26% 32% NA Kentucky....................... 185% 150% 150% 200% 185% 36% 62% NA Louisiana....................... 200% 200% 200% 250% 200% 11% 25% NA Maine............................. 200% 150% 150% 200% 200% 200% 206% NA Maryland....................... 300% 300% 300% NA 250% 116% 116% NA
NA NA NA 100% (b) 300% (c) 116%
Massachusetts............... Michigan........................ Minnesota...................... Mississippi..................... Missouri.........................
200% 185% 280% 185% 185%
150% 150% 275% 133% 150%
150% 150% 275% 100% 150%
300% 200% NA 200% 300%
200% 185% 275% 185% 185%
133% 37% 215% 24% 19%
133% 64% 215% 44% 25%
133% NA NA NA NA
300% 35% 200% (c) NA NA
Montana........................ Nebraska....................... Nevada........................... New Hampshire............ New Jersey....................
133% 200% 133% 300% 200%
133% 200% 133% 185% 133%
133% 200% 100% 185% 133%
250% NA 200% 300% 350%
150% 185% 185% 185% 200%
32% 47% 25% 39% 200%
56% 58% 88% 49% 200%
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
New Mexico.................. New York....................... North Carolina.............. North Dakota................ Ohio...............................
235% 200% 200% 133% 200%
235% 133% 200% 133% 200%
235% 100% 100% 100% 200%
NA 400% 200% 160% NA
235% 200% 185% 133% 200%
29% 150% 36% 34% 90%
67% 150% 49% 59% 90%
NA 100% NA NA NA
200% NA NA NA NA
Oklahoma...................... 185% 185% 185% NA 185% 31% 47% NA Oregon........................... 133% 133% 100% 300% 185% 32% 40% NA Pennsylvania................. 185% 133% 100% 300% 185% 26% 34% NA Rhode Island................. 250% 250% 250% NA 250% 175% 181% NA South Carolina.............. 185% 150% 150% 200% 185% 48% 89% NA
200% (a) 100% (b) 185% (b)(c) 200% (b)(c) NA NA
South Dakota................ Tennessee...................... Texas.............................. Utah............................... Vermont.........................
140% 185% 185% 133% 300%
140% 133% 133% 133% 300%
140% 100% 100% 100% 300%
200% 250% 200% 200% 300%
133% 250% 185% 133% 200%
52% 70% 12% 38% 185%
52% 129% 26% 44% 191%
NA NA NA $55,000/yr. (a)(c) NA NA NA 150% 150% 300%
Virginia.......................... Washington................... West Virginia................. Wisconsin...................... Wyoming.......................
133% 200% 150% 300% 133%
133% 200% 133% 300% 133%
133% 200% 100% 300% 100%
200% 300% 250% NA 200%
200% 185% 150% 300% 133%
23% 37% 17% 200% 39%
29% 74% 33% 200% 52%
NA NA NA NA NA
NA 200% (b)(c) NA 200% NA
Dist. of Columbia.........
300%
300%
300%
NA
300%
200%
207%
NA
200%
Source: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, April 2009 and December 2009. Note: Some states do not have a separate CHIP program.
518 The Book of the States 2010
Key: NA — Not applicable (a) Employment requirement. (b) Enrollment closed. (c) State funded only program.
health care
Figure A: Selected Provisions of Federal Health Care Reform Legislation Effective in 2010 Effective immediately: Provide 2010 tax credits to offset health insurance premium costs for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average wages under $50,000. Eligible businesses must contribute at least 50 percent of employees’ premium. Medicare beneficiaries who reach the “doughnut hole” will receive $250 rebates for prescription drug costs. Cost sharing for designated “proven” preventive services is eliminated in Medicare and private plans. States have the option to provide Medicaid coverage to parents and childless adults up to 133% poverty at current Medicaid matching rates. HHS secretary and states will establish a process for review of excessive premium increases. 90 days after passage: Establish a national high-risk pool for people with preexisting conditions; $5 billion appropriated. Six months after passage: Young adults under age 26 may stay on parents’ plan. Prohibits excluding coverage of children for preexisting conditions in the individual market. Prohibits rescinding coverage once a person is enrolled in a plan. Prohibits lifetime benefit caps and unreasonable annual limits. Prohibits cost-sharing for preventive services. Other 2010 provisions: Require tobacco cessation coverage for pregnant women under Medicaid free of cost-sharing, effective October 1. Expand community health centers and National Health Service Corps to provide increased access to care. $11 billion over 5 years beginning in 2010. Effective July 1, 2010, 10 percent tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Sources: HR 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and HR 4872, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
The increase in rates is viewed as critical to having enough doctors to treat the millions of people who will be added to Medicaid rolls. Increasing reimbursement levels will not only keep current Medicaid providers from leaving the system, but also might entice more providers to join it. Work force shortages will also be exacerbated by provisions of the law to provide insurance to previously uninsured Americans. The bill attempts to address this problem through expanding scholarships and loans for primary care practitioners, increasing the number of graduate medical education training positions and supporting the development of primary care models such as medical homes and team management of chronic disease. In 2010, a multi-stakeholder Workforce Advisory Committee will be appointed to develop a national work force strategy. In Minnesota, lawmakers like Sen. Linda Berglin are eager to see how the federal legislation will complement and advance what the state has done already. “One provision we are very excited about is that (for) states that create medical homes for their chronically ill patients, Medicaid will cover 90 percent of the cost of covering them within those medical homes,” she said.
That federal provision builds on 2008 legislation passed in Minnesota that allows providers to become certified medical homes in exchange for enhanced payments. Berglin said 73 percent of the state’s providers have become certified medical homes or are working toward certification. Some state leaders worry their state’s innovative programs could fall by the wayside because of the health care law. For instance, the Healthy Indiana program allows uninsured adults to purchase private insurance with state subsidies. The health plans also come with savings accounts that are used to pay for medical care. Once the federal reform legislation was passed, however, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels closed the program to new enrollees because of concerns it would be wiped out under the new health regulations.
2. States to oversee new regulations The new federal law also makes changes to the way private health insurance plans must be structured. States will be in charge of enforcing these new regulations, reviewing rates and the solvency of plans, and overseeing various other requirements. For example, beginning later this year, existing insurance plans will be prohibited from impos-
The Council of State Governments 519
Health Care
Table B: High-Risk Insurance Pools
Year Enrollees State began 2007
Maximum lifetime Waiting Sources benefits period of funding
Cap as percentage of average comparable plan
Alabama (a).............
1998
2,455
NA
NA
Premiums
200%
Alaska.......................
1993
488
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans
150%
Arkansas...................
1996
2,976
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans
150%
California.................
1991
14,020
$750,000
3-month
Cigarette/tobacco surtax
137.5%
Colorado...................
1991
7,200
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans/Unclaimed property
125%
Connecticut..............
1976
2,599
$1,000,000
12-month
Health plans
150%
Florida (b)................
1989
Health plans
250%
Idaho (c)...................
2001
1,411
$1,000,000
12-month
Health plans
150%
Illinois.......................
1989
16,410
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans/State funds
150%
Indiana......................
1982
6,900
None
3-month
Health plans/State funds
150%
Iowa..........................
1987
2,676
$3,000,000
6-month
Health plans
150%
Kansas......................
1993
1,886
$1,000,000
3-month
Health plans
125%
Kentucky..................
2001
4,158
Unlimited
12-month
Health plans/tobacco tax
175%
Louisiana.................. 1992 1,139 $500,000 6-month
Mandated service charge/ assessments/state funds
200%
347
Maryland..................
2003
12,468
$2,000,000
6-months
tax assessments on hospitals
200%
Minnesota.................
1976
28,859
$5,000,000
6-month
Health plans/state funds
125%
Mississippi................ 1992 3,660 $500,000 6-month
Health plans/stop-loss and re-insurance carriers
175%
Missouri....................
1991
2,915
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans/HMOs
150%
Montana...................
1987
3,101
$1,000,000
12-month
Health plans
150%
Nebraska..................
1986
5,058
$1,000,000
6-month
tax on health/accident premiums
135%
New Hampshire.......
2002
1,011
$2,000,000
9-month
health plans
150%
New Mexico.............
1988
4,757
None
6-month
Health plans
140%
North Carolina.........
2009
$1,000,000
12-month
State Funds
200%
North Dakota...........
1982
1,541
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans
135%
Oklahoma.................
1996
2,027
$1,000,000
12-month
Health plans
150%
Oregon......................
1990
18,656
$2,000,000
6-month
Health plans
125%
South Carolina......... 1990 2,377
Determined by Board
6-month
Health plans/HMOs
200%
Health plans/stop-loss and re-insurance carriers/state funds
150%
South Dakota (a)..... 2003 686 $1,000,000 NA Tennessee.................
1987
2,458
$1,000,000
3-month
State Funds/Health plans
200%
Texas.........................
1998
27,733
$1,500,000
12-month
Health plans
200%
Utah..........................
1991
3,516
$1,000,000
6-month
Dedicated state funds
150%
Washington..............
1988
3,447
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans
150%
West Virginia............
2005
497
$1,000,000
6-month
Assessments on hospitals
150%
Wisconsin.................
1981
17,126
$1,000,000
6-month
Health plans
200%
Wyoming..................
1991
622
$750,000
12-month
Health plans/HMOs/tax credits
200%
Sources: Kaiser Commission for Medicaid and the Uninsured and National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. Key: NA — Not applicable (a) The high-risk pools in Alabama and South Dakota are for portability purposes only.
520 The Book of the States 2010
(b) Closed to new enrollees since 1991. (c) Under Idaho’s program, all carriers who offer individual health insurance must also offer the Idaho Individual High-Risk Reinsurance Pool plans, as well as notify persons applying for individual coverage of these high-risk pool plans. Some analyses include Idaho in the number of states with high-risk pools and some do not.
health care ing lifetime dollar limits on benefits and cannot rescind coverage except in cases of fraud. Individuals up to age 26 will be permitted to stay on their parents’ health plans unless they have access to employer-based coverage. Beginning in 2014, when all individuals must have health insurance or face a financial penalty (with some exceptions), private insurance plans will be prohibited from denying coverage to people for any reason—including pre-existing conditions. They will not be able to impose annual benefit limits or charge people more based on their health status or gender. Rates will vary only based on age (limited to a 3-to-1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use (limited to a 1.5-to-1 ratio). State insurance commissioners will continue to have important oversight, but some rules will be set at the federal level. It remains unclear, however, exactly how the state-federal regulatory relationship will work. State officials are waiting for further guidance from the federal government. States must also create a consumer assistance office or ombudsman’s program to help people in the individual and small-group markets navigate the new system. In addition, the federal legislation directs states to report on trends in insurance premiums and identify plans that have had unjustified premium increases.
3. State exchanges to fill coverage gaps While the Medicaid expansion will help cover roughly one-third of uninsured Americans, there will still be people without access to employersponsored plans whose incomes are too high to qualify for the public health insurance program. To fill this coverage gap, state-based health exchanges will be created. States will also be allowed to form multi-state exchanges to take advantage of administrative efficiencies. The exchanges will virtually replace the nation’s individual and small-group health insurance markets. For the small-group market, state-based exchanges will be set up to serve small businesses with up to 100 employees. Meanwhile, individuals will use the exchanges to choose from a variety of health plans that meet criteria set by the federal government, such as guaranteed issue and renewal. States will be allowed to extend exchange coverage to employers with more than 100 employees beginning in 2017.
Perhaps the most similar model of an insurance exchange was established in Massachusetts when that state moved to universal health care insurance. Utah also has a more limited insurance exchange. The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 24 million people will purchase insurance through the exchanges by 2019. People whose incomes are between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for subsidies. Premium credits will be offered on a sliding scale and will ensure that premium contributions do not exceed a certain percentage of income. In order to receive the subsidies, individuals must purchase insurance through the exchanges. The new law lays out standards for the plans offered by the exchanges. Four benefit categories of plans, plus a catastrophic plan, will be offered through the exchanges. State governments may administer these exchanges or set up a nonprofit association to do so. The state exchanges will provide oversight of health plans with regard to the new insurance market regulations, consumer protections, rate reviews, solvency, reserve fund requirements and premium taxes. They shall also define rating areas. These duties may overlap with state insurance departments and require new role definitions. Beginning in 2016, states also will have the authority to create interstate health care compacts. Under these arrangements, insurers can sell policies in any state that belongs to the compact. Coverage under compacts must be at least as comprehensive and affordable as coverage provided through the state exchanges.
4. States can create new public plans Many states insure some individuals with income levels above 133 percent of the poverty level— particularly children and pregnant women. (See Table A for more details.) These people are insured through Medicaid or another public health insurance program. Once the federal health law takes full effect, states can keep those people in the Medicaid program under the state’s current federal matching rate or have this population of low-income families seek insurance through the exchanges. States will have to weigh their options carefully. In Wisconsin, for example, this population currently receives comprehensive insurance through the state’s BadgerCare Plus program. But under
The Council of State Governments 521
522 The Book of the States 2010
2015 Under interstate compacts, allow purchase of qualified health care plans across state lines.
2016
2017
2014
Medicare “doughnut hole” completely phased out.
2019–2020
Insurers will pay an annual fee, according to market share. Yield $8–14 billion per year, 2014 to 2019.
Individual mandate: Individuals will be required to have insurance or pay a penalty. Penalty is greater of $95 or 1% of taxable income in 2014 up to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income, not to exceed national average bronze plan premium.
States will be required to expand Medicaid eligibility to all non-elderly adults and children with income below 133% of poverty.
Premium subsidies will be available for persons between 133% and 400% of poverty purchasing insurance through an exchange.
States establish insurance exchanges for individuals and small businesses with 50 –100 employees.
Waiting periods for coverage limited to 90 days.
Guaranteed issue of insurance in group and individual market.
Prohibits any annual cap on benefits.
Excise tax on high-cost employer provided insurance plan goes into effect. 40% on plans with premiums in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family coverage.
2018
Threshold to deduct medical expenses raised from 7.5% to 10%; delayed until 2017 for those 65 and over.
Medicare tax increase of 0.9% for individuals with adjusted gross income over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. New Medicare tax on investment income for same persons.
Regulations issued for compacts to allow purchase of qualified health care plans across state lines.
States have the option to open insurance exchange to businesses with more 100 employees.
Begin demonstration program for pediatric providers to organize as Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) and share savings generated.
Establish programs to demonstrate new payment approaches to increase quality and decrease costs.
2013 Limit contributions to tax-free flexible spending accounts to $2,500.
Source: HR 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and HR 4872, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Reduce Medicare payments to hospitals in top 25th percentile of rates of hospital-acquired infections.
State grants to test alternatives to civil tort lawsuits; $50 million in funds; report due to Congress 2016.
Establish national voluntary insurance program through payroll deduction to purchase community living assistance services and supports (CLASS program).
Provide a 10% bonus Medicare payment for primary care physicians for five years beginning in 2011.
50% discounts on brand name drugs for Medicare beneficiaries in “doughnut hole.”
2012 Release of Medicare claims data to measure performance of providers and suppliers but that protects patient privacy.
2011
Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free annual wellness visit.
Figure B: Timeline for Implementation of Selected Provisions of Federal Health Care Reform Legislation, 2011 and Beyond
Health Care
health care the exchange, benefits might be less and the costsharing and premiums higher. The federal health bill does provide a third option for states: Create a basic health plan for people between 133 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Under this provision, states could receive 95 percent of the federal funds that those individuals would otherwise have received in subsidies to buy insurance in the state-based exchanges. This money could then be used to contract with a private plan and create a state program.
5. Improving access to information In the next few years, states will need to figure out how to meet a requirement in the federal legislation geared toward administrative simplicity. Under the federal law, states will be required to provide a single online access point for individuals seeking information on different insurance options. This online access point must, for example, allow individuals to determine whether they are eligible for Medicaid or for a subsidy through the state-based exchange. This is one administrative task for states; another will be handling what will likely be a sudden influx of new Medicaid applications.
Since the first high-risk pool was established in 1975, at least 1 million Americans have been insured through this mechanism. Enrollment figures for 2007, however, place the annualized numbers of people in state high-risk pools at about 210,000. Enrollment ranged from fewer than 350 in Florida to nearly 29,000 in Minnesota.
Conclusion In the coming years, states will face a myriad of new challenges in the health care arena. The increased coverage promised by the new federal law will both provide and require new resources. Federal-state relationships will be tested. Whether the cost curve of rising health care costs can be bent for states’ residents as well as states’ budgets will be tested. Improving the quality of health care—and health—is another desired outcome to be measured over time.
About the Authors Kate Tormey is a policy analyst/assistant editor in The Council of State Governments Midwestern Office and Debra Miller is director of health policy for CSG’s national office.
6. High-risk pools play short-term role Within 90 days of enactment of the health care bill, the federal government will set up a temporary high-risk pool—an option for people with a preexisting medical condition who have been uninsured for at least six months. (The law requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions does not take effect until 2014; only children with pre-existing conditions are required to be covered in 2010, just six months after passage.) Premium subsidies will be available through the new federal high-risk pool. The legislation provides $5 billion for the pool until 2014. After 2014, the pools will not be necessary when insurance companies are prohibited from using pre-existing conditions to exclude persons from coverage. Details about how the pool will be structured had not been released as of late March. But some policy experts believe the federal government will contract with states’ current high-risk pools. According to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, 35 states have high-risk pools. (See Table B for more details.)
The Council of State Governments 523
HEALTH
Expedited Partner Therapy: Innovative Health Policy Reduces Sexually Transmitted Infections and Prevents Infertility By Ann V. Kelly
Expedited partner therapy allows clinicians to treat the sex partners of patients diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea prior to evaluating the partners, under certain conditions. Innovative and cost–effective, expedited partner therapy is legal in 22 states and is an increasingly important state prevention policy to reduce infections and their consequences, including infertility.
In August 2009 Illinois joined 21 other states that endorse an innovative approach to control sexually transmitted infections known as expedited partner therapy, when Gov. Pat Quinn signed Senate Bill 212. The bill was strongly supported by a coalition of health care organizations and passed with minimal opposition in the legislature.1 By approving expedited partner therapy, states allow partners of patients diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea to receive antibiotics without being seen by a medical provider. Expedited partner therapy helps patients diagnosed with sexually transmitted diseases avoid reinfection by getting treatment for their sexual partners who are either unable or unwilling to see a medical professional. Expedited partner therapy can be accomplished a few different ways. When patients are diagnosed, medical providers can give them antibiotics they can take to their sexual partners. In other situations patients are given prescriptions for their partners, or patients tell partners where to obtain antibiotics from a pharmacy or public health program. The treatment used for partners is generally a one-time dose of antibiotic with low potential for allergic and other adverse reactions. In all cases, patients should also receive written instructions for their partners on how to take the medication, and health information including how long to abstain from sex after treatment and encouragement to seek evaluation by a health care provider. Expedited partner therapy provides clinicians with an additional tool in treating sexual partners in complicated situations. Patients can be unwilling to give the names of their partners to health officials. Since the diseases frequently occur without symptoms, partners may refuse to see a doctor because they think they are not infected. Partners
524 The Book of the States 2010
also may lack health coverage or access to a trusted health provider, or they may have concerns about confidentiality or cost of such a health care visit. Expedited partner therapy was first endorsed by public health officials to supplement traditional approaches of contacting and treating sexual partners.2 It has become a more important tool because of the large number of people infected with these curable infections, the reluctance of patients and medical providers to make referrals to health officials, and the financial constraints limiting health departments’ ability to contact the sexual partners of those with chlamydia and gonorrhea. When used appropriately, expedited partner therapy typically has higher success in getting sexual partners treated compared to other patient referral approaches. California health officials recently compared expedited partner therapy success to other approaches used in family planning centers. They found that although a majority of patients used traditional partner referral with only a 40 percent success rate, patient-delivered partner therapy (California’s version of expedited partner therapy) was used for one in five patients and achieved a 77 percent success rate.3
Disparities and Preventing Infertility and Other Consequences Chlamydia is the most common reported sexually transmitted infection in the U.S., and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly 3 million people are newly infected each year. New gonorrhea infections are less common, occurring in about 700,000 Americans annually, and like chlamydia, it is curable and preventable. Since both of these sexually transmitted infections often occur without symptoms, about half of those
HEALTH who are newly infected each year are undiagnosed and untreated, and can suffer the consequences of the diseases, including infertility.4, 5 (For specific state information, see state profiles at http://www. healthystates.csg.org.) Teenage girls have the highest number of reported infections, accounting for about 25 percent of the five most common sexually transmitted infections.6, 7 Reported rates of chlamydia among African-American women are eight times higher than among white women, and three times higher than among Hispanic women. Although gonorrhea infections occur less often, rates for this infection are 16 times greater among African-American women than their white counterparts. For both infections, the highest rates in women occur in African-American females ages 15 to 19, followed by African-American women ages 20 to 24; similar racial disparities exist among young males. Among American Indian and Hispanic populations, teen girls and young women have chlamydia and gonorrhea infection rates that are two to three times higher than white women.8, 9 About 15 percent of women with untreated chlamydia and gonorrhea can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to infertility and recurring chronic pain, and tubal pregnancy, a condition that can be life-threatening to the mother. In addition, chlamydia infection increases a womanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s risk of contracting HIV from a sexual partner. For pregnant women, chlamydia may lead to premature delivery and can cause infection in their babies.8, 10, 11 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that undiagnosed and untreated sexually transmitted infections cause infertility in at least 24,000 American women each year. The costs of treating these preventable conditions are significant for both public and private health insurers, particularly in states requiring health coverage for infertility. Fifteen states mandate some coverage for infertility treatment: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia.8, 12, 13 To prevent these sexually transmitted infections and their complications, the CDC recommends annual chlamydia testing and treatment for all sexually active females under age 26, as well as older women with risk factors such as a new sex partner or multiple partners. Annual chlamydia testing of sexually active young women has been recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
since 1996. In addition, since 2000 the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set quality measures have included chlamydia testing statistics, both for commercial health insurance plans and Medicaid managed care plans. In spite of these recommendations, only about 40 percent of sexually active females enrolled in health plans were tested in 2007. The regional testing rates were highest in the Northeast (46 percent) and lowest in the South (37 percent), indicating that additional testing by U.S. health care providers is needed to reduce the preventable consequences of chlamydia infection among young women.14 Annual testing for gonorrhea in high-risk sexually active women also is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Patients diagnosed with either infection are counseled to take antibiotics, and to encourage their sexual partners to be treated. Expedited partner therapy allows patients to actively participate in getting their partners treated and thus avoid becoming reinfected, and avoid resulting harmful effects such as infertility.11, 12
Legal Status of Expedited Partner Therapy Expedited partner therapy is expressly permitted in 22 states and Baltimore, Md., according to the CDC. Although legally prohibited in eight states, expedited partner therapy is potentially allowable from a legal standpoint in the 20 remaining states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.14, 15 The legal basis for expedited partner therapy varies from state to state, but is established through legislation, regulation and modification of state medical, nursing and pharmacy practice laws.11 In addition, state public health departments issue appropriate care guidelines for clinicians that specify the types of patients and antibiotics best suited for expedited partner therapy as an option for partner therapy.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Since expedited partner therapy allows clinicians to provide prescription medications to people they have not examined, medical providers and pharmacists may believe the practice to be unethical, fear sanctions by state licensing boards or have concerns about malpractice liability. Without specific legislation that endorses expedited partner therapy, providers may be concerned about the legality of the practice.22 That said, states have taken different approaches to addressing professional liability related to use of expedited partner therapy. Utah House Bill 17 and Illinois Senate Bill 212, both adopted in 2009, specifically state that medical practitioners who use
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 525
HEALTH expedited partner therapy according to the guidelines are not liable for medical malpractice, unless their actions constitute willful or wanton misconduct. In other cases, liability issues are addressed in state guidelines used to educate providers considering use of expedited partner therapy. For example, the California guidelines for medical practitioners state: “This liability is no different from the liability of any other action taken by a health care provider, including prescribing or dispensing medicine for any medical condition, in which the provider remains liable. However, guidelines establish a standard of care, and standard of care is the primary medicolegal standard for appropriate practice.”20 State actions supporting expedited partner therapy are based on recommendations from the CDC. In 2006 the CDC indicated that expedited partner therapy should be available to providers as an option for treating the partners of individuals with chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. Based on expert evaluation of clinical trial results, expedited partner therapy was an effective and potentially cost-saving approach to treating sexual partners and reducing reinfection in diagnosed patients. The CDC’s guidelines for treating sexually transmitted diseases also describe when clinicians should consider using expedited partner therapy in partner treatments.23, 24, 25 Using expedited partner therapy under prescribed conditions also has been supported by the American Medical Association,26 the American Bar Association,27 the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics,28 and the National Association of County and City Health Officials.29
State Policies to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Infections Removing legal barriers to expedited partner therapy is one component of a comprehensive state approach to prevent sexually transmitted infections. In a recent survey, the American Social Health Association defined 11 components of state sexually transmitted infections prevention policies, including: • Clinical care policies: Prenatal screening for sexually transmitted infections, expedited partner therapy, opt-out written consent for HIV testing in sexually transmitted infection clinics and mandated sexually transmitted infection-related vaccines;
526 The Book of the States 2010
• Insurance coverage policy: Mandated HIV and sexually transmitted infections testing; • Reporting policies: Electronic laboratory reporting for sexually transmitted infections and related conditions, mandated vaccine data storage in immunization registry; and • Education policies: Age appropriate and comprehensive sex education, comprehensive sexually transmitted infection and/or HIV prevention education, certification or training for sexuality and health education instructors, and use of a standardized state-approved curriculum. The American Social Health Association found many of these approaches, like expedited partner therapy, are not widely adopted and in 15 states, none of the policies were in place. Seven “leader” states—Alabama, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota and Missouri—adopted at least five of the 11 approaches listed above. The survey also identified removing barriers to expedited partner therapy as one of the top four priorities for policy change in the states. The ASHA survey also examined state prevention funding for the 2007 fiscal year and compared it to the cost of treatment for sexually transmitted infections. State sexually transmitted infection prevention program spending averaged 23 cents per capita from state sources and 60 cents per capita from federal funds. This prevention total of 83 cents per capita represented less than 2 percent of the $49 per capita spent annually in the U.S. on sexually transmitted infection treatment. Profiles of the American Social Health Association survey results for each state are available at http://www.ashastd. org/stdpreventionfunding/rpt_funding.cfm.30, 31, 32 The National Chlamydia Coalition is another national effort whose work supports state sexually transmitted infection prevention efforts. The coalition was initiated in 2008 to encourage wider testing for chlamydia and to reduce preventable infertility and other harmful effects of chlamydia among sexually active adolescents and young adults. Comprised of national nonprofit organizations, health care professional associations, advocacy groups, health insurers, and local, state and federal government representatives, the coalition provides resources for clinicians and public information tools to encourage wider interest and support for chlamydia testing and treatment, and more awareness of how to combat this often silent infection and its severe consequences. For more information, see http://www.prevent.org/ncc.33
HEALTH
Implications for Future State Health Policy As federal and state lawmakers consider expanded health insurance coverage, which will lead to greater use of prevention services, new opportunities exist for reducing the impact of sexually transmitted infections, including infertility. As expanded health coverage increases access to prevention services among previously uninsured populations, other supportive efforts will be needed to increase use of these services. Allowing for full insurance coverage of sexually transmitted disease testing services without copayments and deductibles can eliminate payment barriers for patients. Health department communications can increase public and provider awareness and use of recommended sexually transmitted infection prevention services. Educating medical providers to perform recommended sexually transmitted infection prevention services for their patients will be more important if publicly-supported services are curtailed. For example Massachusetts, a leader in health access reform, has closed publicly funded sexually transmitted infection clinics in six locations outside Boston since 2008, presuming that those sexually transmitted disease services can be provided by general medical practitioners.34 Health coverage reform should greatly reduce the role that lack of health insurance plays as a cause of health disparities, but other initiatives are needed to connect the previously uninsured with trusted sources of medical care and information about how to manage their sexually transmitted infections. Additional evidence is needed about the success of education, testing and prevention programs on reducing the burden of sexually transmitted infections and their consequences, particularly among African-American adolescents and young adults.34 For more information, see The Council of State Governments’ Overcoming Women’s Disparities in Women’s Sexual Health policy brief at http://www.csg.org/pdfs/WomensHealth.pdf. Finally, given broader access to preventive health services under health reform and wellaccepted evidence that chlamydia testing is a costeffective practice, more testing and treatment of patients with chlamydia is anticipated. Since many chlamydia infections are undetected, wider testing will lead to a greater need for sexual partner treatment services, and greater demands on available health department resources. State health department funding continues to be reduced—more than three-fourths of state public health agency budgets were cut in the 2009 fiscal year and nearly 40 per-
cent expected further cuts in the 2010 fiscal year.35 Sexually transmitted infection prevention program funding has also been reduced,36 so health department programs that provide direct services (partner examination and treatment) will not have sufficient resources to respond to the increased demand. Expedited partner therapy could help address much of this anticipated increase in demand for partner treatment. Establishing a supportive legal environment for expedited partner therapy will enable states to implement this cost-effective public health practice, reduce infections and their serious consequences, including infertility. This publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement 1H25PS00138-02 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Notes 1 Dean Olsen, “Treating sex partners for chlamydia, gonorrhea to get easier,” The State Journal-Register, December 28, 2009. http://www.behealthyspringfield.com/sections/ local-news/treating-sex-partners-for-chlamydia-gonorrheato-get-easier (accessed January 14, 2010). 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Legal Status of EPT—Introduction, http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/ introduction.htm (accessed January 14, 2010). 3 Heidi M. Bauer, EPT for CT and GC: California’s Experience. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the National Coalition of STD Directors, October 21–24, 2008 in Phoenix, Arizona. http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/ wysiwyg/2008%20presentations/EPT%20for%20CT%20 and%20GC%20-%20CA%20Experience%20-%20 Dr.%20Heidi%20Bauer.pdf (accessed January 14, 2010). 4 CDC. “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2008,” (November 2009), http://www.cdc.gov/std/ stats08/2008survFactSheet.PDF (accessed January 14, 2010). 5 National Coalition of STD Directors, Chlamydia/Infertility Fact Sheet, http://www.ncsddc.org/chlamydia_talking. xml (accessed January 14, 2010). 6 CDC, “CDC Report Finds Adolescent Girls Continue to Bear a Major Burden of Common Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” press release, November 16, 2009, http://www. cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/STDsurveillancepressrelease. html (accessed January 14, 2010). 7 Sara E. Forhan, Sami L. Gottlieb, Maya R. Sternberg, Fujie Xu, S. Deblina Datta, Geraldine M. McQuillan, Stuart M. Berman, and Lauri E. Markowitz, “Prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Female Adolescents Aged 14 to 19 in the United States,” Pediatrics 124 no. 6 (December 2009), http://pediatrics.aappublications. org/cgi/content/full/124/6/1505 (accessed January 14, 2010).
The Council of State Governments 527
HEALTH 8 CDC, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases Pose Severe Threat to Women’s Health and Fertility,” CDC Fact Sheet, November 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/ docs/2008STDSurveillanceRpt-Women-MediaFactSheetFINAL.pdf (accessed January 14, 2010). 9 CDC, STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities. In Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance, 2008. (Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, November 2009). http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats08/minorities.htm (accessed January 14, 2010). 10 Pennsylvania Department of Health, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server. pt/community/sexually_transmitted_diseases/14242/pelvic_ inflammatory_disease/557970 (accessed January 14, 2010). 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women’s Health. “Chlamydia,” Frequently Asked Questions, March 20, 2009, http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/chlamydia.cfm (accessed January 14, 2010). 12 CDC. “PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease),” CDC Fact Sheet, November 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/STD/PID/ pid-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed January 14, 2010). 13 Kaiser Family Foundation, Mandated Coverage of Infertility Treatment, January 2009, http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=686&cat=7 (accessed January 31, 2010). 14 CDC, “Chlamydia Screening Among Sexually Active Young Female Enrollees of Health Plans—United States, 2000–2007,” MMWR 58, no. 14 (April 17, 2009), http:// www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5814a2.htm (accessed January 14, 2010). 15 CDC, Legal Status of Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT). http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/default.htm (accessed January 14, 2010). 16 Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) Sexually Transmitted Diseases Section, “Expedited Partner Therapy for Chlamydia Trachomatis and Neisseria Gonorrhoeae,” Guidance for Health Care Professionals in Illinois, January 1, 2010, http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/std/ Illinois_EPT_Guidelines12212009.pdf (accessed January 14, 2010). 17 HIV/STD Program, Texas Department of State Health Services. Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT). http://www. dshs.state.tx.us/hivstd/ept/default.shtm (accessed January 14, 2010). 18 New Mexico Department of Health. Expedited Partner Treatment. http://www.health.state.nm.us/ept.html. (accessed January 15, 2010). 19 Washington State Department of Health. “Sex Partner Treatment of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Infections,” http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/STD/EPT.htm (accessed January 15, 2010). 20 Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Control Branch, California Department of Public Health, “Patient-Delivered Partner Therapy for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Guidance for Medical Providers in California,” March 27, 2007, http://www.cdph.ca.gov/ healthinfo/discond/Documents/Chlamydia-PDPT-Guidelines-Ptnr-Info.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010).
528 The Book of the States 2010
21 IDEPC Division, STD and HIV Section of the Minnesota Department of Health, “Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT) for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Guidance for Medical Providers in Minnesota,” November 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/ dtopics/stds/ept/EPTGuidance.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010). 22 James G. Hodge, Amy Pulver, Matthew Hogben, Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharya, and Erin Fuse Brown, “Expedited Partner Therapy for Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Assessing the Legal Environment,” American Journal of Public Health 98, no. 2 (February 2008), http://www. region8ipp.com/Docs/epttoolkitdocs/1sptgdocuresearch/ ajph_article.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010). 23 CDC, Expedited partner therapy in the management of sexually transmitted diseases. (Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). http://www. cdc.gov/std/treatment/EPTFinalReport2006.pdf (accessed January 14, 2010). 24 CDC, “Partner Management, Clinical Prevention Guidance,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines 2006. (Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/clinical.htm#clinical3 (accessed January 14, 2010). 25 CDC, “Recommendations for Partner Services Programs for HIV Infection, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and Chlamydial Infection,” MMWR 57, no. RR-09 (November 7, 2008), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ rr5709a1.htm (accessed January 14, 2010). 26 American Medical Association, Expedited Partner Therapy (Patient-delivered Partner Therapy): An Update, (2006). http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/aboutama/16410.shtml (accessed January 14, 2010). 27 Society for Adolescent Medicine. “Position Paper: Expedited Partner Therapy for Adolescents Diagnosed with Chlamydia or Gonorrhea,” Journal of Adolescent Health 45, no. 3 (September 2009), http://www.adolescenthealth.org/ AM/Template.cfm?Section=Position_Papers&Template=/ CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1473 (accessed January 14, 2010). 28 National Association of County and City Health Officials, Statement of Policy: Expedited Partner Therapy, March 2009, http://www.naccho.org/advocacy/positions/ upload/09-02-Expedited-Partner-Therapy.pdf (accessed January 14, 2010). 29 American Bar Association. Recommendation Adopted by the House of Delegates, August 2008. http:// www.abanet.org/leadership/2008/annual/adopted/OneHundredSixteenA.doc (accessed January 14, 2010). 30 American Social Health Association, Show me the Money: State Investment in STD Prevention, FY2007 (Data updated 2009). (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: American Social Health Association). http://www.ashastd. org/pdfs/State%20Investment%20STD.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010). 31 Lynne B. Barclay, American Social Health Association. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the National Coalition of STD Directors, October 27–30, 2009 in Washing-
HEALTH ton, D.C. http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/wysiwyg/2009%20 Annual%20Meeting%20Materials/Barclay%20-%20 Washington%20Partner%20Panel%20-%20ASHA.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010). 32 American Social Health Association, Talking Points for ASHA’s Study on State Investment in STD Prevention. http://www.ashastd.org/pdfs/TalkingPoints.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010). 33 Partnership for Prevention, National Chlamydia Coalition. http://www.prevent.org/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=242&Itemid=210 (accessed January 15, 2010). 34 John M. Douglas, Jr., Challenges and Opportunities to STD Prevention in the US. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the National Coalition of STD Directors, October 27–30, 2009 in Washington, D.C. http://www.ncsddc.org/ upload/wysiwyg/2009%20Annual%20Meeting%20Materials/Douglas%20-%20Challenges%20and%20Opportunities%20to%20STD%20Prevention%20in%20the%20US. pdf (accessed January 15, 2010). 35 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Impact of Budget Cuts on State Public Health. http:// www.astho.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=344 (accessed January 15, 2010). 36 National Coalition of STD Directors. STD Programs Facing Severe Cutbacks,Affecting Public Health Infrastructure. http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/wysiwyg/NCSD%20 Fact%20Sheets/NCSD%20Member%20Survey%20 and%20Surveillance%20Press%20Release%2011.16.09. pdf (accessed January 15, 2010).
About the Author Ann V. Kelly, MHA, is associate director for Health Policy at The Council of State Governments. She serves as project manager for CSG’s cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to educate state legislators about evidence-based public health programs, now in its fifth year. The project has produced more than 100 publications and 20 meetings for state legislators that highlight effective public health programs. Before joining CSG, Kelly was part of the national public health performance standards project team at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health. She has more than 30 years experience working with teams on health services and public health issues, including hospitals and health maintenance organizations.
The Council of State Governments 529
530â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010 Potentially Allowable Prohibited Permissible Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Prohibited Permissible Permissible Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Permissible Permissible Potentially Allowable Permissible Permissible Permissible Permissible Prohibited
Kansas....................... Kentucky................... Louisiana................... Maine......................... Maryland...................
Massachusetts........... Michigan.................... Minnesota.................. Mississippi................. Missouri.....................
Montana.................... Nebraska................... Nevada....................... New Hampshire........ New Jersey................
New Mexico.............. New York................... North Carolina.......... North Dakota............ Ohio...........................
See footnotes at end of table.
Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Permissible Potentially Allowable Permissible
Hawaii....................... Idaho.......................... Illinois........................ Indiana....................... Iowa...........................
0.70 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.08
0.00 0.20 0.00 0.28 0.09
0.19 0.30 0.06 0.26 0.01
0.21 0.25 1.55 0.01 0.11
0.63 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.05
0.05 0.47 0.14 0.33 0.00
0.81 0.59 0.61 0.51 0.32
0.36 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.42
0.24 0.30 0.24 0.51 0.41
0.34 0.27 0.66 0.30 1.16
0.38 0.30 0.52 0.32 0.30
0.39 0.37 0.53 0.33 0.47
1.51 0.68 0.75 0.56 0.40
0.36 0.46 0.23 0.55 0.51
0.43 0.59 0.31 0.77 0.42
0.54 0.52 2.20 0.31 1.27
1.01 0.44 0.58 0.34 0.34
0.44 0.84 0.67 0.66 0.47
332 133 289 255 213
294 204 243 236 62
111 194 224 239 270
273 191 220 270 204
232 305 236 287 387
123 120 299 250 98
175 501 231 380 187
Permissible Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Prohibited Potentially Allowable
$1.06 0.85 0.35 0.97 0.53
Colorado.................... Connecticut............... Delaware................... Florida....................... Georgia......................
$0.49 0.76 0.31 0.45 0.37
Potentially Allowable Potentially Allowable Permissible Prohibited Permissible
Alabama.................... Alaska........................ Arizona...................... Arkansas.................... California.................. $0.57 0.09 0.04 0.52 0.15
Expedited partner therapy legal status (a) State funds Federal funds Total White
972 1,298 2,094 2,089 2,158
1,385 3,093 1,530 679 1,092
1,431 1,826 3,191 2,189 2,553
2,374 1,570 2,003 1,428 1,167
748 867 2,850 2,608 4,096
1,472 2,043 2,103 2,110 1,035
2,002 2,123 1,510 3,215 1,580
977 546 1,145 521 651
338 738 595 580 507
1,172 494 1,247 177 806
984 565 . . . 109 586
449 891 981 937 1,112
600 1,090 1,707 373 270
553 766 899 873 761
African- American Hispanic
1,591 385 937 2,069 246
2,414 1,791 487 69 315
702 310 1,580 1,955 193
984 202 48 240 139
329 1,075 110 175 1,422
455 296 . . . 264 443
157 4,456 1,959 353 368
99 103 345 196 156
447 208 293 199 43
262 145 652 360 320
154 88 . . . 268 90
395 227 122 135 387
148 147 97 190 84
247 1,251 205 716 204
36 16 63 16 46
13 38 36 8 7
8 35 29 51 51
48 46 56 6 25
15 10 41 64 47
26 16 52 50 20
43 32 23 54 21
307 276 733 330 850
. . . 1,342 405 45 295
248 708 856 664 923
930 728 666 165 286
97 . . . 1,004 1,189 1,286
630 630 581 668 367
692 260 343 967 390
122 50 124 52 107
11 47 53 27 40
89 95 80 40 96
125 64 . . . . . . 44
44 18 128 127 89
120 149 134 43 33
37 96 65 92 48
African- American Hispanic
66 69 412 159 90
66 256 67 . . . 29
94 45 195 498 40
142 . . . 19 . . . 42
. . . 27 46 117 181
108 54 . . . 55 108
39 507 141 80 49
American Indian
8 7 49 98 48
32 16 36 10 4
11 18 38 39 26
23 44 ... 19 5
41 ... 11 62 47
31 8 19 28 28
52 109 10 102 14
Asian
2008 reported gonorrhea infections in women (per 100,000 population) (c)
American Indian Asian White
2008 reported chlamydia infections in women (per 100,000 population) (c)
State or other jurisdiction
2007 per capita sexually transmitted infection prevention funding (b)
Expedited partner therapy legal status, STI prevention funding, and rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea infections by race/ethnicity
Table A: Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections
HEALTH
Potentially Allowable Permissible Prohibited Potentially Allowable Permissible Potentially Allowable
Virginia...................... Washington............... West Virginia............. Wisconsin.................. Wyoming...................
Dist. of Columbia..... 4.36
0.58 0.49 0.46 0.30 0.67
0.38 0.55 0.34 0.21 0.39
5.71
0.88 0.59 0.46 0.31 0.97
0.53 0.88 0.54 0.28 0.42
46
210 306 234 239 272
368 291 343 312 338
Key: (a) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Legal Status of Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT). http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/default.htm (accessed February 3, 2010). (b) American Social Health Association. State Investment in STD Prevention, Comparison Data. http://www.ashastd.org/stdpreventionfunding/rpt_comp.cfm?_fvari=1 (accessed February 3, 2010).
1.35
0.31 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.30
0.15 0.34 0.20 0.07 0.03
401 322 137 216 251
Potentially Allowable Permissible Permissible Permissible Permissible
0.41 0.53 0.56 1.18 0.55
South Dakota............ Tennessee.................. Texas.......................... Utah........................... Vermont.....................
0.39 0.39 0.48 0.47 0.55
Prohibited Permissible Permissible Potentially Allowable Prohibited
Oklahoma.................. Oregon....................... Pennsylvania............. Rhode Island............. South Carolina.......... 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.72 0.00
Expedited partner therapy legal status (a) State funds Federal funds Total White
712
596 1,189 435 836 771
736 1,325 1,109 1,080 195
910 986 851 1,411 639
2,130
123 982 59 1,116 771
4,171 251 173 702 85
1,058 719 189 1,109 185
159
137 353 240 429 215
310 174 199 552 195
369 242 141 488 158
8
38 27 38 33 19
29 49 66 10 7
83 27 22 10 59
American Indian Asian White
556
624 329 397 1,400 178
316 767 750 171 59
1,284 313 551 228 653
107
60 58 73 122 86
. . . 134 143 32 . . .
133 51 125 66 53
African- American Hispanic
355
10 94 . . . 240 23
634 70 45 9 . . .
186 29 24 . . . 15
American Indian
50
19 24 55 35 ...
39 23 29 20 ...
29 12 19 8 17
Asian
2008 reported gonorrhea infections in women (per 100,000 population) (c)
(c) CDC, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Division of STD/HIV Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Morbidity for selected STDs by age, race/ethnicity and gender 1996–2008, CDC WONDER On-line Database, November 2009. http://wonder.cdc.gov/stdv2008-race-age (accessed February 3, 2010).
1,549
1,767 1,638 1,229 3,398 1,070
1,443 2,609 2,042 1,262 710
2,842 1,735 2,027 1,640 1,897
African- American Hispanic
2008 reported chlamydia infections in women (per 100,000 population) (c)
State or other jurisdiction
2007 per capita sexually transmitted infection prevention funding (b)
Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections—continued
HEALTH
The Council of State Governments 531
HEALTH
Table 9.11 HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE STATUS BY STATE FOR ALL PEOPLE, BY REGION: 2008 (In thousands)
State or other jurisdiction
Covered and not covered by health insurance during the year Total
Covered
Percent
Not covered
Percent
United States.................................
301,483
255,143
84.6
46,340
15.4
Eastern Region Connecticut.................................... Delaware........................................ Maine.............................................. Maryland........................................ Massachusetts................................ New Hampshire ............................ New Jersey..................................... New York........................................ Pennsylvania.................................. Rhode Island . ............................... Vermont.......................................... Regional total................................
3,437 863 1,319 5,539 6,421 1,301 8,524 19,338 12,195 1,044 612 60,593
3,094 769 1,182 4,870 6,069 1,168 7,323 16,617 10,984 921 555 53,552
90.0 89.2 89.6 87.9 94.5 89.8 85.9 85.9 90.1 88.2 90.8 88.4
343 94 137 669 352 133 1,201 2,720 1,211 123 57 7,040
10.0 10.8 10.4 12.1 5.5 10.2 14.1 14.1 9.9 11.8 (a) 11.6
Midwestern Region Illinois............................................. Indiana............................................ Iowa................................................ Kansas............................................ Michigan......................................... Minnesota....................................... Nebraska........................................ North Dakota . ............................. Ohio................................................ South Dakota . ............................. Wisconsin....................................... Regional total................................
12,703 6,295 2,990 2,724 9,816 5,121 1,776 627 11,397 798 5,555 59,802
11,065 5,522 2,707 2,394 8,665 4,676 1,565 552 10,088 698 5,020 52,952
87.1 87.7 90.5 87.9 88.3 91.3 88.1 88.2 88.5 87.5 90.4 88.5
1,638 772 283 330 1,151 444 211 74 1,309 100 535 6,847
12.9 12.3 9.5 12.1 11.7 8.7 11.9 (a) 11.5 12.5 9.6 11.4
Southern Region Alabama ...................................... Arkansas......................................... Florida............................................ Georgia........................................... Kentucky........................................ Louisiana . .................................... Mississippi...................................... Missouri.......................................... North Carolina............................... Oklahoma....................................... South Carolina............................... Tennessee....................................... Texas............................................... Virginia........................................... West Virginia.................................. Regional total................................
4,720 2,827 18,049 9,553 4,256 4,335 2,907 5,871 9,253 3,558 4,470 6,183 24,194 7,748 1,799 109,723
4,159 2,322 14,430 7,850 3,574 3,465 2,388 5,132 7,832 3,060 3,762 5,252 18,110 6,786 1,528 89,650
88.1 82.2 80.0 82.2 84.0 79.9 82.1 87.4 84.6 86.0 84.2 84.9 74.9 87.6 85.0 81.7
561 505 3,619 1,703 682 869 519 739 1,421 498 707 931 6,084 962 271 20,071
11.9 17.8 20.0 17.8 16.0 20.1 17.9 12.6 15.4 14.0 15.8 15.1 25.1 12.4 15.0 18.3
80.2 80.5 81.4 84.1 92.2 84.4 83.9 81.2 76.3 83.7 86.8 87.6 86.4 84.5
133 1,273 6,822 780 98 236 158 487 468 621 364 808 72 12,320
19.8 19.5 18.6 15.9 7.8 15.6 16.1 18.8 23.7 16.3 13.2 12.4 (a) 17.4
Western Region Alaska............................................. Arizona........................................... California....................................... Colorado......................................... Hawaii ........................................... Idaho............................................... Montana......................................... Nevada............................................ New Mexico................................... Oregon............................................ Utah................................................ Washington.................................... Wyoming........................................ Regional total................................ Regional total................................ without California........................
673 6,537 36,691 4,916 1,258 1,518 976 2,584 1,978 3,815 2,759 6,540 530 70,775
539 5,264 29,868 4,136 1,159 1,282 819 2,097 1,510 3,194 2,396 5,732 458 58,454
34,084
28,586
83.9
5,498
Dist. of Columbia .........................
592
533
90.0
59
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/ www/cpstables/032009/health/toc.htm. A joint effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau.
532â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Note: Unrelated individuals under 15 are included. Key: (a) Base less than 75,000.
16.1 (a)
health
Table 9.12 NUMBER and percent of children under 19 years of age, at or below 200 percent of poverty, by health Insurance Coverage, state AND REGION: 2008 (In thousands) At or below 200 percent of poverty Health insurance coverage State or other jurisdiction
Total children under 19 years, all income levels
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
United States......................
78,241
31,565
40.3
26,550
33.9
5,015
6.4
Eastern Region Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Maine................................... Maryland............................. Massachusetts..................... New Hampshire.................. New Jersey.......................... New York............................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... Vermont............................... Regional total.....................
859 221 291 1405 1,551 312 2,151 4,614 2,934 250 136 14,724
226 76 106 398 428 71 676 1,863 980 93 44 4,961
26.3 34.4 36.5 28.3 27.6 22.9 31.4 40.4 33.4 37.2 32.7 33.7
206 61 97 351 407 68 539 1,679 857 79 41 4,385
23.9 27.5 33.3 25.0 26.2 21.8 25.1 36.4 29.2 31.4 30.1 29.8
21 15 9 47 22 3 137 184 122 14 4 578
2.4 6.9 3.3 3.4 1.4 1.1 6.4 4.0 4.2 5.8 2.6 3.9
Midwestern Region Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa..................................... Kansas................................. Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Nebraska............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio..................................... South Dakota...................... Wisconsin............................ Regional total.....................
3,331 1,681 758 742 2,521 1,291 475 153 2,895 210 1,402 15,459
1,286 726 252 305 950 424 179 57 1,182 80 464 5,905
38.6 43.2 33.2 41.1 37.7 32.9 37.7 37.1 40.8 38.2 33.1 38.2
1,117 668 226 248 857 367 147 48 1,061 65 407 5,211
33.5 39.7 29.8 33.4 34.0 28.4 31.0 31.7 36.6 31.0 29.0 33.7
170 59 26 57 93 57 32 8 121 15 57 695
5.1 3.5 3.4 7.7 3.7 4.4 6.7 5.4 4.2 7.2 4.1 4.5
Southern Region Alabama.............................. Arkansas.............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................ Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Mississippi........................... Missouri............................... North Carolina.................... Oklahoma............................ South Carolina.................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Virginia................................ West Virginia....................... Regional total.....................
1,192 740 4,243 2,664 1,060 1,166 829 1,504 2,425 954 1,126 1,522 7,126 1,968 405 28,924
554 377 1,746 1,134 496 543 426 581 1016 430 494 711 3,566 611 176 12,861
46.5 50.9 41.1 42.6 46.9 46.6 51.4 38.6 41.9 45.1 43.8 46.7 50.0 31.1 43.5 44.5
511 336 1,254 943 430 443 358 516 856 391 397 638 2,709 531 167 10,480
42.9 45.4 29.6 35.4 40.6 38 43.2 34.3 35.3 41 35.2 41.9 38 27 41.4 36.2
43 41 492 191 66 100 68 65 160 39 97 73 857 80 9 2,381
3.6 5.5 11.6 7.2 6.2 8.6 8.2 4.3 6.6 4.1 8.6 4.8 12 4.1 2.1 8.2
191 1,819 9,929 1,269 303 440 227 711 536 913 900 1,644 140 19,022
53 878 4,251 419 100 200 101 273 275 386 264 541 37 7,778
27.7 48.3 42.8 33.0 33.0 45.5 44.6 38.4 51.3 42.3 29.3 32.9 26.8 40.9
43 667 3,585 322 94 175 85 186 218 311 231 471 32 6,420
22.5 36.6 36.1 25.4 31.1 39.8 37.7 26.1 40.7 34.0 25.7 28.6 23.2 33.8
10 212 666 97 6 25 16 87 57 76 33 71 5 1,361
5.1 11.7 6.7 7.6 1.9 5.7 6.9 12.2 10.6 8.3 3.6 4.3 3.5 7.2
9,093
3,527
38.8
2,835
31.2
695
7.6
113
57
50.7
53
47.0
4
3.7
Western Region Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ California............................ Colorado.............................. Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Montana.............................. Nevada................................. New Mexico........................ Oregon................................. Utah..................................... Washington......................... Wyoming............................. Regional total..................... Regional total without California........... Dist. of Columbia...............
With
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2008 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. URL: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
Without
cpstables/032009/health/h10_000.htm. A joint effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 533
ENVIRONMENT
Determining Environmental Limits to Streamflow Depletion Across Michigan By David A. Hamilton and Paul W. Seelbach
Michigan now assesses environmental impact of proposed water withdrawals on nearby streams and limits stream depletion based on ecological characteristics. The scientific framework is the relationship between streamflow reductions and projected impact on resident fish populations. Program development was overseen by an advisory council representing major water interest groups. Introduction Michigan has a new process to identify and efficiently authorize surface or groundwater withdrawals that are not likely to cause an adverse resource impact (ARI) to local stream ecosystems. Withdrawals that have a higher risk of causing an ARI are flagged for more detailed, individual review. The process was created to ensure thoughtful management of Michigan’s valuable water resources; focusing staff resources and attention to water use proposals with the highest environmental risk to avoid adverse impacts and an overly burdensome permit process. The key to protecting aquatic ecosystems is to protect the natural, seasonal patterns of streamflows. Interest in protecting streamflow patterns is growing within many regions of the U.S. and the world, recognizing the fundamental needs to base water policy on sound hydro-ecological science, and wisely balance water allocation across a range of uses to achieve sustainable provision of critical services. Emerging work on setting environmental flow standards is documented by The Nature Conservancy’s Environmental Flows Program.1 Great Lakes states have begun developing environmental flow standards through the recent Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. In 2006, the Michigan legislature charged the Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council— an appointed body representing major water-use interests–to design a process to assess environmental impacts of all proposed large-quantity water withdrawals over 100,000 gallons per day. Michigan’s advisory council formed a technical working group to design and develop the process. This group included hydrologists, fisheries ecologists and environmental scientists from a variety of state, federal, university and private entities.
534 The Book of the States 2010
The advisory council provided the vision for a comprehensive state Water Withdrawal Assessment Process.2 This process combined a foundation of hydrologic and ecological models and maps, with a set of management actions driven by the estimated environmental risks. The resulting process is designed to: 1) prevent adverse resource impacts; 2) provide a better understanding of withdrawal impacts, 3) minimize conflicts over water use, and 4) facilitate planning for sustainable water use and conservation among stakeholders. The Water Withdrawal Assessment Process contains elements representing both objective science and subjective societal values—the two necessary elements for sound policy development. Scientific elements were agreeable to all parties; societal values required in-depth discussion and ultimately a legislative decision. The science-based components offered an objective template to guide and constrain participants during the social-values negotiations. Legislators and stakeholder workgroups subsequently reached bipartisan agreement, embodied in the new state law.
Process Components The assessment process must determine when cumulative large quantity water withdrawals would likely cause an unacceptable impact to stream ecosystems. To the extent possible, objective metrics were developed to represent physical and biological aspects of the environment. And scientifically based, ecological-response curves were developed to inform the policy determination process of how much water can be responsibly withdrawn.
ENVIRONMENT Using streamflow as a metric to measure environmental impact The summer low flow period is one of the most important, biologically stressful periods in the annual streamflow cycle. An index flow, the lowest summer monthly median flow (typically August), was chosen to represent this period. This is the reference point, the flow from which a proposed water withdrawal is subtracted and an assessment is made of potential environmental impacts. The maximum amount of water that can be withdrawn from each stream is calculated as a percentage of the index flow. Index flows must be determined for all the stream segments draining each of approximately 5,000 Water Management Areas (local drainage areas in Michigan). Stream classification To quantify the impact the withdrawals had on all the stream resources, it was important to classify Michigan streams into types. All Michigan stream segments were assigned to one of 11 types based on size and water temperature—the dominant variables shaping fish populations in Michigan’s streams.
This assessment process focuses on the health of the streams, which also provides indirect protection of other headwater streams, lakes and wetlands ecosystems within each larger water management area by limiting the total amount of water withdrawal allowed. Through the classification system and associated water budgets, this process helps sustain the exceptional diversity of natural hydrologic regimes and the resulting aquatic ecosystem types distributed across the Michigan landscape.
Environmental limits based on fish response curves The fish in the streams are used to help gauge the expected impact of water withdrawals. Fish are at the top of the food chain and reflect the overall health of the aquatic environment. Response curves were developed that represent population and density changes in characteristic fish communities due to reductions in streamflow (Figure A).3 Each of the 11 stream types has different characteristic fishes, with unique sensitivity to reductions in index flow. For each type, only a proportion of streamflow can be withdrawn before causing an adverse resource
Increasing responsibility and involvement
Adverse Resource Impact
1.0 A–B Threshold B–C Threshold C–D Threshold
0.8 0.6
Thriving
0.4 Zone D
Zone C
0.2
Zone B
Characteristic Zone A
Proportion of Initial Fish Population Metric
Figure A: Example of Risk-based Water Management Zones
0 0
0.2
0.4 0.6 Proportion of Index Flow Removed
0.8
1.0
Source: Paul W. Seelbach, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Notes: Example set of response curves of stream fish populations to increasing removal of stream Index Flow. The Thriving Species curve is the most sensitive, “early warning flag.” The Characteristic Species curve shows the ultimate decline in fish populations. Also shown are the management zones A–D, for which increasingly protective management actions are prescribed. Zone D is equivalent to the legal standard of Adverse Resource Impact.
The Council of State Governments 535
ENVIRONMENT impact. With the stream classification and technical response curves in place, the ecological impacts to any specified stream segment in the state can now be effectively assessed.
Risk based management zones The final policy decisions, formalized in legislation, regarding acceptable impacts were informed by the stream classification system and fish response curves. The flow-fish response curves illustrate a continuum of increasing risks of ARI. There is no sharp threshold of flow reductions between “no impact” and “ARI.” So the legislation created a series of management zones representing increasing levels of risk to the environment (Figure A), and prescribed appropriate levels of water management efforts. Each stream type has different characteristic fish populations that respond differently to the reduction in flow. For each type, the legislation determined a maximum amount of water that can be withdrawn before causing an adverse resource impact, which is prohibited. Michigan’s groundwater-driven, cold streams are a unique resource in North America. Streams designated as cold-transitional are most sensitive to reductions in flow. Relatively small reductions in flow can dramatically alter these ecosystems so that they will no longer support cold water species like trout and salmon. Accordingly, withdrawals from these streams are very limited and any proposed withdrawal requires a site specific review by state agency staff.
Relating water withdrawal to streamflow depletion Finally, a mechanism is needed to predict how much water will be depleted from any given stream segment by a proposed withdrawal. When a withdrawal is taken directly from a stream, the streamflow is instantly reduced by the same amount that is withdrawn. But when the withdrawal is from a well, the relationship between the withdrawal and actual streamflow depletion is more complex. The factors that must be considered are: location of a well in relation to nearby streams; the connection between the aquifer used by the well and the stream; the aquifer material and the distance and depth of the well screen from the stream. Computer models are used to incorporate these factors into the calculation of the streamflow depletion. Determining how much is too much Science cannot answer the question, “How much impact on water resources is too much?” That is a social question decided through the legislative process. State legislation created the water withdrawal assessment process and made the key policy decisions. As discussed before, the index flow is defined, and used as the metric by which water withdrawals are measured. The value of the index flow varies from place to place across the state, but the fact that it represents the lowest summer monthly median flow at that location is fixed. How streams are classified is defined and data on fish responses are adopted for each stream type. The legislature considered competing social values when it set risk-
Table A: Cumulative Percent Reductions in Stream Index Flow Allowed per 2008 Michigan Legislation, by Ecological Stream Type and Management Zone Stream
Small river
Large river
A–B
B–C
ARI
A–B
B–C
ARI
A–B
B–C
ARI
Cold...................................... Cold-Transitional................ Cool...................................... Warm....................................
14% . . . 6 10
14% 4 15 18
20% 4 25 24
10.5% . . . 15 8
10.5% 2 19 13
21% 2 25 17
. . . . . . 14% 10
. . . 3% 19 16
... 3% 25 22
Source: David A. Hamilton, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Notes: Percent flow reductions denote the threshold lines between management zones A–D (D being equivalent to the legal standard of Adverse Resource Impact). Threshold lines were determined using flow-fish response curves and legislative workgroups.
536 The Book of the States 2010
ENVIRONMENT based water management zones, including ARI, along the response curves for each stream type (Table A). Values for these zones and the ARI are determined as a percentage of the index flow. Index flows are all determined at the downstream end of each water management area. The process applies all these policy decisions to any large-quantity withdrawal at any location in the state.
Process Implementation Authorizing a water withdrawal Linking the fish response curves, stream classifi cation map, index flow estimates, and estimated depletion of the water resources provides an answer to “how much water can be responsibly withdrawn” for each proposed large-quantity withdrawal. Every location in the state falls within a larger water management area. The stream segment draining every management area is assigned to a stream type. And for every stream type, the risk management zones are set as a percentage of the index flow. In every proposed scenario the two dynamic elements are: determining index flow and determining the withdrawal’s depletion from nearby streamflows. These determinations can be handled in two ways—a site specific review using data developed from the site itself or a more generalized statewide screening model. The proposed water withdrawal is then compared with the amount of water available in the total water management area and the risk management zone is determined. Based on the zone, certain actions must then be followed. If the result is Zone A, then the applicant may proceed with immediate, online registration. If the result is Zone D (likely to cause an ARI) then the withdrawal will not be allowed. The applicant could propose a measure to prevent harmful effects that would alter the amount of water withdrawal and/or the water temperature such that the proposed withdrawal would no longer cause an ARI. If the proposal results in Zones B or C, then, notifi cations of other water users and interested parties occurs, user groups may be formed and there may be requirements for water conservation measures. Internet Screening Tool In order to focus state agency resources on the most sensitive areas and also to efficiently approve withdrawals in areas where water is readily available, a statewide Internet-based screening tool was developed. The screening tool provides an initial assessment of the impact of a potential water withdrawal on local stream and river ecosystems. It operates
within a Geographic Information System running on the Internet and can be used to quickly examine potential withdrawal sites anywhere in the state. It is designed with enough safeguards so that, when a proposed withdrawal clearly poses little or no risk to nearby stream ecosystems, the screening tool can approve and facilitate immediate online state registration of the withdrawal. But when a proposed withdrawal triggers concerns, the screening tool instructs the person to request a more detailed review by state agency staff. The screening tool considers the geographic variations in Michigan’s streamflows and fish communities and mathematical models of streamflow, groundwater dynamics, and fish ecology are used. The streamflow model uses information on soils, geology, land use and precipitation to predict how much flow is available in each stream. The groundwater model uses information about geology, well depth, pumping rate and distance from nearby streams to estimate how much a well will reduce the flow in nearby streams. And the fish ecology model determines how a reduction in streamflow is likely to impact the types and abundance of fish species that live there.
Notes 1 Program Web page: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces /eloha. 2 Michigan Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, 2007. Report to the Michigan Legislature in response to 2006 Public Act 34, (2007). 3 T.G. Zorn, P.W. Seelbach, E.S. Rutherford, T.C. Wills, S.T. Cheng and M.J. Wiley, “A landscape-scale habitat suitability model to evaluate impacts of groundwater withdrawals on fish communities in Michigan streams,” Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Research Report 2089, (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2008). http://www.michigandnr. com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Research/ reports/2089/RR2089.pdf).
About the Authors David A. Hamilton is chief of the Water Management Section in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. He has extensive experience in water resources policy and hydrologic analysis. Paul W. Seelbach is a fisheries research specialist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. He examines statewide relationships among landscapes, hydrology and stream ecosystems.
The Council of State Governments 537
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE
Transportation Finance & the States: Stopgap Solutions & Indecision Spell an Uncertain Future By Sean Slone
As state governments are faced with major infrastructure needs and declining tax revenues, many are searching for new revenue options to fund transportation improvements. But the lack of consensus about the viability of those options and uncertainty about federal programs has left states trying to plug holes temporarily. State infrastructure needs got some much needed attention in 2009 as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allowed states to tackle a huge backlog of road repaving, bridge repairs and other “shovel-ready” projects. But in many ways, the Recovery Act only put a bandage on a problem that will likely continue to plague state governments in the years ahead—how to fund transportation improvements as tax revenues continue to decline and as traditional revenue sources seem tapped out. As the year wound down, Congress was struggling to find a way forward on a new multi-year authorization bill for federal transportation programs that will likely require increased user fees and revenue enhancements. The previous authorizing bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as SAFETEA-LU, expired at the end of September. Yet with health care reform dominating most of the political debate in Washington, with an economy still trying to recover and with mid-term elections coming up in 2010, authorization of a new transportation bill and a potential tax increase to pay for it were unable to gain much traction. The indecision at the federal level makes it an uncertain time at the state level as well. State governments, facing not only declining tax revenues but also significant budget crises, await a new authorization bill that will speak to how transportation will be financed at the federal level in the coming years and what level of financial commitment will be made. That will likely determine what they will have to come up with in state revenues to close the gap in tackling infrastructure needs.
Infrastructure Needs Those infrastructure needs are daunting. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, one-third of America’s roads are in poor or
538 The Book of the States 2010
mediocre condition; 36 percent of major urban highways are congested; and one in four of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The group said $186 billion is needed annually to improve the nation’s highways, yet annual spending for highway capital improvements is only $70.3 billion. The Recovery Act provided $27.5 billion for highways and bridges, but that made the overall investment still far short of the amount analysts say is needed.1 Meanwhile state road budgets continue to be slashed. Virginia transportation officials announced in November they were cutting $851.5 million from road-building operations over the next six years.2 In Maine, an October report outlined how the state faces a $3.3 billion gap over the next 10 years in transportation funding.3 And in Nevada, which has seen rapid growth in recent years, legislators adjourned their 2009 session without addressing a looming $7 billion state transportation funding shortfall over the next decade. In fact, Nevada lawmakers haven’t even addressed the issue of road funding since 1991, when a gas tax increase was approved but never enacted.4
Fuel Taxes Twenty-four percent of state revenues for highways come from state fuel taxes. But motor fuel tax revenues continue to decline for a number of reasons. Among them, fewer drivers are on the road while fuel efficiency has increased. Fuel taxes have also lost purchasing power due to inflation since in many cases they have not been adjusted to compensate for the rising costs of road construction and materials. That has led many to conclude that fuel tax revenues are no longer sufficient by themselves to finance the nation’s large and growing infrastructure needs.5 There appears to be little consensus on how to replace or supplement fuel taxes. Some states are simply seeking to increase fuel taxes or index them
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE to an economic indicator such as the Consumer Price Index or the Construction Cost Index to improve their stability. Still, though 15 states considered raising state fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees or both in 2009, only three jurisdictions actually enacted increases: Oregon, Vermont and Washington, D.C. Oregon increased fuel taxes by 25 percent and raised registration, title and driver’s license fees. But opponents of the fuel tax increase filed a 2010 referendum petition in an attempt to block it from going into effect in 2011.6
Other Revenue Options for Transportation States are also relying on increased fees, other taxes and borrowing to fund transportation needs. In 2009: • Colorado hiked vehicle registration fees to raise an estimated $250 million a year for transportation.7 • Iowa lawmakers agreed to Gov. Chet Culver’s plan to borrow $830 million, with the bonds paid off from casino gambling profits.7 • Illinois financed a $31 billion construction program by legalizing video poker, raising fees and hiking taxes on candy, beauty products and alcohol.8 But there have been delays in getting video poker up and running, with a number of communities choosing to opt out.9 • North Dakota shifted excise taxes on motor vehicle sales, which normally go to human services and education, to road spending.10 • North Carolina lawmakers voted to allow counties to increase their sales taxes to support transportation projects.11 • Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill that will allow the state to issue $701 million in bonds, more than half of which will go toward transportation projects.12 But as credit markets tightened, some states seeking to issue bonds or access credit and private capital encountered challenges. This affected public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects. Once seen as a potential savior for transportation funding, the publicprivate partnerships, in which state governments agree to sell or lease roads or other facilities to private operators for large sums, appear to have all but dried up in the credit crunch, USA Today reported in October. At the very least, mega-deals like the 2003 $1.8 billion lease on the Chicago Skyway or
the 2006 $3.8 billion lease on the Indiana Toll Road may be things of the past, some analysts say.13 But others point to two projects in Florida— the $1.7 billion I-595 project and the $900 million Port of Miami Tunnel—as proof that private investment is not dead as a financing option, since both of those deals closed as the credit crunch was already well underway. Proponents of the publicprivate partnerships also point to signs that financial markets are gradually opening up again in the U.S. and say many of the projects that have fallen apart in recent months could easily be revived.14 Take for example Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell’s plan to sell the Pennsylvania Turnpike which was blocked by the Legislature or the plan to privatize Florida’s “Alligator Alley,” the 78-mile road across the Everglades that connects Fort Lauderdale with Naples, which collapsed in May 2009 due to a lack of bidders.13 Some states certainly remain hopeful that the promise of big paydays with public-private partnerships will come to fruition. The governors of Arizona and North Carolina both signed legislation in 2009 allowing their state departments of transportation to enter into such partnerships.
Tolling One trend analysts say is likely to continue in transportation finance is the increase in various forms of tolling, particularly around major cities like Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. “Why is this happening?” wrote Washington Post metro columnist Robert McCartney in October. “Mostly because we need new roads and politicians are scared to raise the gasoline tax to pay for them. It’s pretty much that simple.” That’s despite evidence that simply increasing the gasoline tax would be a smarter alternative, McCartney wrote. “(Increasing the gas tax) would be more efficient, because the collection apparatus is in place and there’d be no need to pay for new E-ZPass equipment, tollbooths or machines to photograph license plates,” he wrote. In the Washington, D.C., area, tolls are on the way for a new inter-county connector in Maryland and for portions of the Capital Beltway and Interstates 395 and 95 in Virginia. Tolls will also increase on the toll road that connects to Dulles Airport by 2012.15 Elsewhere, tolls were increased on the West Virginia Turnpike in 2009 for the first time in 28 years.16 But on the flipside in Massachusetts, in a development that may bear watching, toll opponents filed
The Council of State Governments 539
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE
Table A: State Funding Sources for Transportation State
State excise tax on fuel (cents per gallon) (a)
Other state taxes on fuel (a)
Vehicle registration fees (b)
State bonding authority Tolls
General funds
Public-private partnerships
Alabama.............................. Alaska.................................. Arizona................................ Arkansas.............................. California............................
16.0 8.0 18.0 21.5 18.0
4.9 H 0.0 1.0 H 0.3 H 29.4 H
H H H H H H H H H H H
H H H
Colorado.............................. Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Florida................................. Georgia................................
22.0 25.0 23.0 4.0 7.5
0.0 H 15.8 H 0.0 H 30.5 H 13.4
H H H H H H H H H H H
H
Hawaii................................. Idaho.................................... Illinois.................................. Indiana................................. Iowa.....................................
17.0 25.0 19.0 18.0 21.0
27.4 0.0 17.7 13.7 1.0
H H H H H
H H H H H H H H
Kansas................................. Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Maine................................... Maryland.............................
24.0 21.1 20.0 29.5 23.5
1.0 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.0
H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H
Massachusetts..................... Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Mississippi........................... Missouri...............................
21.0 19.0 27.1 18.0 17.0
2.5 14.2 0.1 0.8 0.3
H H H H H
H H H H H H H H
Montana.............................. Nebraska............................. Nevada................................. New Hampshire.................. New Jersey..........................
27.0 26.4 23.0 18.0 10.5
0.8 0.9 10.1 1.6 4.0
H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H
New Mexico........................ New York............................. North Carolina.................... North Dakota...................... Ohio.....................................
17.0 8.0 29.9 23.0 28.0
1.8 36.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H
Oklahoma............................ Oregon................................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... South Carolina....................
16.0 24.0 12.0 32.0 16.0
1.0 1.0 20.3 1.0 0.8
H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H H
South Dakota...................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Utah..................................... Vermont...............................
22.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 19.0
2.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
Virginia................................ Washington......................... West Virginia....................... Wisconsin............................ Wyoming.............................
17.5 37.5 20.5 30.9 13.0
1.8 0.0 11.7 2.0 1.0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
H
H
H H
H H H H H H
H H H H H
H
H
H H H H
Sources: (a) American Petroleum Institute. “Notes to State Motor Fuel Excise and Other Taxes (Effective 10/1/09)” Accessed from: http://www.api. org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/State_Motor_Fuel_Excise_Tax_Notes10_2009_2.pdf (b) National Governors Association, “How States & Territories Fund Transportation: An Overview of Traditional and Nontraditional Strategies, 2009”.
540 The Book of the States 2010
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE ballot measures for 2010 that would eliminate all turnpike, tunnel and bridge tolls in the state.17
Vehicle Miles Traveled: The Future? Many are looking to a vehicle miles traveled charge as the potential revenue mechanism of the future. Three federal commissions concluded the U.S. should adopt just such an approach, under which motorists pay a fee based on miles actually driven in a state. Oregon was the first state to conduct a successful yearlong pilot project that Oregon officials said demonstrated the viability of the concept as well as its popularity among pilot participants. Other states are currently conducting ongoing research and pilot projects. The Oregon pilot program used Global Positioning Systembased receivers in cars to estimate the number of miles driven in different zones. That mileage data was transmitted wirelessly on a short-range radio frequency to receivers at gas stations. Vehicle miles traveled-based fees are already a reality in Europe, and in 2009 the University of Minnesota added to the body of evidence with a report showing such a system in the U.S. is technologically feasible and could be implemented in the near future.18 The National Cooperative Highway Research Program also issued a report that examined nine potential vehicle miles traveled systems and found three options most promising: mileage estimates based on fuel consumption, onboard units using cellular tracking, and on-board GPS units as in the Oregon pilot project. The report examines the risks and benefits of each and also identifies strategies to position the country for a phased-in transition beginning in 2015.19 A separate report by two Oregon Department of Transportation officials offers a six-year plan to define what a national vehicle miles traveled tax system should do and how it would operate and also to engage the public in order to develop a national consensus on a system.20 Despite these successes and studies, however, a number of technological and institutional challenges remain, including everything from retrofitting cars already on the road to alleviating privacy concerns. That’s led many analysts to predict that a full-fledged vehicle miles traveled tax system in the U.S. is likely a decade or more away.
Political Impact After months of hearing about “shovel ready” projects, the delayed authorization bill and state struggles to come up with additional revenues to
fund transportation, it was perhaps appropriate that as 2009 wrapped up, transportation finance issues may have factored into off-year gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. Incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, who lost to former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie in New Jersey, said during the last months of the campaign he would be open to increasing the state’s fuel tax rates and diverting money from other budgets to roads. Christie opposed increasing fuel tax rates. In Virginia, Republican Robert McDonnell, who defeated Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds, announced on the campaign trail an extensive plan to pay for the state’s mounting list of transportation needs, which included tolls for Interstates 85 and 95, rerouting transportation money going to other sources, and tapping into public-private partnerships, but which notably did not include tax increases.21 Whether policymakers can derive some lesson from those elections and whether transportation will have an impact on the political landscape in 2010 remains to be seen. But transportation finance will likely continue to be a significant concern for state governments in 2010 and beyond. A November report by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers forecasts that “with states having entered the recession in 2008, revenue shortfalls persisting into 2014 and a need to backfill deferred investments into core state functions, it will take states nearly a decade to fully emerge from the current recession.”22 That may mean America’s transportation needs will once again have to wait for another day.
Notes 1 American Society of Civil Engineers, 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. Accessed from: http:// www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm. 2 Debbie Messina and Julian Walker, “Virginia’s road budget slashed another $851.5M,” The Virginian-Pilot, November 19, 2009. Accessed from: http://hamptonroads. com/2009/11/virginias-road-budget-slashed-another-8515m. 3 TRIP, Falling Behind: The Condition and Funding of Maine’s Roads, Highways & Bridges, October 2009. Accessed from: http://www.tripnet.org/Maine_TRIP_Report_Oct_2009. pdf. 4 Illia, Tony. “Highway Havoc: Road-Building Funding Cuts Could Lengthen Commute Times.” Las Vegas Business Press. August 14, 2009. Accessed from: http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2009/08/14/news/iq_30428010.txt. 5 National Governors Association, Innovative State Transportation Funding & Financing: Policy Options for States, January 2009. Accessed from: http://www.nga.org/ Files/pdf/0901TRANSPORTATIONFUNDING.PDF.
The Council of State Governments 541
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE 6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “Oregon Gas-Tax Increase Could Go Before Voters Next Spring,” AASHTO Journal Weekly Transportation Report, August 21, 2009. Accessed from: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/082109oregontax.aspx. 7 Stephen C. Fehr, “States divided on raising road taxes,” Stateline.org, May 29, 2009. Accessed from: http://www. stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=403245. 8 “Transportation in State 2009 Legislatures,” Stateline. org, August 17, 2009. Accessed from: http://www.stateline. org/live/static/Legislative_Year_in_Review_2009. 9 Rick Pearson, “Illinois’ borrowing bonanza: State leaders’ increasing use of loans merely delaying inevitable, critics say.” Chicago Tribune, November 2, 2009. Accessed from: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-state-ofdenial-02-nov02,0,7177007,print.story. 10 Dale Wetzel, “Legislature Approves $1.35B Road Spending Bill,” Associated Press, April 30, 2009. 11 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “North Carolina Legislators Approve Local Tax Hike Options,” August 14, 2009. Accessed from: http:// www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/081409northcarolina.aspx. 12 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “Tennessee Governor Signs Measure Authorizing $430 Million in Bonds for Transportation,” AASHTO Journal, July 10, 2009. 13 Dennis Cauchon, “Privately run infrastructure deals dry up,” USA Today. October 28, 2009. 14 Reason Foundation, “PPP Infrastructure Deals ‘Drying Up’?” Surface Transportation Innovations, Issue No. 73. November 2009. 15 Robert McCartney, “Radical alternative makes toll lanes look like a bargain,” Washington Post, October 25, 2009. 16 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “West Virginia Raises Tolls,” AASHTO Journal, July 10, 2009. 17 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “Proposed Ballot Questions Would End Tolls in Massachusetts.” AASHTO Journal, August 7, 2009. 18 Donath, Max; Gorjestani, Alec; et al. “Technology Enabling Near-Term Nationwide Implementation of Distance Based Road User Fees.” (University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, June 2009). Accessed from: http://www.its.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/ pdfdownload.pl?id=1166. 19 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding, June 2009. Accessed from: http:// onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w143.pdf. 20 James Whitty and John R. Svadlenak, “Discerning the Pathway to Implementation of a National Mileage-Based Charging System.” (Transportation Research Board, October 2009). Accessed from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/SR299Mileage.pdf. 21 Keith Goble, “Transportation issues seen as factors in governors’ races,” Land Line Magazine, November 4, 2009. Accessed from: http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/ Daily/2009/Nov09/110209/110409-01.htm. 22 National Governors Association, The State Fiscal Situation: The Lost Decade, November 2009.
542 The Book of the States 2010
About the Author Sean Slone is a transportation policy analyst at The Council of State Governments. He staffs CSG’s Transportation Policy Task Force and writes about transportation policy for CSG publications such as Capitol Ideas magazine and Trends in America policy materials. He is the author of two CSG national reports: Transportation and Infrastructure Finance (2009) and Shovel-Ready or Not? State Stimulus Successes on the Road to Recovery (2010). He has also written about health policy for CSG’s Healthy States initiative.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 543
260,093 462,632 113,485 870,383 1,090,512 1,398,638 1,981,048 328,139 3,402,554 72,388 14,097 9,993,969
2,337,064 394,256 145,685 758,869 1,293,434 940,136 137,787 83,196 1,486,546 76,674 673,621 8,327,268
364,934 246,977 3,065,426 1,781,463 818,081 2,349,550 227,913 726,776 790,016 272,395 360,614 1,467,981 2,909,783 2,195,046 329,378 1,193,756
Midwestern Region Illinois....................... Indiana (e).................. Iowa............................. Kansas......................... Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Nebraska.................... North Dakota............ Ohio............................ South Dakota............. Wisconsin.................... Regional total............
Southern Region Alabama................... Arkansas..................... Florida......................... Georgia....................... Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Mississippi.................. Missouri...................... North Carolina.......... Oklahoma................... South Carolina........... Tennessee................... Texas............................ Virginia....................... West Virginia.............. Regional total............
See footnotes at end of table.
58,639,600
United States.............
Eastern Region Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Maine.......................... Maryland.................... Massachusetts............ New Hampshire......... New Jersey................. New York.................... Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. Vermont...................... Regional total............
585,386 408,704 1,594,459 791,600 545,641 598,131 393,524 709,099 1,374,193 387,071 521,230 727,931 1,461,034 689,725 356,641 11,144,369
1,380,702 793,884 424,694 391,379 826,594 551,511 297,160 129,985 1,799,145 114,100 733,474 7,442,628
341,355 101,481 243,710 392,413 364,887 135,691 277,900 1,027,842 1,350,097 60,521 61,969 4,357,866
29,929,960
181,498 140,751 817,333 338,715 579,938 237,516 136,429 297,032 597,466 640,697 261,418 291,952 2,226,740 505,034 260,095 7,512,614
1,191,681 214,744 421,796 112,940 751,445 440,521 107,637 72,661 738,306 2,137 401,019 4,454,887
161,592 105,984 34,698 450,330 174,030 124,310 558,539 652,384 537,330 23,660 120,782 2,943,639
21,508,605
0 0 1,064,572 28,321 0 39,808 0 0 2,239 198,207 11,654 33 342,113 129,278 56,436 1,872,661
894,083 149,246 0 78,515 35,126 0 0 0 190,736 0 0 1,347,706
183 146,118 105,909 243,087 452,928 103,029 949,456 1,066,944 779,977 11,992 0 3,859,623
7,539,330
766,884 549,455 3,476,364 1,158,636 1,125,579 875,455 529,953 1,006,131 1,973,898 1,225,975 794,302 1,019,916 4,029,887 1,324,037 673,172 20,529,644
3,466,466 1,157,874 846,490 582,834 1,613,165 992,032 404,797 202,646 2,728,187 116,237 1,134,493 13,245,221
503,130 353,583 384,317 1,085,830 991,845 363,030 1,785,895 2,747,170 2,667,404 96,173 182,751 11,161,128
58,977,895
Motor-vehicle State or other Beginning Motor-fuel and motor- Road and jurisdiction balance total (a) taxes carrier taxes crossing tolls Total
Highway-user revenues (b)
Table 9.13 Revenues used by states for highways, by region: 2008
87,791 0 744,543 0 9,400 1,104,949 0 1 0 130,208 2,824 0 0 423,632 10,597 2,513,945
51,635 496 50,321 24,382 158,239 0 53,303 7,210 22,627 0 0 368,213
23 20,446 0 60,741 0 0 38,238 534,359 82,772 16,142 10,198 762,919
6,819,008
Appropriations from general funds (c)
48,546 6,056 127,837 0 0 78,644 41,936 297,098 582,323 0 2,912 4,195 38,908 568,857 3,670 1,800,982
275 82,900 284,380 283,294 71,270 284,087 153,012 0 0 60,898 0 1,220,116
7 0 0 190,760 887,161 0 0 1,056,817 0 0 0 2,134,745
7,008,655
143,530 21,749 455,928 192,765 160,499 57,459 29,343 53,014 114,728 307,067 182,247 107,147 3,162,446 398,857 90,023 5,476,802
70,793 285,138 15,649 -61,612 151,115 69,830 24,365 17,664 214,187 48,433 240,745 1,076,307
88,676 26,361 18,568 127,991 149,565 163,169 134,997 812,883 736,078 82,346 27,105 2,367,739
10,616,728
0 0 1,146,324 793,322 0 0 4,000 554,439 287,565 0 0 0 8,100,838 76,650 0 10,963,138
1,117,396 415,850 0 150,870 0 42,116 0 0 354,520 0 0 2,080,752
258,868 120,737 125,199 1,108,517 378,066 34,991 1,204,742 206,204 1,202,197 44,658 493 4,684,672
20,867,135
776,333 454,567 2,026,677 1,162,924 678,438 667,704 720,261 897,197 856,649 586,798 416,578 644,132 4,095,078 847,481 375,285 15,206,102
1,233,078 1,084,642 333,124 410,928 748,660 805,235 254,820 224,979 1,119,873 237,546 636,478 7,089,363
392,563 134,134 144,849 540,805 354,661 163,357 678,279 1,709,923 1,430,945 198,220 147,654 5,895,390
35,536,692
70,784 41,770 23,041 69,689 19,245 18,656 5,226 20,643 12,622 10,398 8,455 39,372 82,171 53,973 14,224 490,269
22,934 8,813 83,046 9,019 9,311 8,888 5,036 6,177 16,300 5,251 65,924 240,699
7,817 3,675 2,643 5,762 5,682 12,788 12,154 16,015 48,427 2,218 19,911 137,092
1,331,951
21,289 11,322 392,010 24,702 0 0 40,278 41,880 25,068 23,211 23,358 51,541 151,892 90,975 361 897,887
1,418 32,503 0 54,597 88,104 158,931 465,066 22,632 88,041 9,428 110,335 1,031,055
4,604 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,157 20,352 0 2,470 63,583
3,524,743
Other Bond Federal Hwy. Other From local state imposts Miscellaneous proceeds (d) Administration agencies government
Federal funds
Payments from other governments
1,915,157 1,084,919 8,392,721 3,402,038 1,993,161 2,802,867 1,370,997 2,870,403 3,852,853 2,283,657 1,430,676 1,866,303 19,661,220 3,784,462 1,167,332 57,878,766
5,963,993 3,068,215 1,613,010 1,454,312 2,839,864 2,361,119 1,360,399 481,308 4,543,735 477,793 2,187,975 26,351,723
1,255,688 658,936 675,576 3,120,406 2,766,980 737,335 3,854,305 7,119,528 6,188,175 439,757 390,582 27,207,268
144,682,801
Total receipts
HIGHWAYS
544 The Book of the States 2010 3,788,908
8,201,087
90,948
Dist. of Columbia......
77,723
2,664,773
37,698 209,567 3,854,969 733,716 96,539 144,858 99,663 214,595 172,094 331,888 109,191 476,420 38,544 6,519,742
0
178,703
23,590 0 280,637 0 0 0 0 628 0 0 1,271 153,214 0 459,340
99,441
6,632,384
91,429 707,744 7,310,077 1,262,077 174,944 341,312 202,702 506,728 325,777 669,098 462,788 1,811,197 76,588 13,942,461
0
1,317,376
0 815,721 535,436 10,127 0 0 6,804 0 1,989 15,177 344,174 49,211 74,173 1,852,812
0
1,262,100
262,786 253,138 433,780 51,649 35,417 15,927 59,433 104,287 44,475 128,099 81,752 180,923 44,214 1,695,880
0
2,146,824
0 665,173 991,749 0 0 206,600 45,403 135,856 200,000 0 70,083 823,709 0 3,138,573
158,591
4,377,004
317,679 553,997 2,810,242 411,122 192,340 227,292 332,687 231,317 260,340 425,587 293,512 938,249 192,882 7,187,246
10,428
376,283
15,829 18,901 77,180 7,690 662 4,481 14,744 1,388 40,843 118,325 54,832 70,848 27,740 453,463
0
252,799
0 9,049 1,279,419 47,987 0 7,094 5,904 0 0 35,567 33,131 114,067 0 1,532,218
Other Bond Federal Hwy. Other From local state imposts Miscellaneous proceeds (d) Administration agencies government
Federal funds
Payments from other governments
268,460
17,105,020
797,188 3,023,799 15,871,564 2,069,686 403,363 802,706 671,050 979,623 873,424 1,436,210 1,474,838 3,988,204 584,929 32,976,584
Total receipts
result of accounting adjustments, inclusion of funds not previously reported, etc. (b) Amounts shown represent only those highway user revenues that were expended on state or local roads. (c) Amounts shown represent gross general fund appropriations for highways reduced by the amount of highway-user revenues placed in the State General Fund. (d) Amount shown represents original and refunding issues.
0
740,250
109,465 76 2,433,681 279,034 0 0 3,373 47 0 44,357 134,566 0 169,332 3,173,931
Appropriations from general funds (c)
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2008,(March 2010). Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. This table was compiled from reports of state authorities. Key: (a) Any differences between beginning balances and the closing balances on last year’s table are the
21,718
30,141 498,177 3,174,471 528,361 78,405 196,454 103,039 291,505 153,683 337,210 352,326 1,181,563 38,044 6,963,379
0 1,401,257 14,119,995 2,606,793 354,136 131,854 32,955 398,015 316,341 1,553,503 473,699 884,629 47,905 22,321,082
Western Region Alaska....................... Arizona....................... California.................... Colorado..................... Hawaii......................... Idaho........................... Montana..................... Nevada........................ New Mexico............... Oregon........................ Utah............................ Washington................ Wyoming.................... Regional total............ Regional total without California...
Motor-vehicle State or other Beginning Motor-fuel and motor- Road and jurisdiction balance total (a) taxes carrier taxes crossing tolls Total
Highway-user revenues (b)
REVENUES USED BY STATES FOR HIGHWAYS, BY REGION: 2008—Continued
HIGHWAYS
The Council of State Governments 545
553,557 247,399 283,437 1,474,464 912,288 259,987 1,790,173 3,060,882 2,714,483 189,344 172,848 11,658,862
3,112,997 1,823,364 526,150 844,916 2,321,864 945,278 567,602 320,586 2,091,603 290,825 1,285,906 14,131,091
1,170,599 630,837 5,381,502 2,674,700 1,745,629 1,867,305 964,864 1,337,453 2,083,426 919,510 549,986 898,313 7,101,872 1,355,251 734,389 29,415,636
Midwestern Region Illinois........................... Indiana (e).................... Iowa.............................. Kansas.......................... Michigan....................... Minnesota..................... Nebraska...................... North Dakota............... Ohio.............................. South Dakota............... Wisconsin..................... Regional total..............
Southern Region Alabama....................... Arkansas....................... Florida.......................... Georgia......................... Kentucky...................... Louisiana...................... Mississippi.................... Missouri........................ North Carolina............. Oklahoma..................... South Carolina............. Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Virginia......................... West Virginia................ Regional total..............
See footnotes at end of table.
$68,141,362
United States..................
Eastern Region Connecticut.................. Delaware...................... Maine............................ Maryland...................... Massachusetts.............. New Hampshire........... New Jersey................... New York...................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island................ Vermont........................ Regional total..............
184,557 266,931 1,003,778 221,831 404,735 467,270 114,084 497,124 676,613 222,129 382,622 263,682 1,441,105 1,205,018 266,888 7,618,367
754,172 121,813 185,697 165,573 301,729 405,656 315,556 29,751 438,309 81,305 227,256 3,026,817
119,382 112,196 257,843 335,368 380,942 235,559 412,648 1,441,205 1,607,167 94,154 81,420 5,077,884
$19,149,962
199,732 39,597 235,957 245,613 34,627 50,717 80,141 70,677 223,221 121,213 353,748 165,250 523,734 369,203 90,503 2,803,933
373,574 825,864 48,510 69,953 195,745 140,053 136,774 16,927 321,381 47,082 161,876 2,337,739
232,503 82,997 22,224 86,029 259,496 59,625 209,077 1,466,915 499,377 21,487 36,228 2,975,958
$11,446,466
State or other Capital Maintenance and Administration jurisdiction outlay total (a) services total (a) research and planning
Table 9.14 STATE DISBURSEMENTS FOR HIGHWAYS, by region: 2008
124,638 40,021 405,405 222,557 65,591 64,885 23,775 193,413 353,417 59,031 99,531 28,900 767,562 210,243 38,142 2,697,111
214,678 108,692 117,728 81,513 238,939 109,777 81,543 20,395 300,320 30,023 88,414 139,022
8,642 74,424 38,118 106,289 246,501 61,565 355,058 336,575 574,906 23,398 77,620 1,903,096
$8,492,753
2,931 23,429 379,519 134,113 153,563 3,551 11,020 118,672 34,073 202,636 33,487 — 607,479 103,216 31,491 1,839,180
360,084 268,440 — 83,602 105,891 26,440 — 2,158 76,187 — 112,439 1,035,241
145,179 60,374 23,645 99,814 506,516 16,625 681,878 591,007 201,283 30,599 492 2,357,412
$6,058,819
17,841 50,085 737,745 318,423 — 31,752 51,714 62,515 54,675 109,625 51,001 — 170,810 206,271 46,266 1,908,723
168,203 130,658 — (65,975 71,402 42,205 — 3,160 286,770 — 81,825 718,248
276,393 32,938 22,250 115,412 397,685 18,366 349,775 211,518 78,538 59,677 1,505 1,564,057
$4,936,277
— — 149,618 — — — — — — — — — 4,859,150 76,650 — 5,085,418
708,340 — — 150,275 — — — — — — — 858,615
— 72,792 65,365 — — — — — 21,425 — — 159,582
$6,603,615
215,958 — 403,994 — — 2,254 100,454 264,765 158,096 — — 414,383 476,692 348,949 — 2,385,545
606,748 1,544 627,342 156,743 33,000 683,089 250,562 77,795 1,116,275 1,633 434,713 3,989,444
34,606 — 25,828 529,444 194,563 29,584 121,938 429,303 258,894 — 25,111 1,649,271
$14,755,023
1,916,256 1,050,900 8,697,518 3,817,237 2,404,145 2,487,734 1,346,052 2,544,619 3,583,521 1,634,144 1,470,375 1,770,528 15,948,404 3,874,801 1,207,679 53,753,913
6,298,796 3,280,375 1,505,427 1,486,600 3,268,570 2,352,498 1,352,037 470,772 4,630,845 450,868 2,392,429 27,489,217
1,370,262 683,120 738,710 2,746,820 2,897,991 681,311 3,920,547 7,537,405 5,956,073 418,659 395,224 27,346,122
$139,584,277
Bond retirement Highway law enforcement Current revenues Refunding Grants in-aid Total and safety Interest or sinking funds bonds to local governments disbursements
363,835 280,996 2,760,629 1,366,264 407,097 2,664,683 252,858 1,052,560 1,059,348 921,908 320,915 1,563,756 6,622,599 2,104,707 289,031 22,031,186
2,002,261 182,096 253,268 726,581 864,728 948,757 146,149 93,732 1,399,436 103,599 469,167 7,189,774
145,519 438,448 50,351 1,243,969 959,501 1,454,662 1,914,806 (89,738 3,634,656 93,486 9,455 9,855,115
$63,738,124
Total end-of-year balances (b)
HIGHWAYS
Bond retirement Highway law enforcement Current revenues Refunding Grants in-aid Total and safety Interest or sinking funds bonds to local governments disbursements
546 The Book of the States 2010 247,863
54,830
32,464
—
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2008,(March 2010). Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. This table was compiled from reports of state authorities.
Dist. of Columbia...........
48
—
—
335,205
24,203
9,343,550
67,031 1,618,788 15,294,296 2,981,290 313,164 133,042 53,317 471,261 330,047 1,625,367 719,820 971,583 58,840 24,637,846
Total end-of-year balances (b)
Key: (a) Includes state administered and local roads and streets. (b) Amounts shown represent both reserves for current highway work and reserves for debt service.
—
Western Region Alaska........................... 379,094 237,404 53,298 38,167 7,544 13,718 — 932 730,157 Arizona......................... 1,133,353 134,167 300,967 126,331 144,355 132,270 — 834,825 2,806,268 California..................... 5,144,804 979,826 1,735,853 1,623,277 267,990 55,339 500,000 4,390,174 14,697,263 Colorado....................... 741,595 248,816 191,018 140,060 62,868 102,675 — 208,157 1,695,189 Hawaii.......................... 260,763 49,440 57,543 7,359 17,775 29,909 — 21,546 444,335 Idaho............................. 453,111 111,453 29,035 42,481 — 36,585 — 128,853 801,518 Montana....................... 401,116 102,907 67,223 48,290 5,968 6,375 — 18,809 650,688 Nevada.......................... 465,116 120,548 141,886 94,487 35,385 48,955 — — 906,377 New Mexico................. 253,991 237,535 197,725 36,435 — 70,970 — 63,062 859,718 Oregon.......................... 839,822 218,225 82,065 85,361 95,772 34,405 — 8,696 1,364,346 Utah.............................. 524,841 137,812 183,945 45,601 44,505 96,620 — 195,393 1,228,717 Washington.................. 1,728,938 674,927 200,630 174,235 144,824 117,380 — 860,316 3,901,250 Wyoming...................... 361,366 119,004 55,184 38,440 — — — — 573,994 Regional total.............. 12,687,910 3,372,064 3,296,372 2,500,524 826,986 745,201 500,000 6,730,763 30,659,820 Regional total.............. without California....... 7,543,106 2,392,238 1,560,519 877,247 558,996 689,862 — 23,405,489 15,962,557
State or other Capital Maintenance and Administration jurisdiction outlay total (a) services total (a) research and planning
STATE DISBURSEMENTS FOR HIGHWAYS, BY REGION: 2008—Continued
HIGHWAYS
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 547
1,289 3,077 7,517 3,098 708 3,207 455 9,936 28,848 316 2,451 60,902
10,936 8,943 7,941 9,619 7,056 10,538 9,552 7,167 14,253 7,608 9,730 103,343
8,751 15,012 5,968 14,012 25,142 13,197 9,564 30,999 62,890 11,089 30,264 10,860 66,419 47,627 31,295 383,089
Eastern Region Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Maine.......................... Maryland.................... Massachusetts............ New Hampshire......... New Jersey................. New York.................... Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. Vermont...................... Regional total............
Midwestern Region Illinois......................... Indiana (d)................. Iowa............................ Kansas........................ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Nebraska.................... North Dakota............. Ohio............................ South Dakota............. Wisconsin................... Regional total............
Southern Region Alabama..................... Arkansas..................... Florida........................ Georgia....................... Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Mississippi.................. Missouri...................... North Carolina........... Oklahoma................... South Carolina........... Tennessee................... Texas........................... Virginia....................... West Virginia.............. Regional total............
See footnotes at end of table.
632,679 631,653
Total............................ United States total.....
60,214 65,661 29,308 62,499 37,825 28,457 51,041 69,394 0 77,949 16,885 52,781 132,961 61 0 685,036
14,114 59,095 88,498 111,878 74,258 42,409 60,271 10,067 25,717 35,004 19,221 540,532
0 0 0 10,383 0 0 1,987 15,901 20 0 0 28,291
1,593,014 1,593,014
State or other State highway jurisdiction agency County
5,429 4,781 3,185 3,597 2,211 2,483 2,504 5,039 4,930 7,083 324 4,493 12,781 543 918 60,301
75,525 3,261 6,002 5,245 2,939 60,625 16,994 66,145 36,722 33,507 62,770 369,735
4,645 102 12,017 403 6,830 7,697 3,849 39,340 43,451 871 10,162 129,367
579,708 577,651
169 0 0 236 263 3 84 0 748 1,100 191 329 7 24 45 3,199
404 0 375 178 36 4,041 249 23 1,063 928 12 7,309
273 39 136 134 413 48 585 526 3,398 0 210 5,762
50,450 50,450
827 2,173 1,905 2,917 772 618 736 1,333 3,106 47 2,169 1,256 831 2,079 834 21,603
223 0 103 939 1,564 0 231 1,543 505 2,170 839 8,117
21 84 167 33 27 146 422 368 767 27 142 2,204
124,482 124,460
75,390 87,627 40,366 83,261 66,213 44,758 63,929 106,765 71,674 97,268 49,833 69,719 212,999 50,334 33,092 1,153,228
98,202 71,299 102,919 127,859 85,853 117,613 87,297 84,945 78,260 79,217 92,572 1,026,036
6,228 3,302 19,837 14,051 7,978 11,098 7,298 66,071 76,484 1,214 12,965 226,526
2,980,333 2,977,228
2,187 1,418 6,116 3,985 2,432 3,488 1,409 2,678 16,576 1,191 11,165 3,021 13,648 10,291 3,074 82,679
5,104 2,272 954 750 2,596 1,355 407 217 5,005 228 2,040 20,928
2,428 2,252 993 2,050 2,126 765 1,869 5,033 11,014 792 179 29,501
151,631 148,082
520 479 40,496 22,114 1,634 4,057 2,113 3,629 0 2,130 3,375 4,407 12,671 1,620 0 99,245
2,253 7,001 1,066 1,460 15,048 2,467 678 0 3,270 304 1,495 35,042
0 0 0 10,777 4 0 4,457 4,444 270 0 0 19,952
195,027 195,027
Town, Other Federal township & jurisdictions agency Total rural State highway municipal (a) (b) (c) roads agency County
Rural mileage
Table 9.15 Public Road Length by Ownership: 2008 Urban mileage
18,622 9,794 34,258 10,966 8,264 8,767 7,380 16,645 16,492 12,625 1,879 14,999 66,948 10,920 2,244 240,803
33,606 15,041 9,093 10,480 18,169 16,772 5,233 1,680 36,321 2,267 18,679 167,341
12,587 679 1,976 4,275 25,561 4,138 24,606 37,702 33,564 4,366 1,254 150,708
718,705 708,794
0 1 0 61 49 14 5 0 0 110 0 10 138 15 42 445
303 0 174 60 0 32 0 0 73 131 57 830
58 4 19 125 358 5 423 807 352 3 0 2,154
6,567 6,567
606 493 150 1,488 157 9 50 0 361 1 2 17 0 723 0 4,057
24 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 44 2 0 90
64 44 4 107 77 0 100 416 88 29 25 954
7,077 7,070
21,935 12,185 81,020 38,614 12,536 16,335 10,957 22,952 33,429 16,057 16,421 22,454 93,405 23,569 5,360 427,229
41,290 24,314 11,307 12,750 35,813 20,626 6,318 1,897 44,713 2,932 22,271 224,231
15,137 2,979 2,992 17,334 28,126 4,908 31,455 48,402 45,288 5,190 1,458 203,269
1,079,007 1,065,540
Town, Other Federal township & jurisdictions agency Total urban municipal (a) (b) (c) mileage
97,325 99,812 121,386 121,875 78,749 61,093 74,886 129,717 105,103 113,325 66,254 92,173 306,404 73,903 38,452 1,580,457
139,492 95,613 114,226 140,609 121,666 138,239 93,615 86,842 122,973 82,149 114,843 1,250,267
21,365 6,281 22,829 31,385 36,104 16,006 38,753 114,473 121,772 6,404 14,423 429,795
4,059,340 4,042,768
Total rural & urban mileage
highways
548 The Book of the States 2010 287,086 0 0
73,507 0 1,026
Dist. of Columbia...... Puerto Rico................
Rural mileage
0 2,057
17,199
1,610 3,276 4,049 2,406 0 32 1,351 233 1,370 1,697 2,360 2,170 694 21,248
0 0
31,163
2,788 202 3,017 648 47 14,208 339 542 215 545 0 10,727 902 34,180
0 22
79,000
1,180 12,911 13,536 6,648 101 7,886 13,929 1,490 11,796 7,063 4,193 8,465 3,338 92,536
1,390 3,549
9,191
589 981 4,393 1,399 365 325 299 642 960 850 1,060 1,310 411 13,584
0 0
27,513
1,174 2,804 13,275 4,665 1,915 148 4 2,148 3,520 2,901 1,670 6,136 428 40,788
Urban mileage
0 9,911
79,252
207 18,613 70,690 13,234 0 2,700 2,753 4,372 3,517 9,142 8,117 15,037 1,560 149,942
24 0
3,063
15 185 51 15 13 2,476 0 0 0 83 0 66 210 3,114
91 7
1,258
356 334 620 32 17 11 0 4 1 14 226 194 69 1,878
1,505 13,467
120,277
2,341 22,917 89,029 19,345 2,310 5,660 3,056 7,166 7,998 12,990 11,073 22,743 2,678 209,306
Town, Other Federal township & jurisdictions agency Total urban municipal (a) (b) (c) mileage
1,505 16,572
608,262
15,328 60,439 172,512 88,266 4,362 47,788 74,171 33,907 68,384 59,250 44,705 83,527 28,105 780,774
Total rural & urban mileage
(b) Includes state park, state toll, other state agency, other local agency and other roadways not identified by ownership. (c) Roadways in federal parks, forests, and reservations that are not part of the state and local highway systems. (d) Excludes 788 miles of federal agency-owned roads.
0 3,105
487,955
12,987 37,522 83,483 68,921 2,052 42,128 71,115 26,741 60,386 46,260 33,632 60,784 25,427 571,438
Town, Other Federal township & jurisdictions agency Total rural State highway municipal (a) (b) (c) roads agency County
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2008 (October 2009). Key: . . . — Not applicable. (a) Prior to 1999, municipal was included with other jurisdictions.
2,348 15,359 52,069 51,517 1,324 15,369 44,999 19,739 36,014 30,267 22,298 33,690 14,162 339,155
5,061 5,774 10,812 7,702 580 4,633 10,497 4,737 10,991 6,688 4,781 5,732 6,331 84,319
Western Region Alaska......................... Arizona....................... California................... Colorado..................... Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Montana..................... Nevada........................ New Mexico............... Oregon........................ Utah............................ Washington................ Wyoming.................... Regional total............ Regional total without California....
State or other State highway jurisdiction agency County
Public Road Length by Ownership: 2008—Continued
highways
highways
Table 9.16 apportionment of federal Funds administered by the federal highway administration by region: fiscal year 2009 (In thousands of dollars) National Surface State or other Interstate highway transportation Bridge jurisdiction maintenance system program program
Congestion mitigation & air quality improvement
Highway safety improvement program
Appalachian development highway system
Total............................ United States total.....
$6,518,143 6,518,143
$7,998,478 7,906,578
$8,347,805 8,347,805
$5,282,630 5,282,630
$2,192,059 2,192,059
$1,391,306 1,391,306
$470,000 470,000
Eastern Region Connecticut................ Delaware.................... Maine.......................... Maryland.................... Massachusetts............ New Hampshire......... New Jersey................. New York.................... Pennsylvania.............. Rhode Island.............. Vermont...................... Regional average.......
65,156 9,275 27,676 95,259 83,884 21,832 125,842 204,936 215,524 10,473 16,793 79,695
60,076 55,774 30,335 107,427 85,007 43,450 182,747 232,576 227,456 45,321 39,552 100,884
76,674 37,664 32,688 117,205 106,160 37,799 184,631 276,452 257,190 32,305 32,625 108,308
164,843 12,567 28,992 119,622 193,572 24,962 221,074 487,639 501,966 71,489 29,513 168,749
42,489 10,255 8,757 51,817 61,866 10,246 100,895 176,936 102,934 8,799 8,846 53,076
11,574 6,287 5,369 18,083 14,375 6,282 25,534 41,959 40,231 5,369 5,424 16,408
0 0 0 13,696 0 0 0 9,399 111,768 0 0 12,260
Midwestern Region Illinois......................... Indiana........................ Iowa............................ Kansas........................ Michigan..................... Minnesota................... Nebraska.................... North Dakota............. Ohio............................ South Dakota............. Wisconsin................... Regional average.......
269,918 203,094 77,260 65,942 167,848 111,665 47,176 32,681 264,800 43,858 120,442 127,699
230,151 205,408 112,300 92,053 210,052 138,096 81,957 90,730 232,086 84,748 205,307 152,990
297,996 232,919 107,721 103,221 266,709 173,021 70,256 44,190 290,360 55,258 196,490 167,104
148,912 87,768 63,177 45,266 124,854 39,818 25,710 12,031 196,691 13,332 27,361 71,356
97,764 47,777 9,881 9,188 73,101 29,714 9,730 9,817 94,045 10,879 26,490 38,035
46,387 31,752 17,984 19,717 42,916 27,296 12,441 8,411 42,907 11,243 33,255 26,755
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,703 0 0 2,064
Southern Region Alabama..................... Arkansas..................... Florida........................ Georgia....................... Kentucky.................... Louisiana.................... Mississippi.................. Missouri...................... North Carolina........... Oklahoma................... South Carolina........... Tennessee................... Texas........................... Virginia....................... West Virginia.............. Regional average.......
122,791 87,308 338,658 280,294 126,143 109,437 77,406 168,156 180,586 102,528 124,631 174,070 611,812 189,695 66,022 183,969
138,415 108,993 484,627 257,657 143,689 102,163 113,185 188,443 211,927 132,908 125,183 177,402 771,407 185,502 66,548 213,870
160,223 112,680 517,793 329,652 135,470 123,772 110,140 203,145 242,014 146,914 163,783 190,580 818,915 227,218 72,011 236,954
80,444 71,675 143,597 85,272 79,083 206,075 60,153 144,367 149,276 83,608 65,334 65,280 200,619 128,500 74,753 109,202
11,213 11,231 13,771 68,194 13,186 10,507 10,337 21,815 51,567 10,504 12,128 35,558 154,928 53,291 13,184 32,761
31,510 21,030 88,608 56,291 22,619 22,084 23,093 36,323 38,134 27,183 33,193 34,211 128,301 35,492 14,472 40,836
117,500 0 0 11,849 39,081 0 5,019 0 32,922 0 7,174 24,658 0 38,091 36,139 20,829
66,692 154,111 532,063 97,582 9,977 54,473 81,462 62,935 88,762 75,467 90,877 101,130 59,252 113,445
78,642 186,510 637,442 130,865 49,177 72,689 108,365 69,916 106,758 95,991 62,610 115,660 100,977 139,662
67,807 177,327 740,440 123,001 34,251 57,000 61,134 64,816 75,975 94,310 67,530 129,719 37,758 133,159
28,069 28,042 509,750 38,278 30,440 25,751 18,252 14,078 15,787 86,411 13,291 156,009 12,659 75,140
18,995 53,942 433,454 39,982 9,284 12,400 12,977 25,888 11,116 16,485 10,846 33,804 10,330 53,039
11,646 35,155 124,423 19,860 5,692 10,937 12,286 11,643 14,293 16,293 9,836 20,045 6,388 22,961
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Region Alaska......................... Arizona....................... California................... Colorado..................... Hawaii........................ Idaho........................... Montana..................... Nevada........................ New Mexico............... Oregon........................ Utah............................ Washington................ Wyoming.................... Regional average....... Regional average without California.... Dist. of Columbia...... American Samoa....... Guam.......................... No. Mariana Islands... Puerto Rico (b).......... U.S. Virgin Islands......
78,560
98,180
82,552
38,922
21,337
14,506
0
2,493 0 0 0 0 0
54,319 7,690 38,260 9,190 0 36,760
32,895 0 0 0 0 0
26,619 0 0 0 0 0
8,917 0 0 0 0 0
5,467 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2008 (October 2009). Note: Apportioned pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Does not include funds from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. (a) Does not include funds from the following programs: emergency relief,
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 549
highways
apportionment of federal Funds administered by the federal highway administration by region: fiscal year 2009 (In thousands of dollars)
State or other Recreation Metropolitan jurisdiction trails planning
Railroad highway crossings
Coordinated border infrastructure
Safe routes to school
Equity bonus (a)
Total (b)
Total............................. United States total......
$84,160 84,160
$303,867 303,967
$220,000 220,000
$210,000 210,000
$180,000 180,000
$2,692,857 2,692,857
$35,891,405 35,799,505
Eastern Region Connecticut................. Delaware...................... Maine........................... Maryland...................... Massachusetts.............. New Hampshire.......... New Jersey................... New York..................... Pennsylvania................ Rhode Island............... Vermont....................... Regional average........
1,037 885 1,817 1,159 1,238 1,460 1,280 2,888 2,211 875 1,166 1,456
4,300 1,520 1,520 6,492 8,507 1,520 11,706 23,408 12,396 1,520 1,520 6,764
1,301 1,100 1,206 2,262 2,347 1,100 3,644 6,342 7,068 1,100 1,100 2,597
0 0 12,677 0 0 333 0 27,536 0 0 8,485 4,457
2,017 1,000 1,000 3,148 3,456 1,000 5,066 10,322 6,720 1,000 1,000 3,248
36,592 7,361 0 24,101 11,991 8,200 72,578 66,361 76,037 0 513 27,612
466,062 143,687 152,035 560,270 572,403 158,184 934,997 1,566,755 1,561,502 178,250 146,538 585,517
Midwestern Region Illinois.......................... Indiana......................... Iowa.............................. Kansas.......................... Michigan...................... Minnesota.................... Nebraska...................... North Dakota.............. Ohio.............................. South Dakota.............. Wisconsin..................... Regional average........
1,769 1,409 1,308 1,148 3,908 3,151 1,051 1,120 1,880 1,056 2,792 1,872
14,701 5,150 1,683 1,823 9,932 4,094 1,520 1,520 11,038 1,520 4,291 5,207
10,157 7,264 5,045 6,159 7,522 6,000 3,452 3,479 8,566 2,306 5,437 5,944
0 0 0 0 28,298 4,181 0 3,479 0 0 0 3,269
7,554 3,806 1,694 1,647 5,992 2,907 1,024 1,000 6,577 1,000 3,072 3,298
94,568 107,261 17,232 6,135 64,447 41,516 9,646 8,338 100,313 16,351 78,409 49,474
1,219,875 933,608 415,285 352,298 1,005,580 581,459 263,962 223,812 1,271,967 241,550 703,347 655,704
Southern Region Alabama...................... Arkansas...................... Florida.......................... Georgia........................ Kentucky...................... Louisiana..................... Mississippi.................... Missouri....................... North Carolina............ Oklahoma.................... South Carolina............ Tennessee..................... Texas............................. Virginia........................ West Virginia............... Regional average........
1,490 1,399 2,041 1,698 1,452 1,447 1,311 1,545 1,719 1,362 1,222 1,516 2,997 1,415 1,280 1,593
2,931 1,520 20,336 7,564 2,365 3,838 1,520 4,666 5,678 2,240 2,829 4,476 22,337 7,116 1,520 6,062
4,369 3,788 8,632 8,024 3,600 4,252 3,409 5,807 6,200 5,121 4,160 4,615 16,975 4,487 1,975 5,694
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,859 0 0 3,724
2,739 1,622 9,725 5,631 2,356 2,588 1,848 3,318 5,034 2,097 2,434 3,405 15,219 4,291 1,000 4,220
46,554 34,866 225,478 139,735 48,800 36,210 23,066 68,746 88,794 32,682 56,858 67,789 337,934 78,752 39,682 88,396
720,168 456,112 1,853,267 1,251,861 617,844 622,364 430,487 846,330 1,013,851 547,146 598,930 783,560 3,137,306 953,848 388,586 948,111
1,931 1,615 4,680 1,710 853 1,707 1,521 1,308 1,167 1,548 1,591 1,824 1,377 1,756
1,520 5,900 45,321 4,851 1,520 1,520 1,520 2,531 1,520 2,983 2,639 6,498 1,520 6,142
1,100 2,671 15,618 3,126 1,100 1,690 1,787 1,100 1,589 3,091 1,533 4,023 1,100 3,041
1,421 10,157 26,560 0 0 1,690 7,763 0 1,880 0 0 12,873 0 4,796
1,000 3,612 22,580 2,660 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,456 1,122 1,963 1,718 3,577 1,000 3,361
55,892 75,660 182,640 26,506 3,077 26,738 37,363 23,120 25,359 15,711 10,161 13,924 12,904 39,158
334,715 734,703 3,310,972 488,421 146,372 267,386 345,429 278,791 345,329 410,254 281,632 599,085 245,265 599,104
Western Region Alaska.......................... Arizona........................ California..................... Colorado...................... Hawaii.......................... Idaho............................ Montana....................... Nevada......................... New Mexico................. Oregon......................... Utah.............................. Washington.................. Wyoming...................... Regional average........ Regional average without California.... Dist. of Columbia........ American Samoa........ Guam............................ No. Mariana Islands.... Puerto Rico (b)........... U.S. Virgin Islands.......
1,513
2,877
1,993
2,982
1,759
27,201
373,115
825 0 0 0 0 0
1,520 0 0 0 0 0
1,100 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1,000 0 0 0 0 0
915 0 0 0 0 0
136,070 7,690 38,260 9,190 0 36,760
federal lands highway programs, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico highway programs, high priority projects, Woodrow Wilson Bridge, National Byways, construction of ferry terminal facilities, and intelligent vehicle-system,
550â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
among others. These funds are distributed from the Highway Trust Fund. (b) Under SAFETEA-LU, Puerto Rico received a stand-alone authorization of $217,665,552.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
Table 9.17 TRENDS IN STATE PRISON POPULATION BY REGION, 2000, 2007, and 2008 Total state prison population State or other December 31, December 31, December 31, jurisdiction 2008 2007 2000
Average annual change 2000 –2007
Percent change 2007–2008
United States...................... Federal................................. State . ..................................
1,610,446 201,280 1,409,166
1,598,245 199,618 1,398,627
1,391,261 145,416 1,245,845
Eastern Region Connecticut (a)................... Delaware (a)....................... Maine................................... Maryland............................. Massachusetts .................... New Hampshire.................. New Jersey ......................... New York............................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island (a)................. Vermont (a)......................... Regional total.....................
20,661 7,075 2,195 23,324 11,408 2,904 25,953 60,347 50,147 4,045 2,116 210,175
20,924 7,276 2,148 23,433 11,436 2,943 26,827 62,620 45,969 4,018 2,145 209,739
18,355 6,921 1,679 23,538 10,722 2,257 29,784 70,199 36,847 3,286 1,697 205,285
1.9 0.7 3.6 -0.1 0.9 3.9 -1.5 -1.6 3.2 2.9 3.4 2.1
-1.3 -2.8 2.2 -0.5 -0.2 -1.3 -3.3 -3.6 9.1 0.7 -1.4 0.2
Midwestern Region Illinois . ............................... Indiana................................. Iowa (b)............................... Kansas ................................ Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Nebraska............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio .................................... South Dakota...................... Wisconsin............................ Regional total.....................
45,474 28,322 8,766 8,539 48,738 9,406 4,520 1,452 51,686 3,342 23,380 233,625
45,215 27,132 8,732 8,696 50,233 9,468 4,505 1,416 50,731 3,311 23,743 233,182
45,281 20,125 7,955 8,344 47,718 6,238 3,895 1,076 45,833 2,616 20,754 209,835
0.0 4.4 1.3 0.6 0.7 6.1 2.1 4.0 1.5 3.4 1.9 1.5
0.6 4.4 0.4 -1.8 -3.0 -0.7 0.3 2.5 1.9 0.9 -1.5 0.2
Southern Region Alabama.............................. Arkansas.............................. Florida................................. Georgia (b)......................... Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Mississippi........................... Missouri . ............................ North Carolina.................... Oklahoma . ......................... South Carolina.................... Tennessee ........................... Texas.................................... Virginia................................ West Virginia....................... Regional total.....................
30,508 14,716 102,388 52,719 21,706 38,381 22,754 30,186 39,482 25,864 24,326 27,228 172,506 38,276 6,059 647,099
29,412 14,314 98,219 54,256 22,457 37,540 22,431 29,857 37,970 25,849 24,239 26,267 171,790 38,069 6,056 638,726
26,332 11,915 71,319 44,232 14,919 35,207 20,241 27,543 31,266 23,181 21,778 22,166 166,719 30,168 3,856 550,842
1.6 2.7 4.7 3.0 6.0 0.9 1.5 1.2 2.8 1.6 1.5 2.5 0.4 3.4 6.7 2.2
3.7 2.8 4.2 -2.8 -3.3 2.2 1.4 1.1 4.0 0.1 0.4 3.7 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.3
5,014 39,589 173,670 23,274 5,955 7,290 3,607 12,743 6,402 14,167 6,546 17,926 2,084 318,267
5,167 37,746 174,282 22,841 5,978 7,319 3,462 13,400 6,466 13,948 6,515 17,772 2,084 316,980
4,173 26,510 163,001 16,833 5,053 5,535 3,105 10,063 5,342 10,580 5,637 14,915 1,680 272,427
3.1 5.2 1 4.5 2.4 4.1 1.6 : 2.8 4 2.1 2.5 3.1 2.2
-3.0 4.9 -0.4 1.9 -0.4 -0.4 4.2 : -1.0 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.4
144,597
142,698
109,426
4.3
1.3
Western Region Alaska (a)............................ Arizona (b)......................... California............................ Colorado ............................ Hawaii (a)........................... Idaho.................................... Montana.............................. Nevada (c)........................... New Mexico........................ Oregon . .............................. Utah..................................... Washington......................... Wyoming............................. Regional total..................... Regional total without California...........
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2008—NCJ 228417 (December 8, 2009). Note: Sentenced prisoner is defined as a prisoner sentenced to more than one year.
2.0% 4.6 1.7
0.8% 0.8 0.8
Key: : — Not calculated. (a) Prisons and jails form one integrated system. Data include total jail and prison populations. (b) Prison population based on custody counts. (c) Includes estimates for Nevada for December 31, 2007.
The Council of State Governments 551
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
Table 9.18 NUMBER OF SENTENCED PRISONERS ADMITTED AND RELEASED FROM STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION, BY REGION: 2000, 2007 and 2008 Admissions
Releases
Average Percent Average Percent State or other annual change change annual change change jurisdiction 2008 2007 2000 2000 –2007 2007–2008 2008 2007 2000 2000 –2007 2007–2008 United States................ 739,132 742,875 625,219 Federal........................... 53,662 53,618 43,732 State............................... 685,470 689,257 581,487 Eastern Region Connecticut................... Delaware....................... Maine............................. Maryland....................... Massachusetts............... New Hampshire............ New Jersey.................... New York....................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island................. Vermont......................... Regional total...............
2.5% 3.0 2.5
-0.5% 0.1 -0.5
6,503 1,494 756 10,396 2,988 1,464 12,984 25,302 17,493 1,090 2,273 82,743
6,982 1,899 1,111 10,716 2,670 1,290 13,791 26,291 17,666 1,120 2,362 85,898
6,185 2,709 751 10,327 2,062 1,051 13,653 27,601 11,777 3,701 984 80,801
1.7 -4.9 5.8 0.5 3.8 3.0 0.1 -0.7 6.0 : : 1.0
-6.9 -21.3 -32.0 -3.0 11.9 13.5 -5.9 -3.8 -1.0 -2.7 -3.8 -3.6
Midwestern Region Illinois............................ 36,125 Indiana........................... 18,363 Iowa............................... 5,592 Kansas........................... 4,506 Michigan........................ 12,101 Minnesota...................... 7,555 Nebraska....................... 2,059 North Dakota................ 1,085 Ohio............................... 29,510 South Dakota................ 3,116 Wisconsin...................... 7,571 Regional total............... 127,583
35,968 17,232 5,706 4,849 13,330 7,856 2,076 1,028 30,808 3,227 8,592 130,672
29,344 11,876 4,656 5,002 12,169 4,406 1,688 605 23,780 1,400 8,396 103,322
3.0 5.5 2.9 -0.4 1.3 8.6 3.0 7.9 3.8 12.7 0.3 3.7
Southern Region Alabama........................ 11,037 10,708 6,296 Arkansas........................ 7,017 6,651 6,941 Florida........................... 40,860 33,552 35,683 Georgia.......................... 18,625 21,134 17,373 Kentucky....................... 14,273 15,359 8,116 Louisiana....................... 15,854 14,548 15,735 Mississippi..................... 7,908 9,749 5,796 Missouri......................... 18,611 18,300 14,454 North Carolina.............. 11,825 10,834 9,848 Oklahoma...................... 7,935 8,795 7,426 South Carolina.............. 9,650 9,912 8,460 Tennessee...................... 14,196 14,535 13,675 Texas.............................. 72,804 72,525 58,197 Virginia.......................... 13,625 13,973 9,791 West Virginia................. 3,127 3,333 1,577 Regional total............... 267,347 263,908 219,368 Western Region Alaska............................ 3,635 3,272 2,427 Arizona.......................... 14,867 14,046 9,560 California...................... 140,827 139,608 129,640 Colorado........................ 11,089 10,959 7,036 Hawaii........................... 1,731 1,514 1,594 Idaho.............................. 3,867 4,055 3,386 Montana........................ 2,264 2,055 1,202 Nevada (a)..................... 4,610 6,375 4,929 New Mexico.................. 4,092 4,146 3,161 Oregon........................... 5,395 5,331 4,059 Utah............................... 3,394 3,466 3,270 Washington................... 15,070 16,478 7,094 Wyoming....................... 779 746 638 Regional total............... 207,985 208,779 177,996 Regional total without California..... 67,158 69,171 48,356
6,404 1,617 720 10,383 2,667 1,507 13,885 27,482 15,618 1,086 2,241 83,610
2.5% 4.7 2.4
2.0% 7.3 1.6
6,056 1,905 1,090 10,123 2,248 1,179 14,358 27,009 16,340 884 2,345 83,537
5,918 2,260 677 10,004 2,889 1,044 15,362 28,828 11,759 3,223 946 82,910
0.3 -2.4 7.0 0.2 -3.5 1.8 -1.0 -0.9 4.8 : : 1.0
9.3 5.7 -33.9 2.6 18.6 27.8 -3.3 1.8 -4.4 22.9 -4.4 -0.1
0.4 6.6 -2.0 -7.1 -9.2 -3.8 -0.8 5.5 -4.2 -3.4 -11.9 -2.1
35,780 35,737 18,308 17,099 5,557 5,718 4,655 4,966 13,621 14,685 7,936 7,971 1,963 1,952 1,051 977 28,552 29,236 3,102 3,259 9,391 8,903 129,916 130,503
28,876 11,053 4,379 5,231 10,874 4,244 1,503 598 24,793 1,327 8,158 101,036
3.1 6.4 3.9 -0.7 4.4 9.4 3.8 7.3 2.4 13.7 1.3 4.1
0.1 7.1 -2.8 -6.3 -7.2 -2.4 0.6 7.6 -2.3 -4.8 5.5 -0.4
7.9 -0.6 -0.9 2.8 9.5 -1.1 7.7 3.4 1.4 2.4 2.3 0.9 3.2 5.2 11.3 2.9
3.1 5.5 21.8 -11.9 -7.1 9.0 -18.9 1.7 9.1 -9.8 -2.6 -2.3 0.4 -2.5 -6.2 1.3
11,556 11,079 6,610 6,045 37,277 28,705 19,463 18,774 15,413 13,819 14,991 14,984 7,817 8,455 18,864 19,323 10,615 10,074 7,915 8,486 9,506 9,461 15,414 15,537 72,168 73,023 13,194 12,559 3,126 2,969 263,929 253,293
7,136 6,308 33,994 14,797 7,733 14,536 4,940 13,346 9,687 6,628 8,676 13,893 59,776 9,148 1,261 211,859
6.5 -0.6 -2.4 3.5 8.6 0.4 8.0 5.4 0.6 3.6 1.2 1.6 2.9 4.6 13.0 2.8
4.3 -15.1 29.9 3.7 11.5 0.0 -0.4 -7.5 5.4 -6.7 0.5 -0.8 -1.2 5.1 5.3 4.1
4.4 5.7 1.1 6.5 -0.7 2.6 8.0 : 4.0 4.0 0.8 12.8 2.3 2.3
11.1 5.8 0.9 1.2 14.3 -4.6 10.2 : -1.3 1.2 -2.1 -8.5 4.4 -0.4
3,741 3,286 2,599 13,192 12,560 9,100 136,925 135,920 129,621 10,616 10,604 5,881 1,795 1,518 1,379 3,891 3,850 2,697 2,117 2,176 1,031 5,278 4,904 4,374 4,013 4,507 3,383 5,055 5,080 3,371 3,400 3,393 2,897 15,061 16,488 6,764 764 778 697 205,848 205,064 173,794
3.4 4.7 0.7 8.8 1.4 5.2 11.3 : 4.2 6.0 2.3 13.6 1.6 2.4
13.8 5.0 0.7 0.1 18.2 1.1 -2.7 : -11 -0.5 0.2 -8.7 -1.8 0.4
6.1
2.9
68,923 69,144 44,173
8.0
0.3
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2007—NCJ 228417 (December 8, 2009). Note: Totals based on prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year. Totals exclude escapees, AWOLS, and transfers to and from other jurisdictions.
552 The Book of the States 2010
735,454 721,161 604,858 52,348 48,764 35,259 683,106 672,397 569,599
Key: : –– Not calculated. (a) Includes estimates for Nevada for December 31 2007.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
Table 9.19 State prison Capacities, BY REGION: 2008 Population as a percent of capacity
Type of capacity measure State
Rated capacity
Operational capacity
Federal.................................
122,479
. . .
. . .
135%
135%
Eastern Region Connecticut (b)................... Delaware ............................ Maine . ................................ Maryland............................. Massachusetts..................... New Hampshire ................. New Jersey ......................... New York............................. Pennsylvania....................... Rhode Island....................... Vermont . ............................
. . . 5,648 1,885 . . . . . . 2,145 . . . 59,830 43,298 4,004 1,732
. . . 5,250 1,885 23,638 . . . 2,904 23,022 60,978 43,298 4,004 1,470
. . . 4,161 1,885 . . . 7,959 2,145 16,876 57,403 43,298 4,265 1,371
. . . 123 109 97 140 98 96 99 101 88 80
... 167 109 97 140 133 132 105 101 93 101
Midwestern Region Illinois . ............................... Indiana ............................... Iowa..................................... Kansas................................. Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Nebraska............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio..................................... South Dakota...................... Wisconsin (c).......................
34,300 . . . . . . 9,317 . . . . . . . . . 1,044 38,320 . . . . . .
34,300 27,084 . . . . . . 50,462 8,361 3,969 991 . . . 3,451 . . .
30,391 . . . 13,680 . . . . . . . . . 3,175 1,044 . . . . . . 17,773
133 88 64 92 97 101 113 132 127 97 125
150 88 64 92 97 101 141 139 127 97 125
Southern Region Alabama (d)........................ Arkansas ............................ Florida (d)........................... Georgia (e).......................... Kentucky ............................ Louisiana (e)....................... Mississippi (e)..................... Missouri............................... North Carolina (d)............. Oklahoma (e)...................... South Carolina . ................. Tennessee ........................... Texas (c).............................. Virginia . ............................. West Virginia.......................
. . . 13,163 . . . . . . 13,708 20,857 . . . . . . 39,529 25,312 . . . 20,408 160,371 33,250 4,135
25,686 13,812 102,625 56,305 13,708 20,769 24,019 31,296 40,014 25,312 24,126 19,949 160,371 . . . 5,017
13,403 13,163 . . . . . . 14,043 . . . 24,019 . . . 34,364 25,312 . . . . . . 164,388 33,250 4,135
98 95 88 103 93 114 75 96 100 94 98 70 85 93 98
188 100 88 103 95 115 75 96 116 94 98 71 87 93 118
Western Region Alaska . ............................... Arizona................................ California............................ Colorado ............................ Hawaii................................. Idaho (e).............................. Montana (c)........................ Nevada . .............................. New Mexico (e).................. Oregon................................. Utah .................................... Washington ........................ Wyoming.............................
3,058 35,286 . . . . . . . . . 6,534 . . . 11,894 . . . . . . . . . 13,777 1,713
3,206 39,292 161,530 14,946 3,487 6,207 1,739 10,891 7,024 14,353 6,650 15,502 1,603
. . . 37,328 84,066 13,055 2,451 6,534 . . . 14,980 6,458 14,353 6,886 15,502 1,598
111 79 106 120 96 108 93 86 48 94 75 111 75
116 88 204 137 137 113 93 118 52 94 77 125 80
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2008—NCJ 228417 (December 8, 2009). Key: . . . — Not available. (a) Population counts are based on the number of inmates held in facilities operated by the jurisdiction. Excludes inmates held in local jails, in other states, or in private facilities.
Design capacity
Highest capacity (a)
Lowest capacity (a)
(b) Connecticut no longer reports capacity because of a law passed in 1995. (c) Excludes capacity of county facilities and inmates housed in them. (d) Capacity definition differs from BJS definition, see NPS jurisdiction notes. (e) Includes capacity of private and contract facilities and inmates housed in them.
The Council of State Governments 553
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
Table 9.20 ADULTS ON PROBATION BY REGION: 2008 Probation population 2008 State or other Percent change jurisdiction 1/1/08 Entries (a) Exits (a) 12/31/08 during 2008
Number on probation on 12/31/08 per 100,000 adult residents
United States...................... Federal................................. State.....................................
4,234,471 23,422 4,211,049
2,369,300 11,333 2,358,000
2,340,800 12,007 2,328,800
4,270,917 22,748 4,248,169
0.9 -2.9 0.9
1,845 10 1,835
Eastern Region Connecticut (b)................... Delaware............................. Maine................................... Maryland............................. Massachusetts (c)................ New Hampshire (c)............ New Jersey.......................... New York............................. Pennsylvania (d)................. Rhode Island (b)................ Vermont (b)(c).................... Regional total.....................
57,498 16,696 7,854 98,470 180,866 4,650 129,750 121,614 176,987 26,137 7,057 827,579
28,580 15,463 3,634 52,138 94,028 3,155 44,881 36,247 105,400 6,484 4,232 394,242
29,073 14943 3,984 54,248 90,586 3,256 45,894 38,456 95,400 5,867 4,349 386,056
56,550 17216 7,504 96,360 184,308 4,549 128,737 119,405 186,973 26,754 6,940 835,296
-1.6 3.1 -4.5 -2.1 1.9 -2.2 -0.8 -1.8 5.6 2.4 -1.7 0.9
2,094 2,563 718 2,236 3,620 443 1,932 789 1,925 3,251 1,405 :
Midwestern Region Illinois.................................. Indiana (b).......................... Iowa (b) (c)........................ Kansas (c)........................... Michigan (b) (c) (d)............ Minnesota............................ Nebraska............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio (b) (c) (d).................. South Dakota (b) (c).......... Wisconsin............................ Regional total.....................
142,790 129,608 22,776 16,131 181,295 127,152 18,910 4,496 257,809 5,641 52,187 958,795
59,114 100,199 15,689 20,448 139,400 77,479 14,719 2,922 163,900 4,022 23,961 621,783
57,000 98,516 15,507 20,316 144,200 77,004 14,023 3,185 160,700 3,517 25,730 619,692
144,904 131,291 22,958 16,263 175,591 127,627 19,606 4,233 260,962 6,146 50,418 959,999
1.5 1.3 0.8 0.8 -3.1 0.4 3.7 -5.8 1.2 9 -3.4 1.3
1,483 2,727 998 770 2,304 3,202 1,460 845 2,973 1,007 1,164 :
Southern Region (a) Alabama (b)........................ Arkansas.............................. Florida (b) (c) (d)............... Georgia (b)(e) (f)............... Kentucky (b)(d).................. Louisiana............................. Mississippi........................... Missouri (b)......................... North Carolina (b)............. Oklahoma (b)..................... South Carolina.................... Tennessee (b)(c)................. Texas (b).............................. Virginia (b).......................... West Virginia (b)(d)........... Regional total.....................
51,745 31,440 276,254 379,204 48,749 39,006 21,623 56,251 111,446 27,527 41,685 55,908 434,306 51,954 7,890 1,634,988
20,073 9,097 238,700 227,084 21,300 14,949 11,107 23,917 68,467 13,342 14,788 23,287 176,648 29,681 1,300 893,740
18,566 9,368 236,100 213,867 19,000 13,930 10,463 22,808 70,235 12,929 15,219 24,633 183,874 28,021 900 879,913
53,252 31,169 279,760 397,081 51,035 40,025 22,267 57,360 109,678 27,940 41,254 58,109 427,080 53,614 8,283 1,657,907
2.9 -0.9 1.3 4.7 4.7 2.6 3 2 -1.6 1.5 -1 3.9 -1.7 3.2 5 1.4
1,497 1,441 1,944 5,520 1,558 1,205 1,020 1,272 1,557 1,016 1,198 1,219 2,401 896 579 :
6,528 76,830 334,671 77,634 19,426 48,663 9,106 13,461 20,774 42,471 10,801 115,891 5,358 781,614
1,401 23,700 189,926 51,100 6,151 40,030 3,864 7,326 5,700 15,779 5,615 88,000 2,763 441,300
1,221 18,300 199,528 40,500 6,480 39,180 3,898 7,450 5,600 16,362 5,313 90,100 2683 436,700
6,708 82,232 325,069 88,912 19,097 49,513 9,072 13,337 20,883 41,888 11,103 113,134 5438 786,386
0.6 2.8 7 -2.9 14.5 -1.7 1.7 -0.4 -0.9 0.5 -1.4 2.8 -2.4 0.6
1,314 1,700 1,178 2,358 1,890 4,415 1,206 684 1,398 1,423 582 2,240 1333 :
446,943
251,374
237,172
461,317
3.2
:
8,073
7,007
6,499
8,581
6.3
1,781
Western Region Alaska (c)............................ Arizona (d)......................... California (b)...................... Colorado (b) (c) (d)........... Hawaii (b)........................... Idaho (g).............................. Montana (c)........................ Nevada................................. New Mexico (b)(d)............. Oregon................................. Utah..................................... Washington (b)(c)(d)......... Wyoming............................. Regional total..................... Regional total without California........... Dist. of Columbia............... See footnotes at end of table.
554â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
ADULTS ON PROBATION BY REGION: 2008—Continued Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, Statistical Tables NCJ 228230 (December 8, 2009). Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the probation population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2008, does not equal the population on January 1, plus entries, minus exits. Rates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each state on January 1, 2009. : — Not calculated. (a) Reflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. (b) Some or all detailed data are estimated.
(c) Population excludes probationers in one of the following categories: absconder, inactive, warrant supervised out of jurisdiction, in a residential/other treatment program, only have financial conditions remaining, or probationers who had their location tracked by GPS. (d) Data for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. (e) Due to a change in reporting, data may not be comparable to data reported in prior years. (f) Counts include private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. (g) Counts include estimates for misdemeanors based on entries during the year.
The Council of State Governments 555
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
Table 9.21 ADULTS ON Parole BY REGION: 2008 Parole population 2008 State or other Percent change jurisdiction 1/1/08 Entries (a) Exits (a) 12/31/08 during 2008
Number on parole on 12/31/08 per 100,000 adult residents
United States (b)................ Federal................................. State (b)...............................
821,177 91,395 729,782
581,000 46,796 534,200
574,000 39,562 534,500
828,169 98,629 729,540
0.9 7.9 0.0
358 43 315
Eastern Region Connecticut......................... Delaware............................. Maine................................... Maryland............................. Massachusetts..................... New Hampshire.................. New Jersey (c)..................... New York............................. Pennsylvania (d)................. Rhode Island (c)................. Vermont (c)(e).................... Regional total.....................
2,177 535 32 13,856 3,121 1,653 15,055 53,669 78,107 442 936 169,583
2,366 417 0 7,348 4,684 945 10,249 25,507 42,000 625 672 94,813
2,215 401 1 7,984 4,620 937 9,455 26,951 47,100 552 528 100,744
2,328 551 31 13,220 3,185 1,661 15,849 52,225 72,951 515 1,080 163,596
6.9 3 -3.1 -4.6 2.1 0.5 5.3 -2.7 -6.6 16.5 15.4 -3.6
86 82 3 307 63 162 238 345 751 63 219 :
Midwestern Region (a) Illinois.................................. Indiana (c)........................... Iowa (c) (e)......................... Kansas (c)............................ Michigan.............................. Minnesota............................ Nebraska............................. North Dakota...................... Ohio..................................... South Dakota...................... Wisconsin............................ Regional total.....................
35,086 10,375 3,546 4,842 21,131 4,756 800 340 18,390 2,812 17,553 119,631
32,657 11,200 2,155 4,920 11,557 5,827 1,012 837 10,096 1,850 7,748 89,859
34,060 10,938 2,542 4,804 10,165 5,502 966 793 9,367 1,942 7,196 88,275
33,683 10,637 3,159 4,958 22,523 5,081 846 384 19,119 2,720 18,105 121,215
-4 2.5 -10.9 2.4 6.6 6.8 5.8 12.9 4 -3.3 3.1 1.3
345 221 137 235 296 127 63 77 218 446 418 :
Southern Region (b) Alabama (e)........................ Arkansas.............................. Florida (e)........................... Georgia................................ Kentucky............................. Louisiana............................. Mississippi........................... Missouri............................... North Carolina.................... Oklahoma (e)...................... South Carolina.................... Tennessee............................ Texas.................................... Virginia (c) (f)..................... West Virginia....................... Regional total.....................
7,790 18,617 4,654 23,111 13,097 24,085 2,015 18,656 3,311 2,929 2,289 10,481 101,748 / 1,830 234,613
2,960 9,685 7,219 11,621 6,166 13,812 1,819 15,507 3,653 1,413 435 4,085 33,992 1,200 1,533 115,100
2,708 8,394 7,345 11,284 6,986 13,261 912 13,480 3,555 1,269 777 3,639 32,819 1,400 1,358 109,187
8,042 19,908 4,528 23,448 12,277 24,636 2,922 20,683 3,409 3,073 1,947 10,578 102,921 4,471 2,005 244,848
3.2 6.9 -2.7 1.5 -6.3 2.3 45 10.9 3 4.9 -14.9 0.9 1.2 : 9.6 4.2
226 920 31 326 375 742 134 459 48 112 57 222 579 75 140 :
Western Region Alaska.................................. 1,539 863 670 1,732 12.5 Arizona (c).......................... 6,755 13,433 12,654 7,534 11.5 California (c)....................... 123,764 181,021 184,492 120,753 -2.4 Colorado (e)........................ 11,014 9,674 9,034 11,654 5.8 Hawaii................................. 2,015 645 756 1,904 -5.5 Idaho.................................... 3,114 1,771 1,524 3,361 7.9 Montana (c)........................ 966 663 744 885 -8.4 Nevada................................. 3,653 4,486 4,231 3,908 7 New Mexico (e).................. 3,527 2,019 1,822 3,724 5.6 Oregon................................. 22,196 8,832 8,833 22,195 0 Utah..................................... 3,572 2,424 2,395 3,601 0.8 Washington......................... 13,017 5,816 7,065 11,768 -9.6 Wyoming............................. 706 339 318 727 3 Regional total..................... 195,838 231,986 234,538 193,746 -1.1 Regional total..................... without California........... 72,074 50,965 50,046 72,993 1.3 Dist. of Columbia...............
5,417
See footnotes at end of table.
556â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
2,417
1,699
6,135
13.3
339 156 438 309 188 300 118 200 249 754 189 233 178 363 : 1,274
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
ADULTS ON PAROLE BY REGION: 2008—Continued Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, Statistical Tables NCJ 228230 (December 8, 2009). Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the parole population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2008, does not equal the population on January 1, plus entries, minus exits. Rates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each state on January 1, 2009. Key: / — Not reported. : — Not calculated. (a) Reflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. (b) Includes an estimated 4,700 parolees under supervision in Virginia
on January 1. (c) Population excludes parolees in one of the following categories: absconder or supervised out of state includes 25,475 parolees under state parole supervision. Reported entries are parolees who entered state parole supervision through a discrectionary release from prison. (d) Data for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting county agencies. The December 31, 2008, population includes 25,306 parolees under state parole supervision. Reported entries reflect parolees who entered state parole supervision through a discretionary release from prison. (e) Some or all data were estimated. (f) Virginia was unable to provide data for January 1, entries, and exits. In addition due to a change in reporting methods, data may not be comparable to data reported in prior years.
The Council of State Governments 557
558â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
34,060 10,938 2,542 4,804 10,165 5,502 966 793 9,367 1,942 7,196 88,275
2,708 8,394 7,345 11,284 6,986 13,261 912 13,480 3,555 1,269 777 3,639 32,819 / 1,358 107,787
Midwestern Region. Illinois (d)................. Indiana...................... Iowa.......................... Kansas...................... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Nebraska.................. North Dakota........... Ohio.......................... South Dakota........... Wisconsin................. Regional total..........
Southern Region Alabama................... Arkansas................... Florida...................... Georgia..................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Mississippi................ Missouri.................... North Carolina......... Oklahoma (d).......... South Carolina......... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Virginia (e)............... West Virginia............ Regional total..........
See footnotes at end of table.
2,215 401 1 7,984 4,620 937 9,455 26,951 10,973 552 528 64,617
Eastern Region Connecticut.............. Delaware (d)............ Maine........................ Maryland.................. Massachusetts.......... New Hampshire....... New Jersey............... New York (b)........... Pennsylvania (c)...... Rhode Island............ Vermont (d)............. Regional total..........
1517 4033 5066 7263 3765 7223 668 9616 2844 964 577 1951 24726 / 775 70.988
20,354 6,728 1,755 2,037 6,093 2,964 705 598 5,760 851 3,419 51,264
1,159 230 0 4822 3,701 ** 7,469 14,280 5,094 428 337 37,520
259,372 22,157 237,215
Total reported exits Completion
536,478 39,562 496,916
State or other jurisdiction
United States........... Federal...................... State..........................
532 1,060 381 439 522 1,156 0 553 96 119 23 785 5,456 / 15 11,137
3,607 268 ** 153 2,023 281 32 11 2,057 120 579 9,131
0 ** 0 868 216 ** 168 1,709 1,873 27 18 4,879
48,872 1,330 47,542
With new sentence
345 2,224 985 2,680 2,062 1,290 0 3,171 159 146 153 818 1,691 / 535 16,259
8,182 585 765 1,188 1,905 1,835 223 176 995 768 3,085 19,707
0 ** 0 773 664 ** 1,680 9,032 3,029 97 129 15,404
133,947 8,212 125,735
With revocation
0 ** 154 0 0 ~ 0 ** ~ 0 0 0 0 / 0 154
~ 0 ** ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0
0 ** 0 ** 0 ** 0 ~ 0 ** ~ **
155 1 154
To receive treatment
5 118 0 818 0 295 172 0 0 0 0 1 0 / 0 1,409
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,001 10 0 ~ 20 ** 0 1,617 0 0 27 2,675
4,801 52 4,749
0 292 0 18 408 ~ 66 0 180 0 0 0 0 / 21 985
870 1,227 0 1,285 0 421 0 6 237 157 0 4,203
55 ** 0 ~ 0 ** 85 ~ 0 0 0 140
56,209 1,670 54,539
Other Unknown Absconder
Number of adults exiting parole, 2008 Returned to prison or jail
Table 9.22 ADULTS leaving Parole BY type of exit, by REGION: 2008
0 0 0 0 0 3,096 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 / 0 3,135
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 38
0 74 0 1,398 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 1,472
9,229 2,292 6,937
72 152 40 66 92 109 6 140 29 40 14 83 946 / 12 1,801
71 47 16 29 144 1 6 2 97 12 75 500
** 6 1 119 19 ** 53 313 210 0 2 723
5,033 500 4,533
237 515 9 0 137 92 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 / 0 1,001
588 2,082 5 112 0 0 0 0 221 23 1 3,032
0 81 0 4 0 ** 0 0 767 ** 15 867
11,149 630 10,519
Other unsatisfactory (a) Death Other (b)
0 0 710 0 0 0 0 0 208 0 0 0 0 / 0 918
388 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 400
0 0 0 0 0 937 0 0 0 0 0 937
7,711 2,718 4,993
Unknown or not reported
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
State or other jurisdiction
Total reported exits Completion
With new sentence
With revocation
To receive treatment
Other Unknown Absconder
Other unsatisfactory (a) Death Other (b)
1,699
464
**
**
**
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, Statistical Tables NCJ 228230 (December 8, 2009). Key: ** – Not known. / – Not reported. ~ – Not applicable. (a) Includes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some who had their parole sentence revoked but were not returned to incarceration because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits; includes some early
Dist. of Columbia....
0
77
77
422
1
2,737
670 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 1,822 115 0 0 0 2,737
Unknown or not reported
terminations and expirations of sentence. (b) Includes 5,052 parolees who were transferred to another state and 6,097 parolees who exited for other reasons. Other reasons include parolees who were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision, and other types of exits. (c) Data represent state parolees only. Data are not available for county parolees. (d) Some or all detailed data are estimated type of exit. (e) Virginia was unable to provide data. An estimated 1,400 adults exited parole supervision in Virginia.
658
Western Region Alaska....................... 670 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Arizona..................... 12,654 7,918 228 1,945 0 0 2,530 0 33 0 California................. 184,492 48,324 19,372 64,612 ** ** 46,584 ** 858 4,742 Colorado................... 9,034 3,954 1,200 3,572 0 0 1 0 71 236 Hawaii...................... 756 368 4 230 0 0 0 0 24 0 Idaho......................... 1,524 459 121 446 ~ 0 ~ 480 18 0 Montana................... 744 389 8 245 0 0 17 0 7 78 Nevada (d)............... 4,231 3,613 375 144 ~ 0 75 0 24 0 New Mexico (d)....... 1,822 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Oregon...................... 8,833 5,209 813 1,728 0 0 1 811 147 9 Utah.......................... 2,395 543 259 1,353 0 7 0 114 27 92 Washington.............. 7,065 6,034 ** ** ** 0 0 810 221 0 Wyoming.................. 318 168 15 90 ** 0 3 0 2 40 Regional total.......... 234,538 76,979 22,395 74,365 ** 7 49,211 2,215 1,432 5,197 Regional total.......... without California... 50,046 28,655 3,023 9,753 ** 7 2,627 2,215 574 455
Returned to prison or jail
Number of adults exiting parole, 2008
ADULTS LEAVING PAROLE BY TYPE OF EXIT, BY REGION: 2008—Continued
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
The Council of State Governments 559
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
Table 9.23 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT State or other jurisdiction Capital offenses by state Alabama �������������������������
Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (Ala. Stat. Ann. 13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18)).
Alaska ����������������������������� Arizona ��������������������������
Prisoners under sentence of death
Method of execution
200
Electrocution or lethal injection
...
. . .
...
First-degree murder accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors (A.R.S. § 13-703(F))
129
Lethal gas or lethal injection (a)
Arkansas ������������������������
Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; treason.
43
Lethal injection or electrocution (b)
California �����������������������
First-degree murder with special circumstances; sabotage; train wrecking causing death; treason; perjury causing execution of an innocent person; fatal assault by a prisoner serving a life sentence.
690
Lethal gas or lethal injection
Colorado ������������������������
First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; firstdegree kidnapping resulting in death; treason.
3
Lethal injection
Connecticut �������������������
Capital felony with 8 forms of aggravated homicide (C.G.S. § 53a-54b).
10
Lethal injection
Delaware ������������������������
First-degree murder with at least 1 statutory aggravating circumstance. (11Del. C. §4209).
19
Hanging or lethal injection (c)
Florida (d) ����������������������
First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.
403
Electrocution or lethal injection
Georgia ��������������������������
Murder; kidnapping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason.
105
Lethal injection
Hawaii �����������������������������
...
. . .
...
Idaho ������������������������������
First-degree murder with aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping; perjury resulting in death.
17
Firing squad or lethal injection
Illinois ����������������������������
First-degree murder with 1 of 21 aggravating circumstances (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-1).
15
Lethal injection or electrocution (e)
Indiana ���������������������������
Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9).
17
Lethal injection
Iowa ���������������������������������
...
. . .
...
Kansas ����������������������������
Capital murder with 8 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439, KSA 21-4625, KSA 21-4636).
10
Lethal injection
Kentucky ������������������������
Murder with aggravating factors; kidnapping with aggravating factors (KRS 32.025).
36
Electrocution or lethal injection (f)
Louisiana (d) ������������������
First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 13; treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).
84
Lethal injection
Maine �����������������������������
...
. . .
...
Maryland ������������������������
First-degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony, provided that certain death eligibility requirements are satisfied.
5
Lethal injection
Massachusetts �����������������
...
. . .
...
Michigan �������������������������
...
. . .
...
Minnesota �����������������������
. . ..
. . .
...
Mississippi ��������������������
Capital murder (Miss Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)); aircraft piracy (Miss Code Ann. § 97-25-55(1)).
60
Lethal injection
Missouri �������������������������
First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 2000).
52
Lethal injection or lethal gas
Montana (d) �������������������
Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-303); aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-503).
2
Lethal injection
Nebraska (g) �������������������
First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstance.
11
Lethal injection (g)
Nevada ���������������������������
First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030, 200.033, 200.035).
78
Lethal injection
New Hampshire �������������
Murder committed in the course of rape, kidnapping, or drug crimes; killing of a law enforcement officer; murder for hire; murder by an inmate while serving a sentence of life without parole (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).
1
Lethal injection or hanging (h)
New Jersey ����������������������
...
New Mexico (i) ��������������
First-degree murder with at least 1 of 7 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances (Section 30-2-1 A, NMSA). New Mexico no longer has a death penalty statute. (i)
2
Lethal injection (i)
New York (j) �������������������
First-degree murder with 1 of 13 aggravating factors (NY Penal Law §125.27).
0
Lethal injection
North Carolina ��������������
First-degree murder (NCGS §14-17).
169
Lethal injection
North Dakota �����������������
...
. . .
...
See footnotes at end of table.
560 The Book of the States 2010
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT—Continued State or other jurisdiction Capital offenses by state
Prisoners under sentence of death
Method of execution
Ohio ��������������������������������
Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances. (O.R.C. secs. 2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04)
176
Lethal injection
Oklahoma (d) �����������������
First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances; sex crimes against a child under 14 years of age.
85
Electrocution, lethal injection or firing squad (k)
Oregon ����������������������������
Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).
33
Lethal injection
Pennsylvania �������������������
First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances.
225
Lethal injection
Rhode Island ������������������
...
. . .
...
South Carolina (d) ���������
Murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a)); criminal sexual conduct with a minor with 1 of 9 aggravators (§ 16-3-655).
63
Electrocution or lethal injection
South Dakota �����������������
First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances. Revision: Revised the code ~of criminal procedure. Changes included establishing procedures to be used by circuit judges in determining whether to stop an execution because the inmate is mentally incompetent (SDCL § 23A-27A-22) and clarifying that persons carrying out executions are immune from civil and/or criminal liability (SDCL § 23A-27A-31.2), effective July 1, 2008.
3
Lethal injection
Tennessee ������������������������
First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204).
92
Lethal injection or electrocution (l)
Texas (d) �������������������������
Criminal homicide with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (TX Penal Code § 19.03).
342
Lethal injection
Utah ���������������������������������
Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code Annotated). Revision: Amended the criminal code to allow aggravating circumstances to be treated as separateacts from the capital offense which can be prosecuted as a separate offense (Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202), effective February 26, 2008.
10
Lethal injection or firing squad (m)
Vermont ��������������������������
...
. . .
...
Virginia ��������������������������
First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (VA Code § 18.2-31).
15
Electrocution or lethal injection
Washington ��������������������
Aggravated first-degree murder.
9
Lethal injection or hanging
West Virginia ������������������
...
. . .
...
Wisconsin ������������������������
...
. . .
...
Wyoming �������������������������
First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16.
1
Lethal injection or lethal gas (n)
Dist. of Columbia �����������
...
. . .
...
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2008—Statistical Tables, NCJ 2286662 (December 2009). Notes: The United States Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) declared unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty on persons under the age of 18. The United States Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) declared unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty on mentally handicapped persons. The method of execution of Federal prisoners is lethal injection, pursuant to 28 CFR, Part 26. For offenses under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the execution method is that of the State in which the conviction took place (18 U.S.C. 3596). Key: . . . — No capital punishment statute. (a) Arizona authorizes lethal injection for persons sentenced after November 15, 1992; inmates sentenced before that date may select lethal injection or gas. (b) Arkansas authorizes lethal injection for those whose offense occurred on or after July 4, 1983; inmates whose offense occurred before that date may select lethal injection or electrocution. (c) Delaware authorizes lethal injection for those whose capital offense occurred on or after June 13, 1986; those who committed the offense before that date may select lethal injection or hanging. (d) The United States Supreme Court struck a portion of the Louisiana capital statute on June 25, 2008 (Kennedy v. Louisiana, U.S. 128 S.Ct. 2641). The statute (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:42(D)(2)) allowing execution as a punishment for the rape of a minor when no murder had been committed had been ruled constitutionally permissible by the Louisiana Supreme
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court found that since no national consensus existed for application of the death penalty in cases of rape where no murder had been committed, such laws constiute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The ruling affects laws passed in Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Montana. (e) Authorizes electrocution only if lethal injection is held illegal or unconstitutional. (f) Kentucky authorizes lethal injection for persons sentenced on or after March 31, 1998; inmates sentenced before that date may select lethal injection or electrocution. (g) The Nebraska Supreme Court struck a portion of the state’s capital statute on February 8, 2008 (State v. Mata, 745 N.W.2d 229, 278 (2008)). The court found that Nebraska’s electrocution procedure violated the state constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In May 2009, the Nebraska Legislature approved lethal injection. (h) New Hampshire authorizes hanging only if lethal injection cannot be given. (i) Governor Bill Richardson signed a bill in March of 2009 abolishing the death penalty. The law is not retroactive and leaves two inmates on death row. (j) The New York Court of Appeals has held that a portion of New York’s death penalty sentencing statute (CPL 400.27) was unconstitutional (People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129 (2007)). As a result, no defendants can be sentenced to death until the legislature corrects the errors in this statute. (k) Oklahoma authorizes electrocution if lethal injection is held to be unconstitutional, and firing squad if both lethal injection and electrocution are held to be unconstitutional.
The Council of State Governments 561
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS (l) Tennessee authorizes lethal injection for those whose capital offense occurred after December 31, 1998; those who committed the offense before that date may select electrocution by written waiver. (m) Authorizes firing squad if lethal injection is held unconstitutional. Inmates who selected execution by firing squad prior to May 3, 2004, may still be entitled to execution by that method. (n) Wyoming authorizes lethal gas if lethal injection is ever held to be unconstitutional.
562â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
Chapter Ten
STATE PAGES
STATE PAGES
Table 10.1 OFFICIAL NAMES OF STATES AND JURISDICTIONS, CAPITALS, ZIP CODES AND CENTRAL SWITCHBOARDS
State or other jurisdiction
Name of state capitol (a) Capital Zip code
Area code
Central switchboard
Alabama, State of ........................................... Alaska, State of . ............................................. Arizona, State of . ........................................... Arkansas, State of . ......................................... California, State of .........................................
State House State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol
Montgomery Juneau Phoenix Little Rock Sacramento
36130 99801 85007 72201 95814
334 907 602 501 916
242-7000 465-4648 926-4900 682-3000 322-9900
Colorado, State of . ......................................... Connecticut, State of ...................................... Delaware, State of .......................................... Florida, State of .............................................. Georgia, State of . ...........................................
State Capitol State Capitol Legislative Hall The Capitol State Capitol
Denver Hartford Dover Tallahassee Atlanta
80203 06106 19903 32399 30334
303 860 302 850 404
866-5000 240-0100 744-4114 488-4441 656-2000
Hawaii, State of .............................................. Idaho, State of . ............................................... Illinois, State of . ............................................. Indiana, State of ............................................. Iowa, State of ..................................................
State Capitol State Capitol State House State House State Capitol
Honolulu Boise Springfield Indianapolis Des Moines
96813 83720 62706 46204 50319
808 208 217 317 515
586-0221 332-1000 782-2000 232-1000 281-5011
Kansas, State of .............................................. Kentucky, Commonwealth of ........................ Louisiana, State of . ........................................ Maine, State of . .............................................. Maryland, State of ..........................................
Statehouse State Capitol State Capitol State House Station State House
Topeka Frankfort Baton Rouge Augusta Annapolis
66612 40601 70804 04333 21401
785 502 225 207 410
296-0111 564-8100 342-6600 287-3531 946-5400
Massachusetts, Commonwealth of ................ Michigan, State of . ......................................... Minnesota, State of . ....................................... Mississippi, State of ........................................ Missouri, State of . ..........................................
State House State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol
Boston Lansing St. Paul Jackson Jefferson City
02133 48909 55155 39215 65101
617 517 651 601 573
722-2000 373-0184 296-3962 359-3770 751-2000
Montana, State of ........................................... Nebraska, State of .......................................... Nevada, State of . ............................................ New Hampshire, State of ............................... New Jersey, State of . ......................................
State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State House State House
Helena Lincoln Carson City Concord Trenton
59620 68509 89701 03301 08625
406 402 775 603 609
444-2511 471-2311 684-5670 271-1110 292-6000
New Mexico, State of ..................................... New York, State of . ........................................ North Carolina, State of . ............................... North Dakota, State of . ................................. Ohio, State of ..................................................
State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol Statehouse
Santa Fe Albany Raleigh Bismarck Columbus
87501 12224 27601 58505 43215
505 518 919 701 614
986-4600 455-7545 733-4111 328-2000 466-2000
Oklahoma, State of . ....................................... Oregon, State of . ............................................ Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of .................. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, State of ................................... South Carolina, State of . ...............................
State Capitol State Capitol Main Capitol Building
Oklahoma City Salem Harrisburg
73105 97301 17120
405 503 717
521-2011 986-1848 787-2121
State House State House
Providence Columbia
02903 29211
401 803
222-2653 896-0000
South Dakota, State of ................................... Tennessee, State of ......................................... Texas, State of ................................................. Utah, State of .................................................. Vermont, State of . ..........................................
State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol State House
Pierre Nashville Austin Salt Lake City Montpelier
57501 37243 78701 84114 05633
605 615 512 801 802
773-3011 741-2001 463-4630 538-3000 828-2231
Virginia, Commonwealth of . ......................... Washington, State of ...................................... West Virginia, State of . .................................. Wisconsin, State of ......................................... Wyoming, State of ..........................................
State Capitol Legislative Building State Capitol State Capitol State Capitol
Richmond Olympia Charleston Madison Cheyenne
23219 98504 25305 53702 82002
804 360 304 608 307
698-7410 786-7579 558-3456 266-0382 777-7434
District of Columbia........................................ American Samoa, Territory of . ..................... Guam, Territory of ......................................... No. Mariana Islands, Commonwealth of ...... Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of . ..................
District Building Maota Fono Congress Building Civic Center Building The Capitol
. . . Pago Pago Hagatna Saipan San Juan
20004 96799 96932 96950 00902
202 684 671 670 787
724-8000 633-4116 472-8931 664-2286 721-7000
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
00802
340
774-0001
U.S. Virgin Islands, Territory of .................... Government House (a) In some instances the name is not official.
The Council of State Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 565
STATE PAGES
Table 10.2 HISTORICAL DATA ON THE STATEs State or other jurisdiction Source of state lands
Date organized as territory
Date admitted to Union
Chronological order of admission to Union
March 3, 1817 Aug. 24, 1912 Feb. 24, 1863 March 2, 1819 (c)
Dec. 14, 1819 Jan. 3, 1959 Feb. 14, 1912 June 15, 1836 Sept. 9, 1850
22 49 48 25 31
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
Mississippi Territory, 1798 (a) Purchased from Russia, 1867 Ceded by Mexico, 1848 (b) Louisiana Purchase, 1803 Ceded by Mexico, 1848
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
Louisiana Purchase, 1803 (d) Feb. 28, 1861 Aug. 1, 1876 Fundamental Orders, Jan. 14, 1638; Royal charter, (e) Jan. 9, 1788 (f) April 23, 1662 Swedish charter, 1638; English charter, 1638 (e) Dec. 7, 1787 (f) Ceded by Spain, 1819 March 30, 1822 March 3, 1845 Charter, 1732, from George II to Trustees for (e) Jan. 2, 1788 (f) Establishing the Colony of Georgia
38 5
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
Annexed, 1898 Treaty with Britain, 1846 Northwest Territory, 1787 Northwest Territory, 1787 Louisiana Purchase, 1803
June 14, 1900 March 4, 1863 Feb. 3, 1809 May 7, 1800 June 12, 1838
Aug. 21, 1959 July 3, 1890 Dec. 3, 1818 Dec. 11, 1816 Dec. 28, 1846
50 43 21 19 29
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland..........................
Louisiana Purchase, 1803 (d) Part of Virginia until admitted as state Louisiana Purchase, 1803 (g) Part of Massachusetts until admitted as state Charter, 1632, from Charles I to Calvert
May 30, 1854 (c) March 26, 1804 (c) (e)
Jan. 29, 1861 June 1, 1792 April 30, 1812 March 15, 1820 April 28, 1788 (f)
34 15 18 23 7
Massachusetts.................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi........................ Missouri...........................
Charter to Massachusetts Bay Company, 1629 Northwest Territory, 1787 Northwest Territory, 1787 (h) Mississippi Territory (i) Louisiana Purchase, 1803
(e) Jan. 11, 1805 March 3, 1849 April 7, 1798 June 4, 1812
Feb. 6, 1788 (f) Jan. 26, 1837 May 11, 1858 Dec. 10, 1817 Aug. 10, 1821
6 26 32 20 24
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
Louisiana Purchase, 1803 (j) May 26, 1864 Nov. 8, 1889 Louisiana Purchase, 1803 May 30, 1854 March 1, 1867 Ceded by Mexico, 1848 March 2, 1861 Oct. 31, 1864 Grants from Council for New England, 1622 (e) June 21, 1788 (f) and 1629; made Royal province, 1679 Dutch settlement, 1618; English charter, 1664 (e) Dec. 18, 1787 (f)
41 37 36 9
New Mexico..................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
Ceded by Mexico, 1848 (b) Dutch settlement, 1623; English control, 1664 Charter, 1663, from Charles II Louisiana Purchase, 1803 (k) Northwest Territory, 1787
Sept. 9, 1850 (e) (e) March 2, 1861 May 7, 1800
Jan. 6, 1912 July 26, 1788 (f) Nov. 21, 1789 (f) Nov. 2, 1889 March 1, 1803
47 11 12 39 17
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania.................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
Louisiana Purchase, 1803 Settlement and treaty with Britain, 1846 Grant from Charles II to William Penn, 1681 Charter, 1663, from Charles II Charter, 1663, from Charles II
May 2, 1890 Aug. 14, 1848 (e) (e) (e)
Nov. 16, 1907 Feb. 14, 1859 Dec. 12, 1787 (f) May 29, 1790 (f) May 23, 1788 (f)
46 33 2 13 8
South Dakota.................. Tennessee......................... Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
Louisiana Purchase, 1803 Part of North Carolina until land ceded to U.S. in 1789 Republic of Texas, 1845 Ceded by Mexico, 1848 From lands of New Hampshire and New York
March 2, 1861 June 8, 1790 (l) (c) Sept. 9, 1850 (c)
Nov. 2, 1889 June 1, 1796 Dec. 29, 1845 Jan. 4, 1896 March 4, 1791
40 16 28 45 14
Virginia............................ Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
Charter, 1609, from James I to London Company Oregon Territory, 1848 Part of Virginia until admitted as state Northwest Territory, 1787 Louisiana Purchase, 1803 (d)(j)
(e) March 2, 1853 (c) April 20, 1836 July 25, 1868
June 25, 1788 (f) Nov. 11, 1889 June 20, 1863 May 29, 1848 July 10, 1890
10 42 35 30 44
Dist. of Columbia............ American Samoa.......... Guam................................ No. Mariana Islands....... Puerto Rico.....................
Maryland (m) . . . . . . ... . ................................................................................. Became a territory, 1900........................................................................................... Ceded by Spain, 1898 Aug. 1, 1950 . . . ... . . . March 24, 1976 . . . ... Ceded by Spain, 1898 . . . July 25, 1952 (n) ...
1 27 4
3
U.S. Virgin Islands........ . ..................................................................Purchased from Denmark, March 31, 1917........................................................................... See footnotes at end of table.
566â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
State pages
HISTORICAL DATA ON THE STATEs—Continued Key: (a) By the Treaty of Paris, 1783, England gave up claim to the 13 original Colonies, and to all land within an area extending along the present Canadian to the Lake of the Woods, down the Mississippi River to the 31st parallel, east to the Chattahoochee, down that river to the mouth of the Flint, border east to the source of the St. Mary’s down that river to the ocean. The major part of Alabama was acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the lower portion from Spain in 1813. (b) Portion of land obtained by Gadsden Purchase, 1853. (c) No territorial status before admission to Union. (d) Portion of land ceded by Mexico, 1848. (e) One of the original 13 Colonies. (f) Date of ratification of U.S. Constitution. (g) West Feliciana District (Baton Rouge) acquired from Spain, 1810; added to Louisiana, 1812.
(h) Portion of land obtained by Louisiana Purchase, 1803. (i) See footnote (a). The lower portion of Mississippi also was acquired from Spain in 1813. (j) Portion of land obtained from Oregon Territory, 1848. (k) The northern portion of the Red River Valley was acquired by treaty with Great Britain in 1818. (l) Date Southwest Territory (identical boundary as Tennessee’s) was created. (m) Area was originally 100 square miles, taken from Virginia and Maryland. Virginia’s portion south of the Potomac was given back to that state in 1846. Site chosen in 1790, city incorporated 1802. (n) On this date, Puerto Rico became a self-governing commonwealth by compact approved by the U.S. Congress and the voters of Puerto Rico as provided in U.S. Public Law 600 of 1950.
The Council of State Governments 567
568â&#x20AC;&#x192; The Book of the States 2010
103,641 4,840 1,949 53,603 57,501
6,428 82,643 55,518 35,823 55,858
81,762 39,492 43,199 30,841 9,705
7,801 56,528 79,607 46,920 68,716
145,541 76,825 109,780 8,952 7,354
121,919 47,126 48,619 69,001 40,858
68,603 95,985 44,739 1,034 30,070
Colorado.......................... Connecticut..................... Delaware.......................... Florida.............................. Georgia............................
Hawaii.............................. Idaho................................ Illinois.............................. Indiana............................. Iowa..................................
Kansas.............................. Kentucky.......................... Louisiana......................... Maine............................... Maryland.........................
Massachusetts................. Michigan.......................... Minnesota........................ Mississippi....................... Missouri...........................
Montana........................... Nebraska.......................... Nevada............................. New Hampshire.............. New Jersey.......................
New Mexico.................... New York......................... North Carolina................ North Dakota.................. Ohio..................................
Oklahoma........................ Oregon............................. Pennsylvania................... Rhode Island................... South Carolina................
See footnotes at end of table.
50,644 570,665 113,595 52,030 155,766
Alabama.......................... Alaska.............................. Arizona............................ Arkansas.......................... California.........................
19 10 32 50 40
5 30 29 17 35
4 15 7 44 46
45 22 14 31 18
13 37 33 39 42
47 11 24 38 23
8 48 49 26 21
28 1 6 27 3
3,644,025 3,782,991 12,566,368 1,053,502 4,503,280
1,986,763 19,467,789 9,247,134 641,421 11,528,072
968,035 1,781,949 2,615,772 1,321,872 8,663,398
6,543,595 10,002,486 5,230,567 2,940,212 5,956,335
2,797,375 4,287,931 4,451,513 1,319,691 5,658,655
1,287,481 1,527,506 12,842,954 6,388,309 2,993,987
4,935,213 3,502,932 876,211 18,423,878 9,697,838
4,677,464 688,125 6,499,377 2,867,764 36,580,371
28 27 6 43 24
36 3 10 48 7
44 38 35 41 11
15 8 21 31 18
33 26 25 40 19
42 39 5 16 30
22 29 45 4 9
23 47 14 32 1
5.6 10.8 1.4 0.2 11.7
9.1 2.7 14.6 -0.1 1.2
7.2 4.2 30.1 6.5 3.2
2.3 0.7 6.1 3.3 5.6
4.2 5.6 -1.3 3.3 6.4
6.3 17.8 3.9 4.9 2.6
14.8 2.8 11.4 14.7 18.3
4.8% 9.5 26.7 6.8 8.5
53.0 39.5 277.8 1,005.6 148.9
16.4 412.8 189.3 9.3 280.5
6.6 23.2 23.7 146.7 1,170.6
828.8 176.1 65.6 62.6 85.8
34.2 107.5 101.3 42.7 576.4
200.6 18.4 232.1 177.8 53.7
47.6 722.7 446.9 339.9 167.3
91.9 1.2 57.2 54.8 235.7
36 39 10 2 21
45 7 15 47 9
48 43 42 20 1
3 16 31 32 28
40 22 24 38 5
13 44 12 17 35
37 4 6 8 18
27 50 33 34 11
Percentage Land area Population (a) change State or other In square Rank in Rank in 2000 to Density per Rank in jurisdiction miles nation Size nation 2008 square mile nation
Table 10.3 STATE STATISTICS
5 5 19 2 6
3 29 13 1 18
1 3 3 2 13
10 15 8 4 9
4 6 7 2 8
2 2 19 9 5
7 5 1 25 13
7 1 8 4 53
Oklahoma City Salem Harrisburg Providence Columbia
Santa Fe Albany Raleigh Bismarck Columbus
Helena Lincoln Carson City Concord Trenton
Boston Lansing St. Paul Jackson Jefferson City
Topeka Frankfort Baton Rouge Augusta Annapolis
Honolulu Boise Springfield Indianapolis Des Moines
Denver Hartford Dover Tallahassee Atlanta
Montgomery Juneau Phoenix Little Rock Sacramento
551,789 153,435 47,148 171,557 127,029
71,831 93,539 392,552 60,389 754,885
29,351 251,624 54,867 42,255 82,883
609,023 113,968 279,590 173,861 40,771
123,446 27,322 223,689 18,282 36,524
374,676 205,314 117,352 798,382 197,052
598,707 124,062 36,107 171,922 537,958
202,696 30,988 1,567,924 189,515 463,794
1 3 13 1 1
3 6 2 2 1
6 2 6 3 9
1 6 2 1 15
4 7 2 9 7
1 1 6 1 1
1 3 2 8 1
2 2 1 1 7
Oklahoma City Portland Philadelphia Providence Columbia
Albuquerque New York City Charlotte Fargo Columbus
Billings Omaha Las Vegas Manchester Newark
Boston Detroit Minneapolis Jackson Kansas City
Wichita Louisville (c) New Orleans Portland Baltimore
Honolulu Boise Chicago Indianapolis Des Moines
Denver Bridgeport Wilmington Jacksonville Atlanta
Birmingham Anchorage (b) Phoenix Little Rock Los Angeles
Number of Representatives in Rank in Congress Capital Population (a) state Largest city
551,789 557,706 1,447,395 171,557 127,029
521,999 8,363,710 687,456 93,531 754,885
103,994 438,646 558,383 108,586 278,980
609,023 912,062 382,605 173,861 451,572
366,046 557,224 311,853 62,561 636,919
374,676 205,314 2,853,114 798,382 197,052
598,707 136,405 72,592 807,815 537,958
228,798 279,243 1,567,924 189,515 3,833,995
Population (a)
STATE PAGES
39,493 66,449 24,038 54,154 97,088
61 77 210 179 3,424
Virginia.......................... Washington...................... West Virginia................... Wisconsin......................... Wyoming..........................
Dist. of Columbia......... American Samoa ........... Guam .............................. No. Mariana Islands....... Puerto Rico .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36 20 41 25 9
16 34 2 12 43
588,292 64,827 175,877 86,616 3,967,288
7,795,424 6,566,073 1,814,873 5,627,610 532,981
804,532 6,240,456 24,304,290 2,727,343 621,049
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 13 37 20 50
46 17 2 34 49
3.5 13.1 13.6 25.1 0.4
9.7 11.1 0.3 4.9 7.9
6.5 9.2 16.7 22.5 2.0
9,639.0 744.0 737.2 386.7 1,146.8
196.2 98.4 75.4 103.6 5.5
10.6 150.8 92.9 33.3 67.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 25 29 23 49
46 19 26 41 30
1 (e) 1 (e) 1 (e) 1 (e) 1 (f)
11 9 3 8 1
1 9 32 3 1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, January 2010. Key: . . . — Not applicable (a) 2008 Census Bureau estimate. (b) Municipality.
. . . 4,278 1,122 62,392 434,919
202,002 45,322 50,302 231,916 56,915
13,899 596,462 757,688 181,698 7,760
. . . 3 13 1 1
4 18 1 2 1
7 2 4 1 13
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
. . . Tafuna (g) Tamuning (g) Saipan (b) (g) San Juan
Virginia Beach Seattle Charleston Milwaukee Cheyenne
Sioux Falls Memphis Houston Salt Lake City Burlington
18,914
... 8,409 10,833 62,392 434,919
433,746 598,541 50,302 604,477 56,915
154,997 669,651 2,242,193 181,698 38,897
Population (a)
(c) This city is part of a consolidated city-county government and is coextensive with Jefferson County. (d) This city is part of a consolidated city-county government and is coextensive with Davidson County. (e) Represented by one non-voting House Delegate. (f) Represented by one non-voting House Resident Commissioner.. (g) 2000 Census figures.
Charlotte Amalie, 18,914 1 St. Thomas
. . . Pago Pago (g) Hagatna (g) Saipan (b) (g) San Juan
Richmond Olympia Charleston Madison Cheyenne
Pierre Nashville (d) Austin Salt Lake City Montpelier
Number of Representatives in Rank in Congress Capital Population (a) state Largest city
U.S. Virgin Islands........ 134 . . . 109,840 . . . 1.1 810.5 . . . 1 (e)
75,811 41,235 261,225 82,191 9,217
South Dakota................ Tennessee........................ Texas................................. Utah.................................. Vermont...........................
Percentage Land area Population (a) change State or other In square Rank in Rank in 2000 to Density per Rank in jurisdiction miles nation Size nation 2008 square mile nation
STATE STATISTICS—Continued
State Pages
The Council of State Governments 569
Personal income (millions of dollars)
570 The Book of the States 2010
33,655 43,922 34,339 32,257 43,852
43,021 56,245 40,375 39,064 34,849
42,078 32,994 42,540 34,543 37,509
38,886 31,936 36,091 36,368 48,164
50,897 34,953 42,953 30,383 36,356
34,622 39,182 40,936 43,423 51,473
33,389 48,809 35,249 39,874 35,889
35,969 36,365 39,762 41,261 32,495
Alabama................... Alaska....................... Arizona..................... Arkansas................... California.................
Colorado................... Connecticut.............. Delaware.................. Florida...................... Georgia.....................
Hawaii...................... Idaho......................... Illinois....................... Indiana...................... Iowa..........................
Kansas...................... Kentucky.................. Louisiana.................. Maine........................ Maryland..................
Massachusetts.......... Michigan................... Minnesota................. Mississippi................ Missouri....................
Montana................... Nebraska.................. Nevada...................... New Hampshire....... New Jersey...............
New Mexico............. New York.................. North Carolina......... North Dakota........... Ohio..........................
Oklahoma................. Oregon...................... Pennsylvania............ Rhode Island............ South Carolina.........
See footnotes at end of table.
$40,166
United States...........
35,268 35,667 39,578 41,003 31,799
32,992 46,957 34,453 39,530 35,381
34,004 38,081 38,578 42,831 50,313
49,875 34,025 41,552 30,103 35,676
37,916 31,883 35,507 36,745 48,285
42,009 31,632 41,411 33,725 36,751
41,344 54,397 39,817 37,780 33,786
33,096 42,603 32,935 31,946 42,325
$39,138
—
33 30 20 16 45
43 4 35 19 34
39 21 17 10 2
3 36 12 50 31
23 48 32 29 6
15 44 14 40 28
11 1 18 22 37
42 8 41 46 9
—
34 31 18 16 47
42 5 35 19 33
38 22 20 8 2
3 37 13 50 30
23 46 32 28 4
11 48 14 40 27
15 1 17 24 39
41 9 43 45 10
90 91 99 103 81
83 122 88 99 89
86 98 102 108 128
127 87 107 76 91
97 80 90 91 120
105 82 106 86 93
107 140 101 97 87
84 109 85 80 109
100
90 91 101 105 81
84 120 88 101 90
87 97 99 109 129
127 87 106 77 91
97 81 91 94 123
107 81 106 86 94
106 139 102 97 86
85 109 84 82 108
100
-1.9 -1.9 -0.5 -0.6 -2.1
-1.2 -3.8 -2.3 -0.9 -1.4
-1.8 -2.8 -5.8 -1.4 -2.3
-2.0 -2.7 -3.3 -0.9 -1.9
-2.5 -0.2 -1.6 1.0 0.3
-0.2 -4.1 -2.7 -2.4 -2.0
-3.9 -3.3 -1.4 -3.3 -3.1
-1.7 -3.0 -4.1 -1.0 -3.5
-2.6
22 21 7 9 26
13 44 28 10 16
19 35 49 14 27
23 34 38 11 20
31 5 17 2 3
4 47 33 30 24
45 39 15 40 37
131,070 137,570 499,669 43,469 146,335
66,337 950,210 325,954 25,576 413,732
33,516 69,821 107,079 57,399 445,928
333,046 349,612 224,671 89,331 216,547
108,779 136,940 160,659 47,994 272,542
54,175 50,399 546,344 220,670 112,302
212,320 197,024 35,377 719,708 337,961
157,422 30,224 223,184 92,505 1,604,113
130,037 136,449 498,868 43,185 145,041
66,304 917,610 323,204 25,570 408,395
33,154 68,417 101,966 56,732 438,111
328,858 339,219 218,823 88,864 213,610
106,875 137,546 159,499 48,441 275,201
54,409 48,898 534,638 216,618 110,541
207,742 191,385 35,243 700,361 332,091
155,840 29,757 217,235 92,307 1,564,389
— $12,225,589 $12,015,535 18 36 46 12 41
-0.8 -0.8 -0.2 -0.7 -0.9
0.0 -3.4 -0.8 0.0 -1.3
-1.1 -2.0 -4.8 -1.2 -1.8
-1.3 -3.0 -2.6 -0.5 -1.4
-1.7 0.4 -0.7 0.9 1.0
0.4 -3.0 -2.1 -1.8 -1.6
-2.2 -2.9 -0.4 -2.7 -1.7
-1.0 -1.5 -2.7 -0.2 -2.5
-1.7
—
16 17 9 14 20
8 47 18 7 26
22 36 50 23 34
24 45 41 13 27
33 5 15 3 2
6 46 38 35 29
39 44 11 43 32
21 28 42 10 40
3,644 3,783 12,566 1,054 4,503
1,987 19,468 9,247 641 11,528
968 1,782 2,616 1,322 8,663
6,544 10,002 5,231 2,940 5,956
2,797 4,288 4,452 1,320 5,659
1,287 1,528 12,843 6,388 2,994
4,935 3,503 876 18,424 9,698
4,677 688 6,499 2,868 36,580
304,375
3,687 3,826 12,605 1,053 4,561
2,010 19,541 9,381 647 11,543
975 1,797 2,643 1,325 8,708
6,594 9,970 5,266 2,952 5,988
2,819 4,314 4,492 1,318 5,699
1,295 1,546 12,910 6,423 3,008
5,025 3,518 885 18,538 9,829
4,709 698 6,596 2,889 36,962
307,007
1.2 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.3
1.2 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.1
0.7 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.5
0.8 -0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5
0.8 0.6 0.9 -0.1 0.7
0.6 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5
1.8 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.4
0.7 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.0
0.9
12 14 43 48 10
13 42 8 22 46
28 23 16 45 37
25 50 29 41 36
24 32 20 49 27
33 11 35 34 39
4 40 18 31 9
30 5 7 26 17
—
Rank of percent change 2008– 09
Population (thousands of persons)
Rank of Rank of Rank in Percent of Percent percent Percent percent Percent the U.S. the U.S. State or other change change change change change jurisdiction 2008r 2009p 2008r 2009p 2008r 2009p 2008– 09 2008– 09 2008r 2009p 2008– 09 2008– 09 2008r 2009p 2008– 09
Per capita personal income (dollars)
Table 10.4 per capita personal income, personal income, and population, by state and region, 2008–2009
State Pages
Personal income (millions of dollars)
44,075 42,747 31,634 37,770 48,580
66,316
Virginia..................... Washington.............. West Virginia............ Wisconsin................. Wyoming..................
Dist. of Columbia.... 66,000
43,874 41,751 32,219 36,822 45,705
36,935 34,089 36,484 30,875 38,503
—
7 13 49 27 5
25 38 26 47 24
—
7 12 44 26 6
25 36 29 49 21
165
110 106 79 94 121
96 87 94 80 96
169
112 107 82 94 117
94 87 93 79 98
-0.5
-0.5 -2.3 1.8 -2.5 -5.9
-4.4 -2.1 -3.5 -3.7 -0.5
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census, released March 25, 2010. Key: r — revised p — preliminary
38,644 34,833 37,809 32,050 38,700
South Dakota........... Tennessee................. Texas......................... Utah.......................... Vermont....................
—
6 29 1 32 50
48 25 42 43 8
39,131
343,580 280,678 57,411 212,553 25,892
31,091 217,373 918,921 87,411 24,034
39,578
345,841 278,236 58,631 208,220 24,876
30,006 214,633 904,166 85,975 23,939
1.1
0.7 -0.9 2.1 -2.0 -3.9
-3.5 -1.3 -1.6 -1.6 -0.4
—
4 19 1 37 49
48 25 30 31 12
590
7,795 6,566 1,815 5,628 533
805 6,240 24,304 2,727 621
600
7,883 6,664 1,820 5,655 544
812 6,296 24,782 2,785 622
1.6
1.1 1.5 0.3 0.5 2.1
1.0 0.9 2.0 2.1 0.1
—
15 6 44 38 1
19 21 3 2 47
Rank of percent change 2008– 09
Population (thousands of persons)
Rank of Rank of Rank in Percent of Percent percent Percent percent Percent the U.S. the U.S. State or other change change change change change jurisdiction 2008r 2009p 2008r 2009p 2008r 2009p 2008– 09 2008– 09 2008r 2009p 2008– 09 2008– 09 2008r 2009p 2008– 09
Per capita personal income (dollars)
per capita personal income, personal income, and population, by state and region, 2008–2009—Continued
State Pages
The Council of State Governments 571
STATE PAGES
Alabama
Alaska
Nickname......................................................................The Heart of Dixie Motto.......................................................Aldemus Jura Nostra Defendere (We Dare Defend Our Rights) Flower............................................................................................ Camellia Bird...................................................................................... Yellowhammer Tree.................................................................... Southern (Longleaf) Pine Song................................................................................................Alabama Entered the Union.......................................................December 14, 1819 Capital.....................................................................................Montgomery
Nickname........................................................................ The Last Frontier Motto.............................................................................North to the Future Flower................................................................................. Forget-Me-Not Bird................................................................................. Willow Ptarmigan Tree...........................................................................................Sitka Spruce Song.........................................................................................Alaska’s Flag Entered the Union............................................................. January 3, 1959 Capital............................................................................................... Juneau
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................570,665 Rank in Nation.....................................................................................1st Population.....................................................................................688,125 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 50th Density per square mile..........................................................................1.2 Capital City....................................................................................... Juneau Population.......................................................................................30,988 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City............................................................................... Anchorage Population.....................................................................................279,243 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of Geographic Boroughs..........................................................16 Number of County Governments...........................................................11 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................5 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................148 Number of School Districts.......................................................................0 Number of Special Districts....................................................................15
Land Area (square miles).................................................................50,644 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 28th Population..................................................................................4,677,464 Rank in Nation..................................................................................23rd Density per square mile........................................................................91.9 Capital City.............................................................................Montgomery Population.....................................................................................202,696 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City.............................................................................Birmingham Population.....................................................................................228,798 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................7 Number of 2009 Electoral Votes...............................................................9 Number of County Governments...........................................................67 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................458 Number of School Districts...................................................................131 Number of Special Districts..................................................................529
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.......................................................Jim Folsom Jr. President Pro Tem of the Senate............................. Rodger Smitherman Secretary of the Senate....................................... Charles McDowell Lee Speaker of the House......................................................... Seth Hammett Speaker Pro Tem of the House.............................Demetrius C. Newton Clerk of the House................................................................ Greg Pappas 2010 Regular Session..............................................Jan. 12–April 22, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................35 Number of Representative Districts....................................................105
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.....................................................................................Bob Riley Lieutenant Governor..........................................................Jim Folsom Jr. Secretary of State............................................................... Beth Chapman Attorney General....................................................................... Troy King Treasurer........................................................................................Kay Ivey Auditor...............................................................................Samantha Shaw State Comptroller..................................................................... Tom White Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................25
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice............................................. Sue Bell Cobb Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................9 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 11th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website......................................... http://www.alabama.gov Governor’s Website................................ http://www.governor.state.al.us State Legislative Website..................... http://www.legislature.state.al.us State Judicial Website................................ http://www.judicial.state.al.us
572 The Book of the States 2010
STATISTICS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate........................................................ Gary Stevens Secretary of the Senate.........................................................Kirsten Waid Speaker of the House........................................................ Mike Chenault Chief Clerk of the House.................................................Suzanne Lowell 2010 Regular Session..............................................Jan. 19–April 18. 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................20 Number of Representative Districts......................................................40
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.................................................................................Sean Parnell Lieutenant Governor....................................................... Craig Campbell Attorney General..............................................................Daniel Sullivan Treasurer................................................................................ Jerry Burnett Auditor................................................................................... Pat Davidson Comptroller........................................................................... Kim Garnero Governor’s Present Term.................................................. 7/2009–12/2010 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................2 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................19
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.........................................Walter Carpeneti Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................3 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.alaska.gov Governor’s Website.........................................http://www.gov.state.ak.us State Legislative Website.............................. http://www.legis.state.ak.us State Judicial Website................................. http://www.state.ak.us/courts
STATE PAGES
Arizona
Arkansas
Nickname........................................................... The Grand Canyon State Motto............................................................... Ditat Deus (God Enriches) Flower......................................................Blossom of the Saguaro Cactus Bird.......................................................................................... Cactus Wren Tree............................................................................................. Palo Verde Songs................................................... Arizona March Song and Arizona Entered the Union.........................................................February 14, 1912 Capital............................................................................................. Phoenix
Nickname........................................................................The Natural State Motto................................................. Regnat Populus (The People Rule) Flower.................................................................................Apple Blossom Bird.......................................................................................... Mockingbird Tree.........................................................................................................Pine Song............................................................................................... Arkansas Entered the Union.................................................................June 15, 1836 Capital........................................................................................Little Rock
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................113,595 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 6th Population..................................................................................6,499,377 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 14th Density per square mile........................................................................57.2 Capital City..................................................................................... Phoenix Population..................................................................................1,567,924 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City.................................................................................... Phoenix Number Representatives in Congress......................................................8 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................10 Number of County Governments...........................................................15 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................90 Number of School Districts...................................................................239 Number of Special Districts..................................................................301
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................52,030 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 27th Population..................................................................................2,867,764 Rank in Nation................................................................................. 32nd Density per square mile........................................................................54.8 Capital City................................................................................Little Rock Population.....................................................................................189,515 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City...............................................................................Little Rock Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................4 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................6 Number of County Governments...........................................................75 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................502 Number of School Districts...................................................................247 Number of Special Districts..................................................................724
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly
President of the Senate........................................................Robert Burns President Pro Tem of the Senate.......................................... Barbara Leff Secretary of the Senate............................................Charmion Billington
President of the Senate.............................................. Lt. Gov. Bill Halter President Pro Tem of the Senate.......................................... Bob Johnson Secretary of the Senate.......................................................Ann Cornwell
Speaker of the House............................................................. Kirk Adams Speaker Pro Tem of the House...............................Steven B. Yarbrough Chief Clerk of the House.....................................................Cheryl Laube
Speaker of the House............................................................ Robbie Wills Speaker Pro Tem of the House........................................ Curren Everett Chief Clerk of the House......................................................Sherri Stacks
2010 Regular Session.............................................Jan. 11–late April 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................30 Number of Representative Districts......................................................30
2010 Regular Session............................................... Feb. 8–March 9, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................35 Number of Representative Districts....................................................100
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................... Jan Brewer Secretary of State................................................................... Ken Bennett Attorney General.............................................................. Terry Goddard Treasurer................................................................................. Dean Martin Auditor.......................................................................Debra K. Davenport Comptroller...................................................................D. Clark Partridge Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2009–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................11 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................38
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.................................Rebecca White Berch Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................22 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website....................................................http://www.az.gov Governor’s Website...................................... http://www.azgovernor.gov/ State Legislative Website............................. http://www.azleg.state.az.us State Judicial Website............................. http://www.supreme.state.az.us
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................. Mike Beebe Lieutenant Governor................................................................ Bill Halter Secretary of State.............................................................. Charlie Daniels Attorney General.......................................................... Dustin McDaniel Treasurer......................................................................Martha A. Shoffner Auditor......................................................................................... Jim Wood Comptroller..........................................................................Richard Weiss Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................47
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................................. Jim Hannah Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................12 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website..............................................http://www.state.ar.us Governor’s Website..........................http://www.governor.arkansas.gov/ State Legislative Website............................http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us State Judicial Website........................................... http://courts.state.ar.us
The Council of State Governments 573
STATE PAGES
California
Colorado
Nickname........................................................................The Golden State Motto.................................................................Eureka (I Have Found It) Flower.............................................................................. California Poppy Bird.........................................................................California Valley Quail Tree............................................................................. California Redwood Song......................................................................... I Love You, California Entered the Union........................................................September 9, 1850 Capital.......................................................................................Sacramento
Nickname..................................................................The Centennial State Motto................................................................................. Nil Sine Numine (Nothing Without Providence) Flower..........................................................Rocky Mountain Columbine Bird......................................................................................... Lark Bunting Tree........................................................................................... Blue Spruce Song..............................................................Where the Columbines Grow Entered the Union.............................................................. August 1, 1876 Capital.............................................................................................. Denver
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................155,766 Rank in Nation....................................................................................3rd Population................................................................................36,580,371 Rank in Nation.....................................................................................1st Density per Square Mile.....................................................................235.7 Capital City...............................................................................Sacramento Population.....................................................................................463,794 Rank in State....................................................................................... 7th Largest City............................................................................. Los Angeles Population..................................................................................3,833,995 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................53 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................55 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................58 Number of County Governments...........................................................57 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................1 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................478 Number of School Districts................................................................1,044 Number of Special Districts...............................................................2,765
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................103,641 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 8th Population..................................................................................4,935,213 Rank in Nation................................................................................. 22nd Density per square mile........................................................................47.6 Capital City...................................................................................... Denver Population.....................................................................................598,707 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City..................................................................................... Denver Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................7 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................9 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................64 Number of County Governments...........................................................62 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................2 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................270 Number of School Districts...................................................................180 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,904
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly
President of the Senate................................... Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado President Pro Tem of the Senate.................................. Darrell Steinberg Secretary of the Senate..................................................Gregory Schmidt
President of the Senate...................................................Brandon Shaffer President Pro Tem of the Senate.............................................Betty Boyd Secretary of the Senate................................................... Karen Goldman
Speaker of the Assembly.....................................................John A. Perez Speaker Pro Tem of the Assembly....................................... Lori Saldana Chief Clerk of the Assembly........................................ E. Dotson Wilson
Speaker of the House......................................................Terrance Carroll Speaker Pro Tem of the House..................................... Liane McFayden Chief Clerk of the House..................................................Marilyn Eddins
2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 4–Aug. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................40 Number of Representative Districts......................................................80
2010 Regular Session..................................................Jan. 6–May 11, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................35 Number of Representative Districts......................................................65
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.....................................................................................Bill Ritter Lieutenant Governor..................................................... Barbara O’Brien Secretary of State.............................................................Bernie Buescher Attorney General............................................................. John W. Suthers Treasurer.............................................................................. Cary Kennedy Auditor................................................................................ Sally Symanski Controller..................................................................... David McDermott
Governor.............................................................Arnold Schwarzenegger Lieutenant Governor.....................................................Abel Maldonado Secretary of State................................................................. Debra Bowen Attorney General............................................... Edmund Gerald Brown Treasurer..................................................................................Bill Lockyer Auditor............................................................................. Elaine M. Howle Controller................................................................................John Chiang Governor’s Present Term.................................................. 11/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................8 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................11
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................21
JUDICIAL BRANCH
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................... Mary Mullarkey Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................16 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 10th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................. http://www.state.co.us Gov’s Website.......http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/governor_office.html State Legislative Website................................. http://www.leg.state.co.us State Judicial Website..................................http://www.courts.state.co.us
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice...................................... Ronald M. George Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................88 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................4 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit Official State Website....................................................http://www.ca.gov Governor’s Website........................................................ http://gov.ca.gov/ State Legislative Website................................. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov State Judicial Website................................... http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov
574 The Book of the States 2010
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
STATE PAGES
Connecticut
Delaware
Nickname............................................................... The Constitution State Motto....................................................................... Qui Transtulit Sustinet (He Who Transplanted Still Sustains) Flower..............................................................................Mountain Laurel Bird................................................................................... American Robin Tree............................................................................................. White Oak Song..................................................................................... Yankee Doodle Entered the Union............................................................. January 9, 1788 Capital............................................................................................ Hartford
Nickname............................................................................. The First State Motto.................................................................Liberty and Independence Flower................................................................................. Peach Blossom Bird................................................................................ Blue Hen Chicken Tree.................................................................................... American Holly Song....................................................................................... Our Delaware Entered the Union.........................................................December 7, 1787 Capital................................................................................................ Dover
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................1,949 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 49th Population.....................................................................................876,211 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 45th Density per square mile......................................................................446.9 Capital City........................................................................................ Dover Population.......................................................................................36,107 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City.............................................................................. Wilmington Population.......................................................................................72,592 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of County Governments.............................................................3 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................57 Number of School Districts.....................................................................19 Number of Special Districts..................................................................259
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................4,840 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 48th Population..................................................................................3,502,932 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 29th Density per square mile......................................................................722.7 Capital City.................................................................................... Hartford Population.....................................................................................124,062 Rank in State.......................................................................................3rd Largest City............................................................................... Bridgeport Population.....................................................................................136,405 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................5 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................7 Number of Geographic Counties.............................................................8 Number of County Governments.............................................................0 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................30 Number of School Districts.....................................................................17 Number of Special Districts..................................................................453
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate................................................ Michael C. Fedele President Pro Tem of the Senate...............................Donald E. Williams Clerk of the Senate.....................................................Thomas P. Sheridan Speaker of the House........................................Christopher G. Donovan Deputy Speakers of the House..............Emil Altobello, Bob Godfrey, Marie Kirkley-Bey, Davis McCluskey, Linda Orange, Jim O’Rourke III Clerk of the House...................................................... Garey E. Coleman 2010 Regular Session...................................................Feb. 3–May 5, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................36 Number of Representative Districts....................................................151
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..................................................................................M. Jodi Rell Lieutenant Governor........................................................Michael Fedele Secretary of State............................................................. Susan Bysiewicz Attorney General..................................................... Richard Blumenthal Treasurer........................................................................Denise L. Nappier Auditors.................................... Robert G. Jaekle and Kevin P. Johnston Comptroller......................................................................... Nancy Wyman Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 7/2004–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................27
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice...........................................Chase T. Rogers Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court...................................................................... 2nd Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
STATISTICS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate..................................................... Matthew Denn President Pro Tem of the Senate...............................Anthony J. DeLuca Secretary of the Senate.................................................. Bernard J. Brady Speaker of the House................................................... Robert F. Gilligan Clerk of the House.............................................................Richard Puffer 2010 Regular Session................................................ Jan 12–June 30, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................21 Number of Representative Districts......................................................41
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................ Jack Markell Lieutenant Governor........................................................ Matthew Denn Secretary of State.............................................................. Jeffrey Bullock Attorney General.......................................................Joseph R. Biden III Treasurer.......................................................................Velda Jones-Potter Auditor..........................................................................R. Thomas Wagner Comptroller...................................................................... Gary M. Pfeiffer Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2009–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice........................................... Myron T. Steele Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court.......................................................................3rd Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website........................................ http://www.delaware.gov Governor’s Website............................... http://www.state.de.us/governor State Legislative Website..................................http://legis.delaware.gov/ State Judicial Website...........................................http://courts.state.de.us
Official State Website................................................... http://www.ct.gov/ Governor’s Website................................ http://www.state.ct.us/governor State Legislative Website.......................................http://www.cga.ct.gov/ State Judicial Website....................................... http://www.jud.state.ct.us
The Council of State Governments 575
STATE PAGES
Florida
Georgia
Nickname..................................................................... The Sunshine State Motto................................................................................. In God We Trust Flower...............................................................................Orange Blossom Bird.......................................................................................... Mockingbird Tree............................................................................ Sabal Palmetto Palm Song..........................................The Swannee River (Old Folks at Home) Entered the Union............................................................... March 3, 1845 Capital........................................................................................Tallahassee
Nickname................................................. The Empire State of the South Motto......................................................Wisdom, Justice and Moderation Flower.................................................................................Cherokee Rose Bird.................................................................................... Brown Thrasher Tree................................................................................................ Live Oak Song........................................................................... Georgia on My Mind Entered the Union............................................................. January 2, 1788 Capital.............................................................................................. Atlanta
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................53,603 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 26th Population................................................................................18,423,878 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 4th Density per square mile......................................................................339.9 Capital City................................................................................Tallahassee Population.....................................................................................171,922 Rank in State....................................................................................... 8th Largest City..............................................................................Jacksonville Population.....................................................................................807,815 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................25 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................27 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................67 Number of County Governments...........................................................66 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................1 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................411 Number of School Districts.....................................................................95 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,051
Land Area (square miles).................................................................57,501 Rank in Nation...................................................................................21st Population..................................................................................9,697,838 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 9th Density per square mile......................................................................167.3 Capital City...................................................................................... Atlanta Population.....................................................................................537,958 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City..................................................................................... Atlanta Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................13 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................15 Number of Geographic Counties.........................................................159 Number of County Governments.........................................................154 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................5 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................535 Number of School Districts...................................................................180 Number of Special Districts..................................................................570
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.....................................................Jeffery Atwater President Pro Tem of the Senate.......................................... Mike Fasano Secretary of the Senate.....................................................Philip Twogood Speaker of the House.............................................................Larry Cretul Speaker Pro Tem of the House.............................................Ron Reagan Clerk of the House..................................................................... Bob Ward 2010 Regular Session...............................................March 2–May 1, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................40 Number of Representative Districts....................................................120
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
President of the Senate........................................... Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle President Pro Tem of the Senate.................................. Tommie Williams Secretary of the Senate............................................................ Bob Ewing Speaker of the House......................................................... David Ralston Speaker Pro Tem of the House.....................................Mark Burkhalter Clerk of the House.................................................... Robert E. Rivers Jr. 2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 11, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................56 Number of Representative Districts....................................................180
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................ Charlie Crist Lieutenant Governor..........................................................Jeff Kottkamp Secretary of State............................................... Dawn Roberts (interim) Attorney General...............................................................Bill McCollum Chief Financial Officer............................................................... Alex Sink Auditor...................................................................................David Martin
Governor.............................................................................. Sonny Perdue Lieutenant Governor............................................................. Casey Cagle Secretary of State.................................................................... Brian Kemp Attorney General.........................................................Thurbert E. Baker Treasurer......................................................................W. Daniel Ebersole Auditor........................................................................... Russell W. Hinton
Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet........................................................4
Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................13 Number of Members in the Cabinet............. No formal cabinet system
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice..........................................Peggy A. Quince Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................62 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 11th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website......................................http://www.myflorida.com Governor’s Website................................................ http://www.flgov.com/ State Legislative Website...................................http://www.leg.state.fl.us State Judicial Website........................................... http://www.flcourts.org
576 The Book of the States 2010
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................David E. Nahmias Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................12 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 11th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.................................................... www.georgia.gov/ Governor’s Website............................................... http://gov.georgia.gov/ State Legislative Website.............................. http://www.legis.state.ga.us State Judicial Website.................................http://www.georgiacourts.org
STATE PAGES
Hawaii
Idaho
Nickname.......................................................................... The Aloha State Motto............................................. Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aina I Ka Pono (The Life of the Land Is Perpetuated in Righteousness) Flower................................................................... Native Yellow Hibiscus Bird...................................................................... Hawaiian Goose (Nene) Tree....................................................................... Kukue Tree (Candlenut) Song........................................................................................Hawaii Ponoi Entered the Union............................................................ August 21, 1959 Capital...........................................................................................Honolulu
Nickname............................................................................ The Gem State Motto................................................Esto Perpetua (Let It Be Perpetual) Flower.............................................................................................. Syringa Bird............................................................................... Mountain Bluebird Tree.............................................................................. Western White Pine Song............................................................................Here We Have Idaho Entered the Union....................................................................July 3, 1890 Capital..................................................................................................Boise
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................82,643 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 11th Population..................................................................................1,527,506 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 39th Density per square mile........................................................................18.4 Capital City..........................................................................................Boise Population.....................................................................................205,314 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City.........................................................................................Boise Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................2 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................4 Number of County Governments...........................................................44 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................200 Number of School Districts...................................................................116 Number of Special Districts..................................................................880
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................6,428 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 47th Population..................................................................................1,287,481 Rank in Nation................................................................................. 42nd Density per square mile......................................................................200.6 Capital City...................................................................................Honolulu Population.....................................................................................374,676 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City..................................................................................Honolulu Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................2 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................4 Number of Geographic Counties.............................................................4 Number of County Governments.............................................................3 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................1 Number of Municipal Governments........................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................0 Number of Special Districts....................................................................15
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
STATISTICS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate..............................................Lt. Gov. Brad Little President Pro Tem of the Senate................................. Robert L. Geddes Secretary of the Senate..................................................... Jeannine Wood
President of the Senate............................................... Colleen Hanabusa President Pro Tempore of the Senate.......................Russell S. Kokubun Chief Clerk of the Senate................................................ Carol Taniguchi
Speaker of the House.................................................Lawerence Denney Chief Clerk of the House.............................................Bonnie Alexander
Speaker of the House....................................................... Calvin K.Y. Say Speaker Pro Tempore of the House....................... Michael Y. Magaoay Chief Clerk of the House.................................. Patricia A. Mau-Shimizu
2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 11, 2020–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................35 Number of Representative Districts......................................................35
2010 Regular Session..................................................Jan. 20–May 7, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................25 Number of Representative Districts......................................................51
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................ Linda Lingle Lieutenant Governor......................................... James “Duke” Aiona Jr. Attorney General.............................................................Mark J. Bennett Treasurer................................................................... Georgina Kawamura Auditor...............................................................................Marion M. Higa Comptroller........................................................................... Russ K. Saito Governor’s Present Term................................................ 12/2002–12/2010 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................2 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................22
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................Ronald T.Y. Moon Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................6 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.......................................... http://www.ehawaii.gov Governor’s Website................................................. http://hawaii.gov/gov State Legislative Website..........................http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov State Judicial Website................................. http://www.courts.state.hi.us/
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.......................................................................C.L “Butch” Otter Lieutenant Governor............................................................... Brad Little Secretary of State......................................................................Ben Ysursa Attorney General.........................................................Lawrence Wasden Treasurer.................................................................................... Ron Crane Controller............................................................................... Donna Jones Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................43
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................... Daniel Eismann Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................3 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website……………..........................http://www.state.id.us Governor’s Website....................................... http://www2.state.id.us/gov State Legislative Website........................ http://www2.state.id.us/legislat State Judicial Website..............................http://www2.state.id.us/judicial
The Council of State Governments 577
STATE PAGES
Illinois
Indiana
Nickname......................................................................... The Prairie State Motto.................................................... State Sovereignty-National Union Flower.................................................................................... Native Violet Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree............................................................................................. White Oak Song....................................................................................................Illinois Entered the Union.........................................................December 3, 1818 Capital.........................................................................................Springfield
Nickname.......................................................................The Hoosier State Motto...................................................................... Crossroads of America Flower.................................................................................................Peony Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree........................................................................................... Tulip Poplar Song.............................................On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away Entered the Union.......................................................December 11, 1816 Capital...................................................................................... Indianapolis
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................55,518 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 24th Population................................................................................12,842,954 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 5th Density per square mile......................................................................232.1 Capital City.................................................................................Springfield Population.....................................................................................117,352 Rank in State....................................................................................... 6th Largest City.................................................................................... Chicago Population..................................................................................2,853,114 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................19 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................21 Number of County Governments.........................................................102 Number of Municipal Governments.................................................1,299 Number of School Districts...................................................................912 Number of Special Districts...............................................................3,249
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate.................................................. John J. Cullerton Secretary of the Senate........................................................Jillayne Rock Speaker of the House................................................. Michael J. Madigan House Chief Clerk.............................................................Mark Mahoney 2010 Regular Session............................................... Jan. 13–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................59 Number of Representative Districts....................................................118
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.............................................................................. Patrick Quinn Lieutenant Governor.......................................................................Vacant Secretary of State......................................................................Jesse White Attorney General.................................................................Lisa Madigan Treasurer........................................................................Alexi Giannoulias Auditor.........................................................................William G. Holland Comptroller...........................................................................Daniel Hynes Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2009–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................18
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................35,823 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 38th Population..................................................................................6,388,309 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 16th Density per square mile......................................................................177.8 Capital City.............................................................................. Indianapolis Population.....................................................................................798,382 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City............................................................................. Indianapolis Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................9 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................11 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................92 Number of County Governments...........................................................91 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................1 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................567 Number of School Districts...................................................................293 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,272
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate......................................Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman President Pro Tem of the Senate....................................... David C. Long Secretary of the Senate...................................................... Jennifer Mertz Speaker of the House...................................................... B. Patrick Bauer Speaker Pro Tem of the House...............................................Chet Dobis Clerk of the House.............................................................Clinton Mckay 2010 Regular Session............................................ Jan. 11–March 14, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................50 Number of Representative Districts....................................................100
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.............................................................................. Mitch Daniels Lieutenant Governor....................................................... Becky Skillman Secretary of State....................................................................Todd Rokita Attorney General..................................................................Greg Zoeller Treasurer..................................................................Richard E. Mourdock Auditor.........................................................................................Tim Berry
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2005–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice..................................... Randall T. Shepard Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................15 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 7th Circuit
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice...................................... Thomas Fitzgerald Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................53 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 7th Circuit Official State Website...............................................http://www.state.il.us Governor’s Website.......................................... http://www.state.il.us/gov State Legislative Website............... http://www.illinois.gov/government/ gov_legislature.cfm State Judicial Website..................... http://www.illinois.gov/government/ judiciary.cfm
578 The Book of the States 2010
JUDICIAL BRANCH
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website..............................................http://www.state.in.us Governor’s Website................................................ http://www.in.gov/gov State Legislative Website............................http://www.in.gov/legislative State Judicial Website.................................... http://www.in.gov/judiciary
STATE PAGES
Iowa
Kansas
Nickname.....................................................................The Hawkeye State Motto...............................................................Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain Flower......................................................................................... Wild Rose Bird.................................................................................Eastern Goldfinch Tree......................................................................................................... Oak Song................................................................................. The Song of Iowa Entered the Union.......................................................December 28, 1846 Capital.......................................................................................Des Moines
Nickname................................................................... The Sunflower State Motto...........................................................................Ad Astra per Aspera (To the Stars through Difficulties) Flower.................................................................... Wild Native Sunflower Bird........................................................................... Western Meadowlark Tree...........................................................................................Cottonwood Song............................................................................. Home on the Range Entered the Union........................................................... January 29, 1861 Capital...............................................................................................Topeka
Statistics
Land Area (square mile)..................................................................55,858 Rank in Nation..................................................................................23rd Population..................................................................................2,993,987 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 30th Density per square mile........................................................................53.7 Capital City...............................................................................Des Moines Population.....................................................................................197,052 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City..............................................................................Des Moines Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................5 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................7 Number of County Governments...........................................................99 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................947 Number of School Districts...................................................................380 Number of Special Districts..................................................................528
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate.......................................................John P. Kibbie President Pro Tem of the Senate........................................Jeff Danielson Secretary of the Senate.............................................Michael E. Marshall Speaker of the House..............................................................Pat Murphy Speaker Pro Tem of the House.............................................. Polly Bukta Chief Clerk of the House..............................................Mark Brandsgard 2010 Regular Session...............................................Jan.11–April 20, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................50 Number of Representative Districts....................................................100
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................. Chet Culver Lieutenant Governor.............................................................. Patty Judge Secretary of State...............................................................Michael Mauro Attorney General............................................................... Thomas Miller Treasurer....................................................................... Michael Fitzgerald Auditor................................................................................David A. Vaudt Chief Operating Officer............................................ Calvin McKelvogue Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................30
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice........................................ Marsha K. Ternus Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................9 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................. http://www.iowa.gov/ Governor’s Website............................... http://www.governor.state.ia.us/ State Legislative Website............................... http://www.legis.state.ia.us State Judicial Website....................................http://www.iowacourts.gov/
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................81,762 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 13th Population..................................................................................2,797,375 Rank in Nation..................................................................................33rd Density per square mile........................................................................34.2 Capital City.......................................................................................Topeka Population.....................................................................................123,446 Rank in State....................................................................................... 4th Largest City..................................................................................... Wichita Population.....................................................................................366,046 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................4 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................6 Number of Geographic Counties.........................................................105 Number of County Governments.........................................................103 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................2 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................627 Number of School Districts...................................................................316 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,531
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.....................................................Stephen Morris Secretary of the Senate............................................................. Pat Saville Speaker of the House.......................................................Michael O’Neal Speaker Pro Tem of the House...................................Arlen H. Siegfreid Chief Clerk of the House..............................................Susan W. Kannarr 2010 Regular Session..............................................Jan. 11–April 10, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................40 Number of Representative Districts....................................................125
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.......................................................................... Mark Parkinson Lieutenant Governor.............................................................Troy Findley Secretary of State......................................................................Chris Biggs Attorney General.................................................................... Stephen Six Treasurer........................................................................Dennis McKinney Auditor............................................................................Barbara J. Hinton Director, Division of Accounts & Reports........................... Kent Olson Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 4/2009–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................14
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................... Robert E. Davis Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................12 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 10th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.................................. http://www.accesskansas.org Governor’s Website........................................http://www.ksgovernor.org State Legislative Website............................ http://www.kslegislature.org State Judicial Website..........................................http://www.kscourts.org
The Council of State Governments 579
STATE PAGES
Kentucky
Louisiana
Nickname.................................................................... The Bluegrass State Motto.................................................... United We Stand, Divided We Fall Flower........................................................................................ Goldenrod Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree........................................................................................... Tulip Poplar Song..................................................................... My Old Kentucky Home Entered the Union...................................................................June 1, 1792 Capital...........................................................................................Frankfort
Nickname........................................................................ The Pelican State Motto.......................................................... Union, Justice and Confidence Flower........................................................................................... Magnolia Bird.........................................................................Eastern Brown Pelican Tree..........................................................................................Bald Cypress Songs..................................................................... Give Me Louisiana and You Are My Sunshine Entered the Union............................................................... April 30, 1812 Capital.................................................................................... Baton Rouge
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................39,492 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 37th Population..................................................................................4,287,931 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 26th Density per square mile......................................................................107.5 Capital City...................................................................................Frankfort Population.......................................................................................27,322 Rank in State....................................................................................... 7th Largest City................................................................................. Louisville Population.....................................................................................557,224 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................6 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................8 Number of Geographic Counties.........................................................120 Number of County Governments.........................................................118 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................2 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................419 Number of School Districts...................................................................175 Number of Special Districts..................................................................634
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate................................................ David L. Williams President Pro Tem of the Senate............................................. Katie Stine Secretary of the Senate.....................................................Donna Holiday Speaker of the House..................................................... Gregory Stumbo Speaker Pro Tem of the House.............................................. Larry Clark Chief Clerk of the House........................................................Jean Burgin 2010 Regular Session................................................Jan. 5–April 15, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................38 Number of Representative Districts....................................................100
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................43,199 Rank in Nation..................................................................................33rd Population..................................................................................4,451,513 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 25th Density per square mile......................................................................101.3 Capital City............................................................................ Baton Rouge Population.....................................................................................223,689 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City............................................................................New Orleans Population.....................................................................................311,853 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................7 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................9 Number of Geographic Parishes.............................................................64 Number of Parish Governments.............................................................60 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................1 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................303 Number of School Districts.....................................................................68 Number of Special Districts....................................................................95
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate................................................Joel T. Chaisson II President Pro Tem of the Senate....................... Sharon Weston Broome Secretary of Senate............................................................... Glenn Koepp Speaker of the House................................................................Jim Tucker Speaker Pro Tem of the House........................... Karen Carter Peterson Clerk of the House and Chief of Staff...........................Alfred W. Speer 2010 Regular Session.......................................... March 29–June 21, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................39 Number of Representative Districts....................................................105
Governor..............................................................................Steve Beshear Lieutenant Governor.................................................. Daniel Mongiardo Secretary of State..................................................................Trey Grayson Attorney General..................................................................Jack Conway Treasurer......................................................................... Todd Hollenbach Auditor..................................................................................... Crit Luallen Controller....................................................................................... Ed Ross
Governor................................................................................Bobby Jindal Lieutenant Governor........................................................... Scott Angelle Secretary of State..................................................................Jay Dardenne Attorney General......................................................... James D. Caldwell Treasurer................................................................... John Neely Kennedy
Governor’s Present Term................................................ 12/2007–12/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................15
Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2008–1/2012 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................8 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice............................................John D. Minton Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................14 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 6th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website................................................. http://kentucky.gov Governor’s Website.............................................. http://governor.ky.gov/ Legislative Website............................................http://www.lrc.state.ky.us Judicial Website....................................................http://www.kycourts.net
580 The Book of the States 2010
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................. Catherine D. Kimball Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................53 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 5th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website..............................................http://www.state.la.us Governor’s Website.......................................... http://www.gov.state.la.us Legislative Website......................................... http://www.legis.state.la.us Judicial Website..........................http://www.louisiana.gov/Government/ Judicial_Branch/
STATE PAGES
Maine
Maryland
Nickname.....................................................................The Pine Tree State Motto............................................................... Dirigo (I Direct or I Lead) Flower........................................................... White Pine Cone and Tassel Bird.............................................................................................. Chickadee Tree............................................................................................. White Pine Song............................................................................. State of Maine Song Entered the Union............................................................. March 15, 1820 Capital............................................................................................. Augusta
Nicknames......................................... The Old Line State and Free State Motto............................................................. Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine (Manly Deeds, Womanly Words) Flower.............................................................................Black-eyed Susan Bird...................................................................................Baltimore Oriole Tree............................................................................................. White Oak Song..................................................................... Maryland, My Maryland Entered the Union............................................................... April 28, 1788 Capital..........................................................................................Annapolis
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................30,841 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 39th Population..................................................................................1,319,691 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 40th Density per square mile........................................................................42.7 Capital City..................................................................................... Augusta Population.......................................................................................18,282 Rank in State....................................................................................... 9th Largest City....................................................................................Portland Population.......................................................................................62,561 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................2 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................4 Number of County Governments...........................................................16 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................22 Number of School Districts.....................................................................98 Number of Special Districts..................................................................248
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.......................................... Elizabeth H. Mitchell Secretary of the Senate....................................................... Joy J. O’Brien Speaker of the House.................................................Hannah M. Pingree Clerk of the House............................................Millicent M. MacFarland 2010 Regular Session.........................................January 6–April 21, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................35 Number of Representative Districts....................................................151
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..........................................................................John E. Baldacci Secretary of State............................................................Matthew Dunlap Attorney General......................................................................Janet Mills Treasurer........................................................................David G. Lemoine Auditor...........................................................................Neria R. Douglass Controller........................................................................... Edward Karass Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................1 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.......................................................Supreme Judicial Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.................................. Leigh Ingalls Saufley Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court........................................................................1st Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................http://www.state.me.us Governor’s Website...............http://www.maine.gov/governor/baldacci/ index.shtml Legislative Website...................................... http://janus.state.me.us/legis Judicial Website.......................................... http://www.courts.state.me.us
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................9,705 Rank in Nation................................................................................. 42nd Population..................................................................................5,658,655 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 19th Density per square mile......................................................................576.4 Capital City..................................................................................Annapolis Population.......................................................................................36,524 Rank in State....................................................................................... 7th Largest City................................................................................. Baltimore Population.....................................................................................636,919 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................8 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................10 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................24 Number of County Governments...........................................................23 Number of County Equivalents..............................................................1* Number of Municipal Governments....................................................157 Number of School Districts.......................................................................0 Number of Special Districts....................................................................76
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate...................................Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. President Pro Tem of the Senate.........................Nathaniel J. McFadden Secretary of the Senate..................................... William B.C. Addison Jr. Speaker of the House................................................ Michael Erin Busch Speaker Pro Tem of the House.................................. Adrienne A. Jones Clerk of the House............................................................Mary Monahan 2010 Regular Session..............................................Jan. 13–April 13, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................47 Number of Representative Districts......................................................47
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor......................................................................... Martin O’Malley Lieutenant Governor...................................................... Anthony Brown Secretary of State.......................................................... John McDonough Attorney General........................................................... Douglas Gansler Treasurer............................................................................. Nancy K. Kopp Auditor............................................................................... Bruce A. Myers Comptroller.........................................................................Peter Franchot Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................4 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................25
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court..................................................................Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Chief Judge.......................................... Robert M. Bell Number of Court of Appeals Judges........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................13 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 4th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website......http://www.maryland.gov/Pages/default.aspx Governor’s Website........................................http://www.gov.state.md.us Legislative Website........................................http://www.mlis.state.md.us Judicial Website.........................................http://www.courts.state.md.us/ *The city of Baltimore is an Independent City and considered a county equivalent.
The Council of State Governments 581
STATE PAGES
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nickname.............................................................................. The Bay State Motto................................... Ense Petit Placidam Sub Libertate Quietem (By the Sword We Seek Peace, but Peace Only under Liberty) Flower.........................................................................................Mayflower Bird.............................................................................................. Chickadee Tree.......................................................................................American Elm Song.................................................................... All Hail to Massachusetts Entered the Union...........................................................February 6, 1788 Capital............................................................................................... Boston
Nickname................................................................... The Wolverine State Motto..............................Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice (If You Seek a Pleasant Peninsula, Look About You) Flower.................................................................................Apple Blossom Bird......................................................................................................Robin Tree............................................................................................. White Pine Song.......................................................................Michigan, My Michigan Entered the Union........................................................... January 26, 1837 Capital..............................................................................................Lansing
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................7,801 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 45th Population..................................................................................6,543,595 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 15th Density per square mile......................................................................828.8 Capital City....................................................................................... Boston Population.....................................................................................609,023 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City...................................................................................... Boston Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................10 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................12 Number of Geographic Counties.........................................................14* Number of County Governments.............................................................5 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................2 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................45 Number of School Districts.....................................................................82 Number of Special Districts..................................................................423
Land Area (square miles).................................................................56,528 Rank in Nation................................................................................. 22nd Population................................................................................10,002,486 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 8th Density per square mile......................................................................176.1 Capital City......................................................................................Lansing Population.....................................................................................113,968 Rank in State....................................................................................... 6th Largest City......................................................................................Detroit Population.....................................................................................912,062 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................15 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................17 Number of County Governments...........................................................83 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................533 Number of School Districts...................................................................579 Number of Special Districts..................................................................456
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
Legislative Body................................................................. General Court President of the Senate....................................................Therese Murray President Pro Tem of the Senate........................... Stanley C. Rosenberg Clerk of the Senate..........................................................William F. Welch Speaker of the House.................................................... Robert A. DeLeo Speaker Pro Tempore............................................... Thomas M. Petrolati Clerk of the House............................................................Steven T. James 2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 6–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................40 Number of Representative Districts....................................................160
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor...............................................................................Deval Patrick Lieutenant Governor..............................................................Tim Murray Secretary of the Commonwealth................................. William F. Galvin Attorney General............................................................ Martha Coakley Treasurer & Receiver General......................................... Timothy Cahill Auditor.............................................................................. Joseph DeNucci Comptroller.................................................................... Martin J. Benison Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................10
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.......................................................Supreme Judicial Court Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice..................Margaret H. Marshall Number of Supreme Judicial Court Judges.............................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................28 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court........................................................................1st Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................... http://www.mass.gov Governor’s Website....................................... http://www.state.ma.us/gov Legislative Website.......................................http://www.state.ma.us/legis Judicial Website..........................................http://www.state.ma.us/courts *Seven counties have been abolished and are only geographic in nature.
582 The Book of the States 2010
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
President of the Senate........................................... Lt. Gov. John Cherry President Pro Tem of the Senate...............................Randy Richardville Secretary of the Senate............................................Carol Morey Viventi Speaker of the House.............................................................Andy Dillon Speaker Pro Tem of the House........................................ Pamela Byrnes Clerk of the House..................................................................Rich Brown 2010 Regular Session............................................... Jan. 13–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................38 Number of Representative Districts....................................................110
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor………………...............................................Jennifer Granholm Lieutenant Governor............................................................. John Cherry Secretary of State............................................................. Terri Lynn Land Attorney General....................................................................... Mike Cox Treasurer........................................................................... Robert J. Kleine Auditor........................................................................... Thomas McTavish Director, Office of Financial Management.................Michael J. Moody Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................4 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................18
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.............................................. Marilyn Kelly Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................28 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 6th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website........................................http://www.michigan.gov Governor’s Website....................................http://www.michigan.gov/gov Legislative Website.......................... http://www.michiganlegislature.org Judicial Website...................................... http://www.courts.michigan.gov
STATE PAGES
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nickname.................................................................. The North Star State Motto..................................................L’Etoile du Nord (The North Star) Flower......................................................... Pink and White Lady-Slipper Bird...................................................................................... Common Loon Tree................................................................................................ Red Pine Song....................................................................................Hail! Minnesota Entered the Union................................................................. May 11, 1858 Capital.............................................................................................. St. Paul
Nickname.................................................................... The Magnolia State Motto............................................. Virtute et Armis (By Valor and Arms) Flower........................................................................................... Magnolia Bird.......................................................................................... Mockingbird Tree................................................................................................ Magnolia Song......................................................................................Go, Mississippi Entered the Union.......................................................December 10, 1817 Capital.............................................................................................. Jackson
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................79,607 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 14th Population..................................................................................5,230,567 Rank in Nation...................................................................................21st Density per square mile........................................................................65.6 Capital City...................................................................................... St. Paul Population.....................................................................................279,590 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City............................................................................. Minneapolis Population.....................................................................................382,605 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................8 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................10 Number of County Governments...........................................................87 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................854 Number of School Districts...................................................................341 Number of Special Districts..................................................................456
Land Area (square miles).................................................................46,920 Rank in Nation...................................................................................31st Population..................................................................................2,940,212 Rank in Nation...................................................................................31st Density per square mile........................................................................62.6 Capital City...................................................................................... Jackson Population.....................................................................................173,861 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City..................................................................................... Jackson Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................4 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................6 Number of County Governments...........................................................82 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................296 Number of School Districts...................................................................164 Number of Special Districts..................................................................458
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate....................................................... James Metzen President Pro Tem of the Senate....................... Dennis R. Frederickson Secretary of the Senate for Legislation............................. Peter Wattson Secretary of the Senate for Administration........................ JoAnne Zoff Speaker of the House................................. Margaret Anderson Kelliher Chief Clerk of the House.................................................. Al Mathiowetz 2010 Regular Session.................................................Feb. 4–May 17, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................67 Number of Representative Districts......................................................67
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor...............................................................................Tim Pawlenty Lieutenant Governor.......................................................... Carol Molnau Secretary of State.................................................................. Mark Ritchie Attorney General.................................................................Lori Swanson Commissioner of Finance..................................................... Tom Hanson Auditor.................................................................................. Rebecca Otto Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................24
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.........................................Eric J. Magnuson Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................16 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website........................................... http://www.state.mn.us Governor’s Website..............................http://www.governor.state.mn.us Legislative Website......................................... http://www.leg.state.mn.us Judicial Website.................................................http://www.mncourts.gov/ default.aspx?fontsize=up2/
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
President of the Senate.............................................Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant President Pro Tem of the Senate............................................Billy Hewes Secretary of the Senate................................................. Tressa W. Guynes Speaker of the House.................................................... William J. McCoy Speaker Pro Tem of the House..........................................J.P. Compretta Clerk of the House..........................................................Don Richardson 2010 Regular Session..................................................Jan. 5–April 4, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................52 Number of Representative Districts....................................................122
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor............................................................................ Haley Barbour Lieutenant Governor...............................................................Phil Bryant Secretary of State........................................................ Delbert Hosemann Attorney General....................................................................... Jim Hood Treasurer.................................................................................. Tate Reeves Auditor..............................................................................Stacey Pickering Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2004–1/2012 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.............................................................................8 Number of Members in the Cabinet............. No formal cabinet system
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................... William L. Waller Jr. Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................9 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 5th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website................................................... http://www.ms.gov Governor’s Website...............................http://www.governor.state.ms.us Legislative Website.....................................http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/ Judicial Website............................................. http://www.mssc.state.ms.us
The Council of State Governments 583
STATE PAGES
Missouri
Montana
Nickname.....................................................................The Show Me State Motto....................................................... Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto (The Welfare of the People Shall Be the Supreme Law) Flower.............................................................. White Hawthorn Blossom Bird................................................................................................. Bluebird Tree.............................................................................Flowering Dogwood Song......................................................................................Missouri Waltz Entered the Union............................................................ August 10, 1821 Capital................................................................................... Jefferson City
Nickname...................................................................... The Treasure State Motto.......................................................... Oro y Plata (Gold and Silver) Flower.......................................................................................... Bitterroot Bird........................................................................... Western Meadowlark Tree......................................................................................Ponderosa Pine Song................................................................................................ Montana Entered the Union........................................................ November 8, 1889 Capital...............................................................................................Helena
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................145,541 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 4th Population.....................................................................................968,035 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 44th Density per square mile..........................................................................6.6 Capital City.......................................................................................Helena Population.......................................................................................29,351 Rank in State....................................................................................... 6th Largest City..................................................................................... Billings Population.....................................................................................103,994 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................56 Number of County Governments...........................................................54 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................2 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................129 Number of School Districts...................................................................332 Number of Special Districts..................................................................758
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
Land Area (square miles).................................................................68,716 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 18th Population..................................................................................5,956,335 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 18th Density per square mile........................................................................85.8 Capital City........................................................................... Jefferson City Population.......................................................................................40,771 Rank in State..................................................................................... 15th Largest City..............................................................................Kansas City Population.....................................................................................451,572 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................9 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................11 Number of Geographic Counties.........................................................115 Number of County Governments.........................................................114 Number of County Equivalents..............................................................1* Number of Municipal Governments....................................................952 Number of School Districts...................................................................536 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,809 Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate.......................................... Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder President Pro Tem of the Senate...................................... Charlie Shields Secretary of the Senate.....................................................Terry L. Spieler Speaker of the House............................................................ Ron Richard Speaker Pro Tem of the House.............................................. Bryan Pratt Clerk of the House.....................................................D. Adam Crumbliss 2010 Regular Session..................................................Jan. 6–May 30, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................34 Number of Representative Districts....................................................163
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..................................................................................... Jay Nixon Lieutenant Governor............................................................ Peter Kinder Secretary of State.............................................................Robin Carnahan Attorney General...................................................................Chris Koster Treasurer.................................................................................Clint Zweifel Auditor..................................................................................Susan Montee Director, Division of Accounting.....................................Mark A. Kaiser Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2009–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................17
STATISTICS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
President of the Senate...............................................Robert R. Story Jr. President Pro Tem of the Senate..................................Daniel W. McGee Secretary of the Senate...................................................... Marilyn Miller Speaker of the House............................................................ Bob Bergren Speaker Pro Tem of the House.........................................Franke Wilmer Chief Clerk of the House......................................................Dave Hunter 2010 Regular Session...................................... No regular session in 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................50 Number of Representative Districts....................................................100
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.........................................................................Brian Schweitzer Lieutenant Governor........................................................ John Bohlinger Secretary of State........................................................... Linda McCulloch Attorney General................................................................ Steve Bullock Treasurer.................................................................................... Janet Kelly Auditor.............................................................................. Monica Lindeen Administrator, State Accounting..............................Paul Christofferson Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2005–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................21
JUDICIAL BRANCH
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice............................................ Mike McGrath Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website........................................................... http://mt.gov/ Governor’s Website..............................................http://governor.mt.gov/ Legislative Website................................ http://leg.mt.gov/css/default.asp Judicial Website...................................................www.montanacourts.org
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................. William Ray Price, Jr. Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................32 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit Official State Website................................................. http://www.mo.gov/ Governor’s Website.............................................http://governor.mo.gov/ Legislative Website...........................................http://www.moga.mo.gov/ Judicial Website................................................http://www.courts.mo.gov/ *The city of St. Louis is an Independent City and considered a county equivalent.
584 The Book of the States 2010
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
STATE PAGES
Nebraska
Nevada
Nickname................................................................ The Cornhusker State Motto................................................................... Equality Before the Law Flower........................................................................................ Goldenrod Bird........................................................................... Western Meadowlark Tree........................................................................... Western Cottonwood Song.............................................................................. Beautiful Nebraska Entered the Union............................................................... March 1, 1867 Capital.............................................................................................. Lincoln
Nickname...........................................................................The Silver State Motto...........................................................................All for Our Country Flower..........................................................................................Sagebrush Bird............................................................................... Mountain Bluebird Tree..............................................Bristlecone Pine and Single-leaf Pinon Song.......................................................................... Home Means Nevada Entered the Union.......................................................... October 31, 1864 Capital.......................................................................................Carson City
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................76,825 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 15th Population..................................................................................1,781,949 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 38th Density per square mile........................................................................23.2 Capital City...................................................................................... Lincoln Population.....................................................................................251,624 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City......................................................................................Omaha Population.....................................................................................438,646 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................3 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................5 Number of County Governments...........................................................93 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................530 Number of School Districts...................................................................288 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,294
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body..................................................Unicameral Legislature President of the Legislature...................................Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy Speaker of the Legislature...................................................... Mike Flood Chairperson of the Executive Board.............................. John Wightman Clerk of the Legislature........................................... Patrick J. O’Donnell 2010 Regular Session.................................................Jan.6–April 16, 2010 Number of Legislative Districts..............................................................49
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.........................................................................David Heineman Lieutenant Governor.............................................................Rick Sheehy Secretary of State........................................................................John Gale Attorney General................................................................... Jon Bruning Treasurer...............................................................................Shane Osborn Auditor.......................................................................................Mike Foley State Accounting Administrator.......................................... Paul Carlson Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2005–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................30
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.................................. Michael G. Heavican Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................6 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.state.ne.us Governor’s Website......................... http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/ Legislative Website.................................. http://nebraskalegislature.gov/ Judicial Website................................... http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/ supreme-court/index.shtml?sub1
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................109,780 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 7th Population..................................................................................2,615,772 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 35th Density per square mile........................................................................23.7 Capital City...............................................................................Carson City Population.......................................................................................54,867 Rank in State....................................................................................... 6th Largest City................................................................................. Las Vegas Population.....................................................................................558,383 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................3 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................5 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................17 Number of County Governments...........................................................16 Number of County Equivalents..............................................................1* Number of Municipal Governments......................................................19 Number of School Districts.....................................................................17 Number of Special Districts..................................................................146
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate...................................Lt. Gov. Brian K. Krolicki President Pro Tem of the Senate........................... Michael A. Schneider Secretary of the Senate............................................................ Claire Clift Speaker of the Assembly............................................... Barbara Buckley Speaker Pro Tem of the Assembly................................Bernie Anderson Chief Clerk of the Assembly..................................... Susan Furlong Reil 2010 Regular Session...................................... No regular session in 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................21 Number of Representative Districts......................................................42
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor....................................................................... James A. Gibbons Lieutenant Governor..........................................................Brian Krolicki Secretary of State..................................................................... Ross Miller Attorney General...............................................Catherine Cortez Masto Treasurer...............................................................................Kate Marshall Auditor............................................................................ Paul V. Townsend Controller.................................................................................. Kim Wallin Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................23
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................... Ron Parraguirre Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website....................................................http://www.nv.gov Governor’s Website......................................... http://www.gov.state.nv.us Legislative Website........................................... http://www.leg.state.nv.us Judicial Website..................... http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/ supnews/349-welcome-to-the-newnevada-judiciary-website.html *Carson City is an Independent City and considered a county equivalent.
The Council of State Governments 585
STATE PAGES
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nickname....................................................................... The Granite State Motto................................................................................. Live Free or Die Flower...................................................................................... Purple Lilac Bird.......................................................................................... Purple Finch Tree........................................................................................... White Birch Song............................................................................ Old New Hampshire Entered the Union.................................................................June 21, 1788 Capital............................................................................................ Concord
Nickname........................................................................The Garden State Motto.......................................................................Liberty and Prosperity Flower.................................................................................................Violet Bird.................................................................................Eastern Goldfinch Tree.................................................................................................Red Oak Song.......................................................................... I’m From New Jersey Entered the Union.......................................................December 18, 1787 Capital..............................................................................................Trenton
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................8,952 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 44th Population..................................................................................1,321,872 Rank in Nation...................................................................................41st Density per square mile......................................................................146.7 Capital City.................................................................................... Concord Population.......................................................................................42,255 Rank in State.......................................................................................3rd Largest City.............................................................................. Manchester Population.....................................................................................108,586 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................2 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................4 Number of County Governments...........................................................10 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................13 Number of School Districts...................................................................164 Number of Special Districts..................................................................137
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................7,354 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 46th Population..................................................................................8,663,398 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 11th Density per square mile...................................................................1,170.6 Capital City......................................................................................Trenton Population.......................................................................................82,883 Rank in State....................................................................................... 9th Largest City.....................................................................................Newark Population.....................................................................................278,980 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................13 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................15 Number of County Governments...........................................................21 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................324 Number of School Districts...................................................................549 Number of Special Districts..................................................................247
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body................................................................. General Court
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
President of the Senate....................................................Sylvia B. Larsen President Pro Tem of the Senate............................. Martha Fuller Clark Clerk of the Senate........................................................ Tammy L. Wright
President of the Senate................................................. Stephen Sweeney President Pro Tem of the Senate...............................................Nia H. Gil Secretary of the Senate............................................................Kent Hicks
Speaker of the House........................................................Terie N. Norelli Clerk of the House.................................................. Karen O. Wadsworth
Speaker of the Assembly..................................................Sheila Y. Oliver Speaker Pro Tem of the Assembly.........................................Jerry Green Clerk of the General Assembly......................................Dana M. Burley
2010 Regular Session.................................................... Jan. 6–July 1, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................24 Number of Representative Districts....................................................103
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor...................................................................................John Lynch Secretary of State...................................................... William M. Gardner Attorney General...................................................... Michael A. Delaney Treasurer................................................................. Catherine Provencher Auditor...........................................................................Jeffrey A. Pattison Acting Comptroller...............................................................Steven Smith Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2005–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................1 Number of Members in the Cabinet............. No formal cabinet system
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.................................. John T. Broderick, Jr. Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court........................................................................1st Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.state.nh.us Governor’s Website.................................... http://www.nh.gov/governor/ Legislative Website................................ http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us Judicial Website.......................................... http://www.courts.state.nh.us/
586 The Book of the States 2010
2010 Regular Session............................................... Jan. 12–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................40 Number of Representative Districts......................................................40
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.............................................................................. Chris Christie Lieutenant Governor........................................................Kim Guadagno Attorney General..................................................................... Paula Dow Treasurer.......................................................Andrew P. Sidamon-Eristoff Auditor...................................................................................Stephen Eells Controller.......................................................................... Matthew Boxer Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2010–1/2014 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................2 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................24
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice..............................................Stuart Rabner Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................35 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court.......................................................................3rd Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website..............................................http://www.state.nj.us Governor’s Website................................http://www.state.nj.us/governor Legislative Website........................................ http://www.njleg.state.nj.us Judicial Website.......................................http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us`
STATE PAGES
New Mexico
New York
Nickname.........................................................The Land of Enchantment Motto..............................................Crescit Eundo (It Grows As It Goes) Flower.......................................................... Yucca (Our Lord’s Candles) Bird...................................................................................... Chaparral Bird Tree...................................................................................................... Pinon Songs.................................................................. Asi es Nuevo Mexico and O, Fair New Mexico Entered the Union............................................................. January 6, 1912 Capital............................................................................................ Santa Fe
Nickname........................................................................The Empire State Motto..................................................................Excelsior (Ever Upward) Flower...................................................................................................Rose Bird................................................................................................. Bluebird Tree.......................................................................................... Sugar Maple Song.................................................................................. I Love New York Entered the Union..................................................................July 26, 1788 Capital...............................................................................................Albany
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................47,126 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 30th Population................................................................................19,467,789 Rank in Nation....................................................................................3rd Density per square mile......................................................................412.8 Capital City.......................................................................................Albany Population.......................................................................................93,539 Rank in State....................................................................................... 6th Largest City.........................................................................New York City Population..................................................................................8,363,710 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................29 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................31 Number of Geographic Counties.........................................................62* Number of County Governments...........................................................57 Number of Consolidated Governments.................................................1* Number of Municipal Governments....................................................618 Number of School Districts...................................................................680 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,119
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................121,919 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 5th Population..................................................................................1,986,763 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 36th Density per square mile........................................................................16.4 Capital City.................................................................................... Santa Fe Population.......................................................................................71,831 Rank in State.......................................................................................3rd Largest City........................................................................... Albuquerque Population.....................................................................................521,999 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................3 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................5 Number of County Governments...........................................................33 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................101 Number of School Districts.....................................................................96 Number of Special Districts..................................................................633
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.........................................Lt. Gov. Diane Denish President Pro Tem of the Senate............................. Timothy Z. Jennings Chief Clerk of the Senate................................................Lenore Naranjo Speaker of the House................................................................ Ben Lujan Chief Clerk of the House............................................... Stephen R. Arias 2010 Regular Session................................................ Jan. 19–Feb. 18, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................42 Number of Representative Districts......................................................70
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor........................................................................... Bill Richardson Lieutenant Governor.......................................................... Diane Denish Secretary of State................................................................. Mary Herrera Attorney General...................................................................... Gary King Treasurer.................................................................................. James Lewis Auditor.............................................................................. Hector Balderas Controller.........................................................................Anthony Armijo Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................25
JUDICIAL BRANCH Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice...................................... Edward L. Chavez Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 10th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website........................................... http://www.state.nm.us Governor’s Website..............................http://www.governor.state.nm.us Legislative Website................................................ http://legis.state.nm.us Judicial Website.................................................http://www.nmcourts.com
STATISTICS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate................................................... Richard Ravitch President Pro Tem........................................................ Malcolm A. Smith Majority Leader of the Senate........................................... Pedro Espada Secretary of the Senate................................................. Angelo J. Aponte Speaker of the Assembly................................................... Sheldon Silver Clerk of the Assembly...............................................Laurene R. Kretzler 2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 6–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................62 Number of Representative Districts....................................................150
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.......................................................................David A. Paterson Lieutenant Governor...................................................... Richard Ravitch Secretary of State..............................................Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez Attorney General............................................................ Andrew Cuomo Treasurer................................................................................. Aida Brewer Comptroller................................................................Thomas P. DiNapoli Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 3/2008–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................4 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................75
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court..................................................................Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Chief Justice.................................. Jonathan Lippman Number of Court of Appeals Judges........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................57 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................4 U.S. Circuit Court...................................................................... 2nd Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................. http://www.state.ny.us Governor’s Website............................... http://www.state.ny.us/governor Senate Website............................................ http://www.senate.state.ny.us Assembly Website............................................ http://assembly.state.ny.us Judicial Website............................................http://www.courts.state.ny.us *New York City is coextensive with the five boroughs (counties).
The Council of State Governments 587
STATE PAGES
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nickname................................. The Tar Heel State and Old North State Motto...............................................................................Esse Quam Videri (To Be Rather Than to Seem) Flower.......................................................................................... Dogwood Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree......................................................................................Long Leaf Pine Song.............................................................................The Old North State Entered the United States......................................... November 21, 1789 Capital.............................................................................................. Raleigh
Nickname.................................................................... Peace Garden State Motto..............................................Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable Flower.............................................................................Wild Prairie Rose Bird........................................................................... Western Meadowlark Tree.......................................................................................American Elm Song............................................................................North Dakota Hymn Entered the Union........................................................ November 2, 1889 Capital........................................................................................... Bismarck
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................48,619 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 29th Population..................................................................................9,247,134 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 10th Density per square mile......................................................................189.3 Capital City...................................................................................... Raleigh Population.....................................................................................392,552 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City..................................................................................Charlotte Population.....................................................................................687,456 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................13 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................15 Number of County Governments.........................................................100 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................548 Number of School Districts.......................................................................0 Number of Special Districts..................................................................315
Land Area (square miles).................................................................69,001 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 17th Population.....................................................................................641,421 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 48th Density per square mile..........................................................................9.3 Capital City................................................................................... Bismarck Population.......................................................................................60,389 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City.........................................................................................Fargo Population.......................................................................................93,531 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of County Governments...........................................................53 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................357 Number of School Districts...................................................................198 Number of Special Districts..................................................................771
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body......................................................Legislative Assembly
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate........................................ Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton President Pro Tem of the Senate….….............................. Marc Basnight Principal Clerk of the Senate..................................................Janet Pruitt Speaker of the House............................................................ Joe Hackney Principal Clerk of the House.............................................. Denise Weeks 2010 Regular Session.................................................. May 12, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................50 Number of Representative Districts....................................................120
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor............................................................................Beverly Perdue Lieutenant Governor..........................................................Walter Dalton Secretary of State..............................................................Elaine Marshall Attorney General.........................................................Roy A. Cooper III Treasurer...................................................................................Jane Cowell Auditor.......................................................................................Beth Wood Controller............................................................................. David McCoy Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2009–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................10
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................................Sarah Parker Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................15 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 4th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.ncgov.com Governor’s Website............................... http://www.governor.state.nc.us Legislative Website................................................... http://www.ncleg.net Judicial Website....................................................http://www.nccourts.org
588 The Book of the States 2010
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
President of the Senate......................................Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple President Pro Tem of the Senate............................................. Jerry Klein Secretary of the Senate..................................................... Fran Gronberg Speaker of the House.........................................................David Monson Clerk of the House.................................................................. Buell Reich 2010 Regular Session...................................... No regular session in 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................47 Number of Representative Districts......................................................47
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................John Hoeven Lieutenant Governor....................................................... Jack Dalrymple Secretary of State....................................................................Alvin Jaeger Attorney General......................................................... Wayne Stenehjem Treasurer............................................................................... Kelly Schmidt Auditor.........................................................................Robert R. Peterson Governor’s Present Term................................................ 12/2000–12/2012 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................18
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice...................................Jerry W. VandeWalle Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................. http://discovernd.com Governor’s Website...............................http://www.governor.state.nd.us Legislative Website..............................................http://www.legis.nd.gov/ Judicial Website............................................ http://www.court.state.nd.us
STATE PAGES
Ohio
Oklahoma
Nickname......................................................................The Buckeye State Motto...................................................With God, All Things Are Possible Flower............................................................................. Scarlet Carnation Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree................................................................................................. Buckeye Song......................................................................................Beautiful Ohio Entered the Union............................................................... March 1, 1803 Capital..........................................................................................Columbus
Nickname........................................................................ The Sooner State Motto....................... Labor Omnia Vincit (Labor Conquers All Things) Flower........................................................................................... Mistletoe Bird...................................................................... Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tree...................................................................................................Redbud Song............................................................................................. Oklahoma Entered the Union...................................................... November 16, 1907 Capital.................................................................................Oklahoma City
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................40,858 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 35th Population................................................................................11,528,072 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 7th Density per square mile......................................................................280.5 Capital City..................................................................................Columbus Population.....................................................................................754,885 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City.................................................................................Columbus Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................18 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................20 Number of County Governments...........................................................88 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................938 Number of School Districts...................................................................668 Number of Special Districts..................................................................700
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................68,603 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 19th Population..................................................................................3,644,025 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 28th Density per square mile........................................................................53.0 Capital City.........................................................................Oklahoma City Population.....................................................................................551,789 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City........................................................................Oklahoma City Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................5 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................7 Number of County Governments...........................................................77 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................594 Number of School Districts...................................................................567 Number of Special Districts..................................................................642
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
President of the Senate............................................................. Bill Harris President Pro Tem of the Senate..........................................Tom Niehaus Clerk of the Senate........................................................... Vincent Keeran
President of the Senate..............................................Lt. Gov. Jari Askins President Pro Tem of the Senate.........................................Glenn Coffee Secretary of the Senate............................................................ Paul Ziriax
Speaker of the House...................................................... Armond Budish Speaker Pro Tem of the House............................................Matt Szollosi Legislative Clerk of the House.......................................... Tom Sherman
Speaker of the House............................................................. Chris Benge Speaker Pro Tem of the House................................................Kris Steele Chief Clerk/Administrator of the House.............................. Joel Kintsel
2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 4–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................33 Number of Representative Districts......................................................99
2010 Regular Session.................................................Feb. 1–May 28, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................50 Number of Representative Districts....................................................101
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor............................................................................. Ted Strickland Lieutenant Governor................................................................ Lee Fisher Secretary of State............................................................Jennifer Brunner Attorney General........................................................... Richard Cordray Treasurer.............................................................................Kevin L. Boyce Auditor..................................................................................... Mary Taylor Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................24
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice......................................... Thomas J. Moyer Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................68 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 6th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.state.oh.us Governor’s Website...........................................http://governor.ohio.gov/ Legislative Website..............................http://www.legislature.state.oh.us Judicial Website.......................................... http://www.sconet.state.oh.us
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..................................................................................Brad Henry Lieutenant Governor................................................................Jari Askins Secretary of State.................................................................. Susan Savage Attorney General.............................................. W. A. Drew Edmondson Treasurer.............................................................................Scott Meacham Auditor..................................................................................Steve Burrage Comptroller.................................................................... Brenda Bolander Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................8 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................. James E. Edmondson Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................9 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 10th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.state.ok.us Governor’s Website..............................http://www.governor.state.ok.us/ Legislative Website...........................................http://www.lsb.state.ok.us Judicial Website...........................................................http://www.oscn.net
The Council of State Governments 589
STATE PAGES
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Nickname.........................................................................The Beaver State Motto..........................................................She Flies with Her Own Wings Flower.................................................................................. Oregon Grape Bird........................................................................... Western Meadowlark Tree............................................................................................ Douglas Fir Song.............................................................................Oregon, My Oregon Entered the Union.........................................................February 14, 1859 Capital.................................................................................................Salem
Nickname.....................................................................The Keystone State Motto.....................................................Virtue, Liberty and Independence Bird...................................................................................... Ruffed Grouse Flower..............................................................................Mountain Laurel Tree.................................................................................................Hemlock Song.........................................................................................Pennsylvania Entered the Union.......................................................December 12, 1787 Capital........................................................................................ Harrisburg
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................95,985 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 10th Population..................................................................................3,782,991 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 27th Density per square mile........................................................................39.5 Capital City.........................................................................................Salem Population.....................................................................................153,435 Rank in State.......................................................................................3rd Largest City....................................................................................Portland Population.....................................................................................557,706 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................5 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................7 Number of County Governments...........................................................36 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................242 Number of School Districts...................................................................234 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,034
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body......................................................Legislative Assembly President of the Senate.....................................................Peter Courtney President Pro Tem of the Senate......................................... Rick Metsger Secretary of the Senate......................................................... Judy M. Hall Speaker of the House............................................................... Dave Hunt Chief Clerk of the House............................................... Ramona Kenady 2010 Regular Session...................................... No regular session in 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................30 Number of Representative Districts......................................................60
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor........................................................................... Ted Kulongoski Secretary of State.................................................................... Kate Brown Attorney General...................................................................John Kroger Treasurer............................................................................... Ben Westlund Auditor................................................................................Gary Blackmer Controller..............................................................................John Radford Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet............. No formal cabinet system
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice......................................... Paul J. De Muniz Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website........................................... http://www.oregon.gov Governor’s Website......................................http://governor.oregon.gov/ Legislative Website........................................... http://www.leg.state.or.us Judicial Website............................................... https://www.ojd.state.or.us
590 The Book of the States 2010
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................44,739 Rank in Nation................................................................................. 32nd Population................................................................................12,566,368 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 6th Density per square mile......................................................................277.8 Capital City................................................................................ Harrisburg Population.......................................................................................47,148 Rank in State..................................................................................... 13th Largest City.............................................................................Philadelphia Population..................................................................................1,447,395 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................19 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................21 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................67 Number of County Governments...........................................................66 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................1 Number of Municipal Governments.................................................1,016 Number of School Districts...................................................................515 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,728
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate......................................Lt. Gov. Joseph Scarnati President Pro Tem of the Senate................................. Joseph B. Scarnati Secretary-Parliamentarian of the Senate....................Mark R. Corrigan Speaker of the House...................................................... Keith R. McCall Chief Clerk of the House.................................. Anthony Frank Barbush 2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 5–Dec. 31, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................50 Number of Representative Districts....................................................203
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor...................................................................................Ed Rendell Lieutenant Governor........................................................Joseph Scarnati Secretary of State..............................................................Pedro A. Cortés Attorney General.................................................................. Tom Corbett Treasurer............................................................................Robert McCord Comptroller...................................................................Anna Marie Kiehl Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................28
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.......................................Ronald D. Castille Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................23 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court.......................................................................3rd Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................http://www.state.pa.us Governor’s Website..............................http://www.governor.state.pa.us/ Legislative Website........................................ http://www.legis.state.pa.us Judicial Website........................................... http://www.courts.state.pa.us
STATE PAGES
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Nicknames.................................................Little Rhody and Ocean State Motto.................................................................................................... Hope Flower.................................................................................................Violet Bird.................................................................................Rhode Island Red Tree............................................................................................. Red Maple Song.........................................................................................Rhode Island Entered the Union................................................................. May 29, 1790 Capital........................................................................................ Providence
Nickname..................................................................... The Palmetto State Motto.................................................................. Animis Opibusque Parati (Prepared in Mind and Resources) and Dum Spiro Spero (While I breathe, I hope) Flower............................................................................. Yellow Jessamine Bird.......................................................................................Carolina Wren Tree.................................................................................................Palmetto Songs..................................... Carolina and South Carolina on My Mind Entered the Union................................................................. May 23, 1788 Capital.......................................................................................... Columbia
STATISTICS
Land Area (square mile)....................................................................1,034 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 50th Population..................................................................................1,053,502 Rank in Nation..................................................................................43rd Density per square mile...................................................................1,005.6 Capital City................................................................................ Providence Population.....................................................................................171,557 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City............................................................................... Providence Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................2 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................4 Number of Geographic Counties.............................................................5 Number of County Governments.............................................................0 Number of Municipal Governments........................................................8 Number of School Districts.......................................................................4 Number of Special Districts....................................................................91
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate......................................... M. Teresa Paiva-Weed President Pro Tem of the Senate...........................John F. McBurney III. Secretary of the Senate........................................................ Joseph Brady Speaker of the House...................................................William J. Murphy Speaker Pro Tem of the House........................................ Charlene Lima Clerk of the House.............................................................Frank McCabe 2010 Regular Session..................................................... Jan. 5, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................38 Number of Representative Districts......................................................75
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..................................................................... Donald L. Carcieri Lieutenant Governor..............................................Elizabeth H. Roberts Secretary of State................................................................... Ralph Mollis Attorney General................................................................ Patrick Lynch Treasurer............................................................................ Frank T. Caprio Auditor..........................................................................Ernest A. Almonte Controller.....................................................................Lawrence Franklin Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................20
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice..............................................Paul A. Suttell Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court........................................................................1st Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.............................................. http://www.state.ri.us Governor’s Website.................................http://www.governor.state.ri.us Legislative Website.......................................... http://www.rilin.state.ri.us Judicial Website.............................................http://www.courts.state.ri.us
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................30,070 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 40th Population..................................................................................4,503,280 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 24th Density per square mile......................................................................148.9 Capital City.................................................................................. Columbia Population.....................................................................................127,029 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City................................................................................. Columbia Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................6 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................8 Number of County Governments...........................................................46 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................268 Number of School Districts.....................................................................85 Number of Special Districts..................................................................299
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate..................................... Lt. Gov. R. Andre Bauer President Pro Tem of the Senate..............................Glenn F. McConnell Clerk of the Senate.........................................................Jeffrey S. Gossett Speaker of the House.............................................. Robert W. Harrell Jr. Speaker Pro Tem of the House...........................................Harry F. Cato Clerk of the House............................................................ Charles F. Reid 2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 12–June 3, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................46 Number of Representative Districts....................................................124
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.............................................................................. Mark Sanford Lieutenant Governor.......................................................R. Andre Bauer Secretary of State............................................................ Mark Hammond Attorney General......................................................Henry D. McMaster Treasurer................................................................Converse A. Chellis III Auditor.....................................................................Richard H. Gilbert Jr. Comptroller...................................................................Richard Eckstrom Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................9 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.........................................Jean Hoefer Toal Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................10 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 4th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website................................................... http://www.sc.gov/ Governor’s Website..................................... http://www.scgovernor.com Legislative Website.......................................http://www.scstatehouse.net Judicial Website.......................................... http://www.judicial.state.sc.us
The Council of State Governments 591
STATE PAGES
South Dakota
Tennessee
Nickname............................................................The Mt. Rushmore State Motto.............................................................. Under God the People Rule Flower.............................................................................American Pasque Bird..........................................................................Ring-necked Pheasant Tree................................................................................ Black Hills Spruce Song.............................................................................. Hail, South Dakota Entered the Union........................................................ November 2, 1889 Capital.................................................................................................Pierre
Nickname....................................................................The Volunteer State Motto...............................................................Agriculture and Commerce Flower......................................................................................................Iris Bird.......................................................................................... Mockingbird Tree........................................................................................... Tulip Poplar Songs...................................................... When It’s Iris Time in Tennessee; The Tennessee Waltz; My Homeland, Tennessee My Tennessee; and Rocky Top Entered the Union...................................................................June 1, 1796 Capital........................................................................................... Nashville
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................75,811 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 16th Population.....................................................................................804,532 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 46th Density per square mile........................................................................10.6 Capital City.........................................................................................Pierre Population.......................................................................................13,899 Rank in State....................................................................................... 7th Largest City................................................................................Sioux Falls Population.....................................................................................154,997 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of County Governments...........................................................66 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................309 Number of School Districts...................................................................166 Number of Special Districts..................................................................526
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................41,235 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 34th Population..................................................................................6,240,456 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 17th Density per square mile......................................................................150.8 Capital City................................................................................... Nashville Population.....................................................................................596,462 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City.................................................................................. Memphis Population.....................................................................................669,651 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................9 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................11 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................95 Number of County Governments...........................................................92 Number of Consolidated Governments...................................................3 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................347 Number of School Districts.....................................................................14 Number of Special Districts..................................................................475
President of the Senate.................................. Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard President Pro Tem of the Senate............................................... Bob Gray Secretary of the Senate.................................................... Trudy Evenstad
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly
Speaker of the House..................................................................Tim Rave Speaker Pro Tem of the House...............................................Val Rausch Chief Clerk of the House.................................................... Karen Gerdes
Speaker of the Senate............................................ Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey Speaker Pro Tem of the Senate....................................... Jamie Woodson Chief Clerk of the Senate........................................... Russell Humphrey
2010 Regular Session............................................ Jan. 12–March 30, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................35 Number of Representative Districts......................................................35
Speaker of the House.......................................................... Kent Williams Speaker Pro Tem of the House..................................... Lois M. DeBerry Chief Clerk of the House............................................ Burney T. Durham
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 12, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................33 Number of Representative Districts......................................................99
Governor...............................................................................Mike Rounds Lieutenant Governor....................................................Dennis Daugaard Secretary of State................................................................... Chris Nelson Attorney General............................................................... Martin Jackley Treasurer.........................................................................Vernon L. Larson Auditor....................................................................................Rich Sattgast Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................7 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................19
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice....................................David E. Gilbertson Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 8th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................. http://www.state.sd.us Governor’s Website............................... http://www.state.sd.us/governor Legislative Website.................................................. http://legis.state.sd.us Judicial Website................................................ http://www.sdjudicial.com
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.............................................................................. Phil Bredesen Lieutenant Governor............................................................ Ron Ramsey Secretary of State..................................................................... Tre Hargett Attorney General.............................................................. Robert Cooper Treasurer......................................................................David H. Lillard Jr. Auditor................................................................................ Justin P. Wilson Comptroller...............................................................................Jan I. Sylvis Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................1 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................28
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice......................................... Janice M. Holder Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................24 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................3 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 6th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................. http://www.state.tn.us Governor’s Website................................http://www.state.tn.us/governor Legislative Website...............................http://www.legislature.state.tn.us Judicial Website..................................................http://www.tsc.state.tn.us
592 The Book of the States 2010
STATE PAGES
Texas
Utah
Nickname....................................................................The Lone Star State Motto........................................................................................... Friendship Flower.................................. Bluebonnet (Buffalo Clover, Wolf Flower) Bird.......................................................................................... Mockingbird Tree...................................................................................................... Pecan Song...................................................................................Texas, Our Texas Entered the Union.......................................................December 29, 1845 Capital................................................................................................ Austin
Nickname.......................................................................The Beehive State Motto............................................................................................... Industry Flower........................................................................................... Sego Lily Bird................................................................................. California Seagull Tree........................................................................................... Blue Spruce Song............................................................................. Utah, We Love Thee Entered the Union............................................................. January 4, 1896 Capital...................................................................................Salt Lake City
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...............................................................261,225 Rank in Nation................................................................................... 2nd Population................................................................................24,304,290 Rank in Nation................................................................................... 2nd Density per square mile........................................................................92.9 Capital City........................................................................................ Austin Population.....................................................................................757,688 Rank in State....................................................................................... 4th Largest City................................................................................... Houston Population..................................................................................2,242,193 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................32 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................34 Number of County Governments.........................................................254 Number of Municipal Governments.................................................1,209 Number of School Districts................................................................1,081 Number of Special Districts...............................................................2,291
Land Area (square miles).................................................................82,191 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 12th Population..................................................................................2,727,343 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 34th Density per square mile........................................................................33.3 Capital City...........................................................................Salt Lake City Population.....................................................................................181,698 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City..........................................................................Salt Lake City Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................3 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................5 Number of County Governments...........................................................29 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................242 Number of School Districts.....................................................................40 Number of Special Districts..................................................................288
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.................................... Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst President Pro Tem of the Senate..................................... Robert Duncan Secretary of the Senate............................................................Patsy Spaw Speaker of the House.................................................................Joe Straus Speaker Pro Tem of the House...................................... Sylvester Turner Chief Clerk of the House....................................................Robert Haney 2010 Regular Session...................................... No regular session in 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................31 Number of Representative Districts....................................................150
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor....................................................................................Rick Perry Lieutenant Governor......................................................David Dewhurst Secretary of State....................................................... Esperanza Andrade Attorney General.................................................................. Greg Abbott Comptroller of Public Accounts......................................... Susan Combs Auditor......................................................................................... John Keel Governor’s Present Term.................................................. 12/2000–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................9 Number of Members in the Cabinet............. No formal cabinet system
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice....................................Wallace B. Jefferson Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................9 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges................................80 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................4 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 5th Circuit
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
President of the Senate..........................................Michael G. Waddoups Secretary of the Senate................................................Annette B. Moore Speaker of the House............................................................. David Clark Chief Clerk of the House.................................................... Sandy Tenney 2010 Regular Session............................................ Jan. 25–March 11, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................29 Number of Representative Districts......................................................75
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..........................................................................Gary R. Herbert Lieutenant Governor............................................................Gregory Bell Attorney General.......................................................... Mark L. Shurtleff Treasurer.................................................................................Richard Ellis Auditor..........................................................................Auston G. Johnson Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 8/2009–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................21
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice................................. Christine M. Durham Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Number of Intermediate Appellate Court Judges..................................7 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 10th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website................................................http://www.utah.gov Governor’s Website.................................http://www.utah.gov/governor/ Legislative Website............................................. http://www.le.state.ut.us Judicial Website...................................................http://www.utcourts.gov/
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website..............................................http://www.state.tx.us Governor’s Website................................ http://www.governor.state.tx.us Legislative Website.....................................http://www.capitol.state.tx.us Judicial Website............................................ http://www.courts.state.tx.us
The Council of State Governments 593
STATE PAGES
Vermont
Virginia
Nickname........................................................The Green Mountain State Motto............................................................................ Freedom and Unity Flower....................................................................................... Red Clover Bird.......................................................................................Hermit Thrush Tree.......................................................................................... Sugar Maple Song...................................................................................... Hail, Vermont! Entered the Union............................................................... March 4, 1791 Capital........................................................................................ Montpelier
Nickname..................................................................... The Old Dominion Motto.............................. Sic Semper Tyrannis (Thus Always to Tyrants) Flower.......................................................................................... Dogwood Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree............................................................................................... Dogwood Song, emeritus..........................................Carry Me Back to Old Virginia Entered the Union.................................................................June 25, 1788 Capital......................................................................................... Richmond
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................9,217 Rank in Nation..................................................................................43rd Population.....................................................................................621,049 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 49th Density per square mile........................................................................67.2 Capital City................................................................................ Montpelier Population.........................................................................................7,760 Rank in State..................................................................................... 13th Largest City................................................................................Burlington Population.......................................................................................38,897 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of County Governments...........................................................14 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................45 Number of School Districts...................................................................293 Number of Special Districts..................................................................144
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate........................................... Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie President Pro Tem of the Senate................................... Peter E. Shumlin Secretary of the Senate.................................................. David A. Gibson Speaker of the House...............................................................Shap Smith Clerk of the House......................................................... Donald G. Milne 2010 Regular Session..................................................... Jan. 5, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................13 Number of Representative Districts....................................................106
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor........................................................................James H. Douglas Lieutenant Governor.............................................................Brian Dubie Secretary of State...................................................... Deborah Markowitz Attorney General......................................................... William H. Sorrell Treasurer............................................................................... Jeb Spaulding Auditor......................................................................... Thomas M. Salmon Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet........................................................7
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice............................................. Paul L. Reiber Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Total Number of Appellant Court Judges...............................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court...................................................................... 2nd Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website.................................................. http://vermont.gov Governor’s Website..........................http://www.vermont.gov/governor/ Legislative Website............................................http://www.leg.state.vt.us Judicial Website.....................................http://www.vermontjudiciary.org
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................39,493 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 36th Population..................................................................................7,795,424 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 12th Density per square miles....................................................................196.2 Capital City................................................................................. Richmond Population.....................................................................................202,002 Rank in State....................................................................................... 4th Largest City.........................................................................Virginia Beach Population.....................................................................................433,746 Number of Representatives in Congress...............................................11 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................13 Number of Geographic Counties...........................................................95 Number of County Governments.........................................................95* Number of Consolidated Governments.................................................5* Number of Municipal Governments....................................................229 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 Number of Special Districts..................................................................186
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body.......................................................... General Assembly President of the Senate.............................................Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling President Pro Tem of the Senate...................................Charles J. Colgan Clerk of the Senate...................................................Susan Clarke Schaar Speaker of the House.................................................... William J. Howell Clerk of the House....................................................... Bruce F. Jamerson 2010 Regular Session.............................................Jan.13–March 13, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................40 Number of Representative Districts....................................................100
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.......................................................................... Bob McDonnell Lieutenant Governor................................................... William T. Bolling Secretary of the Commonwealth........................................ Janet Polarek Attorney General...............................................................Ken Cuccinelli Treasurer....................................................................... Manju Ganeriwala Auditor......................................................................... Walter J. Kucharski Comptroller.......................................................................David Von Moll Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2010–1/2014 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................3 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................14
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.................................... Leroy R. Hassell Sr. Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Total Number of Appellant Court Judges.............................................11 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 4th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website...........................................http://www.virginia.gov Governor’s Website............................http://www.governor.virginia.gov/ Legislative Website..................................................http://legis.state.va.us Judicial Website............................................http://www.courts.state.va.us *In addition to 95 counties Virginia has 39 Independent Cities, considered county equivalents. Five cities in the Hampton Roads area were formed of entire counties and function at the county level of government. They are listed with the Independent Cities but counted as consolidated governments in Virginia.
594 The Book of the States 2010
STATE PAGES
Washington
West Virginia
Nickname...................................................................The Evergreen State Motto......................... Alki (Chinook Indian word meaning By and By) Flower......................................................................Coast Rhododendron Bird..................................................................................Willow Goldfinch Tree................................................................................. Western Hemlock Song........................................................................ Washington, My Home Entered the Union...................................................... November 11, 1889 Capital............................................................................................ Olympia
Nickname....................................................................The Mountain State Motto..................................................................... Montani Semper Liberi (Mountaineers Are Always Free) Flower.................................................................................Rhododendron Bird................................................................................................. Cardinal Tree.......................................................................................... Sugar Maple Songs.............................................West Virginia, My Home Sweet Home; The West Virginia Hills; and This is My West Virginia Entered the Union.................................................................June 20, 1863 Capital........................................................................................ Charleston
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................66,449 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 20th Population..................................................................................6,566,073 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 13th Density per square mile........................................................................98.4 Capital City.................................................................................... Olympia Population.......................................................................................45,322 Rank in State..................................................................................... 18th Largest City.......................................................................................Seattle Population.....................................................................................598,541 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................9 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................11 Number of County Governments...........................................................39 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................281 Number of School Districts...................................................................296 Number of Special Districts...............................................................1,229
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.............................................Lt. Gov. Brad Owen President Pro Tem of the Senate........................................Rosa Franklin Secretary of the Senate..................................................... Tom Hoemann Speaker of the House........................................................... Frank Chopp Speaker Pro Tem of the House................................................Jeff Morris Chief Clerk of the House...................................................Barbara Baker 2010 Regular Session............................................ Jan. 11–March 11, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................49 Number of Representative Districts......................................................49
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................. Christine O. Gregoire Lieutenant Governor.............................................................. Brad Owen Secretary of State........................................................................Sam Reed Attorney General...............................................................Rob McKenna Treasurer.............................................................................James McIntire Auditor..................................................................................Brian Sonntag Director of Office of Financial Management................................... Sadie Rodriguez-Hawkins Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2005–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................9 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................28
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................24,038 Rank in Nation...................................................................................41st Population..................................................................................1,814,873 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 37th Density per square mile........................................................................75.4 Capital City................................................................................ Charleston Population.......................................................................................50,302 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City............................................................................... Charleston Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................3 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................5 Number of County Governments...........................................................55 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................232 Number of School Districts.....................................................................55 Number of Special Districts..................................................................321
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.................................................Earl Ray Tomblin President Pro Tem of the Senate................................. Joseph M. Minard Clerk of the Senate.......................................................Darrell E. Holmes Speaker of the House of Delegates.......................... Richard Thompson Speaker Pro Tem of the House of Delegates...................... Ron Fragale Clerk of the House of Delegates................................. Gregory M. Gray 2010 Regular Session............................................ Jan. 13–March 13, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................17 Number of Representative Districts......................................................58
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor...........................................................................Joe Manchin III Lieutenant Governor....................................................Earl Ray Tomblin Secretary of State..............................................................Natalie Tennant Attorney General.................................................. Darrell V. McGraw Jr. Treasurer............................................................................. John D. Perdue Auditor...........................................................................Glen B. Gainer III Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2005–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet........................................................9
JUDICIAL BRANCH
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court................................................. Supreme Court of Appeals Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Justice....................Robin Jean Davis Number of Supreme Court of Appeals Judges.......................................5 Total Number of Appellant Court Judges...............................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 4th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website................................................. http://www.wv.gov / Governor’s Website............................................... http://www.wvgov.org/ Legislative Website.......................................http://www.legis.state.wv.us/ Judicial Website.......................................... http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice.....................................Barbara A. Madsen Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................9 Total Number of Appellant Court Judges.............................................22 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 9th Circuit Official State Website.................................................http://access.wa.gov Governor’s Website..................................... http://www.governor.wa.gov Legislative Website.................................................http://www.leg.wa.gov Judicial Website................................................. http://www.courts.wa.gov
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
The Council of State Governments 595
STATE PAGES
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Nickname*...................................................................... The Badger State Motto............................................................................................... Forward Flower......................................................................................Wood Violet Bird......................................................................................................Robin Tree.......................................................................................... Sugar Maple Song......................................................................................On, Wisconsin! Entered the Union................................................................. May 29, 1848 Capitol............................................................................................ Madison
Nicknames............................The Equality State and The Cowboy State Motto....................................................................................... Equal Rights Flower............................................................................ Indian Paintbrush Bird........................................................................... Western Meadowlark Tree...........................................................................................Cottonwood Song............................................................................................... Wyoming Entered the Union..................................................................July 10, 1890 Capital.......................................................................................... Cheyenne
STATISTICS
*unofficial
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles).................................................................54,154 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 25th Population..................................................................................5,627,610 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 20th Density per square mile......................................................................103.6 Capital City.................................................................................... Madison Population.....................................................................................231,916 Rank in State...................................................................................... 2nd Largest City............................................................................... Milwaukee Population.....................................................................................604,477 Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................8 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes.............................................................10 Number of County Governments...........................................................72 Number of Municipal Governments....................................................592 Number of School Districts...................................................................441 Number of Special Districts..................................................................756
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate....................................................... Fred A.Risser President Pro Tem of the Senate.......................................... Pat Kreitlow Chief Clerk of the Senate.......................................... Robert J. Marchant Speaker of the Assembly...................................................Mike Sheridan Speaker Pro Tem of the Assembly...................................Tony Staskunas Chief Clerk of the Assembly...............................................Patrick Fuller 2010 Regular Session..................................................... Jan. 9, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................33 Number of Representative Districts......................................................99
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor.................................................................................James Doyle Lieutenant Governor...................................................... Barbara Lawton Secretary of State........................................................ Douglas LaFollette Attorney General.............................................................. J.B. Van Hollen Treasurer......................................................................... Dawn Marie Sass Auditor.............................................................................Janice L. Mueller Controller.............................................................................. Steve Censky Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................6 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice............................... Shirley S. Abrahamson Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7 Total Number of Appellant Court Judges.............................................16 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................2 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................... 7th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website....................................... http://www.wisconsin.gov Governor’s Website....................................http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us Legislative Website........................................ http://www.legis.state.wi.us Judicial Website............................................http://www.courts.state.wi.us
596 The Book of the States 2010
Land Area (square miles).................................................................97,088 Rank in Nation.................................................................................... 9th Population.....................................................................................532,981 Rank in Nation.................................................................................. 50th Density per square mile..........................................................................5.5 Capital City.................................................................................. Cheyenne Population.......................................................................................56,915 Rank in State........................................................................................1st Largest City................................................................................. Cheyenne Number of Representatives in Congress.................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of County Governments...........................................................23 Number of Municipal Governments......................................................99 Number of School Districts.....................................................................55 Number of Special Districts..................................................................549
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.........................................................John J. Hines Vice President of the Senate.................................................... Tony Ross Chief Clerk of the Senate................................................... Diane Harvey Speaker of the House....................................................Colin M. Simpson Speaker Pro Tem of the House.............................................. Frank Philp Chief Clerk of the House................................................ Patricia Benskin 2010 Regular Session............................................... Feb. 8–March 5, 2010 Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................30 Number of Representative Districts......................................................60
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor....................................................................... Dave Freudenthal Secretary of State................................................................. Max Maxfield Attorney General......................................................... Bruce A. Salzburg Treasurer........................................................................... Joseph B. Meyer Auditor.......................................................................................Rita Meyer Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch...........................5 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................20
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice........................................... Barton R. Voigt Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................5 Total Number of Appellant Court Judges...............................................0 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1 U.S. Circuit Court..................................................................... 10th Circuit
STATE INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official State Website............................................ http://www.state.wy.us Governor’sWebsite...............................................http://governor.wy.gov/ Legislative Website.......................................... http://legisweb.state.wy.us Judicial Website........................................... http://www.courts.state.wy.us
STATE PAGES
District of Columbia
American Samoa
Motto...................................................... Justitia Omnibus (Justice to All) Flower...................................................................American Beauty Rose Bird......................................................................................... Wood Thrush Tree............................................................................................ Scarlet Oak Became U.S. Capital......................................................December 1, 1800
Motto.........................Samoa-Maumua le Atua (In Samoa, God Is First) Flower.............................................................................. Paogo (Ula-fala) Plant........................................................................................................Ava Song....................................................................................Amerika Samoa Became a Territory of the United States...........................................1900 Capital......................................................................................... Pago Pago
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)........................................................................61 Population.....................................................................................588,292 Density per square mile...................................................................9,639.0 Delegate to Congress*...............................................................................1 Number of 2010 Electoral Votes...............................................................3 Number of Municipal Governments........................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 Number of Special Districts......................................................................0 *Committee voting privileges only.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH Legislative Body............................. Council of the District of Columbia Chair.................................................................................. Vincent C. Gray Chair Pro Tem........................................................................... Jack Evans Secretary to the Council.........................................Cynthia Brock Smith 2010 Regular Session................................................. Jan. 5–Dec. 31, 2010
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Mayor..................................................................................... Adrian Fenty Secretary of the District of Columbia............................ Stephanie Scott Attorney General..............................................................Peter J. Nichols Chief Financial Officer......................................................Natwar Gandhi Auditor.............................................................................Deborah Nichols Mayor’s Present Term......................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................10
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.........................................................D.C. Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Chief Justice......................................Eric Washington Number of Court of Appeals Judges........................................................9 Number of U.S. Court Districts.................................................................1
INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official Website.............................................................http://www.dc.gov/ Mayor’s Website......................................http://dc.gov/mayor/index.shtm Legislative Website....................http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us Judicial Website...................http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/index.jsp
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)........................................................................77 Population.......................................................................................64,827 Density per square mile......................................................................744.0 Capital City................................................................................. Pago Pago Population.........................................................................................4,278 Rank in Territory....................................................................................3rd Largest City.......................................................................................Tafuna Population.........................................................................................8,409 Delegate to Congress*...............................................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 *Committee voting privileges only.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate.......................................Gaoteote P.T. Gaoteote President Pro Tem of the Senate..........................Tulifua Tini Lam Yuen Secretary of the Senate....................................................... Leo’o V. Ma’o Speaker of the House.................................................. Savali Talavou Ale Chief Clerk of the House...................................................... Fialupe Lutu 2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 12, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................12 Number of Representative Districts......................................................17
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................. Togiola T.A. Tulafono Lieutenant Governor................................................... Ipulasi Aito Sunia Attorney General............................................... Fepulea’i Afa Ripley Jr. Treasurer.......................................................................... Magalei Logovi’i Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 4/2003–1/2013 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court............................................................................High Court High Court Chief Justice............................................... F. Michael Kruse Number of High Court Judges..................................................................6
INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official Website...............................................http://americansamoa.gov/ Governor’s Website….. …………………… http://www.asg-gov.net/ Legislative Website............... http://www.government.as/legislative.htm Judicial Website........................................................http://www.asbar.org/
The Council of State Governments 597
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Nickname....................................................................... Hub of the Pacific Flower...................................................... Puti Tai Nobio (Bougainvillea) Bird................................................................................ Totot (Fruit Dove) Tree...................................................................................Ifit (Intsiabijuga) Song..........................................................................Stand Ye Guamanians Stone.................................................................................................... Latte Animal...............................................................................................Iguana Ceded to the United States by Spain........................December 10, 1898 Became a Territory............................................................. August 1, 1950 Request to become a Commonwealth Plebiscite......... November 1987 Capital.............................................................................................Hagatna
Flower............................................................................................Plumeria Bird............................................................................ Marianas Fruit Dove Tree............................................................................................. Flame Tree Song..........................................................................Gi TaloGi Halom Tasi Administered by the United States a trusteeship for the United Nations....................................July 18, 1947 Voters approved a proposed constitution.................................June 1975 U.S. president signed covenant agreeing to commonwealth status for the islands.............................. March 24, 1976 Became a self-governing Commonwealth...................... January 9, 1978 Capital................................................................................................Saipan
STATE PAGES
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)......................................................................210 Population.....................................................................................175,877 Density per square mile......................................................................737.2 Capital.............................................................................................Hagatna Population.........................................................................................1,122 Rank in Territory.................................................................................. 13th Largest City................................................................................. Tamuning Population.......................................................................................10,833 Delegate to Congress*...............................................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 *Committee voting privileges only.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature Speaker........................................................................... Judith T. Won Pat Vice Speaker................................................................ Benjamin J.F. Cruz Clerk of the Legislature................................................ Patricia C. Santos 2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 12, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts...............................................................15
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..................................................................Felix Perez Camacho Lieutenant Governor........................................................... Michael Cruz Attorney General..............................................................Alicia Limtiaco Treasurer.............................................................................Rose T. Fejeran Auditor....................................................................... Doris Flores Brooks Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2003–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................55
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice......................................Robert J. Torres Jr. Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................3
INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official Website...................................................................http://ns.gov.gu Governor’s Website.................................http://www.guamgovernor.net/ Legislative Website............................ http://www.guamlegislature.com/# Judicial Website..................................................http://www.justice.gov.gu
598 The Book of the States 2010
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)......................................................................179 Population.......................................................................................86,616 Density per square mile......................................................................386.7 Capital City........................................................................................Saipan Population.......................................................................................62,392 Largest City.......................................................................................Saipan Delegate to Congress*...............................................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 *Committee voting privileges only.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President of the Senate................................................ Paul A. Manglona Vice President of the Senate...................................... Jude Hofschneider Clerk of the Senate.......................................................... Doris Bermudes Speaker of the House................................................... Froilan C. Tenorio Vice Speaker of the House....................................Felicidad T. Ogumoro Clerk of the House.......................................................Evelyn C. Fleming 2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 11, 2010–TBD Number of Senatorial Districts.................................................................9 Number of Representative Districts......................................................18
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor..............................................................................Benigno Fitial Lieutenant Governor.............................................................. Eloy S. Inos Attorney General................................................Edward T. Buckingham Treasurer..................................................................... Antoinette S. Calvo Governor’s Present Term..................................................... 1/2006-1/2015 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................16
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court........................................ Commonwealth Supreme Court Commonwealth Supreme Court Chief Justice....... Miguel S. Demapan Number of Commonwealth Supreme Court Judges..............................3
INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official Website...................................www.gksoft.com/govt/en/mp.html Governor’s Website…………………………………http://www.gov.mp/. Legislative Website........................................ http://www.cnmileg.gov.mp Judicial Website.........................http://cnmilaw.org/htmlpage/hpg34.htm
STATE PAGES
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Nickname...............................................................Island of Enchantment Motto................................................................... Joannes Est Nomen Ejus (John is His Name) Flower..................................................................................................Maga Bird....................................................................................................Reinita Tree...................................................................................................... Ceiba Song..................................................................................... La Borinquena Became a Territory of the United States................................................................December 10, 1898 Became a self-governing Commonwealth...........................July 25, 1952 Capital............................................................................................ San Juan
Nickname..............................................................The American Paradise Motto................................................................ United in Pride and Hope Flower............................................................................ The Yellow Cedar Bird............................................................ Yellow Breast or Banana Quit Song........................................................................... Virgin Islands March Purchased from Denmark................................................ March 31, 1917 Capital.........................................................Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)...................................................................3,424 Population..................................................................................3,967,288 Density per square mile...................................................................1,146.8 Capital City.................................................................................... San Juan Population.....................................................................................434,919 Largest City................................................................................... San Juan Resident Commissioner in Congress*.....................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 *Committee voting privileges only.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body......................................................Legislative Assembly President of the Senate.........................................Thomas Rivera Schatz Vice President of the Senate..........................................Roberto Arango Secretary of the Senate.....................................Manuel A. Torres Nieves Speaker of the House......................................Jenniffer González-Colón Speaker Pro Tem................................................................. Iris Ruiz Class Clerk of the House..........................................Brunilda Ortiz-Rodriguez 2010 Regular Session................................................... Jan. 11, 2010–TBD
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor................................................................................ Luis Fortuño Secretary of State..................................................... Kenneth McClintock Attorney General.....................................Guillerno Somoza Colombani Treasurer.......................................................................... Juan Carlos Puig Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2009–1/2013 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................10
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court.....................................................................Supreme Court Supreme Court Chief Justice...................Frederico Hernandez-Denton Number of Supreme Court Judges...........................................................7
INTERNET ADDRESSES
STATISTICS
Land Area (square miles)*....................................................................134 Population.....................................................................................109,840 Density per square mile......................................................................810.5 Capital City.................................................Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas Population.......................................................................................18,914 Largest City................................................Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas Delegate to Congress**.............................................................................1 Number of School Districts.......................................................................1 *The U.S. Virgin Islands is comprised of three large islands (St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas) and 50 smaller islands and cays. **Committee voting privileges only.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Legislative Body....................................................................... Legislature President.........................................................................Louis Patrick Hill Vice President................................................................Michael Thurland Legislative Secretary of the Senate................................ Sammuel Sanes 2010 Regular Session................................................ Jan.12–Dec. 31, 2010
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Governor......................................................................... John deJongh, Jr. Lieutenant Governor...................................................... Gregory Francis Attorney General...............................................................Vincent Frazer Commissioner of Finance.................................................... Laurel Payne Governor’s Present Term.................................................... 1/2007–1/2011 Number of Elected Officials in the Executive Branch.........................10 Number of Members in the Cabinet......................................................21
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Highest Court...................................................................Territorial Court Territorial Court Chief Justice.......................................... Rhys S. Hodge Number of Territorial Court Judges.........................................................4 U.S. Circuit Court....................................................................................3rd
INTERNET ADDRESSES
Official Website................... http://www.statelocalgov.net/other-vi.CFM Governor’s Website.....................................www.governordejongh.com/ Legislative Website...................................................http://www.legvi.org/ Judicial Website............................................. http://www.vid.uscourts.gov
Official State Website...............http://www.gobierno.pr/gprportal/inicio Governor’s Website............................. http://www.fortaleza.gobierno.pr Senate Website....................http://www.senadopr.us/Pages/default.aspx House Website........................http://www.camaraderepresentantes.org/ Judicial Website.................................................http://www.tribunalpr.org
The Council of State Governments 599
INDEX
Index —A— accounting principles, 272–273 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 26 administrative agencies, attorneys general, 256–257 administrative offices (courts), 306 administrative officials methods of selection, 213–218 salaries, 219–224 administrative regulations, 163–166, 167–169 adolescent literacy, 488–493 disparities in, 488–489 eighth-grade reading, 488–490, 492 improving, 490–493 initiatives, 490–493 Just Read Florida, 491–492 legislation, 491–492 policies, 490–491 reading proficiency, 488 reading scores, 488–490, 493 comparison of, 489 Weldon, Tim, 488–493 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 36–44 activities, 37–41, 43 advocacy, role in, 38–40 bipartisan, 36–43 characteristics, 36–41 creation of, 36 existing, 36–37, 43 financing, 37–38 future of, 40–43 organization, 37–38 staffing, 37–38 structure, Cole 37–38 successful performance, 36, 39–41, 43 terminated, 36–37, 39 work agenda, 38–39 advisory duties, attorneys general, 252–253 affirmative action, 6, 27 Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote, 28 agricultural assistance, 56–57 aid, federal, 45–52 Alabama, 572 Alaska, 572 alternative education, 494–495 amendments to state constitutions, 3–17, 324–329, 347–369
amendments, approval of, 9 amendments, subject of, 4–10 abortion, 3–4 affirmative action, 5 budgets, 8, 9 civil unions, 5 direct democracy, 7 elections, 7 eminent domain, 5 federal action, response to, 8, 10 gambling, 8 gubernatorial recall, 7 illegal immigration, 8 judiciary, selection system, 7 land use, 8 legislature, salary increases, 7 policies, 8 redistricting, 7 right to bear arms, 6 same-sex marriage, 5–6, 9 support for higher education, 8 taxation, 8 union organizing, 9 ballot propositions 2009, 3–11, 15, 347–351 by legislature, 5, 352–353 constitutional initiative, 3–5, 15 changes by method of initiation, 3–18, 347–369 Dinan, John, 3–17 initiation amendment procedure, 13–15, 352–369 legislative branch, 13–14 substantive (proposed and adopted), 6 initiatives, 3–18, 352–361 changes to constitution, 3–5, 6, 7, 352–369 citizen petition, 15, 352–353 subject matter, 3–11 voting on the initiative, 15 Matsusaka, John G., 324–329, 347–351 number of, 5–7, 350 referendums, 15, 348, 352–353, 362–369 same-sex marriage, 5–6, 9, 351 statewide ballot propositions, 347–351 topics, 4–11, 350–351 American Association of Community Colleges, 508 American Graduation Initiative, 508 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 21–24, 27, 178, 260–261, 266–269, 381–384, 386–388, 406–410, 507–510, 517 The Council of State Governments 601
INDEX American Samoa, 597 amnesty, state tax, 411–412 antitrust duties (attorneys general), 254–255 appellate courts, 298–305, 307–309 judges, 300–305 compensation, 304–305 qualifications, 302–303 retention, 307–309 selection, 298–299, 307–309 terms, 300–301, 307–309 appointments to standing committees (legislatures), 155–156 appropriations process (legislatures) bills, 143–144 budget documents, 143–144 Arizona, 573 Arkansas, 573 attorneys general, 245–257 advisory duties, 252–253 antitrust, 254–255 consumer protection, 245–247, 254–255 debt settlement, 246–247 foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams, 246 legislation, 246 illegal debt-counseling, 246 cybercrime, 245 internet crimes, 245 Master Settlement Agreement, 247–248 arbitration, 247–248 method of selection, 213–218, 249–250 National Association of State Attorneys General, 245–248 Cybercrime Project, 245 online safety, 245 party affiliation, 249–250 prosecutorial duties, 252–253 qualifications, 251 salaries, 219–224 subpoena powers, 249–250 term of office, 211–212, 249–250 auditors, 266–275 accountability, 267 accounting and financial reporting, 272–273 agency authority, 272–273 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 266–269 accountability, 267 collaboration, 268 funding certification, 267 implementation, 267 reporting requirements, 267 602 The Book of the States 2010
fraud, potential for 269 politicization of, 269 audits, types of, 274–275 collaboration, 268 Gainer, Glen B., III, 266–269 investigations, 272–273 method of selection, 213–218, 270–271 National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, 266–279 National Association of State Treasurers (NAST), 258–265 privacy, 256 Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, 266–268 salaries, 219–224 terms of office, 270–271
—B— ballots, absentee, 341–343 ballot propositions, 3–11, 15, 324–329, 347–351 direct democracy, 324 fiscal gridlock, California, 324–325 legislative measures, California, 327 list of, 2009, 350 Matsusaka, John G., 324–329, 347–351 method of reaching ballot, 347 number, 347–349 same-sex marriage, 347–348, 350–351 taxes, 324–329, 347, 349–350 voter initiatives, 324–329 California, 324–329 impact on budget, 324–329 impact on revenue, 325–327 impact on spending, 325–326, 329 process, 324–325 requirements, 324–325 trends, 326–327 bankruptcies, 31–35 Bell, Beverly, 481–487 Beyle, Thad, 185–195 bills appropriations process (legislatures), 143–144 carryover, 135–136 enactments, 147–150 introductions, 137–139, 147–150 exceptions, 137–139 time limits, 137–139 pre-filing, 135–136 reference, 135–136 budgets, state, 381–407 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
INDEX 381–384, 408–409 balanced, expenditure cuts, 408 federal stimulus, 408–409 reserves, 409–410 tax rate increases, 409 balances, 381–385 budget cuts, 381–384 budget crisis, California 324–329 budget gaps, 178–179 budget stabilization funds, 384 corporate income taxes, 419–420 court, 283–286 debt, 440 direct democracy, 324 documents, appropriations process (legislatures), 143–144 economic crisis, 386–387 economic development, 386–387 economic downturn, 177–178, 381–385 emergency management, 483 expenditures, 400–401, 432–433 fiscal condition, 381–401 general funds, 389–395 education, 402–403 expenditures, 400–401 gubernatorial authority, 201–202 income taxes, 416–420, 570–571 Medicaid, 383–384, 404–405 National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 381–382 personal income taxes, 416–420, 570–571 rainy day funds, 179–180 recession, 381–384 reserve funds, 179–181 revenue, 434–435 Sigritz, Brian, 381–385 State Expenditure Report, 389–405 state fiscal condition, 381–385 state revenues, 381–382, 384 tax collection, 381–382, 384 state spending, 381–384 general funds, 382–383 rainy day funds, 381–382, 384, 386 state taxes, 381–382, 384 state tax revenue, 406–410 shortfalls, 408–409 collections, as a percentage of personal income, 408 tax collections, 396–399, 426–429 unemployment rate, 384 voter initiatives, California, 324–329
Whatley, Chris, 386–388 Build America Bonds, 24, 260–261 success of, 260–261 issuances, 260 Burnett, Jennifer, 465–469
—C— cabinets, governors, 205–206 California, 574 calling constitutional conventions, 3–17 campaign costs, 188–191, 193 candidates for state offices, nominating, 334–335 capital punishment, 560–561 capitals (states) central switchboard, 565 zip codes, 565 carryover (legislative bills), 135–136 cash flow management, 265 Census Bureau, 45–81, 426–443, 472–477 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 524–525 charter schools, 494–495 chief financial officers, 263, 270–271, 276–277 National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, 266–279 National Association of State Treasurers (NAST), 258–265 children child care, 533 health insurance, 533 poverty, 533 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, 25–26 cigarette taxes, 413–414 citizen petition, 352–369 coercive federalism, 21–30 Cole, Richard, 36–44 Colorado, 574 commissions constitutional, 3–6, 16–17 judicial conduct, 315–317 community colleges, 507–510 admission policies, 508 budgets, 507–509 enrollment, 507–510 funding, 507–509 Ginn, Jennifer, 507–510 Community Development Block Grant funds, 25 compensation administrative officials, 219–224 attorneys general, 219–224 auditors, 219–224 The Council of State Governments 603
INDEX chief financial officers, 219–224 comptrollers, 219–224 court, administrators, 306 education, public and secondary, 505–506 governors, 199–200, 219–224 house leaders, 126–128 judges, 304–305 legislative bodies benefits, 117–122 expenses, 113–116 insurance, 117–122 interim payments, 117–122 office, 117–122 payments, 117–122 regular sessions, 113–116 legislators, methods of setting, 111–112 lieutenant governor, 219–224 retirement benefits legislatures, 129–134 military, 54–55 state employees, 441–443 treasurers, 219–224 secretary of state, 219–224 comptrollers, 266–269, 276–279 accounting and financial reporting, 272–273 agency authority, 279 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 266–269 accountability, 267 collaboration, 268 funding certification, 267 implementation, 267 reporting requirements, 267 fraud, potential for 269 politicization of, 269 audits, types of, 274–275 duties, 279 Gainer, Glen B., III, 266–269 investigations, 272–273 method of selection, 213–218, 276–277 National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, 266–279 National Association of State Treasurers (NAST), 258–265 qualifications, 278 salaries, 219–224 terms of office, 276–277 Conference of Chief Justices, 283 Connecticut, 575 conservation, 534–537 adverse resource impact (ARI), 534–537 compacts, 534 604 The Book of the States 2010
conflicts, 534 ecological-response curves, 534, 535 environmental flow standards, 534 environmental impacts 534–535 Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, 534 groundwater withdrawals, 534, 536 Hamilton, David A., 534–537 Internet screening tool, 537 management zones, 536 Seelbach, Paul, W., 534–537 stream flow classification, 535 stream-flow, 534, 535, 536 surface withdrawals, 534, 535 Water Management Areas, 535 Water Withdrawal Assessment Process, 534, 536 Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 53–81 constitutions, state adoption of, 11–12 amendments, 3–11, 13–14 amendments, subject of, 4–10 abortion, 3–4 affirmative action, 5 budgets, 8, 9 civil unions, 5 direct democracy, 7 elections, 7 eminent domain, 5 federal action, response to 8, 10 gambling, 8 gubernatorial recall, 7 illegal immigration, 8 judiciary, selection system, 7 land use, 8 legislature, salary increases, 7 policies, 8 redistricting, 7 right to bear arms, 6 same-sex marriage, 5–6, 9 support for higher education, 8 taxation, 8 union organizing, 9 changes, 4–7, 9, 16–17 commissions, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16–17 constitutional revision methods, 3–6, 15, 352–369 conventions, 3–4, 5, 9 conventions, calling, 4, 16–17 Dinan, John, 3–10 general information, 11–12 governing institutions, 7
INDEX initiatives, 15, 352–361 direct, 352–353 indirect, 352–353 methods of revision, 3–18, 352–369 referendums, 15, 352–353, 362–369 consumer protection, 27, 245, 254–255 debt settlement, 246–247 foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams, 246 legislation, 246 illegal debt-counseling, 246 content, fiscal notes (legislatures), 145–146 convening places for legislative bodies, 96 conventions, constitutional, 3–4, 5, 9, 16–17 corporate income taxes, 419–420 corporate income tax revenue, 434–435 corrections capital punishment, 560–561 method of execution, 560–561 offenses, 560–561 prisoners under sentence, 560–561 parole, 556–559 prisons adults admitted, 552 adults on parole, 556–559 adults on probation, 554–555 capacities, 553 number of sentenced prisoners, 552 operations, 553 population, 551, 553 prisoners admitted, 552 prisoners released, 552 probation, 554–555 courts administrative offices, 306 appellate judges, number of, 300–301 judges, qualifications, 302–303 retention, 307–309 selection, 298–299, 307–309 terms, 298–299, 300–301, 307–309 budget deficits, 289–293 cost-savings measures, 289–290 responding to, 289–293 compensation administrators, 306 judicial, 304–305 caseloads, changes in, 284 Conference of Chief Justices, 283 criminal cases, 284 cutbacks, 284 decisions, 33–34
economic recession, 283–284 elections, 283–288, 298–299, 307–309 campaign, 285–286 state courts, 285–286 federal courts, 285–286 funding, 289, 293 general trial, 300–301 judges, number of, 300–301 judges, qualifications, 302–303 terms, 300–301 interbranch relations, 283, 284, 295–297 Adkins, David, 295 judicial discipline, 315–317 judicial reprimands, 315–317 judicial selection, 307–309 justice systems, 295–296 community courts, 296 domestic violence courts, 296 drug courts, 296–297 mental health courts, 296 juvenile justice, 296–297 Kaye, Judith S., 295–297 Kleiman, Matthew, 289–294 last resort, 298–299 Chief Justices, 298–299, 304–305 terms, 298–299 National Center for State Courts, 285–286, 289–294 reductions in work force, 290–291 re-engineering, 290–293 service delivery, 291–293 Rottman, David, 283–288 Rutledge, Jesse, 283–288 Schauffler, Richard, 289–294 selection of judges, 298–299, 307–309, 310–314 services, 289–294 case management, 297 collaboration, 295–297 crossover youth, 296–297 interbranch relations, 295–297 Kaye, Judith S., 295–297 social media and courts, 286–287 torts, 284 criminal justice capital punishment, 560–561 method of execution, 560–561 offenses, 560–561 prisoners under sentence, 560–561 parole, 556–559 probation, 554–555 criminal cases, 284 criminal law, federalization of, 27 The Council of State Governments 605
INDEX custodial duties (secretaries of state), 243–244 cybercrime, 245
—D— dates (elections), 336–338 death penalty, 560–561 debt markets, 258–262 transparency in, 261 Delaware, 575 demographics, 447–464 age, 451, 458 Brookings Institute, 447–464 Census Bureau, 447–464 domestic migration rate, 448–451, 454, 457, 461, 462 educational attainment, 458 economic attributes, 452 ethnicity, 458 Frey, William H., 447–464 international migration, 454, 459–462 interstate migration rates, 449, 450 marital status, 458 metro areas, 456–469 migration, 447–464 patterns, 451–452 policy issues, 447–464 population changes, 457 Department of Defense federal funds (procurement contracts), 62–66, 79–80 salaries and wages, 67–71 Department of Homeland Security, 58–61, 67–71 Dinan, John, 3–17 direct democracy, 324 direct initiatives, 352–353 direct payments, federal, 54–57 disability federal funds, 53, 54–55 disasters, 481–487 Bell, Beverly, 481–487 federal declarations of, 481 personal responsibility, 487 response to, 481, 484 interstate agreements, 484 compacts, 484 intrastate agreements, 484 international agreements, 484 distribution of federal funds, 79 of fiscal notes (legislatures), 145–146 District of Columbia, 597 606 The Book of the States 2010
duties attorneys general, 252–255 auditors, 272–275 comptrollers, 279 lieutenant governors, 232–233 secretaries of state, 241–244 treasurers, 265
—E— earned income tax credits, 56–57 economic crisis, 34–35, 386–387, 406–410 economic development, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 386–388 economic development, 386–387 federal-state partnership, 386–387 green jobs, 387–388 job creation, 386–388 stimulus, 386–388 Whatley, Chris, 386–388 economic downturn, 381–385 education adolescent literacy, 488–493 disparities in, 488–489 eighth-grade reading, 488–490, 492 improving, 490–493 initiatives, 490–493 legislation, 491–492 policies, 490–491 reading proficiency, 488 reading scores, 488–490, 493 Weldon, Tim, 488–493 community colleges, 507–510 admission policies, 508 budgets, 507–509 enrollment, 507–510 funding, 507–509 Ginn, Jennifer, 507–510 elementary and secondary schools, 494–495 types of schools, 494–495 alternative education, 494–495 charter schools, 494–495 magnet schools, 494–495 membership, 494–495 special education, 494–495 Title I schools, 494–495 vocational education, 494–495 number of, 494–495 graduation rate, 498–499 diplomas, 498–499 General Education Development
INDEX (GED), 498–499 elementary and secondary staff, 496–497 administrators, 496–497 guidance counselors, 496–497 librarians, 496–497 instructional aides, 496–497 instructional coordinators, 496–497 staff, number of, 496–497 elementary and secondary students, 496–497 membership, 496–497 ratio, 496–497 elementary and secondary teachers, 496–497 ratio, 496–497 teachers, number of, 496–497 expenditures, public elementary and secondary, 402–403 administration, 503–504 construction, 501–502 education, 501–502 equipment, 501–502 facilities acquisition, 501–502 instruction expenditures, 503–504 employee benefits, 505–506 per pupil, 505–506 purchased services, 505–506 salaries, 505–506 supplies, 505–506 tuition, 505–506 interest on debt, 501–502 operations, 503–504 percent distribution, 503–504 per pupil, 501–502, 503–504 totals, 501–502 student support, 503–504 higher education institutions, 511–512 board, 511–512 faculty salaries, 515–516 number of, 513–514 private, 511–512, 513–514 public, 511–512, 513–514 room, 511–512 tuition, 511–512 revenues, public elementary and secondary federal, 500 local, 500 percent distribution, 500 per pupil, 500 state, 500 totals, 500 effective date (legislation, enacting), 140–142 elections
administration, 241–242, 321–323 ballot propositions 2009, 3–11, 15, 347–351 Beyle, Thad, 185–195 candidates, 334–335 dates, 336–338 Dinan, John, 3–17 elections 2009, 185–195 elections 2010, 330–333 executive branch, 330–331 gubernatorial (voting statistics), 344–345 gubernatorial elections, 185–195, 344–345 Beyle, Thad, 185–195 changes in, 185–195 cost of, 188–191, 193 patterns in, 185, 187, 188, 193 Help America Vote Act, 321–322 initiatives and referendums, 3–18, 347–369 judicial elections, 283–288 campaign, 285–286 state courts, 285–286 federal courts, 285–286 legislatures, 332–333 legislative elections, 91–95, 332–333 legislative turnover 2009, 104 Lewis, R. Doug, 321–323 Matsusaka, John, 324–329, 347–351 National Voter Registration Act, 321–322 nominating candidates, 334–335 party control governor, 196–197 legislature, 91–95, 101–102, 103 polling hours, 339–340 Presidential (voter turnout), 346 presidential primary calendar, 234–236 presidential nominating process, 234–237 presidential primary reform, 234–237 Presidential Primary Subcommittee, 236 referendums, 3–18, 347–351, 362–369 secretaries of state (duties), 241–242 state amendments, 3–18, 347–351 state executive branch officials, 330–331 Storey, Tim, 91–95 type of, general , 336–338 national, 336–338 primary, 336–338 run-off, 336–338 state, 336–338 voter databases, 322–323 voter registration, 321–323, 341–343 military voters, 321 absentee voters, 321 The Council of State Governments 607
INDEX voter turnout, 346 voting equipment, 322 emergency management, 481–487 Bell, Beverly, 481–487 coordination with public health, 481 directors, 482 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 481,487 “Four Pillars” of, 482 initiatives, 484, 486 National Disaster Recovery Framework, 487 Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant, 487 Real ID Act, 487 integration of private sector, 487 mutual aid, 484 organizational structure, 482–483 operating budget, 482–483 personal responsibility, 487 resiliency in, 484 social networking in, 484 staffing, 482–483 Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), 484 employees, state, 470–477 average earnings, 473, 475 employment, 472–474 full time employees, 476 government services, 470–471 state, 470–471 access to, 471 online, 471 Herring, Jeff C., 470–471 National Association of Personnel Executives, 470–471 personnel, 470–471 payrolls, 473, 477 salaries, average, 473–475 state employees, 470–471 four-day workweek, 470 work schedule, 470–471 state government services, 470–471 cost savings, 470–471 initiatives, 470–471 Working 4 Utah initiative, 470–471 employment, changes in, 407 enacting bills (legislatures), 140–142, 147–150 resolutions (legislatures), 140–142, 147–150 enacting legislation effective date, 140–142 608 The Book of the States 2010
veto overrides, 140–142, 147–150 vetoes, 140–142, 147–150, 201–202 environment, 534–537 adverse resource impact (ARI), 534–537 compacts, 534 conflicts, 534 ecological-response curves, 534, 535 environmental flow standards, 534 environmental impacts 534–535 Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, 534 groundwater withdrawals, 534, 536 Hamilton, David A., 534–537 Internet screening tool, 537 management zones, 536 Seelbach, Paul, W., 534–537 stream flow classification, 535 stream-flow, 534, 535, 536 surface withdrawals, 534, 535 Water Management Areas, 535 Water Withdrawal Assessment Process, 534, 536 excise taxes, 413–414 executive branch attorneys general, 245–257 auditors, 266–275 comptrollers, 266–269, 276–279 elections, 330–331 governors, 177–197 impeachment provisions, 209–210 lieutenant governors, 225–233 methods of selection, 213–218 secretaries of state, 234–244 salaries, 219–224 succession, 196–197, 228 term limits, 211–212 treasurers, 258–265 executive orders (governors), 203–204 exemptions (sales tax), 415 expedited partner therapy, 524–527, 530–531 legal status, 525–526, 530–531 liability, 525–526 expenditures, 45–46, 400–401, 436–439 direct payments, federal agricultural assistance, 56–57 earned income tax credits, 56–57 federal employees life and health, 56–57 food stamp payments, 56–57 housing assistance, 56–57 Medicare, 56–57 hospital insurance, 56–57 supplemental medical insurance, 56–57
INDEX unemployment compensation, 56–57 distribution, 78 education, 45–46 elementary, 402–403 secondary, 402–403 federal funds (salaries and wages), 53, 67–71 grants, 45–81 health, 45–46, 404–405 highways, 45–46, 545–546 intergovernmental, 45–46, 47–48 local government, 45–46 Medicaid, 404–405 retirement, 53, 441 procurement, 53, 62–66, 79 public welfare, 45–46 retirement and disability, 53, 54–55, 78, 79, 441 salaries and wages, 67–71, 78, 79, 81 state general funds, 400–401
—F— federal aid/grants to states, 23–24, 45–81, 260–261 federal court orders, 27 federal employees, insurance, 56–57 federal funds aid (state-local government), 45–81 apportionment of, 549–550 direct payments to individuals, 54–55, 56–57, 79 direct payments to individuals (retirement), 54–55 disability, 53–78 distribution, 79 expenditures, direct payments, 53, 79 grants, 45–81 Appalachian Regional Commission, 58–61 Corporation for National and Community Service, 58–61 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 58–61 Department of Agriculture, 58–61 Department of Commerce, 58–61 Department of Defense, 58–61 Department of Education, 58–61 Department of Energy, 58–61 Department of Health and Human Services, 58–61 Department of Homeland Security, 58–61 Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 58–61 Department of the Interior, 58–61 Department of Justice, 58–61 Department of Labor, 58–61 Department of State, 58–61 Department of Transportation, 58–61 Department of the Treasury, 58–61 Department of Veterans Affairs, 58–61 Election Assistance Commission, 58–61 Environmental Protection Agency, 58–61 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 58–61 Institute of Museum and Library Services, 58–61 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 58–61 National Archives and Records Administration, 58–61 National Endowment for the Humanities, 58–61 National Science Foundation, 58–61 Small Business Administration, 58–61 Social Security Administration, 58–61 State Justice Institute, 58–61 Tennessee Valley Authority, 58–61 procurement, 53, 62–66, 79 salaries and wages, 53, 67–71, 78, 79 Social Security payments, disability insurance, 53, 54–55 retirement insurance, 53, 54–55 supplemental security income, 54–55 survivors insurance, 54–55 retirement and disability, 53, 54–55, 79 civilian, 54–55 military, 54–55 veteran’s benefits, 54–55 percent, 78 expenditures for salaries and wages, 53, 67–71, 78, 80, 81 Department of Agriculture, 67–71 Department of Commerce, 67–71 Department of Defense, 67–71 Department of Education, 67–71 Department of Energy, 67–71 Department of Health and Human Services, 67–71 Department of Homeland Security, 67–71 Department of Housing and Urban The Council of State Governments 609
INDEX Development, 67–71 Department of the Interior, 67–71 Department of Justice, 67–71 Department of Labor, 67–71 Department of State, 67–71 Department of Transportation, 67–71 Department of the Treasury, 67–71 Department of Veterans Affairs, 67–71 Environmental Protection Agency, 67–71 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 67–71 General Service Administration, 67–71 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 67–71 National Archives and Records Administration, 67–71 National Science Foundation, 67–71 Small Business Administration, 67–71 Social Security Administration, 67–71 United States Postal Service, 67–71 federal employee life and health insurance, 56–57 Federal Highway Administration, 543–550 intergovernmental, 45–46, 47–48 loan programs, 72–73 commodity , 72–73 Department of Agriculture, 72–73 Federal Family Education Loan Program, 74–75 federal student, 72–73 mortgage insurance—condominiums, 74–75 mortgage insurance for homes, 74–75 small business loans, 74–75 U.S.D.A. guaranteed loans, 74–75 veterans assistance home loans, 74–75 veterans housing guaranteed and insured loans, 74–75 federal grants, 23–24, 39–81 federal mandates, 24–26 federal-state-local finances Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 53–81 grants, 23–24, 39–81 distribution of, 78 procurement contracts, 53, 62–66, 79 salaries and wages, 53, 67–71, 78, 79 loan programs, 72–73 commodity , 72–73 Department of Agriculture, 72–73 Federal Family Education Loan Program, 74–75 federal student, 72–73 610 The Book of the States 2010
mortgage insurance—condominiums, 74–75 mortgage insurance for homes, 74–75 small business loans, 74–75 U.S.D.A. guaranteed loans, 74–75 veterans assistance home loans, 74–75 veterans housing guaranteed and insured loans, 74–75 grants, 23–24, 39–81 highways, 543–550 insurance programs, 54–55, 76–77 crop insurance, 76–77 flood insurance, 76–77 foreign investment, 76–77 life insurance for veterans, 76–77 loans, 72–75 Medicare, 56–57 Medicaid, 404–405 payments to individuals, 54–55, 56–57 procurement contracts, 53, 62–66, 79 retirement, 53–79 roads, 549–550 salaries, 53, 67–71, 79 Social Security, 54–55 student loans, 72–73 unemployment, 56–57 veteran benefits, 54–55 federal-state relationships, 517–523 federalism, 21–30 federal-state partnership, 386–387 finances budgets, state, 381–397 documents, appropriations process (legislatures), 143–144 personal income, 396–397 projections, 396–397 revenue, 396–397 sales tax, 396–397 Sigritz, Brian, 381–397 state tax collections, 396–397 expenditures, 53–81 intergovernmental, 45–46, 47–48, 81 federal funds, 45–81, 472–477 apportionment of, 549–550 distribution, 53, 78 expenditures for salaries and wages, 53, 67–71, 78, 80 grants, 45–81 insurance programs, 54–55 crop insurance, 76–77 flood insurance, 76–77
INDEX foreign investment, 76–77 life insurance for veterans, 76–77 loan programs, 72–73 commodity , 72–73 Department of Agriculture, 72–73 Federal Family Education Loan Program, 74–75 federal student, 72–73 mortgage insurance-condominiums, 74–75 mortgage insurance for homes, 74–75 small business loans, 74–75 U.S.D.A. guaranteed loans, 74–75 veterans assistance home loans, 74–75 veterans housing guaranteed and insured loans, 74–75 procurement contracts, 53, 62–66, 79 fiscal notes (legislatures) content, 145–146 distribution, 145–146 revenue federal government, 51–52 local government, 51–52 state tax revenue, 433, 434–435 corporation, 426–427, 434–435 death and gift taxes, 426–427 documentary, 426–427 individual income, 426–427, 434–435, 570–571 licenses, 426–427, 430–431 alcoholic beverages, 430–431 amusements, 430–431 business, 430–431 corporations, 430–431 hunting and fishing, 430–431 motor vehicle operators, 430–431 motor vehicles, 430–431, 434–435 occupation, 430–431 public utility, 430–431 state general fund, 389–395 state finances aggregates, financial, 432 revenue, 432 general, 432 insurance trust,432 liquor, 432 utilities, 432 expenditure, 432 general, 432 insurance trust, 432 liquor, 432 utilities, 432 debt outstanding, 432
cash holdings, 432 security holdings, 432 cash holdings, 432, 433 debt outstanding, 432 full faith and credits, 440 long-term, 440 net long-term, 440 per capita, 440 short term, 440 debt redemption, 433 expenditure, 433 public elementary and secondary, 402–403 administration, 503–504 construction, 501–502 education, 501–502 equipment, 501–502 facilities acquisition, 501–502 instruction expenditures, 503–504 employee benefits, 505–506 per pupil, 505–506 purchased services, 505–506 salaries, 505–506 supplies, 505–506 tuition, 505–506 interest on debt, 501–502 operations, 503–504 percent distribution, 503–504 per pupil, 501–502, 503–504 totals, 501–502 student support, 503–504 general, corrections, 438–439 education, 402–403, 438–439 employment security administration, 438–439 financial administration, 438–439 health, 438–439 highways, 438–439 hospitals, 438–439 natural resources, 438–439 police, 438–439 public welfare, 438–439 intergovernmental expenditures, 45–52 Medicaid, 404–405 total salaries and wages, 477, 474–475 security holdings, 433 taxes cigarette, 413–414 corporate income, 419–420 excise, 413–414 federal starting points, 418–420 The Council of State Governments 611
INDEX income tax, 416–420 individual income, 416–417 sales tax, 415 sales tax exemptions, 415 state tax amnesty, 411–412 tax revenue corporation, 426–427, 434–435 death and gift taxes, 426–427 documentary, 426–427 individual income, 426–427, 434–435, 570–571 intergovernmental, 434–435 licenses, 426–427, 430–431 alcoholic beverages, 430–431 amusements, 430–431 corporations, 430–431 hunting and fishing, 430–431 motor vehicle operators, 430–431 motor vehicles, 430–431, 434–435 public utility, 430–431 occupation, 430–431 business, 430–431 property taxes, 426–427 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 alcoholic beverages, 428–429 amusements, 428–429 insurance premiums, 428–429 motor fuels, 428–429, 434–435 pari-mutuels, 428–429 public utilities, 428–429 tobacco products, 428–429 stock transfer, 426–427 Florida, 576 food stamp payments, 56–57 Fox, William F., 406–410 Frey, William H., 447–464 full faith and credit, 418
—G— Gainer, Glen B., III, 266–269 general election polling hours, 339–340 general fund, state, 389–395 general trial courts judges, 300–301, 302–303, 310–314 compensation, 304–305 qualifications, 302–303 retention, 310–314 selection, 310–314 terms, 300–301, 310–314 Georgia, 576 gerrymandering, 94 612 The Book of the States 2010
Ginn, Jennifer, 507–510 government reorganization, 31–32 governments, state-local, 51–52 state-local governments, 45–46, 51–52 education, 45–46, 51–52 health, 45–46, 51–52 highways, 45–46, 51–52 intergovernmental, 47–48 public welfare, 45–46, 51–52 governors, 177–197 authority, 201–202 budgets, authority, 201–202 compensation, 199–200, 219–224 elections, 185–195, 344–345 campaign costs, 188–191, 193 governors, 185–195 impeachment, 185, 191, 192, 194 incumbent, 186–188, 190–195 newly elected, 185–188, 193–195 re-elected, 185–188, 193 removal, 185, 191–192, 194 succeeded to office, 185–189, 191–193 term, 185–189, 191–194 women, 188, 192 gubernatorial elections, 185–195 Beyle, Thad, 185–195 changes in, 185–195 cost of, 188–191, 193 patterns in, 185, 187, 188, 193 gubernatorial politics, 2009, 185–186 executive orders, 203–204 executive branch officials, 330–331 executive orders, 203–204 forced exits, 185, 191–192, 194 impeachment provisions, 209–210 joint election, 196–197 length of term, 196–197 party control, 196–197 politics, 185–186, 201–202 powers, 185–195, 201–202 qualifications for office, 198 residence, 199–200 salaries, 199–200, 219–224 service, 196–197 staff, 199–200 State of the States, 177–184 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 178 federal prosecution, 182 governors, 177–184 public corruption, 182 agendas, 178–179
INDEX party control, 177–178 state ethics reform, 182–183 state performance, 181 state taxes, 181–182 state of the state speeches, 177–183 issues, 178–183 ethics reform, 182–183 performance, 181 taxes, 181–182 Willoughby, Katherine, 177–184 state budgets, 178 budget gaps, 178–179 economic downturn, 177–178 rainy day funds, 179–180 reserve funds, 179–181 Willoughby, Katherine, 177–184 succession, 196–197 terms length, 211–212 number of, 211–212 term limits, gubernatorial, 196–197, 211–212 transition procedures, 207–208 women governors, 188, 192 green jobs, 387–388 Guam, 598 gubernatorial authority, 201–202 elections, 185–195, 334–335 Beyle, Thad, 185–195 changes in, 185–195 cost of, 188–191, 193 patterns in, 185, 187, 188, 193 gubernatorial politics, 2009, 185–186 executive orders, 203–204 forced exits, 185, 191–192, 194 politics, 185–186 powers, 201–202 succession, 196–197 term limits, 196–197, 211–212 voting statistics, 344–345 women governors, 188, 192
—H— H1N1 influenza virus, 481 Hamilton, David A., 534–537 Hawaii, 577 health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 524–525 expedited partner therapy, 524–527, 530–531
legal status, 525–526, 530–531 liability, 525–526 federal employee life and health insurance, 56–57 federal funds, 56–57 health care reform, 517–523 access to information, 523 high-risk insurance, 519–520, 523 insurance, 517, 519–523 insurance exchanges, 521–523 insurance regulations, 519, 521 legislation, 517–523 Medicaid, 517–519, 521 Medicare, 517, 519, 522 Miller, Debra, 517–523 pre-existing conditions, 521, 523 public plans, 521–523 timeline for implementation , 522 insurance, children, 532–533 coverage status, 532 Kelly, Ann V., 524–531 Medicaid, 404–405, 517–519, 521 eligibility, 517–518, 522 eligibility levels, 518 expansion, 517–518, 521–522 Medicare, 517, 519, 522 Miller, Debra, 517–523 public health departments, 524–525, 527 Recovery Act, 517 sexually transmitted infections, 524–531 chlamydia, 524–527, 530–531 disparities in, 524–525, 530–531 funding for prevention, 526–527, 530–531 gonorrhea, 524–526, 530–531 number infected with, 524–525, 530–531 preventing, 524–527 rates, 524–525, 530–531 testing, 525–527 treatment, 524–527 Social Security, 54–55 Tormey, Kate, 517–523 uninsured children, 532–533 veterans benefits, 54–55 work force shortages, 519 Health Care Freedom Acts, 28 health care reform, 21, 25, 28, 517–523 access to information, 523 high-risk insurance, 519–520, 523 insurance, 517, 519–523 insurance exchanges, 521–523 insurance regulations, 519, 521 The Council of State Governments 613
INDEX legislation, 517–523 Medicaid, 517–519, 521 Medicare, 517, 519, 522 Miller, Debra, 517–523 pre-existing conditions, 521, 523 public plans, 521–523 timeline for implementation , 522 Tormey, Kate, 517–523 health coverage, 524–525, 527 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 321–322 Herring, Jeff C., 470–471 higher education institutions, 511–512 board, 511–512 faculty salaries, 515–516 number of, 513–514 private, number of, 513–514 public, number of, 513–514 room, 511–512 tuition, 511–512 highways American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 538–541 apportionment of funds, 549–550 disbursements, 545–546 federal aid, 549–550 Federal Highway Administration, 543–550 funding, 538–541, 549–550 infrastructure, 538 length of, 547–548 mileage, 547–548 revenues, 543–544 rural mileage, 547–548 Slone, Sean, 538–542 urban mileage, 547–548 historical data (states), 566–567 Homeland Security, 58–61, 67–71, 481–487 Bell, Beverly, 481–487 funding, 482, 484 organizational structure, 482, 484–485 resiliency in, 484 social networking in, 484 home rule, 31 house composition, 103 leaders’ compensation, 126–128 leadership positions, methods of selecting, 109–110 housing, assistance, 56–57 Hurst, Julia, 225–228
614 The Book of the States 2010
—I— Idaho, 577 Illinois, 578 immigration, 26 Immigration and Naturalization Act, 21–30 impeachment provisions governors, 209–210 income taxes corporate, 419–420 individual, 416–417 Indiana, 578 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 28 individual income taxes, 416–418 infertility, 524–527 initiatives, 3–11, 15, 347–351, 352–361 ballots, 360–361 ballot propositions 2009, 3–11, 15, 324–329, 347–351 budget crisis, California 324–329 changes to constitution, 3–5, 15, 352–353 citizen petition, 15, 352–356 signatures, 15, 356–359 constitutional amendments, 13–14, 352–359 constitutional convention, 16–17 constitutional provisions for initiatives, 15, 352–359 Dinan, John, 3–17 direct, 352–353 direct democracy, 324 fiscal gridlock, California, 324–325 history of, 347 legislative measures, California, 327 Matsusaka, John G., 324–329, 347–351 number of, 347, 349 petitions, 352–356 same-sex marriage, 351 statutes, 352–360 taxes, 324–329 topics, 350 voter initiatives, 324–329 California, 324–329 impact on budget, 324–329 impact on revenue, 325–327 impact on spending, 325–326, 329 process, 324–325 requirements, 324–325 trends, 326–327 voting on, 360–361 insurance
INDEX federal funds and programs, 76–77 health, 532 children, 533 coverage status, 532 interest rates, 258–259, 261 intergovernmental expenditures, 45–52 education, 45–46 federal, governments, 50 health, 45–46 highways, 45–46 local government, 45–46, 50 public welfare, 45–46 school districts, 50 intergovernmental payments, 45–46, 47–48 education, 45–46, 49 health, 45–46, 49 highways, 45–46, 49, 543–550 per capita, 45–46 public welfare, 45–46, 49 state-local, 45–46 intergovernmental relations, 21–30, 36–44 Kincaid, John, 21–30 internet crimes, 245 interstate disputes, 24–25 introducing bills legislatures, 137–139, 147–150 limits, 137–139 resolutions (legislatures), 147–150 time limits, 137–139 investors, retail, 259 investors, institutional, 259 item veto, 201–202 Iowa, 579
—J— job creation, 386–388 Johnson, Kevin, 258–262 judges, appellate courts, 300–305, 307–309 compensation, 304–305 conduct, 315–317 elections, 283–288, 307–314 judicial selection, 307–314 general trial courts, 300–301 judges, number of, 300–301, 310–314 judges, qualifications, 302–303 retention, 307–309 selection, 307–309 geographical basis, 307–309 terms, 300–301, 310–314
judges, number of, 300–301 judicial discipline, 315–317 judicial elections, 271–276, 307–314 Kleiman, Matthew, 289–294 last resort, 298–299 National Center for State Courts, 283–294, 298–317 qualifications, 302–303 retention, 307–314 Rottman, David, 283–288 Ruttledge, Jesse, 283–288 Schauffler, Richard, 289–294 selection, 298–299, 307–314 terms, 300–301, 307–309 judicial, 289–294 budget deficits, 289–293 cost-savings measures, 289–290 responding to, 289–293 court services, 289–293 funding, 289,293 Kleiman, Matthew, 289–294 reductions in work force, 290–291 re-engineering, 290–293 service delivery, 291–293 Schauffler, Richard, 289–294 state courts, 289–294 judicial administration offices, 306 judicial discipline, 315–317 Just Read Florida, 491–492 justice systems, 295–296 community courts, 296 domestic violence courts, 296 drug courts, 296–297 mental health courts, 296 juvenile justice, 296–297
—K— Kansas, 579 Kaye, Judith S., 295–297 Kelly, Ann V., 524–531 Kentucky, 580 Kincaid, John, 21–30 Kleiman, Matthew, 289–294 Kurtz, Karl T., 85–90
—L— last resort (courts), 298–299 leaders house compensation, 126–128 The Council of State Governments 615
INDEX methods of selecting, 109–110 senate compensation, 123–125 methods of selecting, 107–108 legal provisions (legislative sessions), 97–100 legislative bodies, 96 compensation benefits, 117–122 expenses, 113–116 interim payments, 117–122 methods of setting, 111–112 payments, 117–122 offices, 117–122 phone allowance, 117–122 regular sessions, 113–116 convening places, 96 legislative duties (attorneys general) 252–257 legislative duties (secretaries of state), 243–244 legislative elections, 2009, 91–95, 332–333 New Jersey Assembly, 91–95 partisan breakdown, 91–92 Virginia House, 91–95 legislative measures, 327, 347, 350–351 legislative proposals, 5, 13–14 legislative referendums, 352–353 legislative sessions, 97–100 legislators compensation, 85–90, 111–134 election of, 332–333 number of, 85–87, 101–103 parties, 92, 101–103 qualifications, 105–106 reduction in, 85 retirement, 129–134 staff, 151–152 Storey, Tim, 91–95 terms, 86, 101–103 term limits, 86 turnover, 91–95, 104 legislatures administrative regulations powers, 167–169 procedures, 163–166 review of, 167–169 rules reviewed, 163–166 structure, 163–166 time limits, 163–166 appropriations process bills, 143–144 budgets, 143–144 budget documents, 143–144 bills 616 The Book of the States 2010
carryover, 135–136 enactments, 147–150 introductions, 147–150 limits on introducing, 137–139 pre-filing, 135–136 reference, 135–136 time limits, 137–139 veto, 140–142 calendar, 89 chamber control shifts, 91–95, 104 changes in, 85–90 compensation, 87–88 district populations, 85–87 elections, 91–95, 332–333 legislative 2010, 91 New Jersey Assembly, 91–95 partisan breakdown, 91–92 Virginia House, 91–95 enacting legislation effective date, 140–142 veto, 140–142 veto override, 140–142 fiscal notes content, 145–146 distribution, 145–146 gerrymandering, 94 Kurtz, Karl T., 85–90 leaders, 107–110, 123–128, 572–599 legislation, sunset, 170–174 legislative powers, 167–169 legislative review, 167–169 legislative seats, 101–104, 332–333 legislative staff, 151–152 membership turnover, 86, 90, 104 name of, 96 official name of, 89 party control, 92–94, 101–104 political partisanship of, 92–94, 101–104 procedures, 167–169 redistricting, process 94–95 controlling of, 94–95 gerrymandering, 94 projected reapportionment 2010, 94 reapportionment, 94–95 resolutions, 147–150 enactments, regular session, 147–148 enactments, special session, 149–150 introductions, regular session, 147–148 introductions, special session, 149–150 retirement benefits, 129–134 sessions, 97–100, 147–150 convening of, 97–100
INDEX dates of, 85, 147–150 length of, 147–150 limitation on length, 97–100 special, 85, 97–100 subject matter, 97–100 staff, 88, 151–152 standing committees appointments, 155–156 number,155–156 rule adoption, 157–162 staff, 153–154 Storey, Tim, 91–95 sunset legislation, 170–174 time demands of, 85, 87 time limits, on bills, 137–139, 163–166 turnover, 92, 104 length of terms, 211–212 attorney generals, 211–212, 249–250 governors, 196–197, 211–212 legislators, 101–104 term, length of, 86 term limits, 86 lieutenant governors, 211–212, 229–230, 231 secretaries of state, 211–212, 238–239 Lewis, R. Doug, 321–323 lieutenant governors, 225–233 duties, 232–233 executive branch succession, 228 gubernatorial succession, 228 Hurst, Julia, 225–228 joint election, 229–230 leadership, 225–228 aerospace, 226–227 crisis situations, 227 defense, 226 disaster response, 227 economic development, 227–228 elections, 225 emergency preparedness, 227 energy, 226 homeland security, 226 technology, 225–226 method of selection, 229–230 National Lieutenant Governors Association, 225–228 powers, 232–233 salaries, 209–210 qualifications, 231 terms, 211–212, 229–230 limits on introducing bills (legislatures), 137–139 loans (federal funds), 72–75 lobbying
local government, 51–52 state-local governments, 45–46, 49 education, 45–46, 49 health, 45–46, 49 highways, 45–46, 49 public welfare, 45–46, 49 Louisiana, 580
—M— Maine, 581 management, state, 465–469 accountability, 465–467 benchmarks, 466 Burnett, Jennifer, 465–469 components, 465–466, 467 data view dashboard, 467 Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP), 467 management systems, 465 National Performance Management Commission, 467 performance management, 465 performance measurements, 465–469 results, 465–469 statutory mandate, 468 transparency, 467–469 Maryland, 581 Massachusetts, 582 Master Settlement Agreement, 247–248 Matsusaka, John G., 324–329, 347–351 Medicaid, 383–384, 386, 404–405, 517–519, 521 eligibility, 517–518, 522 eligibility levels, 518 expansion, 517–518, 521–522 Medicaid, growth in, 25 medical marijuana, 21–30 Medicare, 56–57, 517, 519, 522 methods of selection attorneys general, 213–218, 249–250 auditors, 213–218, 270–271 chief financial officers, 213–218, 263, 270–271, 276–277 comptrollers, 213–218, 276–277 judges, 298–299, 307–309, 310–314 treasurers, 213–218, 263 Michigan, 582 migration, 447–464 military salaries, 67–71 Miller, Debra, 517–523 Minnesota, 583 Mississippi, 583 The Council of State Governments 617
INDEX Missouri, 584 Montana, 584 municipal bond issuances, 258–259
—N— National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), 245–248 National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), 234–237 National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers (NASACT), 266–279 National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 381–385, 389–405 National Association of State Treasurers (NAST), 258–262 National Center for State Courts (NCSC), 283–294, 298–317 National Conference of State Legislatures, 85–95, 111–134 National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), 481–487 National Governor’s Association, 491 National Lieutenant Governors Association, 225–228 National Voter Registration Act, 321–322 Nebraska, 585 Nevada, 585 New Hampshire, 586 New Jersey, 586 New Mexico, 587 New York, 587 No Child Left Behind, 24–25 nominating candidates for state offices, 334–335 North Carolina, 588 North Dakota, 588 Northern Mariana Islands, 598
—O— Obama administration, 21–30 Ohio, 589 Oklahoma, 589 online safety, 245 Oregon, 590
—P— pandemic, 481 parole, adults (corrections), 556–559 party control, 91–95 618 The Book of the States 2010
congressional, 94–95 state legislative control 2010, 91–93 state government control 2010, 92–93 parties, political, 101–102, 103, 196–197 payrolls (state and local government), 472, 477 Pennsylvania, 590 per capita federal expenditures, 81 per capita income, 570–571 performance management, 465–469 accountability, 465–467 benchmarks, 466 Burnett, Jennifer, 465–469 components, 465–466, 467 data view dashboard, 467 Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP), 467 management systems, 465 National Performance Management Commission, 467 performance management, 465 performance measurements, 465–469 results, 465–469 statutory mandate, 468 transparency, 467–469 personal income, 570–571 personnel, 470–471 Herring, Jeff C., 470–471 state employees, 470–471 political parties, 101–102, 103, 196–197 polling hours (general elections), 339–340 population, 568–569 prison capacity, 553 prisons, 551 states, 568–569, 570–571 population changes, 568–569, 570–571 poverty, children, 533 powers governors, 201–202 lieutenant governors, 232–233 pre-emption of state authority, 26–27 pre-filing bills (legislatures), 135–136 presidential elections, voter turnout, 346 presidential primary calendar, 234–236 presidential nominating process, 234–237 presidential primary reform, 234–237 Presidential Primary Subcommittee, 236 prisons adults admitted, 552 adults on parole, 556–559 adults on probation, 554–555 capacity, 553 capital punishment, 560–561
INDEX method of execution, 560–561 offenses, 560–561 prisoners under sentence, 560–561 number of sentenced prisoners, 552 population, 551 prisoners released, 552 probation, adults (corrections), 554–555 procurement contracts (federal funds), 53, 62–66, 79 prosecutorial duties (attorneys general), 252–253 public employment employment summary, 472, 473 earnings, 472–474, 477 employees administration, 476 financial, 476 judicial, 476 legal, 476 corrections, 476 education, 476 full time, 474 highways, 476 hospitals, 476 natural resources, 476 part time, 474 police protection, 476 public welfare, 476 state, 474 local 474 full time equivalent, 472 payrolls, 474, 477 administration, 476 financial, 476 judicial, 476 legal, 476 average, 474 corrections, 476 education, 474, 476 highways, 476 hospitals, 476 local, 473, 474, 477 natural resources, 476 percentage, 474 police protection, 476 public welfare, 476 state, 473, 474, 477 state employees, compensation, 442 unclassified employees, salaries, 477 public health departments, 524–525, 527 publications (secretaries of state), 243–244
Puerto Rico, 599 pupils, 496–497
—Q— qualifications attorneys general, 251 auditors, 270–271 comptrollers, 278 governors, 198 judges appellate courts, 302–303 general trial courts, 302–303 legislators, 105–106 lieutenant governors, 231 secretaries of state, 240 treasurers, 264
—R— RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, 235–236 Race to the Top, 25 REAL ID Act, 26 recall, 370–377 Recovery Act, 21–25, 27, 260–261 Build America Bonds, 24 Medicaid, 25 Race to the Top grants, 25 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 24 Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, 266–268 Recovery Act, 381–384 recession, 381–384 redistricting, process 94–95 controlling of, 94–95 gerrymandering, 94 projected reapportionment 2010, 94 reapportionment, 94–95 referendums, 14–15, 347–348, 350–353, 362–369 registration duties (secretaries of state), 241–242 removal from office, 370–377 resolutions (legislatures) enactments, 147–150 introductions, 147–150 retention (judges), 307–309, 310–314 retirement systems beneficiaries, 441 benefits (legislatures), 129–134, 129–134 benefit operations, 441 federal funds, 53, 54–55 finances, 441 The Council of State Governments 619
INDEX contributions, 441, 442 employees, 441, 442 state. 441, 442 local government, 441, 442 investments, 442 payments, 442 benefits, 441, 442 by service, 441, 442 disability, 441, 442 survivors, 441 withdrawals, 441, 442 receipts, 442 securities, 442 membership, 441 military, 54–55 number of, 441 state retirement systems, 441–443 revenues highway-user, motor-fuel taxes, 434–435 motor vehicle taxes, 434–435 public elementary and secondary federal, 500 local, 500 percent distribution, 500 per pupil, 500 state, 500 totals, 500 state general fund, 389–395, 434–435 tax revenue, 396–397 corporation, 426–427, 434–435 death and gift taxes, 426–427 documentary, 426–427 individual income, 426–427, 434–435, 570–571 intergovernmental, 434–435 licenses, 426–427, 430–431, 434–435 alcoholic beverages, 430–431 amusements, 430–431 corporations, 430–431 hunting and fishing, 430–431 motor vehicle operators, 430–431 motor vehicles, 430–431, 434–435 public utility, 430–431 occupation, 430–431 business, 430–431 property taxes, 426–427 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 alcoholic beverages, 428–429 amusements, 428–429 insurance premiums, 428–429 motor fuels, 428–429, 434–435 620 The Book of the States 2010
pari-mutuels, 428–429 public utilities, 428–429 tobacco products, 428–429 stock transfer, 426–427 Rhode Island, 591 roads, length of, 547–548 Rottman, David, 283–288 rule adoption (standing committees), 157–162 Rutledge, Jesse, 283–288
—S— Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act, 538 salaries administrative officials, 219–224 attorneys general, 219–224 auditors, 219–224 comptrollers, 219–224 court administrators, 306 Department of Agriculture, 67–71 Department of Commerce, 67–71 Department of Defense, 67–71 Department of Education, 67–71 Department of Energy, 67–71 Department of Health and Human Services, 67–71 Department of Homeland Security, 67–71 Department of Housing and Urban Development, 67–71 Department of the Interior, 67–71 Department of Justice, 67–71 Department of Labor, 67–71 Department of State, 67–71 Department of Transportation, 67–71 Department of the Treasury, 67–71 Department of Veterans Affairs, 67–71 education, elementary and secondary, 505–506 higher education, 515–516 Environmental Protection Agency, 67–71 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 67–71 federal salaries (expenditures), 53, 67–71 General Service Administration, 67–71 governors, 199–200, 219–224 judges, 304–305 legislators, 113–116 house leaders, 126–128 methods of setting compensation, 111–112 mileage, 113–116 per diem, 113–116
INDEX senate leaders, 123–125 lieutenant governors, 219–224 military, 67–71 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 67–71 National Archives and Records Administration, 67–71 National Science Foundation, 67–71 payrolls, state, 472, 477 secretaries of state, 219–224 Small Business Administration, 67–71 Social Security Administration, 67–71 treasurers, 219–224 United States Postal Service, 67–71 sales tax, 415, 428–429 sales tax exemptions, 415 same-sex marriage, 3–10, 351 Schauffler, Richard, 289–294 schools, elementary and secondary elementary and secondary students, 496–497 membership, 496–497 ratio, 496–497 elementary and secondary teachers, 496–497 ratio, 496–497 teachers, number of, 496–497 elementary and secondary staff, 496–497 administrators, 496–497 guidance counselors, 496–497 librarians, 496–497 instructional aides, 496–497 instructional coordinators, 496–497 staff, number of, 496–497 expenditures, public elementary and secondary administration, 503–504 construction, 501–502 education, 501–502 equipment, 501–502 facilities acquisition, 501–502 instruction expenditures, 503–504 employee benefits, 505–506 per pupil, 505–506 purchased services, 505–506 salaries, 505–506 supplies, 505–506 tuition, 505–506 interest on debt, 501–502 operations, 503–504 percent distribution, 503–504 per pupil, 501–502, 503–504 totals, 501–502 student support, 503–504
graduation rate, 498–499 diplomas, 498–499 General Education Development (GED), 498–499 revenues, public elementary and secondary federal, 500 local, 500 percent distribution, 500 per pupil, 500 state, 500 totals, 500 types of schools, 494–495 alternative education, 494–495 charter schools, 494–495 magnet schools, 494–495 membership, 494–495 special education, 494–495 Title I schools, 494–495 vocational education, 494–495 number of, 464–465 school reform, 25 secretaries of state, 234–244 custodial duties, 243–244 Democratic Change Commission, 234–236 elections, 241–242 elections, presidential, 234–236 Grayson, Trey, 234–235 legislative duties, 243–244 method of selection, 213–218, 238–239 National Association of Secretaries of State, 234, 236 party, 238–239 presidential primary calendar, 234–236 presidential nominating process, 234–237 presidential primary reform, 234–237 Presidential Primary Subcommittee, 236 publication duties, 243–244 qualifications, 240 RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, 235–236 registration duties, 241–242 business related, 241–242 selecting, 213–218, 238–239 Stimson, Kay, 234–237 term limits, 211–212, 238–239 voting, 241–242 Seelbach, Paul W, 534–537 selecting administrative officials, 213–218 house leaders, 109–110 judges, 298–299, 307–314 senate leaders, 107–108 The Council of State Governments 621
INDEX senate, composition, 101–102, 103 leaders (compensation), 123–125 leadership positions, 107–108, 123–125 methods of selecting, 107–108 sessions, legislative, 97–100 convening of, 96, 97–100 dates of, 97–100, 147–150 legal provisions, 97–100 length of, 147–150 limitation on length, 97–100 special, 97–100 subject matter, 97–100 severance taxes, 421–425 sex offenders, 26–27 sexually transmitted infections, 524–531 chlamydia, 524–527, 530–531 disparities in, 524–525, 530–531 funding for prevention, 526–527, 530–531 gonorrhea, 524–526, 530–531 number infected with, 524–525, 530–531 preventing, 524–527 rates, 524–525, 530–531 testing, 525–527 treatment, 524–527 “shovel-ready” projects, 24 Sigritz, Brian, 381–385 social media and courts, 286–287 Social Security, 58–61, 67–71 South Carolina, 591 South Dakota, 592 special sessions (legislative), 97–100, 149–150 staff governors, 199–200 legislators, 151–152 legislatures, 151–152 legislatures (standing committees), 153–154 standing committees administrative regulations, 163–166, 167–169 appointments, 155–156 number, 155–156 rules adoption, 157–162 staff, 153–154 state activism, 28 state budgets, 178, 381–385, 386–388, 389–396, 406–410 budget gaps, 178–179 economic downturn, 177–178 rainy day funds, 179–180 reserve funds, 179–181 state cabinet systems, 205–206 State Children’s Health Insurance Program, 23 622 The Book of the States 2010
state constitutions, 3–18 adoption of, 11–12 amendments, 3–11, 13–14 commissions, 3–6, 16–17 constitutional revision methods, 3–11 conventions, calling, 16–17 general information, 11–12 state courts, 283–288, 289–294, 295–297 budgets, 283–286 caseloads, changes in, 284 cutbacks, 284 funding, 289,293 reductions in work force, 290–291 re-engineering, 290–293 Rottman, David, 283–288 Rutledge, Jesse, 283–288 service delivery, 291–293 state debt, 258–262 state-federal relations Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 26 affirmative action, 27 Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote, 28 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 21–24, 27 Build America Bonds, 24 Medicaid, 25 Race to the Top grants, 25 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 24 Build America Bonds, 24 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, 25–26 coercive federalism, 21–30 Community Development Block Grant funds, 25 concurrent resolution, 24 consumer protections, 27 criminal law, federalization of, 27 federal aid, 23–24 federal court orders, 27 federal mandates, 24–26 federalism, 21–30 Health Care Freedom Acts, 28 health care reform, 21, 25, 28 immigration, 26 Immigration and Naturalization Act, 21–30 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 28 intergovernmental relations, 21–30 separation of powers, Kin Kincaid, John, 21–30 interstate disputes, 24–25
INDEX Kincaid, John, 21–30 Medicaid, growth in, 25 medical marijuana, 21–30 No Child Left Behind, 24–25 Obama administration, 21–30 pre-emption of state authority, 26–27 Race to the Top, 25 REAL ID Act, 26 Recovery Act, 21–25, 27 Build America Bonds, 24 Medicaid, 25 Race to the Top grants, 25 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 24 school reform, 25 SCHIP, 23 sex offenders, 26–27 “shovel-ready” projects, 24 state activism, 28 State Children’s Health Insurance Program, 23 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 24 stimulus, 21–24, 27 Supreme Court, 27–28 decisions, 27–28 taxation, 27 unemployment benefits, 24 unfunded mandates, 24–26 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 24 voting rights, 27 Voting Rights Act, 27 state finances aggregates, financial expenditure, 432 general, 432 intergovernmental, 45–48 utilities, 432 liquor, 432 insurance trust, 432 debt outstanding, 432 cash holdings, 432 revenue, 432 general, 432, 434–435 individual income, 434–435 intergovernmental , 434–435 licenses, 434–435 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 taxes, 421–425, 434–435 insurance trust, 432 liquor, 432 utilities, 432 security holdings, 432 budgets, 381–385,386–388, 389–396, 406–410
tax revenue, 426–427, 434–435 cigarette taxes, 413–414 corporate income taxes, 419–420 corporation net income, 434–435 individual income, 434–435 licenses, 434–435 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 severance taxes, 421–425 cash holdings, 432 debt outstanding, 432 long-term, 440 full faith and credits, 440 short term, 440 net long-term, 440 per capita, 440 debt redemption, 433 expenditure, 45–48, 433 education, public elementary and secondary, 402–403 administration, 503–504 construction, 501–502 education, 45–46, 501–502 equipment, 501–502 facilities acquisition, 501–502 health, 45–46 highways, 45–46, 545–546 instruction expenditures, 503–504 employee benefits, 505–506 per pupil, 505–506 purchased services, 505–506 salaries, 505–506 supplies, 505–506 tuition, 505–506 interest on debt, 501–502 local government, 45–46 operations, 503–504 percent distribution, 503–504 public welfare, 45–46 totals, 501–502 student support, 503–504 general, 402–403 corrections, 438–439 education, 402–403, 438–439 employment security administration, 438–439 financial administration, 438–439 health, 438–439 highways, 438–439, 545–546 hospitals, 438–439 natural resources, 421–425, 438–439 police, 438–439 public welfare, 438–439 The Council of State Governments 623
INDEX Medicaid, 404–405 subsidies, 436–437 total salaries and wages, 436–437 general sales taxes, 398–399 individual income taxes, 416–420, 570–571 sales taxes, 413–415, 426–429 security holdings, 433 severance taxes, 421–425 state taxes, 384–431 tax revenue corporation, 426–427, 434–435 death and gift taxes, 426–427 documentary, 426–427 general, 434–435 individual income, 426–427, 434–435, 570–571 intergovernmental , 434–435 licenses, 426–427, 430–431 alcoholic beverages, 430–431 amusements, 430–431 corporations, 430–431 hunting and fishing, 430–431 motor vehicle operators, 430–431 motor vehicles, 430–431, 434–435 public utility, 430–431 occupation, 430–431 business, 430–431 property taxes, 426–427 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 alcoholic beverages, 428–429 amusements, 428–429 general, 434–435 insurance premiums, 428–429 motor fuels, 428–429, 434–435 pari-mutuels, 428–429 public utilities, 428–429 tobacco products, 428–429 severance taxes, 421–425 stock transfer, 426–427 state fiscal condition, 381–385 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 24, 386 state general funds, 389–395 state information capital city, 565, 568–569 central switchboard, 565 executive branch, 572–599 historical data, 566–567 judicial branch, 572–599 largest city, 568–569, 572–599 land area, 568–569, 572–599 legislative branch, 572–599 legislative clerks, 572–599 624 The Book of the States 2010
legislative officers, 572–599 motto, 572–599 number of, Congressional representatives, 572–599 counties, 572–599 electoral votes, 572–599 municipal governments, 572–599 school districts, 572–599 special districts, 572–599 population, 528–599 density, 528–599 rank, 528–599 statistics, 528–599 state pages, 565–599 zip codes, 565 state-local governments, 31–35 education, 45–46, 49 health, 45–46, 49 highways, 45–46, 49 public welfare, 45–46, 49 state-local relations, 31–35 bankruptcies, 31–35 California, 32–33 court decisions, 33–34 devolution of power, 31 economic recession, 34–35 education budget, 34 investment pools, 34 property tax relief, 34 state retirement system, 34 fiscal distress, 34–35 government reorganization, 31–32 home rule, 31 state laws, 32–33 state-local government, 31–35 Zimmerman, Joseph F., 31–35 State of the States, 177–184 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 178 federal prosecution, 182 governors, 177–184 public corruption, 182 agendas, 178–179 party control, 177–178 state ethics reform, 182–183 state performance, 181 state taxes, 181–182 state of the state speeches, 177–183 issues, 178–183 ethics reform, 182–183 performance, 181 taxes, 181–182
INDEX Willoughby, Katherine, 177–184 state budgets, 178 budget gaps, 178–179 economic downturn, 177–178 rainy day funds, 179–180 reserve funds, 179–181 Willoughby, Katherine, 177–184 state revenues, 381–382, 384, 398–399, 421–425, 428–429 tax collections, 381–382, 384, 408 tax revenue, 406–410, 433, 434–435 corporation, 426–427, 434–435 death and gift taxes, 426–427 documentary, 426–427 individual income, 426–427, 434–435, 570–571 intergovernmental, 434–435 licenses, 426–427, 430–431 alcoholic beverages, 430–431 amusements, 430–431 corporations, 430–431 hunting and fishing, 430–431 motor fuels, 434–435 motor vehicle operators, 430–431 motor vehicles, 430–431, 434–435 public utility, 430–431 occupation, 430–431 business, 430–431 severance taxes, 421–425 shortfalls, 408–410 state spending, 381–384 general funds, 382–383 rainy day funds, 381–382, 384 state taxes, 181–182, 381–382, 384 statutes, 352–369 Stimson, Kay, 234–237 stimulus, 21–24, 27, 260–262, 386–388, 408–410 Storey, Tim, 91–95 streets, length of, 547–548 students, elementary and secondary, 496–497 subpoena powers (attorneys general), 254–255 succession, gubernatorial, 196–197 sunset legislation, 170–174 sunset reviews, 170–174 switchboards (capitals), 565
—T— taxes amnesty programs, 433–412 cigarette, 413–414 collections, 396–399
corporate income, 419–420, 434–435 earned income credits, 56–57 excise, 413–414, 539–540 federal starting points, 418 individual income, 416–417, 434–435 motor fuel, 434–435, 538–540 motor vehicle, 434–435 personal, 396–397 sales (exemptions), 415 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 sales tax, 415, 434–435 state tax amnesty, 411–412 tax rate increases, 409 tax revenue, 406–410 corporation, 426–427, 434–435 death and gift taxes, 426–427 documentary, 426–427 individual income, 426–427, 434–435, 570–571 intergovernmental, 434–435 licenses, 426–427, 430–431, 434–435 alcoholic beverages, 430–431 amusements, 430–431 corporations, 430–431 hunting and fishing, 430–431 motor vehicle operators, 430–431 motor vehicles, 430–431, 434–435 public utility, 430–431 occupation, 430–431 business, 430–431 property taxes, 426–427 sales and gross receipts, 434–435 alcoholic beverages, 428–429 amusements, 428–429 insurance premiums, 428–429 motor fuels, 428–429, 434–435 pari-mutuels, 428–429 public utilities, 428–429 tobacco products, 428–429 stock transfer, 426–427 taxation, 27 teachers, elementary and secondary, 496–497 Tennessee, 592 term limits auditors, 270–271 attorney generals, 211–212, 249–250 gubernatorial, 196–197, 211–212 legislative, turnover, 92–93, 104 secretaries of state, 211–212 treasurers, 211–212, 263 terms The Council of State Governments 625
INDEX auditors, 270–271 attorneys general, 211–212, 249–250 appellate courts, 298–299, 300–301, 307–309 chief justices, 298–299 general trial courts, 300–301, 310–314 governors length, 196–197, 211–212 number of, 211–212 legislators, 101–102, 103 lieutenant governors, 211–212, 229–230 term limits, gubernatorial, 196–197, 211–212 treasurers, , 211–212, 263 Texas, 593 Tormey, Kate, 517–523 transition procedures (governors), 207–208 transportation, 538–550 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 538–541 apportionment of funds, 549–550 disbursements, 545–546 federal aid, 549–550 Federal Highway Administration, 543–550 finance, 538–542 funding, 549–550 infrastructure needs, 538 length of, 547–548 mileage, 547–548 revenues, 543–544 rural mileage, 547–548 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act, 538 Slone, Sean, 538–542 state funding sources, 538–541 bonds, 539 borrowing, 539 excise taxes, 539–540 fuel taxes, 538–540 fees, 539 tolling, 549–550 vehicle miles traveled-based fees, 541 vehicle registration fees, 549 urban mileage, 547–548 treasurers American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 260–261 Build America Bonds, 260–261 success of, 260–261 issuances, 260 cash management, 265 debt markets, 258–262 transparency in, 261 duties, 265 626 The Book of the States 2010
federal aid, 260–261 interest rates, 258–259, 261 investors, retail, 259 investors, institutional, 259 Johnson, Kevin, 258–262 methods of selection, 213–218, 263 municipal bond issuances, 258–259 National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, 266–279 National Association of State Treasurers (NAST), 258–262 party, 263 qualifications, 264 Recovery Act, 260–261 responsibilities, 265 cash management, 265 salaries, 219–224 state debt, 258–262 stimulus, 260–262 term of office, 263 turnover in legislature membership, 92–93, 104
—U— U.S. Advisory Commission of Intergovernmental Relations, 36–37, 41–43 U.S. Census Bureau, 45–81, 432–443, 472–477 U.S. Supreme Court, 27–28 decisions, 27–28 U.S. Virgin Islands, 599 unemployment benefits, 24 unemployment compensation, 56–57 unemployment rate, 384 unfunded mandates, 24–26 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 24 universities institutions, 511–512 board, 511–512 faculty salaries, 515–516 number of, 513–514 room, 511–512 salaries, 515–516 tuition, 511–512 Utah, 593
—V— vehicle miles traveled-based fees, 541 vehicle registration fees, 549 Vermont, 594 veterans benefits, 54–55 vetoes,
INDEX enacting legislation, 140–142, 147–150 line item, 140–142, 147–150, 201–202 overrides, 140–142, 147–150 Virginia, 594 voter databases, 322–323 initiatives, 324–329 California, 324–329 impact on budget, 324–329 impact on revenue, 325–327 impact on spending, 325–326, 329 process, 324–325 requirements, 324–325 trends, 326–327 registration, 321–323, 341–343 military voters, 321 absentee voters, 321 online, 322 turnout (Presidential elections), 346 National Voter Registration Act, 321–322 voting equipment, 322 Lewis, R. Doug, 321–323 voting rights, 27 Voting Rights Act, 27 statistics (Gubernatorial elections), 344–345 statistics (Presidential elections), 346
Weldon, Tim, 488–493 West Virginia, 595 Whatley, Chris, 386–388 Willoughby, Katherine, 177–184 Wisconsin, 596 Wyoming, 596
—X-Y-Z— zip codes (capitals), 565 Zimmerman, Joseph F., 31–35
—W— wages, federal funds (expenditures), 53, 67–71, 78 Washington, 595 water resources, 534–537 adverse resource impact (ARI), 534–537 compacts, 534 conflicts, 534 ecological-response curves, 534, 535 environmental flow standards, 534 environmental impacts 534–535 Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, 534 groundwater withdrawals, 534,536 Hamilton, David A., 534–537 Internet screening tool, 537 management zones, 536 Seelbach, Paul, W., 534–537 stream flow classification, 535 stream-flow, 534, 535, 536 surface withdrawals, 534, 535 Water Management Areas, 535 Water Withdrawal Assessment Process, 534, 536 The Council of State Governments 627