State And Local Exam Ii

Front 1

Term Limits

Back 1

1. Power of the governor over legislation increases (majority party leaders and committee chair influence weakened)
2.power shifted to Senate (party caucus leader reduced)
3.Bipartisanship and consensus-building more difficult
4.legislative policy knowledge reduced
5.motivated by issues (progressive ambitions)
6.resign before term is done to run for another office

Front 2

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES AND INTEREST GROUPS

Back 2

1.Interest groups represent numerical minority support in the electorate: parties seek majority support
2.Interest groups seek to influence small portion of issues; parties try to influence all issues
3.Interest groups rarely run candidates for office; parties run candidates for office
Political Parties in the U.S. have resulted from the "unwritten Constitution" or "outside the language of the Constitution

Front 3

IMPORTANCE OF PARTIES

Back 3

1.Nomination usually occurs through party labeled process
2.Party serves as reference group for electorate—that is, party identification is most important factor affecting how people vote in state and local elections
3.Parties provide money, personnel, etc., for candidates

Front 4

RESPONSIBLE PARTY MODEL [Purists]
(E. E. Schattschneider)

Back 4

Party system in which each party offers clear policy alternatives and holds their elected officials responsible for enacting these policies in office
1.Develop and clarify alternative policy positions for voters
2.Educate the public about issues and simplify choices for them
3.Recruit candidates for office who subscribe to policy positions of party
4.Organize and direct candidates' campaigns
5.Hold elected officials responsible for enacting policy positions
6.Organize legislature to ensure enacting policy

Front 5

Problems with Responsible Party Model in U.S [realists]

Back 5

1. Parties do not offer voters clear choices (each party tries to capture the broad center of most policy dimensions where it believes most Americans can be found)
2. Voters are not motivated by policy (Little incentive for either party/candidate to concentrate on issues)
3.Americans have no way of binding candidate/parties to policy positions/campaign pledges (parties cannot really discipline members of congress or state legislatures for voting against the party position)

Front 6

Challenges to Responsible Party Model in U.S.

Back 6

1. Increase use of party primaries to nominate candidates
2.Decline in party affiliation
3.Decline in patronage
4.Rise of single-issue groups and political action committees

Front 7

Republican and Democratic Party Fortunes (1932-present)

Back 7

1.Democratic Party has won11 of 20 presidential elections, while Republicans have won 7 out of last 11
2.Republican Party is winning in state elections and more often--governorships (since 1994) and state legislatures (since 2004)
3.Aemericans narrowly identify with the Democratic Party (35% Democratic, 24% Republicans, 40% independent)
a. Since 1960s there has been a marked decline in the number of Democratic and Republican Party identifiers
b. Since 1960, there have been a marked increase in the number of independents
4.The number of Democrats and Republicans exaggerated when comparing the number of individuals who "identify" with as opposed to those who "register" as a Democratic or Republican

Front 8

Party Effects if Party Competition

Back 8

1. Party Competition may not produce policy differences if there is an unimodal distribution of voters' preferences in a state and if the state parties are devoid of strong organizations and ideologically motivated activists
2. Competitive party system may be policy-relevant if there is a bimodal distribution of voters' preferences in a state, and if the parties have strong organization and ideologically motivated activists
3. State Republican and Democratic parties resemble the national Republican and Democratic parties only in those states where each party represents separate socioeconomic constituencies
4. Part competition tends to be greatest in states characterized by a heterogeneous population (bimodal distribution) and least in a homogeneous population (unimodal distribution)

Front 9

Democrats

Back 9

Lower income
Lower education
Racial minorities
Catholics, Jewish
Urban dwellers
Union, skilled, semi-skilled

Front 10

Republicans

Back 10

Higher income
higher education
white, anglo-saxon
protestant
rural/suburban dwellers
Professional, managerial, sales, and clerical

Front 11

Party Affairs Governed by State Law

Back 11

1. Qualify as party
2. How candidates get name on ballot
3. Qualify as a party member
4. Method for nominating candidates
5. Right to vote in primary
6. Determination of number, method of selection, and duties of party officials, committees, and conventions
7. Party finance

Front 12

Influence of Party over Nomination

Back 12

1. Party Convention
2. Closed primary with party endorsement
3. Closed primary without party endorsement
4. Open Primary
5. Blanket Primary
6. Non-partisan primary

Front 13

Name recognition or visibility

Back 13

Greatest advantage that a candidate can have in an election

Front 14

Sources of Campaign Funds

Back 14

1. Candidates themselves
2. Family
3. Labor unions
4. Business Groups
5. Wealthy individuals
6. Other Candidates

Front 15

Forms of Campaign Finance Regulation

Back 15

1. Limit on Contribution
2. Limit on Expenditures
3. Public Disclosure
4. State public financing

Front 16

State Public Financing

Back 16

1. Sixteen states use income tax check off system
2. KY allows direct tax deduction
3. Distribution of funds
a. Five states distribute to parties which have complete discretion
b. Eight states distribute to parties which have no discretion
c. Four states use combination of a and b

Front 17

Distribution of State Financing Funds

Back 17

1. Funds are distributed to parties to be used without restriction (discretionary funds)
2. Funds are distributed to parties and they must redistribute to candidates according to a set formula (non discretionary)
3. Hybrid

Front 18

Direct Democracy and other Factors Affecting State Party Organizations

Back 18

1. Direct Democracy features
a. Party Primary
b. Initiative
c. Recall
d. Referendum
2. No ward or precinct-level workers
3. state financing

Front 19

Pros of Direct Democracy

Back 19

1. People can undo bad legislation
2. Means of controlling special interests
3. Can control legislature
4. Educate voters

Front 20

Cons of Direct Democracy

Back 20

1. Undermines legislative process
2. Impares legislative responsibility
3. Legislation can be passed by a numerical minority
4. Leads to poorly drafted legislation

Front 21

Limitation of Powers of State Legislatures

Back 21

1. Supremacy of U.S. Constitution, federal laws and federal treaties
2. State Constitutions
3. State Constitution bill of rights

Front 22

Actual Powers of State Legislatures

Back 22

1. Taxing Power
2. Issue criminal codes and establish penalties
3. Regulate businesses within state
4. "Police" powers: provide for safety and welfare of citizens
5. Quasi-judicial power
a. impeachment
b. Selection of judges

Front 23

Legal Requirements to be legislator

Back 23

1. Registered Voter
2. Age
3. Pay filing fee

Front 24

Who are Elected Legislators

Back 24

1. Higher education and income
2. WASP
3. White-collar, professionals (attorneys predominate)
4. Male
5. Elites

Front 25

Political Experience of Legislators

Back 25

1. Amateurs
2. Lower House members- may have served in political office at local level (city/county council or commission, mayor, school board)
3. Upper house member (served in lower house)

Front 26

Raising Campaign money

Back 26

1. Campaign cost vary: usually higher when running for upper house and in large urban states ($100,000+)
2. Campaign management firms more likely to be used when running in larger urban states
3. low-budget campaigns are the norm for state legislators-money comes from candidates themselves and friends
4. high budget campaigns rely more on big donors and PACs

Front 27

Running in the Primary

Back 27

1. More than 1/2 of candidates run unopposed
2. Competition is greater where likelihood of victory in general election is greater
3. Democrats more likely to face competition
4. More competition if incumbent is not running
5. Some states require a run-off primary if no candidates receives a majority

Front 28

Running in the General Election

Back 28

1. More than 1/3 of seats are uncontested (one-party states)
2. More and more Candidates are winning by lopsided margins

Front 29

Why People run for Legislator

Back 29

1. Make business contacts
2. Egotistical reasons
3. Want to exercise power over make state policy
4. Want to represent a certain cause or constituents
5. Civic duty
6. Stepping stone to higher office

Front 30

Turnover Rates

Back 30

1. Greater than 33 percent in both houses of legislators but higher in lower chamber
2. Incumbents win 90 percent of the time when they choose to run for re-election
3. Turnover rates had declined somewhat over last 50 years due to increase in professionalization of legislatures (Ray). This refers to increase in professional operation of legislature, which in turn, has lead to greater value of legislative positions; though it has led to keener contested elections, incumbent who seek re-election have a high rate of success; in sum, has led to lower turnover rates

Front 31

Professional Legislators

Back 31

1. usually found in more populous, urban, and industrial states
2. Legislators are well paid and think of their job as full time
3. Committees are well-staffed and have food informational services available to legislators
4. Tend to be more innovative and interventionist
5. Seem to promote Careerism among legislators

Front 32

Gerrymandering

Back 32

intentionally drawing legislative districts lines in a way that gives an unfair advantage of one political party or racial group; this is illegal

Front 33

Malapportionment

Back 33

allowing legislative district lines to stay in place, which results in gross disparities in the number of people in these districts; has been declared illegal by the federal courts in a series of decisions

Front 34

Colegrove v. Green

Back 34

Court decline jurisdiction in challenge to Illinois legislative appointment scheme; sought to have court abide by state constitution.

Front 35

Baker v. Carr

Back 35

Court ruled that inequalities in state apportionment laws (Tennessee) denied voters “equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) and that the federal courts should grant relief; lower house of legislature

Front 36

Gray v. Sanders

Back 36

Court declared Georgia county unit system of election unconstitutional

Front 37

Reynolds v. Sims

Back 37

Court rules that inequalities in state apportionment laws (Alabama) as applied to upper house of legislatives (senates) unconstitutional as a violation of 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause; coined phrase “one man, one vote”

Front 38

Westbury v. Sanders

Back 38

Court applied “one man, one vote” rule to apportionment in U.S. House of Representatives this job is handled by state legislatures.

Front 39

Pros of Bicameralism

Back 39

1. Each house serves as check on other
2. Two houses divide work and save time
3. Provides obstacles to corruption
4. More representation

Front 40

Pros of Unicameralism

Back 40

1. Does work quicker
2. Not as expensive
3. Leads to more visibility

Front 41

Advantages realized by Nebraska

Back 41

1. Fewer bills introduce
2. Higher percentage of bills introduced eventually enacted into law
3. Costs less
4. Greater visibility reported by citizens

Front 42

Reasons unicameral legislation not adopted

Back 42

1. Opposition from political establishment

a) Tampering with time-honored institution
b) Legislative committees would lose oversight roles

2. Apathy from citizens
3. Problem of legislators losing jobs

Front 43

Informal Process

Back 43

Helps to counteract formal rules and procedures and give us a well-rounded and better understanding as to how policy making occurs in legislative branch
1. Seniority
2. Hard Work
3. Reciprocity
4. Expertiese

Front 44

Less Important Committees

Back 44

1. Two-party states where party discipline is high
2. States where governor is strong and legislature is of same party as governor
3. States where governor, party, or faction of party exercise strong influence over legislature

Front 45

More Important Committees

Back 45

1. One-party states where governor does not exert strong leadership
2. States characterized by divided government (that is, governor and legislative of different parties)
3. States in which committees are fewer and rational division of labor exists
4. States with more professional legislatures

Front 46

Why State Legislative Committees are less influential than Congressional Committees

Back 46

1. Part-time institutions
2. Seldom have adequate staff assistance
3. Legislative turnover rates high
4. Seniority system infrequently used
5. Expertise lacking

Front 47

Roles of Legislators (Burke)

Back 47

1. Delegate—Guided in legislative matters by instructions or wishes or his/her constituency
2. Trustee—Guided in legislative matters by his/her personal conscience
3. Politico—A hybrid between a delegate and trustee

Front 48

Roles of Legislators (Wahlke Et. AL)

Back 48

Ritualist—sees job in technical fashion—“making laws”
2. Tribune-sees role as discoverer of popular needs and defender of popular interests (understanding constituent problems, making himself/herself available, and keeping track of public opinion); similar to Burke’s delegate
3. Inventor-see himself/herself as the initiator and creator of public policy; sees legislature as taking lead in solving important problems in the state
4. Broker-referee between interest groups, constituents, and executive branch

Front 49

Political Parties Experts and State Legislators

Back 49

The influence that political parties exert on state legislators and the policy outcomes of state legislatures is minimal and has actually been decreasing over the last 200 years because:
1. “Responsible party model” does not operate in U.S.
2. Enactment of various components of direct democracy (party primary, initiative, recall, and referendum)

Front 50

Control of Constituents

Back 50

Contrary to popular myth, constituents exercise very little control over of their legislators and state legislatures, since many voters do not know who represents them in their legislature and have little information about the candidates or the issues that separate them

Front 51

Interest Groups "Third House" Why?

Back 51

Interest groups and their employees (lobbyists) are known as the “third house” of the legislature because of the tremendous amount of information they provide to legislators and ultimate influence they wield over legislation

Front 52

Dye on Legislatures

Back 52

Historically, legislatures have performed as “arbiter” of policy issues, rather than “initiators” (Dye); most policy initiatives usually originate with the governor or his/her staff and interest groups

Front 53

Party

Back 53

An organization that seeks to achieve power by winning public office in elections
2. main purpose is to is identifying themselves with the two major parties
3. Party activists and Professional Campaign consultants: focus more on trying to understand and why one candidate wins and the other does not

Front 54

Party Identification

Back 54

self-described identification with a political party

Front 55

Candidate-centered politics

Back 55

individual candidates rather than parties raise funds. create personal organizations and rely on professional consultation to direct their campaigns

Front 56

Rise of Candidate-Centered Elections

Back 56

1. Rise of Primary Elections (parties cannot control who the party's nominee shall be)
2. Decline of party identification
3. More focus on the candidate, less on his/her party affiliation
4. influence of the mass media
5. Decline of patronage
6. rise of single-issue interest groups, PACs

Front 57

Party Professionals

Back 57

those who participate in campaigns and party politics year-round, often to get jobs for themselves or their friends and to strengthen their party

Front 58

Political amateurs

Back 58

part-timeers who participate in campaigns and party politics primarily during elections usually to support a specific candidate or cause

Front 59

1792

Back 59

Federalist and anti-federalist

Front 60

1816

Back 60

Federalist died out

Front 61

1816-25

Back 61

Era of Good Feelings

Front 62

1825

Back 62

National Republicans v. Democratic Republicans

Front 63

1834

Back 63

Whigs v. Democrats

Front 64

1855

Back 64

Republicans v. Democrats

Front 65

Possible Structural Relationship between candidate's staff and party

Back 65

1. Campaign conducted through pre-existing party organization
2. Candidates develop personal following and barely associates with party

Front 66

Parties are Survivors

Back 66

1. American parties have demonstrated amazing adaptability and durability (parties organize elections and narrow the choice political office seekers confronting the voters
2. Parties continue to play an important role in voter choice
3. Party organizations and activists in the states play an important role in guiding their party and in shaping its image with the voters
4. Democratic and Republican parties perform the central task of organizing state legislatures

Front 67

South

Back 67

Strongly Democratic
1. Segregation
2. Against welfare
3. Beliefs stayed the same, party opinion change

Front 68

Gridlock

Back 68

One party governs both houses and the other party controls the governorship
Very little goes forward in public policy. Does not bode well for responsible party model
1. one party steam roles the other
2. MP select PM, Cabinet from majority
3. Candidates think of themselves first and the party last

Front 69

Unified party government

Back 69

Same party controls both the legislature and governorship is presumed better able to enact its programs into law
1. Usually can avoid gridlock
2. Makes Responsible Party Model more likely

Front 70

Dealignment

Back 70

a decline in party loyalty among voters and rise in independent and split-tickt voting

Front 71

Party Activists

Back 71

People who sere in city, county, or state party organizations or who work, regularly work in campaigns

Front 72

Endorsements

Back 72

Strength of endorsement varies with the strength of party organizations
2. Where party organizations are strong at the city or county level, the word can be passed down to precinct committee members to turn out the party's faithful for the endorsed candidate

Front 73

closed primaries

Back 73

only voters who have previously registered as members of a party may vote in that party's primary

Front 74

Open primaries

Back 74

primary elections in which a voter may cast a ballot in either party's primary election
1. every voter gets the same ballot and the 2 top vote-getters for each office regardless of party affiliation face off against each other in the general election

Front 75

Blanket primaries

Back 75

voters could vote in both party primaries simultaneously (unconstitutional)

Front 76

runoff primary

Back 76

an additional primary held between the top to vote-getters in a primary where no candidate has received a majority of the vote
1. prevents a candidate with a minority of party voters from capturing the nomination in a race with 3+ contenders
2. Encourages candidates to seek majority support and prevents extremist candidates from winning nominations

Front 77

bimodal distribution of opinion

Back 77

voters divide into liberals and conservatives

Front 78

unimodal distribution of opinion

Back 78

voters are less divided ideologically

Front 79

Medial Campaigning

Back 79

Contracting potential voters and soliciting their support primarily through television, online radio, and newspaper advertising

Front 80

soft money

Back 80

campaign contributions given to party organizations for party organization voter registration but not to be used directly for their candidates campaign

Front 81

sunset laws

Back 81

laws that fix termination dates for programs and agencies in order to force the legislature to renew them if the legislators wish the program to continue

Front 82

States with stronger parties

Back 82

more likely to nominate people who have worked for the party in one way or another

Front 83

States with weaker parties

Back 83

more likely to elect amateurs with no previous political experience

Front 84

stronger political organizations

Back 84

more likely a legislative candidate will have to serve a political apprenticeship in some local or party offices

Front 85

oat-tails effect

Back 85

Popular national candidates win by a landslide and they are able to bring into office with them a number of state and local candidates of their party who other wise would not have won on their own merits
1. landslide (at least 60%) of the popular vote
2. can only be present for a ticket if the winner of the majority of party ID (registered voters)

Front 86

safe districts

Back 86

little party competition, one party dominates

Front 87

close districts

Back 87

competitive; electoral competition is great

Front 88

one party system

Back 88

one party is overwhelmingly dominate

Front 89

two party system

Back 89

the government is controlled completely, or almost completely, by two political parties.