Both Democrats and Republicans care about \u2018states\u2019 rights\u2019 \u2014 when it suits them<\/p>\n
By\u00a0Mallory E. SoRelle<\/p>\n
\u00a0and\u00a0<\/p>\n
Alexis N. Walker<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
June 23, 2017<\/p>\n
The Mississippi state flag is displayed with the banners of other U.S. states, territories and commonwealths, above a walkway in the tunnel from the Capitol Building to the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington\u00a0on July 1, 2016. (J. Scott Applewhite\/Associated Press)<\/p>\n
After President Trump declared his intention to leave the Paris climate agreement, three Democratic state governors\u00a0announced\u00a0that their states would continue to pursue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress\u00a0vowed\u00a0to enact federal laws to preempt state and local immigration policies at odds with the GOP agenda. This contradicts conventional wisdom, which holds that Republicans promote states\u2019 rights while Democrats want more policymaking power concentrated at the federal level.<\/p>\n
This explains why there are so few Republican women in Congress<\/p>\n
Is this a\u00a0partisan reversal on states\u2019 rights? Our research suggests not. Rather, both parties have historically promoted or preempted states\u2019 rights depending on their party\u2019s political goals for a given issue.<\/p>\n
Both Democrats and Republicans care about states\u2019 rights<\/p>\n
The United States has a federal system, which means that state and federal governments divide and share power to make and enforce laws. As the chart\u00a0below shows, the federal government has a long history of enacting laws that preempt, or limit, states\u2019 and localities\u2019 policymaking powers.<\/p>\n
But federal preemption jumped sharply in the 1970s and again over the past decade. About 6 percent of federal laws enacted between 2000 and 2009 preempt state and local powers, compared with about 3.5 percent during the previous decade.<\/p>\n
Federal preemptions by decade<\/p>\n
How we did our research<\/p>\n
To learn more about how the parties at the national level approach states\u2019 rights, we\u00a0surveyed\u00a0every federal law enacted between 1990 and 2012 that preempted state power in some way. As the figure below shows, we found that both parties have contributed relatively equally to the dramatic increase in federal preemption.<\/p>\n
Preemption statutes enacted, by party control of House and presidency, 1990-2012<\/p>\n
Over about the past 20 years, Republicans in Congress and in the White House have been just as willing to limit state power as have Democrats. For example, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each signed 64 preemption statutes into law during their respective eight years in office. Similarly, between 1990 and 2012, no matter which party controlled the House of Representatives, roughly the same average number of preemption policies became law each year.<\/p>\n
Parties preempt states\u2019 rights in different ways<\/p>\n
However, exactly how they limit state authority varies, in keeping with the parties\u2019 different political goals.<\/p>\n
The parties enact different types of preemptions. Republicans are more likely to impose what are known as \u201cceiling preemptions.\u201d These laws cap the amount of regulation states can enact on a particular issue. For example, a ceiling preemption might prohibit states from setting new or more stringent emissions standards for a particular industry.<\/p>\n
Democrats, by contrast, are much more likely to limit state power by setting floor preemptions, or minimum standards that states must meet but can exceed if they want to. For example, such a law might set a federal emission standard for a particular industry but allow states to enact tougher emissions standards.<\/p>\n
Yes, Mitch McConnell\u2019s secretive lawmaking really is unusual \u2014 in these 4 ways<\/p>\n
As shown in the charts\u00a0below, we find that when Democrats controlled the House between 1990 and 2012, 57 percent of preemption laws enacted were floors. By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, 33 percent of laws enacted with preemption statutes were floors; the remaining 67 percent were ceilings limiting state regulatory power.<\/p>\n
Floor vs. ceiling preemptions as enacted by party control of House, 1990-2012<\/p>\n
You can see this illustrated in the partisan gap between floor and ceiling preemptions in public health and consumer safety. When Democrats controlled the House, 75 percent of preemptions were floors, compared with\u00a036 percent of those passed under Republican majorities. That means that Democrats in Congress used preemptions to create a base level of health and safety regulation across the states \u2014 while Republicans did so to limit state authority to regulate in this area.<\/p>\n
For example, the\u00a0Card Act of 2009, enacted\u00a0under Democratic control, created new credit card rules to protect consumers but left states able to add still more regulations. By contrast, a Republican-led\u00a02001 amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Act\u00a0introduced federal regulations for electric bicycles that explicitly overrode more stringent state laws.<\/p>\n
States\u2019 rights in the Trump era<\/p>\n
States\u2019 responses to Trump and the current Republican agenda are entirely consistent with these patterns, as the parties\u2019 stands on states\u2019 rights vary with the issue at hand.<\/p>\n
For instance, the Trump administration is trying to remove tough environmental regulations \u2014 and\u00a0state\u00a0and\u00a0national\u00a0Democratic leaders are resisting by\u00a0turning to state power. Just a few years ago, when Democrats controlled the House, Democratic Party leaders in Congress passed federal bills that forced states to set minimum environmental protection standards, for example, by\u00a0regulating the use of lead pipes that carry drinking water.<\/p>\n
But in the ongoing debate over the federal Medicaid program that funds health care for\u00a0low-income and disabled people, the tables are turned. Many Republicans want to shift toward block grants, which would let each state decide how to run and fund its Medicaid program. Predictably, Democrats are opposed; they want enough federal control to ensure that current benefits are protected.<\/p>\n
The sides flip once more on immigration. Congressional Republicans want to preempt state power to prevent Democratic cities from becoming sanctuary cities. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are fighting to protect state and local rights to resist Trump administration policies against sanctuary cities.<\/p>\n
Bartels: The \u2018wave\u2019 of right-wing populist sentiment is a myth<\/p>\n
In sum, neither party holds a principled position on whether to preempt or protect states\u2019 rights. Instead, both parties use federal power to limit state authority or to promote it depending on their party\u2019s policy goals. Expect to see such strategic partisan use of federalism continue as the parties go to battle over Trump\u2019s and the GOP\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n
Mallory E. SoRelle\u00a0is an assistant professor of government and law at Lafayette College, specializing in the study of American politics and public policy. Follow her on Twitter @SoRelleM.<\/p>\n
Alexis N. Walker\u00a0is an assistant professor of political science at Saint Martin\u2019s University, with a focus on American politics and organized labor.<\/p>\n
Gift Article<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Both Democrats and Republicans care about \u2018states\u2019 rights\u2019 \u2014 when it suits them By\u00a0Mallory E. SoRelle \u00a0and\u00a0 Alexis N. Walker \u00a0 June 23, 2017 The Mississippi state flag is displayed with the banners of other U.S. states, territories and commonwealths, above a walkway in the tunnel from the Capitol Building to the Dirksen Senate Office […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-93867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93867","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93867"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93867\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}