The states' role and condition are crucial in assessing intergovernmental relations. Although often overshadowed by the federal government, states are the primary domestic governors. They make major policy decisions, protect public health and safety, provide public education and highways, administer criminal justice, and regulate many aspects of business. The states' current prominence reflects responsibilities resulting from cutbacks in federal grants, from the federal government's inability to pursue new programs because of the deficit, and from efforts made to upgrade almost every aspect of state governance. As a result, states are most energetic, assertive, and innovative. They will have to continue this activism to maintain their position as full partners in the federal system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Daniel J. Elazar, “States as Polities in the Federal System,”National Civic Review, 70:77-82 (Feb. 1980).
2.
2. Donald S. Lutz, “The United States Constitution as an Incomplete Text,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496:23-32 (Mar. 1988).
3.
3. Ibid., p. 25.
4.
4. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985).
5.
5. South Carolina v. Baker, 108 S.Ct. 1355 (1988).
6.
Mark Rom , “The Family Support Act of 1988: Federalism, Developmental Policy, and Welfare Reform,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 19:57-73 (Summer 1989).
7.
7. Mavis Mann Reeves, “State Activism as a Balance in Preserving Federalism,”Journal of State Government, 62:22 (Jan.-Feb. 1989).
8.
8. Ibid.
9.
9. David Osborne, Laboratories of Democracy: A New Breed of Governors Creates Models for National Growth (Boston: Harvard Graduate School Press, 1988).
10.
10. State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1987 (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1989), p. 3.
11.
11. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, statistics for 1987.
12.
12. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1988 (New York: World Almanac, 1987), p. 816.
13.
13. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1988 ed. (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1988), 2:56.
14.
14. Ibid. p. 52.
15.
15. 368 U.S. 186 (1962).
16.
16. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
17.
See also Peter K. Eisinger and William Gormley, eds., The Midwest Response to the New Federalism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).
18.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , The Question of State Government Capability (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1985).
19.
19. Terry Sanford, Storm over the States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 189.
20.
20. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Question of State Government Capability, p. 41.
21.
See also Janice C. May, “Constitutional Amendment and Revision Revisited,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 17:153-179 (Winter 1987).
22.
22. See May, “Constitutional Amendment,” pp. 172-176.
23.
23. John Kincaid, “The New Judicial Federalism,”Journal of State Government, 61:163 (Sept.-Oct. 1988).
24.
24. Vincent L. Marando and Mavis Mann Reeves, “State Reform and Local Discretion: A Preliminary Examination,” in Public Policy across States and Communities, ed. Dennis R. Judd (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 33-48.
25.
25. The Book of the States, 1988-89 Edition (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 1988), pp. 35-36.
26.
26. Ibid.
27.
27. Thad L. Beyle, “From Governor to Governors,” in The State of the States, ed. Carl E. Van Horn (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1989), p. 36.
28.
28. See Thad L. Beyle, “The Governor as Innovator in the Federal System,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18:131 (Summer 1988).
29.
29. Ibid., p. 137.
30.
30. Beyle, “From Governor to Governors,” p. 36.
31.
31. See Larry Sabato, Goodbye to Goodtime Charlie: The American Governorship Transformed, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983).
32.
32. See John Kincaid, “The American Governors in International Affairs,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 14:95 (Fall 1984).
33.
33. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Question of State Government Capability, chap. 7.
34.
34. Harold F. Wise, History of State Planning - An Interpretive Commentary (Washington, DC: Council of State Planning Agencies, 1977), p. 10.
35.
35. State Court Caseload Statistics.
36.
36. Book of the States, 1988-89, pp. 163-173.
37.
John Kincaid , “Fiscal Capacity and Tax Effort of the American States: Trends and Issues,”Public Budgeting and Finance, 9:4 (Autumn 1989).
38.
38. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1989 ed. (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1989), 1:119-121.
39.
39. Ibid., 2:69.
40.
40. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Significant Features, 1988, 2:88.
41.
41. Book of the States, 1988-89, p. 256.
42.
42. For another discussion of state resurgence, see Ann O'M. Bowman and Richard C. Kearney, The Resurgence of the States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986).
