This article argues that state legislative memorials to Congress are an underutilized tool in the study of federalism. A data set composed of the 4,119 memorials submitted to Congress from 1987 to 2006 was constructed to study the evolution of state priorities in intergovernmental policy and to examine attitudes toward state–federal relations. Analysis shows that memorials have been used by every state legislature to send substantive policy signals to Washington across a wide range of issues. The article concludes that the inclusion of memorials into the study of intergovernmental relations provides researchers rich insight into unexplored issues critical to our understanding of federalism.
AllenDavid Grayson. 1972. The Zuckerman thesis and the process of legal rationalization in provincial Massachusetts. William and Mary Quarterly29:443–60.
2.
ArnoldDavid S.PlantJeremy F.1994. Public official associations and state and local government: A bridge across one hundred years. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
3.
BeerSamuel. 1978. Federalism, nationalism, and democracy in America. American Political Science Review72:9–21.
4.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.2002. Policy dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BrooksGlenn E.1961. When governors convene: The governors’ conference and national politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
CammissaAnne Marie. 1995. Governments as interest groups: Intergovernmental lobbying and the federal system. Westport, CT: Praeger.
7.
CiglerBeverly. 1995. Not just another special interest: Intergovernmental representation. In Interest group politics, 4th ed., ed. CiglerAllan J.LoomisBurdett, 131–53. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
8.
ConoverMilton. 1920. Legislative resolutions and memorials. American Political Science Review14:672–681.
9.
DoddWilliam E.1902. The principle of instructing United States senators. South Atlantic Quarterly1:326–32.
10.
EatonClement. 1952. Southern senators and the right of instruction, 1789–1860. Journal of Southern History18:303–19.
11.
FarkasSuzanne. 1971. Urban lobbying: Mayors in the federal arena. New York: New York University Press.
12.
FlanaganRichard. 1999. Roosevelt, mayors and the new deal regime: The origins of intergovernmental lobbying and administration. Polity31:415–50.
13.
GormleyWilliam T.2006. Money and mandates: The politics of intergovernmental conflict. Publius: The Journal of Federalism36:523–40.
14.
HaiderDonald. 1974. When governments come to Washington: Governors, mayors and intergovernmental lobbying. New York: Free Press.
15.
HallWilliam K.1989. The new institutions of federalism: The politics of intergovernmental relations, 1960–1985. New York: Peter Lang.
16.
HaynesGeorge H.1938. The senate of the United States: Its history and practice. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
17.
HaysR. Allen1991. Intergovernmental lobbying: Toward and understanding of issue priorities. Western Political Quarterly44:1081–98.
18.
HoffmannWilliam S.1956. Willie P. Mangum and the Whig revival of the doctrine of instructions. Journal of Southern History22:338–54.
19.
JensenJennifer. 2000. Establishing a state lobbying office in Washington: Factors that matter. Paper Presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April28, 2000.
20.
MarbachJosephWesley LeckroneJ.2002. Intergovernmental lobbying for the passage of TEA-21. Publius: The Journal of Federalism32:45–65.
21.
MartinPhilip L.1970. The application clause of article five. Political Science Quarterly85:616–28.
22.
McLaughlinJoseph P.WolfgangPaulWesley LeckroneJ.GollobJustinBossieJasonJenningsJayAthertonMichelle J.2010. The Pennsylvania policy database project: A model for comparative analysis. State Politics and Policy Quarterly10:320–36.
23.
MunroeJohn A.1952. Nonresident representation in the continental congress: The delaware delegation of 1782. The William and Mary Quarterly9:166–90.
24.
NiceDavid C.1986. State support for constitutional balanced budget requirements. Journal of Politics48:134–42.
25.
NugentJohn D.2009. Safeguarding federalism: How states protect their interests in national policymaking. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
26.
PelisseroJohn P.EnglandRobert E.1987. State and local governments’ Washington ‘Reps’—Lobbying strategies and president Reagans new federalism. State and Local Government Review14:68–72.
27.
PetersonR. Eric.2007. Messages, petitions, communications, and memorials to congress. Congressional Research Service. August16, 2007.
28.
PosnerPaul. 1998. The politics of unfunded mandates. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29.
ReganPriscilla M.DeeringChristopher J.2009. State opposition to REAL ID. Publius: The Journal of Federalism39:476–505.
30.
RikerWilliam H.1955. The senate and American federalism. American Political Science Review49:452–69.
31.
RobinsonWilliam A.1924. State legislative memorials to congress. American Political Science Review18:326–8.
32.
RundquistPaul S.1999. Messages, petitions, communications, and memorials to Congress. CRS Report for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
33.
SmithTroy Ellis. 1998. When States Lobby. PhD diss., State University of New Yorkat Albany.
34.
U. S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1994. Federally induced costs affecting state and local governments. Washington, DC: GPO.
35.
U. S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. 1961. State applications asking congress to call a federal constitutional convention. 87th Congress, 1st Session, July 1.
36.
ZimmermanJoseph F.1992. Contemporary American federalism: The growth of national power. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
