There are a number of state level institutions designed to limit the impact of special interests on government or to facilitate citizen participation in government. These include legislative term limits, ballot initiatives, governors' line item veto power and public funding for legislative and gubernatorial candidates. While most of these state government institutions are fairly common around the United States, relatively little is known about Americans' opinion of them. This policy note explores Americans' views on these features as well as the relationship between survey respondents' partisanship and their approval of these state government institutions. To assess the public's attitudes on these political institutions,
researchers at the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri conducted a national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey was administered as part of the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
(CCES), a 10,000 person survey conducted through the collaborative efforts of a consortium of universities. The 2007 CCES was administered in November 2007 by
Polimetrix, an Internet survey firm located in Palo Alto, California.Includes bibliographical reference

Gaughan Costa, Diana

Konisky, David M.

University of Missouri: MOspace

Institute of Public PolicyUniversity of Missouri137 Middlebush HallColumbia, MO 65211Public Approval for State Government InstitutionsDiana Gaughan and David KoniskyReport 5–2008June 2008Conclusions are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Institute of Public Policu of the Truman School of Public AffairsPublic Approval for State Government InstitutionsDiana Gaughan and David Konisky IntroductionThere are a number of state level institutions designed to limit the impact of special interests on government or to facilitate citizen participation in government. These include legislative term limits, ballot initiatives, governors’ line item veto power and public funding for legislative and gubernatorial candidates.  While most of these state government institutions are fairly common around the United States (see Table 1), relatively little is known about Americans’ opinion of them.  This policy note explores Americans’ views on these features as well as the relationship between survey respondents’ partisanship and their approval of these state government institutions. To assess the public’s attitudes on these political institutions, researchers at the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri conducted a national survey of 1,000 adults.  The survey was administered as part of the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), a 10,000 person survey conducted through the collaborative efforts of a consortium of universities.1 The 2007 CCES was administered in November 2007 by Polimetrix, an Internet survey ﬁrm located in Palo Alto, California.Approval of State Government InstitutionsTerm limits, ballot measures, and line item veto power are relatively popular among survey respondents (see Table 1).  Sizable majorities of the public approve of these institutions, with 40% strongly approving of term limits, 31% strongly approving of ballot measures, and about 24% strongly approving of line item veto power for the governor.  Respondents are nearly evenly split in their approval of public funding for state legislative or gubernatorial candidates (approximately 35% either for or against, with 30% neither approving nor disapproving). Overall, it appears that there is broad support for measures that are believed to limit legislative power, although there is certainly some variation based on partisanship, as is discussed below. Strongly ApproveApprove Neither DisapproveStrongly Disapprove# States with the Institution*Approval of state legislative term limits (n = 998)40.1% 32.5% 16.7% 7.8% 2.9% 15Approval of ballot measures (n = 988)30.5% 38.6% 25.2% 4.6% 1.2% 24Approval of line item veto power for governor (n = 997)24.3% 32.6% 26.9% 11.9% 4.3% 44Approval of public funding for gubernatorial candidates (n = 998)15.1% 19.8% 28.6% 20.3% 16.1% 16Approval of public funding for state legislative candidates (n = 996)14.6% 19.7% 29.6% 20.4% 15.8% 8Table 1: Summary of public approval for state institutions*Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. Report 5–2008Institute of Public Policy2Approval of Term Limits for State LegislatorsProponents of term limits argued that they would eliminate career politicians and the inﬂuence of special interests from the legislature.2   Term limit advocates also claimed that term limits would increase the legislature’s diversity with more women and minorities serving.Twenty-one states have passed term limits since 1992, although 6 states have repealed term limits since 1997. Across 15 states during the 1990s, term limits passed with an average of two-thirds of the vote, and several surveys have found that recent support for term limits is around 70%.3  Several states saw high rates of turnover in just one election cycle as the term limits began to take effect.  For example, Missouri lost 45% of its legislators in 2003 because of term limits, while Michigan termed out more than two-thirds of its senators that year.4   The high turnover and relative inexperience of new members can tip the balance of power towards the executive branch or towards lobbyists.5 When the ﬁrst generation of legislators were termed-out in Missouri, the new leadership was less experienced and some institutional continuity was lost.6 Additionally, some research has found that term limits can actually lead to legislatures that are less responsive to citizens, which would suggest that term limits are counterproductive from the general public’s perspective.7 While 80% of Republican respondents either strongly approve or approve of term limits, just 65% of Democratic respondents felt the same way (See Figure 1).  Democratic respondents were also twice as likely to disapprove of term limits compared to their Republican counterparts (15% vs. 7%).  Nevertheless, a large majority (nearly 73%) of respondents approve of term limits.             Figure 1: Approval of term limits for state legislators by party identiﬁcation          Approval of Ballot Measures (Initiatives)A ballot initiative is a measure that reaches the ballot as the result of a citizen petition process and not from the state legislature.8   Twenty-four states currently allow for ballot initiatives.  Most states that have initiatives passed laws allowing for them in the early 20th century.  During the Progressive era, the ballot measure process was seen as a way to combat corruption and give citizens an opportunity for direct democracy in the face of powerful industries.  Generally, more states in the West have ballot measures than elsewhere in the country, although there are a few Northeastern states that also allow for them. There are several types of ballot measures allowed in states.  Most states with ballot initiatives permit both direct constitutional and direct statute measures on the ballot. A few states only allow indirect constitutional or statute measures, meaning that the initiative must be sent to the legislature before being placed on the ballot.9 Requirements for the number of signatures and the length of time allowed to collect signatures also vary by state. Of all of the state institutions evaluated in this survey, partisanship appears to have the least inﬂuence on approval of ballot measures as all three groups show strong support for them (see Figure 2). Approximately three out of four Independents approve or strongly approve of ballot initiatives, while only two out of three Democratic respondents do. Democratic respondents were the most likely to disapprove, but only 9% disapproved or strongly disapproved, compared to 4% of both Independents and Republicans.Figure 2: Approval of ballot measures by party identiﬁcation      Institute of Public PolicyReport 5–2008Public Approval for State Government Institutions 3Approval of Gubernatorial Line Item VetoesGovernors in 44 states have the ability to strike lines from appropriations bills without vetoing the entire bill.  The intention of this gubernatorial power is to prevent the legislature from appropriating funds to special interests or pork barrel projects.  In effect, the line item veto serves to increase gubernatorial power relative to the legislature. There are three main types of line item vetoes.  A governor can veto funding for a particular line item, veto funding for an entire program or agency, or reduce appropriation amounts at his or her discretion.10 In general, nearly 56% of the survey respondents either approved or strongly approved of line item veto power, but there is a partisan divide among respondents.  As seen in Figure 3, the approval rating is driven by Republican and Independent respondents (71% and 60% approving or strongly approving).  Only 40% of Democratic respondents approve of the line item veto, while 28% disapprove or strongly disapprove.  The stronger Republican and Independent approval ratings may reﬂect ﬁscal conservatism among those respondents, or a preference for reducing costly entitlement or education programs that constitute a sizeable portion of state budgets. Some research has also suggested that line item vetoes have been used for partisan gain by reducing budget appropriations to certain programs that the governor dislikes.11   Approval of Public Funding for Governors and State LegislatorsCurrently 16 states offer some public funding for gubernatorial candidates.12   Eight states have public     Figure 3: Approval of gubernatorial line item veto by party identiﬁcation     funding for state legislators, either as partial public ﬁnancing (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin) or full public ﬁnancing (also called “Clean Elections,” in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine and New Jersey).13   Some research indicates that because of the low level of media coverage, incumbents in the state legislature have a signiﬁcant advantage over competitors.   Gierzynski and Breaux evaluated spending on state legislative campaigns, and found that spending by challengers was more effective dollar for dollar than spending by incumbents.14 This ﬁnding suggests that public funding for legislative candidates could reduce the incumbent advantage and make elections more competitive. Public funding approval levels are nearly identical between gubernatorial and state legislative campaigns (see Figures 4 & 5).  Democratic respondents are more likely to approve of public funding while Republican respondents are more likely to disapprove. Independents are nearly evenly split in their approval for public funding of both types of candidates. There are two competing views of public funding that may inﬂuence responses here. First, proponents of public funding consider it as a way to prevent candidates from accepting special interest donations that might buy their votes on certain legislation, a view more often championed by Democrats. On the other hand, some view public funding as wasteful spending that has not proven to be effective in improving citizen trust in government,15  and this opinion may be more likely to be held by Republican respondents.  Further analysis is necessary to determine the extent to which these two viewpoints explain the partisan variation in approval ratings for public funding.Figure 4: Approval of public funding for gubernatorial candidates by party identiﬁcation           Institute of Public PolicyReport 5–2008Public Approval for State Government Institutions 4Figure 5: Approval of public funding for state legislative candidates by party identiﬁcation          ConclusionsPublic approval of state government institutions corresponds with party identiﬁcation.  The partisan divide is clearest in terms of public funding for candidates and the gubernatorial line item veto.  Democratic respondents are more likely to approve of public funding for both gubernatorial and state legislative candidates, while Republican respondents are much more likely to approve of gubernatorial line item vetoes.  Republicans most strongly approve of legislative term limits, and Independents are the most likely to approve of ballot initiatives, although not by large margins. Further analysis is necessary to determine whether informed respondents (i.e. those who know if their state has ballot initiatives, term limits for legislators or public funding) have different approval ratings than respondents who are not knowledgeable about these tools in their own states.16    1 More information about the CCES project can be found at http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/index.html.2 Richardson, L., Valentine, D., Daily Stokes, S., (2005). Assessing the impact of term limits in Missouri, State and Local Government Review, Vol. 37, No. 3: 177-92. 3 Weissert C. & K. Halperin (2007) “The paradox of term limit support: To know them is NOT to love them,” Political Research Quarterly 60:516.4 National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/ABOUT/termlimit.htm5 Weissert C. & K. Halperin (2007) “The paradox of term limit support: To know them is NOT to love them,” Political Research Quarterly 60:516.6 Richardson, L., Valentine, D., Daily Stokes, S., (2005). Assessing the impact of term limits in Missouri, State and Local Government Review, Vol. 37, No. 3: 177-92.7 Weissert C. & K. Halperin (2007) “The paradox of term limit support: To know them is NOT to love them,” Political Research Quarterly 60:516.8 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/dbintro.htm9 Bowler, S., Donovan, T., Tolbert, C. (1998). Citizens as Legislators: Direct democracy in the United States, Ohio State University Press.10 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ﬁscal/lbptabls/lbpc6t3.htm11 Abney, G., Lauth, T., (1985). “The line-item veto in the states: An instrument for ﬁscal restraint or an instrument for partisanship?” Public Administration Review, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 372-377.12 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/about/state_pub_ﬁn.htm13 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/about/state_pub_ﬁn.htm14 Gierzynski, A., and Breaux, D. (1991). Money and votes in state legislative elections, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 203-217.15 Primo, D., and Milyo, J., (2006). Campaign ﬁnance laws and political efﬁcacy: Evidence from the states, Election Law Journal 5 (1): 23-3916 See Konisky, D., Milyo, J., and Richardson, L. (2008) “Citizen trust in state government institutions” Presented at the 2008 Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Author BiographyDiana Gaughan is a Policy Analyst at the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs, Institute of Public Policy.Dr. David Konisky is a Policy Research Scholar at the Institute of Public Policy, and an Assistant Professor at the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs.  Suggested CitationGaughan, Diana and David Konisky. “Public Approval for State Government Institutions” Report 5–2008.  Retrieved [Month Day, Year], from University of Missouri Columbia, Institute of Public Policy Web site:  http://truman.missouri.edu/ipp/publications/index.asp?Institute of Public Policy37 Middlebush University of MissouriColumbia, MO 652http://www.truman.missouri.edu/ippInstitute of Public PolicyReport 5–2008Public Approval for State Government Institutions 

Public Approval for State Government Institutions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Missouri: MOspace