The State of the State                                                      

States want to be treated as equal partners in the country's governance

By JENNIFER HALPERIN

Along with the so-called Republican revolution that occurred a few months ago in Illinois and across the country, another politically significant phenomenon has been taking place without as much hoopla. Individual states have been asserting their power in the face of a federal government they believe has become a control freak.

Illinois' handling of the "motor voter" issue is the clearest recent example of this state standing its ground. Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act last year, giving citizens the ability to register to vote when they obtain or renew their drivers licenses, and when they visit certain other government offices.

Republicans generally dislike the law because they think it would encourage more Democrats to register to vote, so they have blocked its passage in Illinois. In response, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno sued this state and two others. Republican leaders in Illinois seem unfazed, though; they maintain they are fighting an unfunded mandate, and now hope the Republican-controlled Congress will repeal the federal measure altogether.

Battles like these are symptoms of a simple illness: State leaders want some respect from the federal government. As Utah Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, a Republican, puts it, states don't want to be treated like administrative units that exist just to carry out federal programs. Instead, they want to be treated as equal partners in the country's governance.

For the last several years, he says, states have complained — with increasing volume and irritation — about unfunded mandates. But outside of griping, there hasn't been an organized, coherent plan to increase states' power.

Now Leavitt is pushing an organized effort to plan a "Conference of the States," and he has sent detailed background papers and options for what could be accomplished at such a gathering.

National groups like the Council of State Governments, the National Governors' Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures support the idea, too.

In Gov. Jim Edgar's State of the State message this year, he urged the Illinois General Assembly to pass a resolution in support of the conference as a way to redesign and reshape federalism in the United States. Under Leavitt's plan, each state would appoint a five-member delegation; they'd gather later this year and hash out strategies to bring balance back to the federal system.

Justification for this type of conference, Leavitt asserts, can be found in the Federalist Papers, where James Madison wrote that states should join together to fight ambitious encroachments of their rights by the federal government.

In materials sent to his fellow governors, Leavitt warns that states can't count on the federal courts or Congress — even in Republican hands — to restore a balance of power as he'd like to see it. Instead, he insists, state and local leaders must compete for it.

The most effective way to do this would be to find a middle ground between two extremes. On one end is the option of continuing to complain about eroding states' power, while hoping and waiting for Congress to restore it. On the other side, states could try to convene a constitutional convention — an extreme and unlikely event.

Leavitt offers this middle ground: If at least 34 states pass the "Conference of the States" resolution by June, the gathering would be planned for summer or fall of this year. Each state would send a bipartisan delegation, and would probably be expected to help pay for it. Leavitt offers three possible solutions to restoring states' power:

• Adding a clause to Article V of the Constitution giving states equal footing with the Congress in proposing constitutional amendments. This would provide a more direct method for states to propose amendments than through the constitutional convention process. Leavitt argues that the country's founders intended that

8/March 1995/Illinois Issues

states would be able to initiate constitutional reform and ratify amendments proposed by the Congress.

Under this amendment, the Constitution could be amended if three-fourths of the states' legislatures supported the proposal. It would become valid unless Congress rejected the amendment by two-thirds votes of both houses in two years.

Many remember the term "states' rights" being used as justification for denial of civil rights to black people

• Amending the Constitution to give states the power to sunset any federal law, except those dealing with defense and foreign affairs, by gathering support from two-thirds of the states' legislatures. This fairly radical idea first was proposed by former Gov. Bruce Babbitt in 1980.

• Adding a sentence to the 10th Amendment demanding that courts referee disputes between national and state authority. Leavitt says some state leaders feel this is necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that states and local governments must defend themselves against federal encroachments by lobbying Congress — sort of a "fox guarding the henhouse" approach. The court said states can't rely on federal courts to act as "umpire." This attitude makes states' rights advocates feel they're being treated like any special interest group.

Many observers approach this movement with a great deal of caution. They remember the term "states' rights" being used, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line, as justification for denial of civil rights to black people.

Given the mood of the country, it's likely a Conference of the States will be convened this year. But what occurs there should be treated cautiously and even skeptically. The notion of restoring a balance of power between state and federal government sounds pretty abstract. Without careful explanation and exploration of how this power has been used historically, it could sound pretty benign to many people. When the time comes, a little — even a lot — of hoopla wouldn't hurt the American public. *