• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Back to the Future: Final Report on Planning and Designing
Legislatures of the Future

By:
Max K. Arinder
Executive Director
Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER)

ASLCS Home Page

In a Summer 1999 (Volume 5, Number 1) article for this journal entitled "Planning and Designing Legislatures of the Future," I provided a glimpse of the work being done by the Task Force on Legislatures of the Future. The brainchild of Tom Tedcastle and John Phelps, then Staff Chair and Vice-Chair of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the task force’s two-year mandate was to study the future of state legislatures and to report on what could be done to ensure that both legislative staff and the legislative institution will be prepared for the dramatic changes of the next twenty-five years. The task force restated the mandate as a single question: What must be done to keep state legislatures relevant to the democratic process in the year 2025? This article focuses on how the task force fared in answering that question.

During the fall of 1999, the task force was deeply embroiled in writing scenarios of the future, based on critical uncertainties and a variety of driving forces identified during the previous year of work. The three critical uncertainties the task force selected to serve as core themes for the scenarios were: society’s use of direct democracy, confidence in the legislature as a problem-solving institution, and demand for governmentally provided services. The task force completed the scenarios in the fall of 1999, painting four distinct pictures of possible environments in which legislatures could be operating in the year 2025:

Whether these titles truly capture the changes in public involvement and support for legislatures described by the scenarios is subject to debate, but most agree that they provide reasonable fodder for discussing a continuum of possibility for change and for identifying common strategic issues. Details of the scenarios are included in the final report of the task force to the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee of NCSL, entitled Legislatures of the Future: Implications of Change, available through the NCSL bookstore.

To summarize briefly, the harassed legislature is one in which technology has made it possible for direct democracy to be a highly viable alternative to the more traditional representative democracy; the fabric of the institution is beginning to show the strain. The circumvented legislature has passed that invisible point where direct initiatives have eclipsed the more deliberative representative processes and traditional legislatures are weakened and on the decline as the public’s choice for problem solving. The traditional legislature is the task force’s nod to the possibility that the contemporary legislature has evolved sufficiently to allow it to be competitive in vying for public confidence. Able to rise to the challenges of the future as it has arisen to the challenges of the last twenty-five years, the traditional legislature is alive and well. Finally, the diminished legislature is the result of a loss of interest and/or confidence in the democratic process itself. Under this scenario there is an abdication of responsibility to strong political personalities that have been allowed to assume relatively unchallenged leadership positions. The diminished legislature is a move away from democracy as we now know it.

Having completed the task of describing a range of possibility for what legislatures of 2025 might be like, the task force’s next job was to identify the implications of change inherent in the scenarios and to isolate the strategic issues most in need of attention. It was at this point that the task force was able to tie its work into the work of the NCSL Executive Committee.

Under the leadership of Representative Paul Mannweiler of Indiana, NCSL adopted as its 2000 theme "Building Legislatures of the Future." The future was the perfect theme to bring NCSL into the opening days of the twenty-first century, given it had just celebrated its first twenty-five years of successful service to legislatures. NCSL leadership saw the work of the task force as a complement to the work that would be going on at all levels of the organization in preparation for advancing the futures theme at NCSL’s 2000 annual meeting. As a result, Rep. Mannweiler gave the task force a role in the fall Executive Committee meeting held in Whitefish, Montana, allowing it to use the Committee as a sounding board for identifying the implications of change for each of the scenarios.

In what has since come to be known as the Whitefish Exercise, the NCSL Executive Committee was randomly divided into four groups, each of which was assigned to one of the four scenarios and led through a facilitated discussion of the future of legislatures. The results of these discussions eventually yielded the implications for change published for the NCSL annual meeting.

These implications for change represent the substance of the task force’s efforts. A primary assumption underlying the task force’s work was that a reasoned response to change can only be made in light of one’s core values. To fail to do so is to risk losing one’s self and one’s valued institutions in the process of change. From early in its life, a primary contention of the task force has been that the institution of the legislature can only exist as an effective entity if its members share a "changeless core": what it is, what it is about, and what it values.

The task force identified core values that it believes are at the heart of an effective legislature and that deserve protection in any discussion of change. The task force contends that the future strength of the institution depends, to a great degree, on how well legislatures of today are able to act in accord with these core values and to transmit the benefits derived to their constituencies.

To remain strong, legislatures must be ethical institutions, committed to the deliberative principles of representative democracy. Legislatures must be responsive and open to the needs of the people. They must be committed to collegiality among their members, with a clear sense of themselves as institutions and a willingness to be active in advocating on the institution’s behalf to the public. Legislatures must further be committed to being independent coequal branches of government, actively advocating and touting the strengths and advantages of the deliberative process in public policy-making. In order to be prepared to serve, legislatures must be committed to being high-quality institutions, including having high-quality legislators and staff, and with leadership that embodies, values, and promotes the core values of the good legislature. A move away from these values is a move away from the institution’s noble role. As you read the following implications of change, keep these values in mind. You will need them again as you move from the strategic implications discussed below to your own assessment of the tactics that will be required to alter the way we function as an institution in the new millennium.

Now back to answering the task force’s primary question: what actions will be required to keep state legislatures relevant to the democratic process in the year 2025? The task force reached several conclusions, at least at a strategic level. These strategic issues represent the best of what the task force gleaned from the Whitefish Exercise. As you read them, consider ways that these strategic issues could be converted to tactical programs to keep the legislative institution strong.

First, a properly prepared and responsive legislature has little to fear from change. The task force concluded that the best strategy for avoiding or mitigating some of the negative aspects of future scenarios is to improve the institution itself. Better civic education, combined with increased attention to accommodating the changing role of voters in a representative process, will pay long-term dividends. The necessity of dealing with greater direct public involvement in the policy-making process should only serve as a reminder that legislators are stewards of the will of the people. As such, they must find ways to stay in close touch with that will or risk losing their role in the process.

Several strategic issues are involved in making legislatures responsive to change, not the least of which is providing new members with an early grounding in the core values of the institution. In the words of an old country song, "If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything." The purpose of this grounding is not to have new members hidebound in the old ways, but to ensure that they understand the important values that need to be protected and what can be changed in response to the changing needs, demands, and capabilities of our ever-evolving society.

In the face of impending change, legislatures must be prepared to assess carefully the factors that lead the public to a desire for change and, where appropriate, must use the knowledge gained to bring legislatures into closer alignment with the will and needs of the people. The task force believes that there will be an increasing perception on the part of citizens that they can and should have a more active and direct role in the political process. As the servants of the public will, legislatures must respect and accommodate this perceived need for change, while protecting the core values of representative democracy and the deliberative process.

In a like sense, the task force concluded that legislatures must find ways to help improve the quality of public participation in all forms of the democratic process. A significant risk inherent in at least two of the task force scenarios is that increased opportunity for direct policy-making through initiatives does not guarantee the quality of such participation. While more people may choose to become involved in the process as the technical barriers to direct participation fall, many may choose to do so in a shallow, uninformed way. The great danger is that few individuals will study the issues and politics will continue to be "one more thing to do when people already have too many things to do." In this environment, there is a significant risk that special interests will co-opt the policy-making process. The implication for the legislature is that it should not fight the trend toward greater direct participation, but should seize the opportunity to find ways to inform the people’s choices, taking every opportunity to promote the core value of deliberation in the process.

Another important strategic issue facing legislatures revolves around the need to explore ways to improve the quality of policy debate on public issues. A significant caveat here is not to lose the accompanying opportunity to showcase the advantages of the legislative arena in this process where possible. A positive possibility inherent in some of the future scenarios is that competition between the legislature and alternative policy-making processes will actually increase the quality of debate on public policy issues. This is more likely to happen if the legislature is successful in finding better ways to frame critical issues for public discussion. To keep policy-making from becoming overly focused on the crisis of the day, legislatures must nurture longer-range strategic approaches in which partisan interests come together for public debate of possible solutions to long-standing problems. Technology will make it easier for legislatures to get information out to the public about policy issues. The task will be to win the public’s attention and to help citizens understand how the institution of the legislature provides a desirable arena for solving complex problems and for bringing together competing interests to arrive at solutions that are sensitive to the interests and needs of a broad range of stakeholders.

Another strategic issue is how the legislature can reassess, refine, and, where necessary, defend their public policy role. A significant probability of 2025 is that the legislature’s policy-making role in government will be sorely tested or threatened. To the degree that the initiative process is seen not only as a viable, but a desirable, alternative for policy-making, the legislature’s role in policy-making may be reduced. Legislatures should carefully consider the role they may be asked to play when initiative processes lead to conflicting or competing laws or, more importantly, what role they can play to keep such conflicts from arising.

Legislative leadership will be especially important in setting up communication processes and deciding when and how to provide a quick response to public concerns. An important supporting task is for legislatures to fine-tune their oversight processes. These will be important in any rapid response scenario where the legislature is forced to compete for the faith of the public in the political arena. Without such checks, much time and money can be wasted on ineffective or inefficient programs.

The final major strategic issue identified at the Whitefish conference concerns the need for legislatures to protect their role in the balance of power. The more dynamic the political environment, the more critical the legislature’s role in providing an effective check on the executive and its accompanying bureaucracy. The issue of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches will be significant regardless of the scenario that materializes in 2025. Under most scenarios, both the legislative and executive branches will face increased pressure as the "information age" reaches maturity and wide-ranging access to information has its ultimate effect. The effects of greater information availability on the balance of power are likely to vary around the country based on the strength of political parties, specific regional factors, and relationships between the legislatures and the governors. However, no legislature in the twenty-first century can afford a lack of vigilance in protecting the prerogatives of the legislative branch. At the same time, information often equals opportunity, and any increased opportunities for cooperation between branches of government should be explored.

What does all this mean for the here and now? The task before us is to be sure that these strategic issues are ultimately translated into actionable plans and programs to improve legislatures and the legislative process. The immediate implications for action are at least threefold:

In essence, we must find ways to allow legislatures to be prepared for a range of contingencies relative to public involvement in and support for the legislative process. Commitment, education, and communication are the keys to whether the legislative institution declines as a major conduit for policy-making or whether it prospers. The legislatures of the early twenty-first century must seize the opportunity to ensure a strong future for the institution.

Most scenarios for change offer the hope that legislatures will retain their traditional role in public policy-making. Whether they do depends to a significant degree on their ability to maintain the public’s faith in their judgment and skill as decision-makers. Legislatures must reemphasize their commitment to the core values of the legislative institution and transmit those values through increased citizen involvement in the democratic process. Legislatures should also devote significant energy to studying ways to make the legislative process more efficient. As information overload threatens to consume legislators, even in part-time states, the institution must find ways to compensate, giving legislators at least a fighting chance to be effective policy-makers. Even individuals who feel personally empowered by the information age are likely to respect and value good judgment, quality work, adaptability, and responsiveness in others.

In states where direct democracy initiatives and term limits are a very real part of the political landscape, legislators already face a challenging scenario. They must use their bully pulpit to ensure that the benefits of long-term decision-making are not lost in the press for change. In this environment, the role of leadership in protecting the core values of the legislative institution cannot be overstated or overestimated.

Legislatures must take a proactive role in civic education. They must provide leadership to ensure a broad public understanding of the role and benefits of representative democracy. The public today may not adequately recognize the extent to which there is disagreement in society and that it is the legislature’s role to resolve those differences. Most people believe that the great majority of the population agrees with them, so why don’t those guys in the legislature ever get anything done? The public does not like disagreement, and they view the legislature as constantly bickering. Legislatures must find ways to communicate to the public that the legislative process is contentious because it encompasses different and competing values, interests, and constituencies, all of which are making claims on government or one another.

Legislators and legislative staff themselves must recognize public discontent with the legislative process. In addition to explaining their actions more effectively to the public, they must renew their commitment to the ideals of representative democracy and to the principles of public service. Effective legislative performance in representing and resolving competing interests in society is the best defense of representative democracy.

The legislatures must not mistake the possibility of public silence for satisfaction or approval. Legislatures must serve as educators, encouraging involvement in and public support for a dynamic, open legislative environment. Legislatures that have the wisdom to provide tools for constituents to communicate on public policy issues can take advantage of the natural affinity citizens have for the representative they have elected. Equally important will be tools for tracking issues and public interests, but this too must be done within the context of informing the deliberative process, not simply furthering government by poll. The ability of a busy electorate to engage in effective direct democracy should be a serious concern to all. The time is ripe for the "rediscovery" of a representative legislature that has renewed its commitment to public service. If legislatures maintain their core values, provide ongoing education, make continual adjustments, and convince the public of their values through action, they will be able to help their constituents deal with information overload, and public support for the legislature will be high.

What are the implications for action? We need programs that promote or sustain the core values of the legislature and the legislative process; programs to encourage and develop strong, well-trained legislative leaders; and orientation programs for new legislators and new leaders to develop a culture of a strong legislature and a respect for the value and role of the legislative process. We need programs that promote or help to maintain high ethical standards and high standards of accountability among both their membership and legislative staff. Special attention should be paid to the problem of campaign finance and the public perception that legislators are unduly influenced by large campaign contributions.

We need to find ways to foster increased communication among legislative staff, particularly between nonpartisan and individual staff. We need to further our efforts in providing education for legislative committees so that the legislature can maintain its proper place in policy-making. This includes additional work refining our early warning system on policy issues, including developing ways to help legislators and staff to understand quickly the state-level implications of emerging national and global issues. It also includes the continued development of our analytic capacity, spotting trends on or near the horizon, and adding value to the information disseminated. An improved ability to assist in framing issues could be especially helpful to less experienced legislators. Areas in need of special consideration include: developing the capacity to provide regional and national polling information on public attitudes and positions on issues; identifying and communicating the economic impact of international agreements and the effect on specific states of globalization; one-stop issue shopping to obtain regional, national, and global perspectives on economic issues; and, nonpartisan translation of policy issues into briefs with immediate dissemination for legislative use.

We need to assist legislative leaders in assuming a more aggressive role in educating the public about the legislature’s role in a representative democracy. We need to give thought to developing more efficient constituent service programs to build credibility with the citizens and make the legislature relevant to their lives. We need to develop programs that will allow legislatures to better reach out to other levels of government, allowing them to stay in close contact with local government officials and better understand their roles and needs. We need to improve direct communication with citizens, including the use of appropriate technology to reach more constituents.

Support of civic education efforts and programs to make the initiative process more deliberative is needed to improve both the quality of initiatives offered and the quality of the information upon which citizens will base their decisions. We need programs designed to dispel the notion among the public that the legislature is an insider’s game. We need better tools for candidly reporting the results of sessions, taking every opportunity to dispel the impression that legislatures do nothing. We must take pride in the legislature’s accomplishments, openly debating policy and approach, but preserving the collegiality that allows such dialogue to continue.

Finally, each legislature should consider conducting its own futures study targeted to the driving forces that may be unique to a given region or state. Such individualized study may yield scenarios that offer significant insights into specific opportunities and threats that may be facing a particular legislative institution. A second task force report entitled A Practical Guide to Futures Study documents the process the task force used to do its work and provides an easy-to-follow reference for others who may wish to conduct a futures study of their own. It too may be obtained through the National Conference of State Legislatures’ bookstore.

The next twenty-five years will be an exciting and challenging time for state governments. We have an opportunity now to see that we are prepared to meet those challenges.

For more information about ASLCS, write or call:

Joan Barilla
National Conference of State Legislatures
7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Phone: 303/856-1349
FAX: 303/364-7800
E-mail: joan.barilla@ncsl.org