|
Teaching Democracy Lessons
Appreciating Representation
A Lesson Plan for High School Teachers of Civics, Government, and U.S. History
Review Online HTML files: Main Contents Page
Complete Lesson Plan (36-pages): Download to Word or Print in PDF format.
Student Handout C: How Most Legislators Would Have Decided
The five scenarios have been scripted with particular lessons on representation in mind. These scenarios are examined, from the point of view of political science research, to show the kinds of issues legislators face and some of the key factors that influence their decisions. Certainly not every legislator, if faced with these issues and considerations, would decide in the same way and with a similar weighting to the factors involved. But our contention is that most legislators would behave as is suggested below.
Scenario 1: Deciding on an Increase in the Sales Tax
Scenario 2: Deciding on Abolishing the Death Penalty
Scenario 3: Deciding on an Increased Cigarette Tax
Scenario 4: Deciding on Allowing Optometrists to Use Diagnostic Drugs
Scenario 5: Deciding on a Reduction in the Voting Age
Observations
This would be a relatively easy decision for most legislators to make. Given the facts stipulated in the scenario, most legislators would probably oppose legislation increasing the sales tax, even by 2¢.
The merits of the case for an increase are simply not strong enough, even for those who are advocates for public education in the state. Despite increased funding for education in the past, local property taxes have been rising. Many legislators would not be confident in the ability or will of local elected officials to hold expenditures down.
Most of the organized group activity supports the sales tax increase. The so-called “special interests” are mainly on one side. The teachers association is an especially important group, because it has a relatively large membership statewide and teachers live and work in the district of every legislator in the state. Despite the strong organization, skillful lobbyists, and the grass roots advocacy of its members, the teachers association is not likely to prevail on an issue such as this one.
The dominating factor here is constituents, who are against having their taxes raised--at least the income, sales, or local property taxes. There are very few issues about which people in a legislator’s district are concerned. According to a recent survey of legislators from five states (Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Vermont and Washington), their constituents had an opinion on about one out of 20 of the hundreds of bills on which legislators had to vote in a session. Moreover, during the course of a two-year legislative session the number of bills on which the constituency had a clear position--with a substantial majority for or against--did not normally exceed ten and usually was five or fewer. The overwhelming number of issues with which legislators deal, therefore, do not register with constituents. Many of them are too narrow or too technical and only a handful of them affect the interests of a sizeable number of people in the district. So, when an issue does register, legislators pay careful attention.
Few constituency mandates, “directing” the legislator to act in one manner or another, exist. But one that currently does, at least in most places, is “Don’t raise my taxes.” This mandate applies to both income and sales taxes, but not necessarily to business taxes or taxes on alcohol and tobacco.
Few legislators want to contradict a large number of their constituents. It is not “good politics” and, if the issue is important enough (as is taxes) to their constituents, to vote for higher taxes is to risk defeat at the next election. On the issue of taxes, for instance, about nine out of ten legislators surveyed in the five-state survey reported that their own views and dominant constituency views were basically the same. Only 7 percent reported that their own views on taxes were basically different from their constituents’ views. They would be more inclined to raise taxes than their constituents. In those few cases where their views and their constituents’ views clashed, about two out of five of the legislators said they would follow their constituents’ views and almost half said they would follow their own view.
In the scenario presented here, as in most actual instances, there is no clash. The legislator’s own conviction and record is opposed to raising both the income and sales tax. Moreover, the legislator’s political party, in response to the electorate, stands in general opposition to tax increases.
Given these factors, it doesn’t matter that most organized interests support the 2¢ increase, while only a few organized interests oppose it. A “constituency mandate,” or something resembling it, trumps everything else.
Here, too, the decision is relatively easy, as easy as the decision on raising the sales tax. Given the factors specified in the scenario, the large majority of legislators would come out against the abolition of the death penalty.
If constituency and conviction did not exercise such strong influence, the argument against the death penalty might have had more impact on legislators. But in arriving at the conviction they hold, legislators earlier rejected the argument that mistakes that are made cannot be corrected if people are put to death. As to the merits of the case, they believe on some ground that the death penalty is deserved and necessary.
On an issue such as this one, the balance of advocates for and against doesn’t matter that much for most members. They cannot be budged. Although interest groups may try, they make exceedingly few conversions. On an issue such as this one, a so-called “conscience issue,” the legislative parties are not likely to take a party position as such, in the expectation that their members will be on both sides and will want to vote their conscience. What counts most heavily on this issue of capital punishment are the same factors that would count most heavily on abortion, gun control, and gay rights issues. These factors are what their constituency believes and their own personal conviction.
The scenario stipulates that most of the legislator’s constituents appear to favor the death penalty, even though those who want to abolish it are better organized and more active. Of those constituents who are supporters of the legislator (that is, members of the legislator’s party and of the legislator’s voting base), most oppose abolishing the death penalty. Among their constituents, legislators look especially at their supporters (that is, members of their own party) to figure out where their constituency stands on an issue. Indeed, legislators in the five-state survey cited political supporters in their districts as the most important among eight sources of information on the views held by constituents. Friends and associates, positions taken by organized groups, political leaders, public opinion polls, lobbyists, local media and legislative staff ranked below political supporters.
Here, the tax issue is not at all as clear cut as in the case of the increase in the sales tax.
The merits of the case cut both ways, as they nearly always do. There are good grounds to support legislation to bring about a higher cigarette tax: it will provide funds for state services and will discourage some people from smoking. But there are also good grounds against raising the tax that is already high: it is unfair to some people and it may result in illegal sales. Legislators could take either side on the basis of what they believe to be the merits.
The pressure, however, is coming mainly from the opposition to raising the tax on cigarettes--tobacco companies, represented by their organization, the Tobacco Institute, and a number of individual constituents who smoke. Neither smoking nor non-smoking constituents are very organized on the issue. But a few national health organizations have taken positions in support of a measure that might discourage smoking.
At this point, neither party has taken a stand, for or against. However, if most of its members take one side or the other, members of the majority party will probably take a position when it they meet together.
What appears decisive is the legislator’s convictions and record on the issue. This particular legislator has an anti-tobacco record even though he/she would not go as far as to try to outlaw cigarettes. The campaign contribution from the Tobacco Institute makes little difference at all when it runs counter to a legislator’s beliefs, as it does in this case. Just as scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, and rock breaks scissors, so conscience nearly always outweighs contribution.
Most legislators would support this increase in the tax on tobacco, if the facts line up as they do in this scenario.
If, however, half of the legislator’s constituency, and a majority of the legislator’s supporters, were strongly opposed to the tax, then the legislator’s conviction would be challenged by the constituency. Under these circumstances, the decision could go either way. But in the example presented here that is not the case.
Student Handout C
Scenario 4: Deciding on Allowing Optometrists to Use Diagnostic Drugs
This is one of the large number of “special interest” issues that legislatures have to handle. On issues such as these, one or several groups is trying to gain an advantage through the enactment of law, while competitor groups are opposed. In these cases the legislature is asked to decide between competing interests, either one of which is difficult to equate with the public interest.
The biggest running battles of recent years, which have been fought in over half the states, are those over tort reform, insurance, product liability, and workers' compensation, with business, insurance and doctors going against trial lawyers.
Another face-off finds the orthopedic surgeons on one side and the podiatrists on the other when it comes to ankle injuries, or whether treating ankles should be the preserve of orthopedic surgeons or opened up to podiatrists. Critical to both practices is the definition, established by law, of where the foot stops and the ankle begins.
The issue in the scenario presented here reflects the classic battle, dubbed “Eye Wars,” which was fought throughout the nation. It began when optometrists, who had been limited to giving eye examinations and prescribing glasses, tried to obtain authority to use diagnostic drugs for their examinations. They were opposed by ophthalmologists, eye doctors who had attended medical school, and had the legal monopoly on such treatment. The groups involved in issues, such as these, are trying to pass/defeat legislation to promote/defend the interests of their members. Nevertheless, each group will argue the merits of its case, maintaining that what benefits them is also good public policy. The optometrists justified their position in terms of economy, lowering costs for the patients. Ophthalmologists justified their position in terms of safety, arguing that they were more qualified to conduct the procedure than were optometrists. Each side had a reasonable argument--economy, which would impact broadly, or safety, which might be more important but would affect only a few people.
An issue such as this is of very limited concern to the public. Constituents don't care, except for those who are ophthalmologists or optometrists. Nor do the political parties as such take a position. The overwhelming majority of legislators are not committed by conviction or record. They have many other items on their agendas. On this particular issue, and others that are similar, legislators can go either way. They have to decide, but no strong influence is pushing them one way or the other.
With everything else about equal, the only difference may be in the special interest support for the legislator. While members of both groups at the state level are actively lobbying the legislature, the optometrists in this case have regularly made $500 contributions to the legislator’s reelection campaigns. They are among the legislator’s supporters.
What probably happens in a case like this is that the legislator pays more attention to the merits of the position held by his or her supporters, and decides that there is little or no danger to the public health by authorizing the procedure for optometrists, while there are significant cost savings for patients. The merits of the case line up with the position of the legislator’s supporters. Other things being equal, campaign support counts, but only if there is a meritorious argument to accompany it.
As specified in the scenario, this would be a tough issue for legislators to decide. Legislators are inclined to ask, explicitly or implicitly, with regard to just about every contested issue, “how would its enactment affect my constituency” and “how would my support of its enactment affect me with my constituency?” The answer in this case would appear to be not much, although a few constituents have informed the legislators of their opposition and a few school classes (of non-voters) have petitioned the legislator in its favor. But how would the constituency respond if the measure permitting all 16-year-olds to vote were actually enacted: Maybe there would be no reaction, but it is difficult to predict.
Neither interest groups nor political parties are playing a role, while a national association of students has taken a position but is not likely to play any role in the state's legislative elections. So, there is no real impact on the legislator from parties or interest groups as organizations.
Like so may other issues with which legislatures deal, this one is not a central concern to the legislator under scrutiny. This legislator has no strong feeling and no record, one way or the other, on the voting age requirement. He/she wants to encourage youngsters, but is not sure about the merits of allowing them to vote before they are eighteen. Moreover, the legislator is unconvinced by the merits-of-the-case argument that youngsters would be taught about voting in high school civics or government courses. There is no guarantee of that. Reducing the voting age would be a major change in state policy, but neither the public support nor policy justification is strongly for such change. So better to leave it alone.
Until the situation changes or other factors come into play, the likelihood is that this individual would vote no.
______________________________________
Alan Rosenthal, Heavy Lifting: The Job of the American Legislature (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004), pp. 40-42.
Rosenthal, Heavy Lifting, p. 45.
Rosenthal, Heavy Lifting, p. 47.
Rosenthal, Heavy Lifting, p. 38.
Prepared by Alan Rosenthal, Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, as a project of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center for Civic Education and the Center on Congress at Indiana University. The author can be reached at alanr@rci.rutgers.edu or (732) 828-2210, ext. 251. The current version was completed in November 2005.
Posted 12/5/05
Visitor counts for this page.
|
