Governors Reassert Influence in the NGA Policy Process

By Beth Giambrone, Manager of State Issues

At the National Governors Association (NGA) Winter Meeting this past weekend in Washington, DC, a major focus for the governors was the revamping of the association’s policy process. In adopting a new policy process, NGA Chair Governor Dave Heineman (R-Nebraska) and Vice Chair Governor Jack Markell (D-Delaware) addressed the need to have governors more directly involved in NGA policy decisions. This idea was immediately put to the test during consideration of the NGA healthcare policy.

Traditionally, NGA policymaking has been a long, drawn-out process. Instead of focusing on the issues that states could speak with a unified voice, geographic and partisan gamesmanship and exhaustive wordsmithing at the governors’ staff level commonly hindered overall association progress. NGA staff was often in a cycle of policy revision, unable to concentrate on being the voice of the nation’s governors on Capitol Hill and before the Administration.

Under the newly enacted process, policies are only considered at the Winter Meeting.  This focuses attention on priorities for the following congressional session. (A more detailed description of the new NGA policy process, by Stateside Associates Senior Vice President Mark Anderson, can be found here). The change moves away from the inefficient or outdated policies, which made it challenging for the association to consider complex issues and tied governors’ and NGA staff’s hands when advocating for or against an issue.

This newly implemented process takes a big-picture approach—it focuses on the NGA tenets of avoiding federal preemption of state policy and preventing and eliminating unfunded federal mandates. If successful, the change will give NGA more leverage in national policy debates. In addition to revising the process, governors approved a completely new slate of policy positions. A second vote replaced the existing positions with the new ones. Together, these votes gave NGA staff a clean slate on which to lobby.

The governors’ resolve to speak with one voice and avoid inside the beltway wrangling was immediately tested during the meeting on the new NGA healthcare policy. The policy was originally considered by the Health and Human Services Committee, but failed at the governors’ staff level because of partisan disagreement (the conflict hinged on a statement regarding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act).

Under the old process, this would have either led to the governors passing a weaker statement on healthcare; keeping less effective policies in place; or even worse, having no statement at all. However, governors realized the need to make a strong, unified statement on healthcare policy, and decided to override staff and approve the policy as originally written. This is the first time in recent memory governors have shown such strength of conviction in coming to a unified policy statement.

Governors realize the need to cut the geographic and partisan gamesmanship at a staff level and focus on the issues on which they can agree. While this may make it challenging to work through the new process, all participants in NGA policy creation will learn to navigate it together. When the dust from the shake-up settles, NGA will emerge stronger and with a much clearer direction.

2011 Session Wrap: States Introduce Less and Pass More in 2011

By Josh Veverka, Vice President

As the summer months approach, the 2011 State Legislative season is coming to a close. As of June 1, 28 states have adjourned regular legislative sessions. 

What have we learned so far? Budget shortfalls and the tide of partisan changes in the 2010 election cycle have influenced the legislative activity in the states.

At the start of 2011 a number of factors set the table for an unprecedented and unpredictable legislative season. Twenty-one state legislative chambers changed majority control from Democrat to Republican, and Republicans picked up 11 Governorships. States were facing huge budget shortfalls.  And no one knew what effect the Tea Party movement would have on getting things done in the legislatures.

So looking back – how did these factors affect the productivity in the state legislative chambers?

On average there has been a 10% decrease in the total number of bills introduced during the 2011 session compared to the 2009 session. 

However, in some cases, where states introduced fewer bills, legislators were actually successful in passing more measures than in previous sessions. Hawaii introduced 300 fewer bills, but passed 50 more bills than in 2009. Indiana legislators introduced 100 fewer bills and passed nearly 50 more. Mississippi considered 450 fewer bills, but passed nearly 100 more bills than in the 2009 session. Other states like Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska and Texas also saw similar results.

In addition to these increases in the total number of enacted bills, all states have seen a slight increase in the rate of enactment of legislation. In 2009, these states combined to enact 21% of all legislation considered.  In 2011, the same states have enacted over 22% of the bills considered.

One of the main contributing factors to the decrease in total legislation is the impact of state budget situations and the current economy. Legislators may have been hesitant to introduce new programs for lack of funding, or impose new taxes and fees to pay for these programs. But the increase in the rate of bill passage shows more consensus in the states.

This consensus is borne out of stronger partisan bonds. In most of the states mentioned above, single party control, and a stronger majority allowed legislative leadership to streamline the agenda of bills for consideration. In other states, fewer bills being introduced may have allowed for more debate on viable proposals which were eventually passed.

Similar trends can be seen in additional states still in session, but we won’t know the full impact until the last states adjourn at the end of the year. 

Have you observed similar trends in your states?  What other factors may have led states to consider less, but pass more bills?  And do you think this trend will continue?