In a Spirit of Collaboration, States Working Together Highlight a Federalist Path Forward

The intellectual and political energy that was created by the Trump election has largely been shifted to the states. While this development is not completely positive, it does indicate a recognition of the importance of local and state governments in pushing back against a decidedly partisan tone at the federal level. But while there are many valid concerns to be had, there is much to be said for the work of collaboration between states that work to find common and often unexpected policy solutions that are effective across boundaries.

Last Monday, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee signed a large election reform package into law, making Washington the state with perhaps the most comprehensive laws with respect to the expansion of voting rights. The victory is a huge one for not just state-level activists but for activists around the country who are fighting to turn the tide against the narrowing of access that voting rights have been subject to for years, although especially since 2013 with the negative Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. While the recent spate of state level laws are in many ways a response to these draconian measures, they are also reflective of increased collaboration between and across states to develop an agenda for voting rights that are not limited to playing defense on retrenchment of voting rights but instead are working to expand both access and influence for voters, especially voters of color.

This trend is reflective of the tensions between the federal government and more progressive state governments during the Trump era. My colleagues in Political Reform Chayenne Polimedio and Elena Souris wrote about the liberal return to federalism in a recent piece for Polyarchy, striking a cautious tone in the new reliance on state governments, stating:

“...the enormous size and complexity of the United States means that when it comes to reform at the state and local levels, there’s little standardization and no systematic analysis of the effects of reform. On top of that, the drama of politics means that states are always under threat of losing federal funding, are stuck having to navigate partisanship and state/city conflicts, and don’t necessarily have the resources to create easily accessible repositories of information.”

The fight for expanding voting rights as well as other critical issues in American politics such as education, immigration, and the social safety net does indeed require a multi-pronged effort that spans all levels of government. However, what the voting rights package in Washington State shows us is that there is another form of cooperation that portends much more productive and long-lasting outcomes: collaboration between states.

The work that has been done to support the development of expanding voting rights is illustrative of a broader trend in American politics that has allowed for partnerships to develop between states to skillshare, develop best policy practices, and to think collaboratively about how to deal as a somewhat united front against encroachment by the federal government. While federalism denotes the separation of powers between the federal government and state governments, the more lateral partnerships between states highlights the importance of finding common ground and creative strategies for tackling vexing public policy problems.  For example, the voting reforms passed this week in Washington were given intellectual clarity by other reforms that had passed in California. In addition, Governor Inslee signed a new campaign finance law that was also a form of the Disclose Act that was proposed by Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen.

In addition, as reported in a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo’s push to expand access to its community college programs was successful in large part because of support from Tennessee’s Governor Bill Haslam, who not only provided counsel to Raimondo on the merits of the program but also held a public conference call with the media and the Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce to promote the benefits of the bill as well.

Here at New America, Political Reform has been doing major work identifying the rules of the road in terms of voter registration, electoral systems, and scores of other state-level data with our Laboratories of Democracy Database. This cutting-edge resource is unmatched in terms of providing comparisons between states in terms of the laws and proposals that they have. During their work, the Political Reform team found that states often had little knowledge of what other states and localities were doing in terms of comparable laws and regulations. However, what we can see is where that perspective gathering was taking place, there were tremendous and deeply powerful results.

Returning to the initial example of voting rights, there are at least 30 states that have some law that at least proposes expanding voting rights. Ari Berman makes the point that for many years, conservative activists worked quietly and diligently at narrowing the scope of voting rights through the development of Republican-led state legislatures that created gerrymandered districts and voter ID laws. What we are now seeing in addition to these assaults on voting rights is a more offensive, forward thinking path that tries to imagine what it would look like to have equitable influence where each vote would matter at the same level, regardless of what zip code it was passed under. States can work diligently to create their own laws but have often found that working together can yield stronger, more resilient results.

Progressive federalism may look like a return to the states but it also, and perhaps equally as importantly, looks like an elevation of the collaborations that states do together to think through and act on issues that affect Americans all across the country.