/
Section II LEGISLATURES AND
. * • - ' 1 .Legislative Organization ^nd Services .2. Legislation '
nh
-A. '^
• V:'*
\ '. "•'• •, v:, • —.'-•,. . J \ . • t ^.-- ^ • fe '*. " y\ , i. -_ .., • . . -
V.' .• \- •••'\ • • ^jtX • -- VI -'.' •. ..^--'''''A^.'V^ - ••''•^-.''- - •. •-. • fv\ \ A , •' . ' - ' • • '' V\" \ A •• •' -- • ••% • :: ^r • » • 'vif •••\\- :.•>"•; •• QJl
i
l\^ !:'• «« -h 1 r Legislative Organization and Services
STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES
BY ED CRANE*
>^URiNG THE 1970-71 biennium, many sive professional staffing is- recognized as /1 observers came to share the feeling a key to independent, informed" policy-, r that, the decade of the 1960s'had making. proven to be a historic turning point for While 1970-71 saw^ State Legislatures State Legislatures after a jzentury of de- increasing their capability,, it also posed /cline. The public and \ political leaders an unprecedented challenge to legislative . came increasingly, to recognize the key operations. There were fiscal pressures role of strong State Legislatures in a Qn many .major programs in the face of healthy federal system. At the same tiriie, revenue problems aggravated by a na a sieries of reapportionments and an ac tional economic slow-down. These pres-, tive legislative modernization movement sures made it very evident that "legisla renewed the vitality of State*,Legislatures. tive modernization" is not occurring in •Looking ahead, there is aniple reason to isolation, but will be a continuing and in anticipate that the decade of the 1970s herent necessity as State Legislatures will be one of immense challenge and strive to resolve the difficult issues of opportunity for tlie Legislatures^. -The public policy confronting them. groundwork >for a strong legislative : branch is being laid, but much remains THE LEGISLATIVE MODERNIZATION to be done if the promise is to be fully MOVEMENT . , realized.__j '*By the 1970-71 biennium, "legislative A variety of intensive effSrts are being modernization" activity had been insti made to modernize Legislatures, includ tutionalized on a broad scale as an essen ing utilization of the legislative bie'nniuilp! tial elem<^nt in a larger movement aimed more effectively as available session time toward revitalizing state government iii expands and becomes riiore flexible". Com the federal system. ^ mittee syst^s are being strengthened. As in 1968-69, no State failed to take ^"Htnareasing compensation allows legisla significant;action to strengthen and mod tors to devote time and attention to their^ ernize its'own Legislature in 1970-71. greater responsibilities. Facilities and Internal momentum continued to grow equipment are undergoihgSconsiderable as legislatqrs became more committed to expansion and improvement and exten- the need, began to experience the bene fits of preceding efforts, and 'discovered- •Afr. Crane is a former member of the staff of •iricreasing kiipport from the media and the.Lexington office pf the Council of State Gov the public. jThe preceding fiVe-year peiiod ernments. Assisting in preparation of this chap had been characterized in many States by- ter were Mrs. Carolyn Kenton and Mrs. Barbara general-purpose . modernization commis Nelson of the Council's Research Department, -anfi Mr. Leo Kennedy, a former member of the sions of legislators and/or citizens, with / department. emphasis on comprehensive recommehda- 47 N
48 THE BOOK OF THE STATES tions %vhich demonstrated the need for a ments, the National Municipal.League, virtual transfdl®iation of the legislative the National. Conference of State Legisla institution. Increasingly, permanent leg- tive Leaders, the National Society of :, islative' agencies and committees are State Legislators, the Advisory Commis . adopting specific modernization provi sion on Intergovernmental Relations, sions in areas such as rules, organization, and the Citizens' Conference on State administration, and electronic data Legislatures. processing (EDP). IK| 1971'; two major publications out Comprehensive studies continue in ai lined the progress and p'roblems of State number of States. Major reports were Legislatures as the decade of the seven submitted during 1970-71 in Texas by ties opened. The Council of State Gov- the' Speaker's Committee of lOO; in r.ernments released its quadrennial edi Mississippi by Eagleton Institute; in tion of American Stale Legislatures: Iowa by a Citizen's Committee; in Oregon eir Structures and Procedures, cover by the Advisory Committee on the Ore ing a wide variety, of structural and pro gon Legislature; by a Citizen's Cpijatnittee cedural provisions. This volume presents in Wyoming; and by the Executive Com an excellent long-range perspective on mittee of the Legislative Council in trends in legislative modernization. Washington. Generally, reports indicate American State Leg-islatures is recom- enthusiastic reception and aggressive ira- mended as supplementary reading to this rplementation of recommendations on a article. A number of items are not de continuing rather than on a "one-shot" tailed in this article because they are. con basis. ' . tained therein or in other cited publica New studies are in progress in Arkansas tions. The Citizens' Conference on State by Eagleton Institute, in Kentucky by a Legislatures' culminated its sixth year of committee of legislators and citizens, in existence in 1971 with release of its rank Ohio by a citizens' committee undercon- ings of State Legislatures in its "Legisla- tracfi with the Citizens' Conference on; ,^tive Evaluation Study" and a related "^ State Legislatures, and in Illinois by hook, The Sometime Governments. In. Arthur D. Little Company. Following the 1971, the Council of State Governments first annual session in Connecticut in and the National Legislative Conference 1971, the House launched a study of all announced the creation of a "clearing phases of bill handling in an effort to im house" service which would help all prove management of bill flow. The Legislatures identify where the,most ad North Carolina Legislative Services Com vanced efforts are being made and then mission willbe carrying on a continuing help identify and provide-expe;rt resource review of legislative structure and proce .. people to a Legislature desiring to im dure. . . prove its operations in any area. In con In States where studies have been com junction, the National Legislative Con pleted, continuing implementation and ference established a new Comrriittee on augmentation is widely reported. These . Legislative Improvement and Moderniza include Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, tion, with th^ goal of increased impetus Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, and Wyo to efforts by each State Legislature. ming. The National Legislative Conference In addition to the individual Legisla ^substantially' _ increased its staffing tures, intergovernmental organizations through the.Council of State Gpyern- ' have been recognized for theii* major role ments by adding a full-tinie Secretary ahd , in providing impetus to legislative mod and a full-time Director of Federal-State ernization during the 1960s, and may be Relations. It also substantially increased expected to do so' in the coming decade. staffing of its Intergovernmental Rela Many state committees and.leaders have- tions Committee which served, through derived extensive assistance in framing its six task forces representing'legislators their recommendations from reports and . throughout the Nation, as a policy voice ; efforts of the National Legislative Con for State Legislatures in Washington, ference, the Council of State Govern . D.C. The increasing stature and prestige
i •• / • i:
LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 49 of the • State Legislatures was demon nual session States—Connecticut, Colp- strated in May 1971* when the Presitlent ^rado, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Utah "~ called a meeting with state legislative —had subject limitations during the leaders in the White House, with a sug second-year, session. gestion that this become an annual ev^nt. Attention.-.twa's also given to increasing Just as State Legislatures were being the length of regular sessions. Voters in strengthened, there was recognition of the six States approved changes in the length . need for parallel strengthening of inter of regular sessions during odd- and even- governmental organizations serving:the numbered years. .. ^ Legislaiiires. During V1970-71, exterisive jProposals were also on the ballot to discussions were carried on regarding gijve legislators a voice in convening greater cooperation and eventual creation .special sessions. Proyisipns. to permit of a single, unified national legislative legislators to call a special session were organization. This possibility was favor approved in Illinois, Maine, and North ' ably acknowledged, for example, in presi Carolina, but rejected in Arkansas and dential addresses* at the 1970 and 1971 Oregon. Measures to allow legislators to annual meetings of the National Legisla petition the Governor for a special session tive Conference. It was also actively sup were passed in Maryland and Kansas ported by the Citizens' Conference on while such a proposal was defeated in State Legislatures and by the Council of Idaho. , - State Governments. Legislative compensation- received . much attention. However, the voters were CoNSTiTUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS . more favorable to proposals' creating ~ During the 1970-71 biennium, Legisla legislative- compensation commissions tures continlied to propose and the elec than they w-ere to permitting legislators . torate continued to support constitu to sdt their own salaries or to increase tional, changes necessary for effective legislative compensation. Proposals" to operation of State-Legislatures-. Changes establish compensation commissions were included authorizing more annual ses approved in Arizona, Maryland, and sions, establishing legislative compensa West Virginia, while they were defeated tion commissions, apd.requiring decen- in Nebraska, New Hampshire, and North ial reapportionment based on new cen- Dakota. / •. s data, Attention was'also given, to changing egi.slatures in many States were active the size of legislative bodies. Maine voters ostering overall constitutional revi- approved ah amendment requiring that by providing for constitutional re- the membership of the Senate consist of commissions, reviewing their pro an odd number between 31 and 35. The. posals,- and placing proposals on the bal new Illinois constitution provided for in lot. Legislatures in a number of States creasing the Senate by one to 59, but re- supported broad revision by placing coh- ..tained the-House size at 177. By a separate vqntion calls on the ballot, creating con proposal the voters rejected a plan to vention preparaftory commissions, and elect House members from single-member appropriating financial support for con districts; retaining the three-member dis ventions.' 4 tricts with cumulative voting. Massachu Eleven States voted on proposals con setts and Maryland voters approved cerning annual sessions. Voters approved amendments freezing the. Legislatures at annual sessi^s in Gor]inecticut, Illinois, their present sizes. The defeated Arkan- ! Indiana (authorized but not mandated), sas, Idaho, and Oregon constitutions Missouri, Nebraska, and Virginia. How called for changes in the number of leg ever, proposals for annual sessions were islators. ^ , turned down in Kentucky, New Hamp Recent revision efforts have also fo shire, Nevada, and Texas. In addition, cused upon • the basis of apportionment the defeated Arkansas constitution would' and on procedures for apportionment.. have pjermitted but not required annual Proposals-for decennial apportionment sessions. By the end of 1970 only five an on the basis of population were approved . 60 THE BOOK OF THE STATES in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and limited to 350;000 divided equally be Nevada. New York voters passed an tween prirnary and general elections-. A amendment permitting aliens to be candidate may accept contributions from counted in the population base for the any individual or group in the State, with .purpose,of apportioning Senate and As the exception of hoirse and dog tracks and sembly districts, Maine voters passed an' jai alai permittee's. He may accept no.more amendment requiring the State's single- than $1,000 from a contributor, but there member districts to. have as equal popu is no limit to the amount he may put into lation as practicable. Illinois voters ap his own cbmpaign without, however, ex proved a rneasure to establish a bipartisan ceeding the $50,000 ceiling. Reports of apportionment commission to, apportion contributions must be filed on a year- ..if the.Legislature fails to do so. In Okla-. round basis by all candidates including homa the voters defeated an amendment those seeking reelection. Funds raised at ivhich would have abolished the__State testimonial dinners and the names of the Reapportionment Cdmmission. Mary contributors are included. If a candidate land voters gave approval to an amend receives contributions in excess of the ment givj,ng-resp6hsibility for preparing amount he is avowed to spend, the excess apportionment plans to the Governor; if is escheated tQjiifi-State and placed in the the Legislature fails tpbcnact its own plan, General Revenue Fund. the plan presented by the Governor be Arkansas enacted legislation regulating comes law. ' ' conflict of interest and Illinois and North Traditionally, the great majority of Dakota considered such legislation. In States employed constitutional conven Connecticut, a'package was enacted for tions, for major overhaul, but this has the legislative, executive, and judicial. 'been replaced by piecemeal amendments. branches'. * In recent, years, the vast majority of all In 1971, the Rules Committee of the state constitutional amendments have National Legislative Conference pub been initiated by legislative bodies rather lished a comprehensive review of provi than by constitutional convention. sions regulating conflict of interest among legislators, Conflict of Interest ar^d Re ETHICS AND CoNiFLicT OF INTEREST lated Regulations for State Legislatures. Historically, the conditions under Within the 1969-70 biennium, there were which State Legislatures have worked bill introductions or rule changes in at have been inherently conducive to con least 32 States, indicative of the intense flict of interest, particularly because of interest and widely varying views on the the low pay involved. Many of these con behavior to be regulated and the appro ditions have changed for the better in priate means of doing so. recent decade^ .Pay has improved; the •public and media enforce higher expecta REAPPORTIONMENT tions of their state legislators; and in Every Stgte Legislature in the Nation creased staffing provides information has been\p?6foundly affected by the wave ~- which encourages more objective con of reapportionment launched by the U.S. sideration of issues. Legislators in many Suprem^^ Court with its ro62 "one man, States have moved to establish ethics one vote", decision in Baker v. Carr. The commissions or to assign similar respon pattern of representation in State Legis sibility to existing committees on rules; latures was transrormed. Following hectic they have enacted legislation arid estab activitv from 1963 to 1967, the 1968-69. lished rules to regulate the behavior of biennium saw limijted action. °^- both legislators and lobbyists in cam The .1970-71 biennium launched a paign spending as well as in the legisla second wave of reapportionment in the tive process.* ' . wake of the 1970 census. The new census, During 1970-71, strict rules were in combination with "equal represerita-, adopted in Florida over a range of mat tion" requiremenp, demanded fuSher ters affecting decorum and ethics. For ex substantial change in legislative districts. ample, campaign expenditures were All Legislatures met in 1971, though not .LEGISLATURES AND LEGIS^LA TION 51 all completed redrawing of both state and the Legislature, Montana succeeded in re congressional districts. Nevertheless, ac drawing district lines. A U.S. District tion was generally much faster and Court in Kentucky, declared the Ken smoother than that of the early sixties. tucky plan unconstitutional on the By 1971, the fundamental criteria were grounds that 'there were substantial popu:^ established, understood, and accepted. laiion inequalities created which could During 1971^^ the Council of State' have been eliminated but were not. "When • Governments published a monthly series it was submitted to him for approval, the of reports on" reapportionment. As of Attorney General interposed objections November 1971, 28 States had completed to the Louisiana reapportionment plan. legislative reapportionment. The per- Subsequently it was ruled null and void cer^tage' deviation, between districts by a U.S. District Court. A new redistrict- ranged from a high of -|-41.2 percent to- iiig plan has since been accepted, —^45.5 percent in the XVyoming House to , A U.S. District CoUrt in Mi.ssissippi/ a low. of 1 percent or less in 7 Stales. ruled the Missis.sippi ph1n unconstitii- Eight States did not divide, counties' in tiprial and it redrew ihc district bounda reapportioning at least one of their ries, based on 52 Senate and 122 House houses. Most other States crossed county members. The case was carried on appeal lines in some degree to establish Mstrict to the U.S. Supreme Court which Upheld boundaries. . the decision but required the district Oklahoma and Indiana ' disregarded court to-subdivide the largest mulii-mem- county, city, and town boundaries where ber district into single-member districts. necessary to achiieve their degree of qual The Supreme Court affirmed tlve.di^trict ity. In those States where county lines court's decision that the-i-equirenients of were disregarded, at least tjwo. States, the 1965 Voting Rights Act did not apply Idaho and New Mexico, used precincts to a court-drawn reciistricting [)lan. \ as the building blocks for districts, while U.S. District Court in Virginia ruled the Wyoming used townships and South Virginia House plan unconstitutional Dakota used, townships and census enu based.on the population disparity and re meration districts.- In Virginia the pre drew'the districts itself. Provisions of the cincts and census enumeration districts 1965 Voting Rights Act do not apply to. follow approxirhjltely the same bounda- the redrawn Virginia. Hduse plan as a. i-ies. Arizo^v ""Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, result of the decision of the Supreme Louisiana, New Hampslure, Oklahoma, Court in the" Mississippi case. A court and Texas ,.u^ed census tracts, enumera challenge based on the use of multi-mem tion districts,, and block groups in draw-- ber districts was denied in Montana be ing their plans. V* / ' cause of the U.S. Supreme Court decision . i"»; The States passing'./reapportionment in Whitcomb V. Chavis. laws utilized all types of districts from Nineteen States had completed their single-member in both houses to. a com congressional reapportionment by No-' bination of single-rBember-^muti-member vember 1971. The 1970 census showed the in both houses. Nine States used single- New Mexico and Nebraska congressional; "• member districts exclusively. Ten States districts did not deviate by an appreciable*^ used single-member districts in one house. amount and therefore district boundaries . Court chaiitnges were filed in 16 States, were not changed. Another six. States and were discus.sed in 2 dthers. Plans in ha;ve only one congressman and. will not| 2 States were awaiting approval by the" have to reapportion. The greatest percentj. Governor. The Montana and New Jersey deviation between dis'tricts was —5.4 pcrr ^ plans were ruled unconstitutional based cent to -f-7 percent in four States. The- on their population disparity, over db 10 . remaining States have a deviation ofil'l - percent in each, house. Both States were percent or less. Ten States,crossed county^, told to redraw their plans and-disregard lines to draw their districts. . i county lines if necessary to obtain more . Most State and Territorial Legislatures j equal districts. New Jersey was appeal which had not yet completed reapportion-! ing the decision. In a special session of ment were scheduling special sessions re-l 52- THE BOOK OF THE STATES \ stricted to the topic or planning to act at Arkansas, New Hampshire, and Nevada their next-regular session. In the course in 1970. of taking action on reapportionment, The peri.od 1970-71 marked the first Mississippi enacted an open primary bill, years in which there was some reassess which is being challenged in court. ,' * ^ ment of annual sessions. There was rec t For this second round of reapportion ognition of the need to manage session ments, Legislatures made increasing use time carefully . and to avoid indefinite of computers in a variety of ways. Nevada continuation of legislative business. The. appropriated 525,000 for computer plans impact of annual sessions on budg,^'t re to be prepared by a consultant. California view was under study in Florida/and developed special computer programs to several States with annual sessions con compensate for deficienciesJn census data. templated biennial budget cycles or vari- Louisiana installed visual di^pla y screens aiibfis"thereof. Connecticut planned to ill committee rooms and in,the chambers subject its first annual session to careful to provide instant "verification of devia- ' analysis. An earlier movement to limit tion from equal representation in any the second-year session to fiscaland bud proposed district. getary matters appears to be crewTning. During 1970-71, special sessions were THE UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE again numerous. Thev were held in 14 Nebraska remains the only State with 'States in 1970 and 20 in 1971. florMa and a unicameral Legislature. A general re West Virginia had two, and Mis^uri- vival of interest has been sparked by three in 1970..Florida and Monta:nar1fad several factors: court rulings in reappor two in 1971. tionment cases have required that there There are still 30 States where the be no difference in the basis of apportion Legislature may not call a special session, ment of the two houses (equal popula and 19 where it may not determine the tion); and several leaders of the legislative subject. There are only 21 States with no modernization movement, including limit on the length of a regular session, former Speaker of the California Assem and 35 with ho limit on the length of a bly, Jesse M. Unruh, have seriously pro special session. posed that a unicameral body would More efficient internal organization of ) operate more effectively and openly, in session time was achieved by presession spire greater public confidence, allow activities or services, such as organization moreresources per legislator at existing meetings> orientation conferences, and budget levels, and strengthen the capa^ presession bill drafting.'In-session mea bility of the legislative branch to deal sures, included bill deadlines, consent with other branches and levels of govern calendars, and bill carry-over isystems. ment. During 1970-71, a somewhat larger- than usual number of legislative houses SESSIONS experienced the complications of organiz-; During 1970-71, Legislatures contin ing and operating which derive from a ued to utilize more effectively the legisla- close partisan split. Ties occurred in the ; tive bienniumthrough expansion, redis Senates of Alaska, Illinois, and Michigan. tribution, and better internal use of The Senates of California, Connecticut, session tinie. Approaches included an and Minnesota experienced a one-vote, nual sessions, dropping the restriction on . margin, with the balance held in Minne session length, increasing the length of sota by an independent who aligned him regular sessions, removal of subject limi self with one party after; the session com tation, during the second-year session, al menced. In several cases, the Lieutenant ternating session and recess periods, and Governor and/or the Governor were of special sessions. the opposifig party from the one-vote •Action in 1970-71 brought the total majority. number of States with annual sessions to A number of States, faced with direct 33. Voters in 5 other States rejected such and' indirect time limitations, alleviate proposals: Kentucky and Texas4n 1969; this problem by organizing ahead of ses- LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 53 sion, selecting officers, appointing com- publication of the Rules Committee of mittejes, and assigning workloads for the National Legislative Conference. study. Included are^ Alabama, Florida, Both houses of the Minnesota Legislature Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, replaced Jefferson's Manual with Ma^Gn^ and i;ennessee. ' . : ' Manuil of Legislative Procedure. Florida The legislative orientation conference, made extensive changes in the rules for now held in 47 States, continues to serve introduction and consideration of bills. as the primary means of acquainting new In addition to its ne\y provision for pre- members and staff with their duties, filing of bills starting November 15, Ken^. legislative procedures, staff, services, major tucky required 24-hour pre-filing of all programs, and each other. In 1971, the amendments from the floor on third read Rules Committee of. the National Legis ing with distribution of printed copies to lative Conference published a pamphlet each, member, and reference, of all bills distilling the basic features of these pro with fiscal impact to the Appropriations grams arid recommending standard ap Committee for review and approval. proaches. Pennsylvania added to this the require Other measures are being taken which ment that a fiscal note be provided before can contribute to better internal organi ; first reading, and in the case of amend zation of the session period. One is the ments, no vote be taken until the day establishment of deadlines by which following distribution of the appropri ^specific steps of the legislative process are ately modified fiscal note. Wisconsin ini to be completed, alleviating the end-of- tiated the practice of a joint resolution the-session'logjam and allowing for the specifying the complete session schedule. session to proceed on a pre-planned Rules, studies were commenced by the schedule. Deadlines are used for bill draft Senate Rulej;, Committee in Georgia, with requests, bill introduction, committee ac-' special emphasis on the standing commit tion on bills, final reading and passage of tee system; and by the Committee- on bills, and consideration and adoption of Legislative Process in Indiana. conference committee reports. Slightly Rules of procedure for committees more than half of the States have dead were becoming increasingly common. In I lines for legislators to request .bill draft 1971, Minnesota, adopted a joint rule ing services. More commonly, time limits establishing deadlines for submission of on bill introduction have been estab committee reports. Arkansas revised its lished. , ' committee rules to provide for a schedule Procedures which can facilitate a of committee meetings, &n agenda to be smoother flow of legislation involve the published for each committee 48 hours use of a consej||it calendar, used by one or in advance of its meeting, and all meet both houses in 19 Sta:tes, and a bill carry ings open to the public. Texas required over system. One or both houses in 16 a bill analysis for evpry measure reported States utilize this latter procedure, which from committee. „ eliminates the necessity of reintroducing The mddernizatfon and streamlining bills during the second session. Most of procedures has been accompanied by Legislatures have generally eliminated diminishing need for the "fiction arid the practice of reading bills in full in subterfuge" traditionally required to order to allow the session to move along^'^ complete the work of the Legislature at more quickly. There are 11 States with end of session. Recent changes have sig no limitation whatsoever on introduction nificantly, opened the legislative process of bills. to access by an informed public. All com mittee hearings are now required to be RULES OF PROCEDURE open to the public in 25 States and Terri ^ Rules of procedure underwent wide- tories. . spread revision in 1970-71, as^many States sought to streamline the legislative COMPENSATION process/Widely utilized as .,a# aid was . The trend toward more frequent meet Key Points in Legislative Procedure, a ings of Legislatures has been accompanied
^. • •...••',•.:' 7- •:••:. -.-• •. /. • •.. • •- /. LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 55 Mississippi, as a result of reapportion- round standing cornmittee system. The .ment, increased the size of both houses use of standing committees varies con- to 55 in the Senate and 125 in the House si cferably among the States; In Florida but the .increase was ruled uncQfnstitu- all standing committees are authorized _ tional by the court. . to meet during the interim. In Iowa Often the .argument has been made standing committees are authorized, to that longer terms wo^Jcl lessen the turn meet once between the first and the sec over in.legislative membership,' thereby ond session and more often with the ap permitting legislators to gain more ex proval of the Legislative Council. In Cal- perience and furiction more effectively.' •ifornia all Assembly standing committees . There have b^en a number of proposals are reconstituted as interim committees. in recent years to increase the term of Kentucky and Oklahoma utilize a " office, biit to little avail. .' somewhat different approach. Kentucky standing committees operate as subcom COMMITTEES mittees of the Legislative Research Com- ,;;..••__•- ^ ^ ^ -• _. Strengthening of the legislative cpm- mission. Oklahom which encompass the work of all the standing committees are used to consider -J*- standing committees of both houses. budget matters and pre-filed, pre-referred Although legislative councils and bills. .In Kentucky, the [first substantial ^ specially created interim committees com committee reports were made to the 1970/ monly, are used "for interim committee session, following implementation ijn work,- more than half of the States are 1968 of Legislative Research Commission making transition to sQme form of year; staffing during the interim. / <»"e. / 56 THE BOOK OF THE STATES Although 27 States report having joint ers—House Speakers and Speakers Pro committees, only Connecticut, uses them Tem, and Senate Presidents and Presi exclusively, and Maine and Massachu dents Pro Tern. Frequently, ofiices are setts report using them extensively. Joint provided to floor leaders and in some committees will be used more extensively cases to' committee chairmen. , -as a result of the restructuring of services and studies which has taken place in EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY - Kansas. Iowa uses jpint committees on In keeping pace with a rapidly chang;^ interim study projects. Minnesota .reports ing environment, legislators have adapted a trend to conduct interim studies by a wide variety'of electronic and technor joint committee.or subcommitteeuneet- logical devices to various aspects of the legislative process, with nvany States hav Increasing attention, was deyotedSn ing made sid)stantial progress during 1970-71 to the role, of conference com 1970-71'. Legislatures in -57 States are mittees, created for the purpose of resolv using electronic data processing (equip ing differences between the two houses, ment;- many of these are planning to im- in the total jegislative decision-making piove present applications oi'initiate ad- process. Deficiencies in the conference clitional Usages. Four others have one or committeesystemhave led some observers more applications under development, to use this as a basis for advocating uni and nearly every" other Legislature is cameral Legislatures. In 1971, Minnesota ' planning or investigating the possibility initiated the printing of conference com of using-computers in the future. mittee reports. During the past year,"nine States have .Many Legislatures conferred upon initiated operational statutory retrieval standing coinmittees the authority for .systems; eight started, bill drafting sys continuous operation, interim studies, tems; six initiated, bill status reporting sponsorship of legislation, and- the carry- , systems; and three started using photo ing. out of investigations with subpoena composition printing. Overall, the.States power. . -^ ni"ade excellent progreiss in. the field of legislative information svstems during FACILITIES T970-71. \ : •; / It has been increasingly recognized that . Ho^v•ever, development of computer if legislators and their staffs are to-per- ized systems is still limited ihvsome States ; form their roles effectively they need ade by budgetary liniftations, uncertainty of quate working facilities. concrete benefits in view of .high initial Facility improvements have of ten been costs, general lack of knowledge of sonie part of a larger building program, as in legislators concerning computer capabilr ' Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, ities, and the built-in delays inherent in Maryland, Nevada, New York, and Ten most state governments resulting, from nessee. In North Dakota, a bill for a new short annual or biennial sessions of the legislative office building, enacted by the Legislatures. Most States have no central Legislature, was defeated in a referen- ized ag'ency for developing computerized ,dum, legislative systems. /Legislatures haye also recently reno Several States continue to lead the field. vated and occupied, convenient space pre Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Penn viously used by other state agencies, as' sylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin are in Illinois, Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsyl achieving very sophistica'ted systems. vania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Other States such as Colorado, loWa, Washington. • Montana, Nebrask^, and Texas have In contrast with the 26 States that now made exceptional progress. Eleven have provide office space for all or some legis implemented in^house. EDP legislative lators, only 15 States provided such facil systems for-the first time! They are Del-a ities in 1959.- ware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Massa In most States it is a common practice chusetts, Michigan, Minnesdta, Montana, to pro-vide office space to legislative lead Nebraska, North Dakota, and- Texas. • .-•-.:..•• • :> .-••-•. A..... LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATIOH 57 '/i-' Particular mention should be made of equity in reapportioning. Five Legisld'*, Minnesota's and Nebraska's progress dur tures—Arizona, Delaware, low'a. New ing the year. In 1970 Minnesota and Ne Jersey^nd New York—reported using the braska reported haying' no legislative computer as a quhick and accurate method EDP information systems in operation. for developing reapportionment plans A year later, Minnesota is employing prior to 1971. systems for statutory retrieval, bill draft Proposed budget changes, and fiscal ing, and bill status reporting, and is using irhpact can be traced by coiTiputer. In ••\r photocomposition printing also. Minne Louisiana when the Legislature.amends sota employed ASPEN to assist in this the budget,:changes can be keyed in'and effort. Nebraska;developed in-house, ex- ""a print-out of individual agency budgets' . terisive systems for statutory retrieval arid and the effect of the tothl.budget can be ,., bill drafting. available immediately. .0ther Stales Statutory retrieval-is the most popular ' whifJfa use a budget'status sy'stern are Mas usage With 27 States using this applica sachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Wiscon-. tion. Bill status systems are'in operation sin, and Wyoming. in 23.States.^ ; • ' A model of Arizona's school finance laW One of the most rapidly developing ' • was employed to analyze the efTecis of con applications is • the use of the computer? templated -changes, on each individual as an aid in bill drafting. Recently Colo schbblclistrict. Arizona also utilized mod- rado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Minne eling techniques to project income from sota, Nebraska, and Washington joined various, taxes»and major state commit the'growing group of States using tliis ments such as suppoi^t of universities, wel-. application. In addition, in- North Caro-> fare, and health services. iina the computer is used as an aid in bill New technology" is^ having a consider typing and processing. FourotKer Sta'tes able impact on legislative printing. .Min have such systems under development nesota now undertakes complete printing and 21 other States are making plans for ©f all information to" come, before the future usage,. : - Senate on,any day, allowing better prep During 1970-71, States adding new aration for floor action. Microfilm readers * functions included ' Georgia, which, im are used to' prov.ide public access to bill plemented bill drafting in the: 1971 ses status. Telecopie/s on the floor send in sion and plans to implement statutory formation direct to'the printer. The im retrieval in the future. Indiana is con pact of. new technology on legislative( sidering computerized bill drafting. printing has led to establishment of spc- ' North Carolina is proceeding in phases, cialbodies to authorize.and review new having installed a bill status systerri in > developments • in - Florida (Legislative 1969, and .a su'bject index in 1971. North Printing. Committee) and' Mississippi Dakota developed the capability to search (Legislative Printing ()(ficc). In a number the entire texi of its statutes. The Alinne- of States-,,including Texas, rules changes sota House implemented an indexing and have festdted. . ; . bill drafting system. Utah installed com Other uses; of technology include' a puter terminals for rapid deterniination WATS telephone line for all members of daily bill status. from their home cljstrict to. the CapitoJ_^in As uses of technology rnultiply. States Minnesota. Pneumatic tubes for messati^e are consolidating and reorganizing their transfer find automated filing systems are\ activities in this area. Florida has devel also useci in Minnesota, oped a Legislative Data Processing Serv It is very likely tliat the decade of the ice, working under its Joint Managiement seventies will Witness, exciting aiid in-- Corrimitteq, to consolidate its extensive hovative applications of technological EDP uses. Illinois., has created a Joint a:ids to many phases of the legislative Legislative Information Service to super •process, allowing more efficient and effec vise a very extensive program. tive use of personnel, funds, and the in Computers c^n also be used, as an ally valuable commodity—time. In 1971, the in the struggle to achieve substantial ' EDP Gomniittee of the Natidnal Legis- 1 i/- '• •A, • ,A :.v- v' .•f, 58 THE SOOK OF XHE'STA:r-ES lative Confereiice published^ Survey of islative approval of all executive regtila- ' the Use of Electronic Data Processing by tions. Pennsylvania expanded' its over State Legislatures. ,v sight ..function in selective' areas, with .special erriphasis on public assistance pro OTHER SALIENT FzATi^ifesV^ grams. Minnesota has taken similar mipa- stires. The legislative...oversight function Fe'derahState RelatiOiis'^ • / •-* is under study by the^-Government Op •Revenue sharing bec^fne>"a' ral erations Cdinmittee of the \Vestefn Con- point in the eiTprt" by/State Legislatures Terence of the Council of State-Goverti-'- . and - state govfernrneint /to. restore^ fiscal 'merits. . -. •:;;"• -^ ,,.- _. . "\#^ ./ ^- '"••'"'..• balance to the/federalvsystem. Several Leg- • ." . • ' • 1^ ' .'•••'•'. ., islatures becariie fprujiis, for federal-state^ Les;islative Biidg-ets < • . . >• • debates when .Vice President Agnew and-: During the decade of the sixties, bud- Cbngressman Wilbur D*Mi|l^ Chairman gets of State"Tegislatures incr.Gased at a of the House Ways and iM^ans Gonimit- substantial rate. In I960,'a total of 551.7' • tee, carried'thie issYie to Iowa, Illinois, and million ani)ually was appropriated.. f6r> Tennessee. /:•;. "•••• \ ;. • Legislatures, compared wi{|i- 3179.5 mil lion in 1970, 'an increase, of rougUly; 250 Legislative: Oversight J\' •• ' ••.;;,•' *percent..These' budgets reflect augnienta- ,~ A'^key l^gisl^itive .function w'hlch has tion of all phases of'legislative'budgets: been largely neglected Historically j^ttlTe '. salaried, sta(f,>facilittes ^|l,rid' equipment, state level istthat of legislative ov^rsiglit etc. l|qw'e\4r#^ expendi^ of executive agencies. As legislators spend"; tures rfemaijj^^extremefydow Vhen, cotri- more time on their duties and legislative ^-'pared .to total spite; expenditures And staff services are' expanded, there is an;.' • U.S': cdngrqssionar'expenditures. Com- emerging trend to develop the oversight "binecl'" "^ , '"fli e" 5'''^0 State'^^'''''"'~s spen— t ^Jess' - tha*'—n hal' '-"f " as- function:;revie\V^ aiid evahiatiqn :of ad much fd4)i4egis.lati\f;e administration as the ministrative regiijations^ahd programs to fed'eral'governr^ient spent for the opera determihe that'vthey comply w'Uh legis tions 'of Congress, and;-less than orie- lative intent and are effective, A bill was qiiarter of oifep^erce^iJhf^totaL state ex-^ submitted in MijssjichuSjetts to require leg-;- 'penditures. ^.i .,•.••'. t':' i:-i .::^.^,^ i¥' •sfc / :^/:- •a. I ••'- <*'^.-. I LEGISLA^TURES AND LEGfSLATION ^59 .^bpFICIAU NAMES OF STATES,.. . LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND CAPITOLS State or .other jurisdiction Both bodies Senate Hotise Capitol' . ___ .— v - ' —: ^ Alabiama, State of Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Alaska, State of ;.... Legislature Senate House of Representatives State CapitoUa) Arizona, State of s. Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Arkansas, State of..... General Assembly "^nate House of Representatives State Capitol • California, State of;' Legislature Senate Assembly State Capitol Colorado, State of * General .Assembly Senate House of 'Representatives State Capitol Connecticut, State of .^, ; .. General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Delaware, State of... .l...: •... General Assembly Senate House of Representatives Legislative Hall Florida, State of...... \ Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol: Georgia, State of.-. S General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol, Hawaii. State of .•.. Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Idaho, State of Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Illinois, State of....'..... General Assembly Senate .House of Representatives State House Indiana, State of General .Assembly Senate House of Representatives (b) • Iowa, State of General Assembly Senate -House of Representatives State Capitol Kansas, State of, .• Legislature Senate House of Representatives State House Kentucky, Comnionwealtli of General -Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol • Louisiana, State of '.,'..:... Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Maine, State of .\ ^^.... Legislature Senate House of Representatives State House Maryland, State of^-....., -<'•-..... General Assembly Seru^te House of Delegates • State House Massachusetts,. Gomrrion- . • ^ wealth of.'.. General Court - Senate House of Representatives State House Michigan, State of.. Legislature ' Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Minnesota, State of Legislatfire Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Mississippi, State of Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Missouri, State of...;...'. General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol < Montana, State^f.,' i, Legislative Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Nebraska, State of Legislature L'nicami^fal State Capitol Nevadi^, State of. Lcgi:ilature Senate -Assembly- j '< State CapitoUc) New Hampshire, State of ;.. General Court Senate House of. Representatives State House • New Jersey, State of. ^. 7.. Legislature Senate General Assembly . State House New Mexico, State of...-. Legislature. "* Senate House of ReprcsentaJ State Capitol New York, State of : Legislature . Senate Assembly State Capitol North Carolina, State of. General .Assembly * Senate House of Representiwves' State Capitol(d) . North Dakota, State of..'. Legislative Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Ohio, State of General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State House Oklahoma, State,of ...... '.... Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol, Oregon, State of .|, i Legislative .Assembly Senate House of Representatives . State Capitol • Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of... General -Assembly/ Senate House of Representatives Capitol Building Rhode Island and Providence ' Plantation's, State of. .^. General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State House South Carolina, State ofV • • • General .Assembly Senate House of Representatives -State House T, •• i ' • South Dakota, State of Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Tennessee, State of ' General .Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Texas, State of.;.,...... - Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol jJUtah, State of. i . I..:. Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Vermont, State of •..., General -Assembly Senate House of Representatives State House Virginia, Commonwealth of .... General Assembly Senate House of Delegates State,CaRitol Washington, State of Legisteure Senate House of Representatives Legislative Building West Virginia, St^te of.« Legislature Senate House of Delegates State Capitol : Wisconsin, State of. .. Legislature Senate' Assembly State Capitol Wyoming, State of Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol American Samoa, Territory of...... Legislature Senate • House of Representatives Territorial ' Capitol, Guam, Territory of Legislature Unicameral Congre.«3 .. Building(c) Puerto Rico, Commbri'wealth of. .... ,; Legislative -Assembly Senate House of Representatives Capitol Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Congress of Senate House of Representatives Congress Building ., • Micronesia Viriiin ilslands. Territory of Legislature , • Unicameral Govcrnirent . House(e) '" •In some instances the name is not oflicial. (c) The Legislature'meets in the "Leijislative Buihrmg." ,* (a) The Legislature mcet3\in the Senate Wing and the House / ' .Wing, tuo sepaja'te structures. / • (d)'The Legislature meets in the "State Legislative Build- ' / (b) Both "State House" and "State Capitol'-'used. ' Ing." • . • / (e) The Legislature meets in the "Senate Bui;din£." ./j «'- ') / LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS Limt tations. Special sessions Years in on length which Sessions convene of sessions Legislature may State or sessions Legislature . determine sub- '•'. other jurisdiction are held Month " - ' > ' Regular Special may call ' • Ject Day Alabama.. .. ?. .. 0<1,1 - May 1st Tue.s. (a) 36 L 36 L .No Ji vote those present Alaska. . Annual J.-.n. 2iul Mon. None 30 0 3^ of nienibership-• Yes (b) Arizona ; ^.. Annual Jan. 2nd Mon. None Nrfne Petition ?-S members Yes (b) ' ArkanHas. Odd Jan. 2nd Mon. ' 60 Cfc) 1.5 C(d) No • (<1) California Annual Jan. Mon. ajtcr Jan..l None(e). None • No No Colorado '. Annunl(f) Jan. Wed. after l.st Tues. None(g) None(R) No No Connecticut Annual(f) Jan. OddirWod. after 1st Mon. (h) None(i) . .Yes Yes Keb. EviMf-Wed. after 1st JJon. (h) . Del?iwarc. T Annual Jan. 2nd Tues. . June.^0 None • Yes(j) • Yes Florida Annual Apr. •• . Tues. after 1st Mon.(k) 60C;c) 20 C(c) YeH(j) Yes Georgia •....;..... Annual Jan. Od(l-2nd Mon.d) 45 C (m). Petition Ji niembersCm) Ve8(b) Jan. Kvcn-2nd Mon. 40 C Hawaii Annual Jan. , 3rd Wed. '60 L(n) 30 L(n) Petition J^ membcrs{o) Yes(o) Idaho. ; .•„ Annual Jan. 2n{l Mon. 60C(6) 20 C No No Illinois .. Annual Jan. 2nd Wed. Noi\e None Yea(j) YC3(J) • . Indiana .• Annual Jan. Odd-Tuc3. after 2nd Mon. nVApr. .30fa) 30 L(q) No • 'Yes Jan. , Evcn-Tucs. after 2nd Mon. (p) Mar. 15(Q) o • Iowa ; ...... Annual • Jan, 2nd Men. ' None None ( No'- •, Yea. Kansas.. .• Annual . Jrin. 6dd-2nd.Tue3. None(R) None(K) Petition 7i members Yea Jan. Kven-2nd Tues, 60 C(c) Kentucky Even Jan. Tues. after 1st Mon. 60 L None ^ .No .. : • No Louisiana...... ' Annual (0 May Kven-2ndMon. 60 C 30 C Petition J^el.crted members No(r) May Odd-2nd Mon. 30 C 30 C V each liouse Maine...; ;. Odd Jan. 1st Wed. • . , None None Majority of each party Yes Maryland Annual Jan. 2nd Wed. 90 C(c) 30 C Petition of majority of inembera Yea Massachusetts...... Annual Jan. 1st Wed. None None Yes Yea Mlchlftan-...... t. Annual Jan. 2nd Wed. None None No No Minnesota...... Odd Jan. ;; Tues.' after 1st Mon. 120 L None ' No • Yea Mississippi ....;...... ^nnual Jan. Tues. after 1st Mon. (s) .. None No . No Missouri. ^.'. Annual . Jan. Odd-Wed. after-Ist-Mon. June .30 60 C - No No Jan. Evcn-\Ved...afler Ist Mon - May lS(t) •. V <• Montt^na _..,...... Odd Jan.' 1st. Mon. 60 C 60 C . No No Ncbraslui '....;..... Annual Jan. Odd-1st Tues. 90 lAc) None Petition % members Yes Jan. Even-Ist Tuea. 60 L(c) • Nevada Odd Jan. .^rd Mon. None(B) Nonefg) No No Jsr«^ Hampshire Odd Jan. 1st Weil. (8) None(g) Yes Yes .S'^t'^.Jersey .' Annual Jan. 2nd Tuea. • iNone None (u) Yea '""•' . i' • „o- " New Mexico .^•,>;.^. ;.,...... AnnuaKf) Jan. Odd-3rd Tues. 60 C .30 C(v) Ycs(v) YeaCb. v) Jan. Even-.^rii Tues. ' 30 C New York Annual Jan../ Wed. after 1st Mon. . None None No No North Carolina. Odd Jan. Wed. after 2nd Mon. None None Petition ?4 members Yes North Dakota...... Odd Jan. - Tues. after 1st Mon. ^ 60 L None No . Yea Ohio..:. Odd(w) . Jan.- 1st Mon. None' None ' No No ^ Oklahoma...... AnniKil Jan. Tues, after 1st Men. 90 L None Orefton Odd Jan. 2nd •NTon. None None Pennsylvania... Aiuiual Jan. 1st Tues./ None ^ None Petition of majority of members RHodti Island... Annual Jan. lat Tues. 60 L(er None No South Carolina. Annual .Jan. 2nd Tues. None None No South Dakota. Annual Jan. Odtl-Tues. after 3rd Men. 45 L None : No... • Jan. Even-Tues. after 1st Men. 30 L V Tennessee Odd(w) . Feb. 4tli Tue.s.(x) ^ • ^onUs) None(g) Petition J^ members Texas Odd Jan. 2nd Tues. 140 C - -30 C No. Utah.. Annual (f) Jan. Odd-2nd Mon. 60C 30 C • . No Jan. l<-veii-2nd Mon. 20.C Vermont. Odd(w) Jan. Wed after 1st Mon.. None(g) None No /->- Virginia Annual Jan.- Odd-2nd Wed. 30 C 30 C(c) Petition J^ members \^ _ -—Jan, Even-2nd Wed. 60C Washlnftton... Odd" Jan. 2nd Mon. 60 C None No Yea West Virginia.. Annual Jan. 2nd Wed.(y) 60 C(c.z) None Petition ?6 members " No(aa) Wisconsin...... Annual Jan. 1st Tues. after Jan. 15(ab) None None • Petition Of majority of members Ye3(aa) Wyonilnft. . ... Odd Jan. 2nd Tues. 40 G None No .Yes '^;-. Guam.- Annual • Jan. 2nd Men. None N.A. N.A. N.A. Puerto Rico. .. Annual Jan. 2nd Mon. :.v Apr. 30(c) 20 No /• No- TTPl Annual Jan. 2nd Mon. Salary and.daily pay Travel and expens0(b. o) Delaware.-... Con.st. 6.(X)0 .-. .. 15 Unliriiited 2'S(c) Florida...... Stat/ 12.(XK) ..... 10 VVVekly 25 10 "is" ' 300(b) Georgia St^t: . 4.200 ....\ 10 Weekly 25 10 25 Hawaii...... Con.s,t./Stat.(a) .. 12,000 ^. . . Unlfmited(r) 750(b, s); 20(t) ... (u)- Idaho.-.. Const. & Conip. 10 60 C 10 20 C 10 Five 35 (v) 25 . ' .3.'50(a, b) Conini. ••••••'R-- Illinois Stat. • 17.500 '... 15 Weekly -SO(c); 3,600 (w) .. 3.600(w) Indiana. >.... Stat. 6.000 ... 10 Weekly 25 ,10 . 25 60(a, b) Iowa...... Stat. 5.500 40 10 Weekly 15(x) .10 40(y) to Kansas .Stat. 10 90 C(3;) 10 30 C 9 Weekly(aa) 25(ab) 100(i, ac) Kentucky Stat.. 25 60 L(ad) . 25 15 One 25; .50(c) 8 25 300(b) Louisiana Stat. 50 66C(z) 50 .w'c 10 (ae) .5pO(a. b) 10 50 500(a..b) Maine. Stat. 2.500 20 10 Weekly. lh'){xxi) (v) (v) Maryland Comp. Co mm. 11,000 10 Unliniited(i) 25(i) 10 25(1) 2.5()0(i. as); 5.(X)0(i. at,') Massachusetts. Stat.. 11,400 (ah) -- Daily (ai); 1.200(b. w) 1.200(b. w) Michigan Comp. Comm. 17,0(X) 10 Weekly 20(:ij) . (V) Minnesota Slut. 9.6()6 10 One 24; 16(ak) 10 25 Mississippi.. .. , Stat. ' s.bbo 22.50 (al) Weekly 12.S0(am) 100(b) Missouri Stat^ 16.800 10 Semi-monthly 10 Montana. Stat. • 60 20 60 C 9 Two 25 (v) Nebraska Const./Stat. 4.800 10 One 160(c) Nevada;...... • Stat. 46(an) 60 46(an) 26 "c 12 (ao) .^0; 60(c); (aq) 250Cap) New Hampshire Const. 200 3 • 25{ar) Daily , 2S(ar) (v) New Jersey... Const./Stat. 10.000 .15 L (as) (at) New Mexico... Const./Stat. 36 60 C(z) 36 10 One (au) 10 36 - New York. .... Const./Stat. 15.(X)0 30 C (v) Weekly 5.(X)0(b. w) (v.)^ 5.000 (b, w) North Carolina Stat. 2,400 10 Weekly 25; .50(a) io 25 50(a. b) North Dakota. Const. 60 L 10 Tliree 40; 50(a. b) 10 30(av) .SO(a. b) Ohio . Slat. 12.750 10 Weekly Oklahoma. . . Const. Bd. O.OOO 10 Weekly (c. aw) 9(ax) 25(ax) Oregon...... Stat. 6,550 25 8 (au) 125(b) Pennsylvania. Stat. "7.266 16 Weekly 8.400(w) 8.400(w.) Rhode Island. • Const. 60 L k . . . 8 l.'nliniited / • South Carolina Const./Stat. 4.000 100 9 Weekly 2.5(ay); 15(c) ,^ South Dakota.. Stat. 3,000(az) . . . . . 20 5 One 9 16 20 Tennessee Coii.st./Stat. 3,600 30 36'L 10 Weekly 30(am) . . 10 30 Texas ^i... Const. 4.800 10 One 12(ba) "875(i. bb); 2.400(1. bb) Utah s.... Const./Stat. .25 60 C(z) . . 25 30 C 10 Weekly 15 • ••••.• • ', Vermont...... Stat. 150(bc).. 8 Weekly 8; 12.50(bd) 8 8; ^2.50(bd) Virginia...... Stat. 5.475 9 Weekly 31.25 9 35 Washington... Slat. 7.266 40 10 One 40 10 25 50 West Virftlniai. Conip. Comm. '3.366 35 lO(be) Weekly 15; lO(bf) lO(be) 15. lO(bf); 35(bK) WisconsCn. Jt. Finance 8,96b lO(bh) (bh)- 20{bi) (v) (v) . 25;40(bj) Co mux. Wjafifminft. Stat. 40,0' 15 10 One 26 ^ 12.000 Stat. 8.1KJ0 . '.: ..'. 26 Abbreviations:!^—I.ecislative daysTX—Calendar days. / , ' period usually is. 72 to 74 days. ' *Unle.sH otherwise noii-d.. '' ' -, . (ac) Kight during general session in even-numbered years; four during fiscal session in o \ \ \. \\ 64- THE. BOOK OF THE STATES ••/'<•• APPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATURES* A- SENATE—As of January 1972 , ' -' \^ -^ ——' . - ' .'. - — . : . Percent of ... . ' / deviation in •'.'•• - . - / . actual vs. Present Year of . Xutnber Largest average pnptt- Average' appor- most of number lation per seat popu- tion- recent • Number . Number multi- of ,—'• ^ '• \ lation ment appor- of of • member sects in Greatest each Slate by tionment seats districts districts district + — seat (z) Alabama C 1972 35 35 0 .1 0.7 0.7 98.406 Alaska B. 1971 20 14 .5 3 26.2 17.2 • 13,.S42 Arizona .. L - 1971 30 .30 0 1 0.4 0.4 59,083 Arkansas B 1971(b) 3,5 35 0 1 2.0 0.0 54,951 California.... L 1965 40 40 0 1 13.1 14.9 392.9.^0 Colorado..., L • 19^7 35 35 0 1 7.5 .6.2 50,113 Connecticut.....;.. B 1971(b) .36 36 0 1 ' 3.9 3.9- 84.228 .Delaware L l?7t 21 21 0 1 1.4 0.9 26,100 Florida...... C 1967 48 17 12 9 5.0 5.1 103.158 . Georgia.. L .r. 1971 56 56 0 1 . 2<3 2.0 81,955 .Hawaii.. Con > 1968 26(c) 8 7 4 23.5 6.i~- 9.5t4(d) Idaho...... ; L 1971 .35 35 0 1 8.8 • 10.6 . 20,371 nilnols B 1971(b) 59 59 ___ 0 1 0.8 "0.6 '188,372 Indiana L 1971 • 50 SO" 0 .1 (e) (e) 103,872. Iowa. Con 1969(f) SO 50 0 1 7.0 6.0 ,55.000 Kansas C 1968 40 28 4 6 7.9 '9.2 55.^4 Kentucky.. L 1963(f) 38 38 0 1 51.0 22.4 79.951 Louisiana C 1971 39 39 0 1. 4.4' 4.8 93,415 Maine...... C 1967 .32 - .12 0 1 8.6 10.5 30.290 Maryland L 1965; 43 16 14 7 18.2 15.8 72,109 Massachusetts L 1970 40 , 40 0 1 .2.2 2.8 jl.12.576 MIchlftan... C"^ 1964 38 38 0 1 0.6 .0.4 / 205,895 Minnesota L 1966 . 67 67 0 1 25.3 12.9 50.953 Mississippi.... C 1971 . ._52 36 10 5 9.6 9.3 41,887. Missouri B 1971 34 34. 0 1 4.9 4.9 137,571 Montana^.... L 1971(b) " SO 23 13 6 5.2 4.8 1.V.888 . Nebraska L 1971 49 49 0 1 1.4- 1.1 30.280 Nevada...... L 1971(b) 20 10 3 7 8.1 14.9 24.437 New Hampshire...: L 1971 24 24 0 1 10.1 5.6 30.500 ' New Jersey.. ;. B 1971(b) 40, 15 11 6 13.3 15.5 179,266 New Mexico C 1966(f.) 42 42 0 1 29.1 27.6 22.643 New York... L 1971 60 60 0 1 0.9 0.9 304.021 North Carolina L " 1971 50 i 27 . 18^ 4 5.6 . 6.9 101.641 North Dakota C 1965 ,49 39 5 4 10.1 12.2 12,907 Ohio B ' 1971 33 -33 0 1 0.6 0.6 322.788 Oklahoma '.. L - 1971(b) .48 48 .0 % 1 0.5 0.5 53,317 Oreftons S 1971 30 ' 30 0* 1 . i;2 0.7 69.713 Pennsylvania C 1966 SO • 50 ' 0 1 9.9 9.3. 226,.187 Rhode Island../;... L 1966 SO '50 0 1 18.6 12.2 17.190 ^vSouth Carolina..... L 1971(b) 46 23 11 4 > H-' 8.8 56,316 South Dakota ; L "• 1971 35 28 3 5 2.4 3.3 19,035 Tennessee: Con 1966 33 33 0 1 15.9 13.9 108.094 Texas B ' 1971 31 31 0 1 2.3 2.2 361,191 Utah : L 1965(f) 28 28 0 1 16.1 . 33.6 . 31,808 Vermont L- 1965 30 12 ,10 6 • 23.2 22.8 12.996 Vlrftlnla C 1971 " 40 38 '' 1 3 < N..\. N..\. . 116.212 Washington L 1965 49 49 0 1 22.0 16.1 57,636. West Virginia...... L . 1964"' 34 17 17 2 34.5 31.0 *4.718 Wisconsin C 1964 J 33 .33 0 1 14.5 16.0 119.780 Wyoming L 197i(b) '30 16 •> 9 5 . 27.9' 21.6 11.080 .., -^ ^ ^ '. '. ^ '. * - '• • 1 •The 1971 and 1972 data for th.is table were compilwl from / Abbreviation.i: B — Board or Comroisalon; C—roiirtT<^on— state reports; the earlier data'were adapted from/Ip/)or(ionm^n/ Constitution; L—Legi.tlaturc; S—Secretary ofiState; N.A.— in the Nineteen Sixties, the National Municipal Leasue New Not Available. . 1 • York, and updated by the Council of State Governments for. (a) Population figures (?iven are those that were valid at the this edition. . time of the last legislative apportionment and do not in all •* - « cases reflect 1970 census data. • . • . • • ii LEGISLATURES AND' LEGISLATION 65' APPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATURES*, HOUSE—As of January 1972 , Percent of deviation in actual vs. Prfsent Year of Number. average population Average aiipor^ most of Largest per seat popu- tion- . recent Number Number multi number , —'^ ^ lotion ment appor- of of member of seats in Greatest each by •» tionment seats . districts districts district + . — seat (a) • ' State 1972 • 105 105 0 1 1.1 1.2 . 32,802 ;..'... . Alabama 1971 40 21 8 5 23.4 45.9 6,771 ...Alaska i L 1971 60- 30 30 • 2 0.4 0.4 29,541 \' ...... Arizona ' B 1971(b) . 100 84 10 3 6.3 .3.1 19,233 Arkansas L 1965 80 80 0 1 13.5 14.3 196.465 ...... California L 1967 65 65 0. 1 13.4 11.7 I 26,984 ...Colorado B 1971(b) 151 > 151 0 1 1.0 . 1.0 20,081 Connecticut L 1971 41 »N 41 0 1 2.6 2.3 13,368 Delaware C 1967 119 24 21 . 22 4.6 5.6 41,610 Florida L . .1971 180 105 . 49 6 1.9J . 2.0 43,711 :.. .Georgia Con 1968 51 / 25 19 3 15.3 16.0 4.966(d)... Hawaii L 1971 70 35 35 2 • - 8.8 10.6 10.186 Idaho B . 1971(b) 177 59 59 3 .0.8 ' 0.6 ' 62,791 .IlHfiols L 1971 100 100 0 1 1,0 1.0 51,936 .....,,.. .Indiana • Con 1969(f) 100 100 0 1 . 7.0 6.0 27,757 ,...•. iJswa.„ L ,. 1966 125 125 0 1 ,11.0 11.2 17,583- ...Kansas L- 1963(f) 100 100 0 1 . . 33.2 33,6 30,382 ....Kentucky C 1971 105 105 0 • - 1 4.5 4.6 34.697 Louisiana •L 1964 '151 114 15' 11 ^^, 68.8 38.6 6,229 ...'. Maine L 1965 142 29 20 22 ^ 35.9 29.1 21.836 ...; Marylandj^ L .1967 240 . 175 ' .1 56 3 35.6 83.2 22,064 . . . . IMassachusetts C 1964 110 0 1 1.5. 2.8 71,127 Mlchlftan L 1964 Uno5 120 ' 15 2 .12.7 25.6 * 25,288 .....Minnesota C • 1971 122 52 \34 10 9.9 ,9,8 17,854 Mississippi 4. B 1971 163 163 0 1 1.2 1,3 28.696 Missouri ,L • . 1971(b) 100 23 23 12 5.2 4.8 6,944 ...... Montana .. . • . ... Nebraska 'L i971(b) •A6 "46" "6" i' 14.2 17.4 12,218 yj...... :.. .Nevada L 1971 400 159 109 11 25.3 19.3 1,813 r.. .New Hampshire B 1971(b) 80 15 15 . 10 10.7 15.5 89.633 New Jersey L 196S(f) " 70 70 1 36.2 38.2 1.3;586 .. .: New Mexico L 1971 150 150 > 0 1 • . 1.8 1.6 121,608 ; New York L 1971 : 120- — 45 35 7 8.2 "10.2 42,350 .North Carolina C 1965. 98 39 39 8 10.1 12.5 "6,454 ...'...North Dakota B . 1971 . 99 99 0 • 1. . 1.0 0.9 107,596, :. Ohio L . 1971(b) 101 101 0 .i . 1.0_ 1.2 25,338 ...... Oklahoma .••s" . 1971 ' 60 60 0 1 1..3 0.9 34,856 ....\. Oregon 1966 203 . 203 0 - 1 16,0 14.1 55,760 ...... Pdhnsylvanla Lc 1966 100 .100 0 1 18.6 9.7 8.595 ... Rhode Island h 1971 124 46 .25 11 . 44.9 61.9 20,089 South Carolina ' L 1971 70 2t 28 10 .3.3 2,4 9,516 South Dakota Con 1966 • 99 93 13 3 27.9 16.4 36,03; Tennessee . B •-. 19.7.1 150 101 11 . 18 5.8 4.1 74.695 Texas- L; 1965(f)- .69 69 0 1 7.2 .30.8 12,908 Utah L 1965 • .150 72 36 IS 11.5 14.3 1.395(d).. ..Vermoht C • 1971 100 48 87 6 3.8 6.5 46.485 I ^rftlnla ,L 1965 99 56 42 • 3 18.2 26.9 28.527 .. : .Waslilnftton L 1971(b) 100 45 23 13 45.9 35.4 17,442 .West Virginia C . 1964 100 100 0 1 .32.5 43.7 39.523 "" ..,....'.. .Wisconsin L 1971(b) 62 23 12 11 41.2 45.5 5..?62 ...... Wyoming • (b) Court suit challenging the legislative apportionment plan (c) Errors were made in the oriRinaUcalculations of population la pending. • \ • figures for several districts and consequently the exact devia (c) EfIcctiv"esNovembcr 1970: the 8th Senatorial District will tions are not known. ... be allocated an additional senator. The two senators from this (f) Court has declared 1971. legislative reapportionment plan district will be enPmed to only^J^ of a vote in the Legislature. unconstitutional. (d) Average number of registered voters per seat. - •. f : • . •" " '• t - x 66 THE BOOK OF THE STATES THE. LEGISLATORS Numbers, Terms and Party Affilia.tions I ' Asof Late 1971" ——'V- Senate House \ House- . • • Va- Va- and Stale or Demo- Repub- can- Demo- —I^pub- can-. Senate other jurisdiction crats licans cies Total Term crats licans ctes Total Term totals Alabama -35 0 ... 35 • 4 104 2. 106 4 141 Alaska ..10 10 .-.. 20 4 31 9 . • * 40 2 60 Arizona 12 • 18 ... 30 2 -- 26 34 60 2 90 Arkansas.. 34 1 ... 35 4 98 2 * • * 100 2 135 California 21 19 ... 40 4 42 37 1 80 2 120 Colorado 14 21 ... 35 4 27 • 38 65 2 100 Connecticut...... 19 17 ... 36 2 99 78 • I • 177 2 213 Delaware...... 6 13 ... 19 4 16 23 * • . 39 2 58 Florida.. 33 IS ..* 48 4 81 38 • • t 119 2 167. Georgia.. 50. 6 ... 56 2 173 22 . • ... 195' 2 • 251 Hawaii... 17 "8 .. .• 25 4 ' • 33 17 1 51 2 76 Idaho. ..16 19 ... 35 2 29. il 2 105 Illinois :..... 28 29 1 58 (a) 87 90 V7? 2 • 235 Indiana "21 29 ... 50 4 46 54 • . . 100 2 150.^ Iowa.., 13 37 ... SO 4 37 63 100 . 2 ISO •• . ^• ' • - .-.• .Kansas 8 32 ... 40 4 41 84 125 2 165 • Kentucky.. 23 15 -.,. 38 4 72 28 ... 100 2 138 Louisiana... 38 1 ... 39 4 104 .'1 . 105 4 144 Maine...... 14 18 ... 32 2 71 80 • • * . 151 2 183 Maryland.. 33 10 ..-. 43 •4 121 21 -. • •• 142 4 ' 185 Massachusetts... 27 13 ... 40 2 177 62 1 240 2 2'80 Michigan 19 19 ... 38 4' 58 52 110 2 14P Minnesota...... Nonpartisan election 67 4 Nonpartisan elect ion 135 2 202 Mississippi 50 2 ... 52 4 119 2 . ... . 122(b) 4 174 Missouri. . 25 , 9 ... 34 4 112 51 163 . 2 197 Montana y... 30 25 ... 55 4 49 55 .:' J 104 . /.2., 159 Nebraska....!... Nonpartisan" election 49 4 Unicameral Legislature • . t 49 Nevada...; 13 7 .'... 20 4 18 22 40 2 60 New Hampshire. 9 15 24 2 149 .. 249 , 2 400 2 424 New Jersey...... 16 24 ... 40 4(c) 40 .. •• 39 ... 80(b) 2 120 NewMexIco..... 28 14 ... ;. 42 4 48 22 70 112 New York 25. 32 • ... 57 2 71 79 150 207 North Carolina.. 43 7 ... SO 2 97 23 120 , n2^-i 170 North Dakota.. . 12 37 . ... . 49 4 39 . 58 1 98 2 . 147 " Ohio , 13 20 ... 33 4 • 45 54 99 • 2 132 Oklahoma...... 39 9 ... 48 4 78 21. • . 99 2 147 Oregon... V . 16 14 ... 30 4 26 34 ... 60 2 90 Pennsylvania... 26 24 ... SO / "» 113 90 • °:203 2 253 Rhode Island.... 41 9 ... SO. ' 2 •75 . 24 . . . /100(b) 2 . ISO South Carolina.. 44 2 ... 46 ' .4 113 • 11 . 124 2 170 South Dakota. .. II 24 ... 35 2 30 45 75 . 2 .110 Tennessee. , 19 13 ... 33(b) 4 56 43 . • . . . ,"^ ' 99.. 2 ' 132 Texas..- -29 .2 ... 31 .. 4 140 10 150 • 2 " 181 Utah 12 16 .... 28 4 38 31 69 2 97 Vermont 8 22 ... 30 2 52 95 150(b) .180 ••• 2 Virginia...... 33/7 ... 40 4- 74 . 23 100(b) 2 140 Washington 29; 20 ... 49 '4 48 . .51 99 2 148 West Virginia.... 23 11 ... 34 4 68 32 ... 100 • 2 134 Wisconsin 13 20 ... \ 33 ' 4 65 34 1 100 2 133 Wyoming 11 19 ... 30 4 20 • 40 61(b) •2 91 Guam... 15 6 ... 21 2 Unicameral Legislature 21 Puerto Rico. .... ISfd) , 12(e) ... 27 4 - 23(d) 28(e) .... •51 4- 78(f) TTPI N.A. N.A. ... .12 4 N.A; N.A. " 21 2 33 Virgin Islands... .6-.. 3 • ... 15(b) 2 Unicameral Lcjjis lature 15 (a) All Senators will run for election in 1972 and every 10 (c) Senate terms beginning in January of second year follow years thereafter. Senate districts are divided into thirds. One ing the U..S. decennial census are for 2 years only. group shall elect Senators for terms of 4 years, 4 years, and 2 (d) Popular /democratic Party, years; the second group for terms of 4 years. 2 years, and 4 (c) ^«^•.w Progressive Party. years; the third group for terms of '2 years, 4 years, and 4 (f) The constitution provides for selection D^ additional ye.irs. members from the minority party after a general'election in f (b) The following members in current Lesislatures are not which it ejects fewer than 9 members in the Senate and IJ mem Democrats or Republicans: Missi.esippi House 1; New Jersey , bers in the House. Total House and Senate-composition can . House I: Rhode Island House 1; Tennessee Senate 1; Vermont reach a maximum of 104 racrabera.' House 3; Virginia House 3; Wyoming House 1; Virgin Islands 6. \ LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 67 LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE: STANDING COMMITTEES AND HEARINGS ' ; 1 N 0. of standing . ^% co,mmittees House \ during 197. .- •Range in siie Hearings committees - Senate \ regular sessions of committees open X A State or appointed committees 1 to other Jurisdiclion by Speaker appointed by . Hokse Senate Joint House Senate ' Joint public* President 22. 20 0 15 7-15 Dis. . (a) (a) . 9 9 0 7-13 5-7 «. • • • Dis. . • President U 11 0 3-15 5-11 Yea Arkansas • Comm. on Comma. 267 25 1 5-27 • 4-12 12 Dia. California • Comm. on Rules 27 • • 17 0 6-21 . 5-1:3 Yea Colorado • Resolution 13 12 r 15 11-12 • 6 Dia. Connecticut. . . • Pres. pro tern 0 ' 0 20 11-41 Yea • • Pres. pro.tem 13 12 , 1 '6-11 6 12 ' Dia. Florida. . • President 20 16 0 . 1-27 . 1-17 Yea • President 2S 0 6-45 5-35 Dis. • President 23 IS 0 3-19 , . 3-12 bis. : • President 13 10' 0 7-19 * -7-11 Yea Comm. on Comma. 33 16 K 0 5-23 3-14 Yea • Pres. pro tern 28 26 0 15-20 7-13 - Yea • President 19 19 0 11-33 6-29 Yes • Comm. on Comma. 23 18 0 5-23 4-11 Dia.. . (b) Comm. on Comma. 14(c) 14(c) . 0 16-17(c) 7-9(c) Dis. Louisiana • President 23 12 0 10-20 5-15 Dia. Maine. ....•• • President 6 3 19 4-7 -^ 4-12 . 7-13 Yea • President , 6 4 4 22-24 L 13-16 10-16 Yes .^-Massachusetts. . • President , 3 3 19 3-15 . \ 3-14 2\.~ - Yes • Comm. on Comma. 33 14 1 7-16 5-8 8 Dia. • Comm.. on Comma. 24 21 0 20-39 8-21 Yea ' Mississippi • • President 38 40 s 5-35 2-21 8-17 Dis. Missouri... •. • Pres. pro tem 43 32>^. . 1 .5-13 5-13 12 Dia. . Montana, i .. .. • Comm. on Comma. 23 22 0 , 4-17- 3-11 Dia; . (d) Comm. on Comms. •(d) 13 (d) . (d) 7-9 , (d) Yea • President 14 13 0 7-11- 5-7 Yes New Hampshire • President 22 14 "' 0 . 8-23 3-8 - Yea • • President 18 17 ,7 6-11 5-11 8-10 Dia. , New Mexico . • Comm.,on Comms. • 16 8 0 8-17 10-16 /.,.. X, Dia. New York.. .' '•••*• Pres. pro tem ' 21 31 0 6-22 , 8-31 1 ". Dia. North Carolina. • President 39 : • •32 . .0 9-63 8-3 S •* • . i" . '•'" ' Yea North: Dakota.. • Comm. on Comma. 12 U 1 15-20 7-13 ;io Dis. Ohio.. •. Pres. pro tem 13 10 . 0 7-22 ..8r9 Yea • Comm. on Comma, •32 , 29 0 5-29 3-20 Dia. and Rules (e) Oregon President 10 16 0 7-15 5-8 Yea . Pennsylvania. . . / (f). Pres. pro tem 21 21 0 8-28 11-25 , ,• '-- •. Dis. Rhode Island. . • Named in rules • 6 6 4 17 17 '5-12 Dis. South Carpllna. • Elected(g) 8 26 " 0 5-27 5-18 Dia. South Dakota.. • MajorityLeader 14 14 0 3-IS . 3-13 Dis. Tennessee, .. ., • .Speaker 10 • - 7 . 0 21-31 11-19 , . '. . ,* (li)- . • President • 46 27 0 5-21^ 5-21 . • •,:.. .'*•. • Yea • Utah :.... .•• President 16 10 Or 9-14 7-10 Yea' Vermont,.; • Comm. on Comma. 15 13 2; . 9-11 • S-6 ' 3-5.-.. Yea VirsiinU. * •Elected ' 22 21 2 •' 5-20 •3-19 •5-13 Dis.(i) • Washlnftton.... •'• President 16 18 0 9-38 7-38 ...'.. Dia. West Virginia.. . ••• Presiflent 13 171 3 7-2S 7-18 6-14 •. Yes • Wisconsin • • Comm. on Comms.(j) 26 14 . •5 3-14 . '2-13 -5-14 Yes,, Wyomlnft • • President .^ 12 12 • 1. 7-9 1-5, 5 Dis. Guam . • (d) Comm. on Rules fd) • 9" (d) (d) 5-10 (d) • Yea • Puerto Rico... • President 11 - 14 S • 3-15. 5-14 ^ 5 Dia. • .5' TTPl...... *v Pre.'iident ' , ._, 6 3 7-9 4-6 6-12 Yes Virjiin Islands.. . (dV President ,. (d) IS (d) (d) J-7 •Vd) Dis. •.4bbreviation'r Dis.—Discrctionarj-. . (f) Recommended to the House by Committee on Com (a) Nominated by comniiiteca and elected by House and mittees. Senate respectively. - (R) Special committees appointed with seniority consider (b) Approved by the Committee on Committeea. ations. . ... • • (c) No reRiilar session" held'in 1971. Figures are for 1970. (h) House—Discretionary:.Senate—•Yes. (d1 Unicameral LcRislatiiTC. (i) Final vote in House must be held in open session. . • (o)\Viih election by Senate; appointments to temporary (j)'With con6rmation by.Senate. and special committees made by presiding ofTiccr. r 's 1: LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE: BILL INTRODUCTION AND REFERENCE -Exceptions to limitations- By Reve At Pre-. indicated For nue and re session Pre- vole of com- appro quest bill session Bills referred to 'committee Commit- appro init- pria of drafting bill by tee must Bill State or other Time limits on priate "teci tion^^ Gov service filinR -^ report, carry- jurisdiction introduction of bills • house bills • bills ernor . Other provided permitted House Senate all billf over Alabsuiih...... No limitations -^ Yes(a) Yes Siieafcer Pre.'iident No Alaska.''-. ..;.... 1st st-.^sion. no limit; 2rid 2/3 . Yes Yea Speaker President No, Yes session, 3.Stli calendar member diiy ship Arizona Senate—36th day(b) By action of Rules YesCa) Yes Sr)eaker President No No Committee House—36th day(b) By action of Rules Cohimittee Arkansas Approp. bills—-Soth calendar 2/3 •• ... ..Yes (a) No Speaker President / No{c) ••• day;Otherbills—.5.Sth cal memlier- endar day; None last 3, days ship California. . (d) . • 2/3 Yes (a) No Speaker- Rules Comm. Yes(e) No Colorado.. • 6()th day Majority Resolutions Ycs(a) Ye.s Speaker President Yes(e) No Connecticut.... 3rd legislative Thursday (6 • • YesCa) Ye.s Speaker President .NO(K) No Delaware Fixed by each house Majority • Yes(a) Yes Speaker PresidiuK Off. No Yes Florida Senate: No limitation Yes Yes Speaker President No (h) House; 30th calendar day By action of House Rules Committee Georjila.'..;•... . No,limitations'^. Yes (a) No Speaker President No Yes Hawaii.... Fixed at session.(i) / Unanimous ., Ye.s(a) No Speaker Presiclent . No Yes jj, Idaho . 25th day Unanimous (J) Yes No Speaker I'resifie'nt (k)- ._ No 00 Illinois . Senate—2nd Friday in Majority ,," Yes (a) Yes Speaker Pres. Pro Tern Yes Yea April elected • House—.\pril 25 Waj. elected , , Indiana.' 22nd session day 2/3 elected Yes (a) Yes Speaker President No No Iowa .^ Sk;nate: 1 st session. Friday 2/3 . • * Yes Yes Speaker Pres. Pro Tern Ye3(m) Yes of 7th week.; 2nd session. . '. ,.'•..• , Friday of 2nd week'l) '• • Ilouse: \'^t session, 57th 3/S . • • : • ' _ calendar day; 2nd iics- .' ' sion, ISth calendar day(1) Kansas Fixed^at session .... Yes(n) Yes Speaker Pres. Pro Tern No Yes Kentucky...... No limitations Yes (a) Yes. Committee on Committee on Yes Committees Committees Louisiana...... Regular—15th calendar 2/i elected Const, amend- Yes Yes • Spcaker(o) President (o) No •No day liients, 21 days Budget .se.s.sioh—10th calendar day Maine 4th Friday after convening (q) Bills to facilitate Yes (a) Yes Joint Committee(q) No(c) (p) legislative buaihess Maryland RcRuIar—last 35 calendar days 2/3 Yes(a) Yes Speaker President No •No Massachusetts.. Must be introduced one 4/5 present Bills in reports due Yes(a; Required(r) Clerk(s) Clerk(s) Yes - No month before session and voting after convening Michigan...... No limitations Yes Yes(t) Speaker Prcsident(u) No Yes Minnesota -90ih legislative day • Yes(a) No .Speaker President No Mississippi (v) Yes(a) Yes ' Si>eaki-r President No No Missouri. .-. . . .. • 60th lejiislaitive day Majority ' Yes(aJ Yes Speaker I'resident No (w) Montana...... Senate—ISth day 2/3 Substitute bills for, Ye.s(a) No SiKjaker . President Yes House—18th day ,2/3 • • bills pending Nebraska-. • 20th day odd-year sessions; 3/5 elected • (x) Yes(z) Yes (aa) Ref. Comm. No - Yes ' . • lOlh day even-year se.ssipns •(y) Nevada...... Senate—No limitations Yes. No Introducer Introducer No • . House—Wl\\ day odd years - 2/3 Resolutions New Hampshire 17th day{ab) 2/3 elected (ac) Yes (a) Yes Speaker President Yes(e) New Jersey.... No limitiitions Yes(a) Yes Speaker President No Yea New Mexico. ... 30lh legislative day Substitute bills for Yes (a) No Speaker' President No No bills pending New York Fixed at ses.sion .- \ Yes Yes' Speaker President No Yes(ad) North Carolina. No limitations except \ Yes (a) No Speaker President No for local bill.s North I>akota.. 15th legislative day ». ,2/3, elected (ae) Yes Yes Speaker President Yes members(ae) Ohio Senate: No. limitations Ycs{a) No Reference • Maj. Leader No Yes House: By decree of Speaker Comm. Oklahoma (af) . 2/3 elected Yc9(a) .Yes Speaker President No " Yes Oregon 36th calendar day . (ag) Approved by Rules Yes (a) Yes Presiding Off. Presiding OR. No ' Committee Pennsylvania... No limitations Yes(a) No Speaker Presiding Off. No Yes Rhode Island... .SOth day Unanimous consent Yes(a) No Speaker President No Yes South Carolina. N6 limitations ':•, Yes (a) No Presiding Off. Presiding OS. No' Yes South Dakota. . Fixed "annually by rule 2/3 elected Yes Yes Speaker Pre.sident No No Tennessee ..... By rule Local bills Yes(a) No Speaker Speaker No(g) Yea Texas 60lh calendar day 4/.S meriibers Yes(a) No Speaker Pre.sident No Utah Senate—-SOth day Unaminous (y) Yes Yes Speaker President Yes . No House—.^5th day • . 2/3.present Consent of the Yes No Speaker President No Yes House—5 \veeks(ah) Comm.on Rules Vermont..'... ( Consent of the Rules Scnate(ai) • — Committee Vlrftlnla.-... ;X .. (aj) ' ... \ ' Yes(a) Yes Speaker President No . No Substitute bills for Speaker President 2/3 electtM Yes (a) Yes No(g) , • •• ' Washington.. . . ^Olh day(ak) . bills pending 2/3 preseiit and .. Yes Yes Speaker President No No West Virginia. . SOth calendar day votinK(al) Yes(a) (am) Speaker Presiding Off. No Vea Wisconsin.'..... No limitations Unanimous Yes Yes Speaker • President No Wyoming...... 18th day . N.A. N.A. Conim. on Rules (aa) No Yes Guam.. No limitations ,: Majority • (an) Yes , No Speaker 1 President No Yes Puerto Rico. ... 60th day Yes Yes Speaker . President Yes Yes TTPI No limitations Yes No (aa) Picsident No N.A. Virgin Islands.. . No limitations • N.A.—Not Available, (v) OOday session: 24lh day,.Umit for all bills except appropriation, revenue, local and pri (a) Continuous service. vate; 85th day on these bills. \ , ^ (bj Second rcsular se8sion:\29th day. (w) House: yes; Senate: no. \>_. ' . (c) Done as a matter of practice. (x) A standing committee (by majority vole) may introduce a bilTonly if approved by a (d) Joint/ules prohibit introduction after the Friday folIowinR the Raster recess. vote of Ji of the electetl members.of the Legislature. • (e) In practice, those not acted upon are reiwrted back on last day of session without rec- (y) Appropriation bills only. .Nebraska: certain appropriation bills only. oirunendaiion. In New'liampshire, all bills still in cominitle.e at time of adjournment are (z) Establishe Readings Roll call on final passage; mandatory on request 0/ (b) Majority ' On of members . Slate or oilier separate Seriate • House required to pass jurisdiction Kumber days' InfiMa) members members bilHc) Alabama 3 Yes 3rd. very few All bills All bills Present & voting Alaska 3 Yes(d) 2nd. rarely ' All bills All bills i|ilcmbership,-— Arizona 3 • Yes 3rd All hills All bills KIci-ted Arkansas • • • 3 Ye.s(e) 1st, 3rd, rarely All bills All bills Elected • California ... 3 Yes(e) None- All bills All bills Elected Colorado 3 (0 . . 2nd. 3r(i. le.=s than . All bills All bills Elected 1% Connecticut^.... : 3 (g). None 1/5 present 1/5 present' Present & voting(h) \'e3 None All bills, joint and Elected concurrent resolutions Delaware...... '.. 2 Yes(c) None, unless 1/3 • All bills All bills Present present desire it Florida...... 3 Yes (i) . 1 /5 present 1/5 present Elected •• Yes V • -None All bills All bills Membership Gcorftia 3 Yes(e) All bills Present None . All bills Hawaii.. 3 I Idaho 3. Yes None . All bills All bills Elected Illinois...... 3 Tesfe) None All bills All bills Elected Indiana 3 .Ye.s(j) None .•\m)ill,s- •All .bills Elected Iowa. 2 \es(e) 3rd, all • _ • All bills and joint resolutions Elected Kansas, ./...... 3 Yes 1st, all(k) All bills All bills '2/5 elected Kentucky...... 3 ; & maj. voting . Louisiana... 3 Yes One reading All bill.s All bills Elected Maine.. (1) Yesfe) None 1/5 present l/5i)rp,«ent Present & voting Maryland 3 Ye's(e) None All bills and joint-resolutions Elected Massachusetts... 3 Yes(j). None " 1/5 present(.h) 30(h) Present & votinc(h) Mlchlftap 3 (f) 3rd(in) All bills " All bills' Elected & serving- Minnesota. :. 3 Yesfc) ; None All- bills All bills Elected Mississippi 3 3rd, all (n) All bills All bills Present & voting(h) Yes(e) Missouri 3 Yes None -All bills and joint resolutions Elected Montana, ,3 Yes : . (o) . All bills and joint resolutions Pre.cent Nebraska. ...".... 2 Yes (P) 1 Unicarneral E:iected Nevada 3 Ves(e') 3rd, practically none All bills and-joint resolutions Elected New Hampshire.. 3 ; (q) • (f) • None .. (r) New Jersey.. 3 Yes(s) All tills All bills Elected New Mexico..."... 3 (t) None 1 , 1 . . Present New York.. , 3 (u) :NQne 1 1 Elected North Carolina... • 3 Yes(e) ._, None 1/5! \/5 Present & voting(h) North Dakota.... i 2 Yes None All bills All bills Elected(v) Ohio.. 3 Yes(w) None All bills All bills Elected li .. Oklahoma .4 Yes All(e) • All bills All bills Elected Oreftpn 3 Yes(e) 3rd, rarely .All bills and joint resolutions Elected Pennsylvania...-. 3 Yes Rarely All; bills All bills Elected Rhode Island..... 2(x) Y'esfjc) - -2nd, very few 1/5 present(h) 1/5 present(h) i" Present & voting ^ South Carolina... 3 • Yes 2nd, all 5 lO""^; Presen.t &,voting(h)- South Dakota.... 2 Yes Less than 1% AH bills All bills Elected - J Tennessee 3 Yes 3fd. all All bills(h) All bills(h) Membership Texas. 3 Yes 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3 .3 Present,& voUng virtually none Utah..:'.....,...'. 3 Yes(j) 3rd, 75% All bills All bills Elected . Vermont. P...... 3 Yesfy) 2nd, 3rd. very few ^- 1 .. S Present & votirig(h) . Yes(2)' None 2/5 elected & Virginia. ., .. 3(2) 1/5 present 1/5 present maj. voting - Yes(aa) 2nd, 3rd. less than Elected Washington....;. 3 17c(ab) 1/6 present 1/6 present (ac) Yes (ad) . Almost never Present & voting(af) West Vlrftlnla..;... 3(ad) Cag) • Almost never All bills (ae) ' Pre.'jent & voting(h) Wisconsin. . . . .\.. " i Yes (ah) 3rd, sometimes 1 /6 present 15 Elected ',*'"•• Wyoming.;... .\ . 3 All bills All. bills • Giiam.'. 3(ai) Yes •All Majority(aj), No 2nd., nil 3 Unicameral - . Etected ' Puerto Rico...... 3 All bills All bills . TTPI...... • 2 Yes None • Membership , No • • 2nd, all ' All bills All bills Present & voting Virgin Islands.... 2 All bills(h)- Unicameral I • v \ ;• '^*'-,«-^ .^.. ;•>-.• w • V .a Si LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 71 LEGISLATIVE pRoeEDURE: HOUSE AND SENATE ACTION—Continued (Footnotes) . . •. (a) The entries indicate approximately what proportion of (e) First and second readings may .be on same day and second bills are read in full at a particular reading. When no tletermina- and third readings may be on same day upon roll call vote of tion was made, the reading'or readings at which bills may be 3/4 of members. . • read in full were recorded. .' (t) Limit of two readings on the same day. (b) Constitutionally mandatory unless indicated otherwise. (u) Assembly: second and third readings on same day by . (c) Special constftutionar provisions requiring special ma unanimous consent or special provision of Rules Committee; • jorities-for passage of emergency legislation) appropriation or Senate: first and second-reaiMngs are upon introduction before revenue measures not included. referral to committee. . (d) Second and third readings on same day when 3/4 of (v) Two-thirds vote required for amendment or repeal of members agree. initiated or referred measures. (e) Except by 2/3 vote. (w) Except by 2/3 vote. (f) Second and third readings..'.New Hampshire: first and (x) Except by unanim'ous consent. second readings at-e by title upon introduction and before.re (y) If bill is advanced at second reading, it may biSread third . ferral to committee. Bill remains on second reading until acted tittle on the same day. on by House or Senate.. (z) Dispensed"with fo'r a bill to codify the laws and by a 4/5 (g) Bills or joint resolutions originating with a committee vole in case of emergency. may receive second, reading same day. • ' • . (ah) Except- two readings, permitted on same day by 2/3 (h) Dcterniined by house rules or'custom. ' . i i vote. In Senate, majority vpte only required after forty-n?nth (i) x\ll general bills are read in full on'.J.hird reading, local bills day. • ' by title. (ab) Senate only. The House rules do not call for full readings • (j) Unless rules suspended. Massachusetts and Utah: then' at any of the three resSTfnss. all readings in one day. (ac) Roll call by electric roll call device in House, but 1/6 of (k) Second and third readings^at length dispensed with by .the members' present may demand an-oral roll call. majority vote of elected members. (ad) Dispensed with by 4/5 vote of members present! -• ^ (I) .House: three readings of bills and two of resolves; Senate: (ae) Ordinarily on request of one member. Budget bill, \ two readings of bills and resolves. \ • ' supplementary appropriation' bill. House bill amended by \ .(m) Need not be read in full if Sfnate consents unanin^ously Senate, and passage over Governor's veto all require roll call or'.if 4/5 of House consents. ' . vote. , • . • ' . (n) Local and private bills excepted. • (af) To repass a bill arncnded by the other house a majprity (o) Appropriation bills bnly.,not more than 5 percent. of elected lAembers is needed. i. • ' (p) All bills read in full on final rjeading. o-^" " (ag) Senate: no two readingson same day. Assembly: second . (q) It occurs rarely, when, printing of bill and referral to and third readings on separate days. committee is dispensed with under suspension of the rules. (ah) Requirements often waived. ' (r) House: a majority of the members is a quorum for doing (ai) iJills are occasionally passed with two readings and rarely business, but when less "than 2/3 of elected members are present, with one. ' the assent of 2./3. of. those members present is necessary to . (aj) Number of votes required depends iji moat cases on the . render acts and proceedings valid. Sfenate: not less than thirteen lapse of time,from introduction (1st reading to 3rd). The longer, "Senators shall make a quorum/or doing business; if less tha'n the time the'lesser the vote required. . . ' sixteen are present, ihe assent of ten is necessary to render acts and proceedings valid. N . ••• .. \ \: /•• \ \: i- I 72 THE BOOK OF THE STATES LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE: EXECUTIVE VETO Days after Fate of bill •which, bill , after adjournment- ^ % • •• ' . becomes Days after Days after Votes required ^ law (.before which bill which bill Item veto in House and - adjoiirn- is law ' , dies onappro- Senate to pass bills State or other ment) unle'ss unless ttnless priation or items. jurisdiction , vetoed* vetoed* signed* bills. over tWo(a) Alabama, i...... 6 • • *• ' 10 . Yes Majority elected Alaska. IS ; 20 Yes(b) Three-fourths elected Arizona.. •. ^ ''*» 5 10 Yes Two-tliirds elected . Arkansas / S '-^ 20(c) Yes MajorHy elected ,. ft' • California...... - 'l2(c.d) . 3d(c) Yes(b) Two-thirds elected Colorado.! lofc) 30(c) Yes Two-thirds elected Connecticut S(e.f) lS(c,f) Ye3(g) Two-thiijds elected Delaware 10 : 36(c) Yes Threcrfifths elected Florida 7(c) • 15(c) .•Yes ^ • T\\;o-thirds present Gcorgla(h)...... 5 30fi^ Yes .Two-thirds elected ' Hawali(h) 10(e) 45(e,j) (e.j) . Yes(b) Two-third.s elected Idaho . 5 10 Yes Two-thirds present" Illinois. . ^ 60. 60(k) Yes(b.l) Thrcc-fifthselse*ed Indiana...... ;;... ^ 5(c.m) .No M aj or,it y dtxtcd' Iowa. 3 (n) . Yes 1 .vo'-t)iird.i elected Kansas. .'..... 3 • (o,p) Yes Two-thirds elected ' Kentucky.. 10 'lO Yes Majority elected Loul8iana(h) lO(c.f) • lO(c.f) ' '' • , Yes , Two-thirfJs elected Maine. . • 5 - . • (q) No Two-thirds present Maryland(H)... ' 6 . 6(f) . Yes(g) Three-fifthselected Massachusetts..'... 10(e) 10(f). . YesCb) Two-thirds present '. ••• Mlchlgab...... 14(c.f) 14(c.f) • Yes Two-thLrds tHccted and servinR Minnesota....;.... •• 3 . ,14 ,.-' Yes • • Two-thirds elected Mississippi • 5 . .15(r)- Yes Two-third^ elected Missouri. . (g) • . (t) Yes TwO:tliirds elected Montana 5 . : , i5(c) Yes • Two-/liir(is present Nebraska...... S "s ' Y.es(u) ••Three-fitths elected Nevada 5 • 10 No Two-thi'rds elected • New Hampshire...-. S . ' 5(f) • • ' No T North Carolina . (y) • (yV (y)^ (y) • North Dakota.; 3(c) lS(c) - Two-thirds cla:ted ' Ohio 10 10 , Yes • Three-filths elected , Oklahoma...... 5 . Yes Two-thirds elected(z) Oregon. ; ...... S • 20 • Yes(aa) ' Two-thirds present ' Pennsylvania'...!.. 10(c) 30(c) Yes(b) Two-thirds elected Rhode Island...... 6 10(c) ' '.'. No : Three-fifths present South Carolina. .. . ' 3 ' (q) • Ye3(ab) Two-thirds present ^ South Dakota...... 3'\ 10(c) Ye^ Two-thirds present Tennessee...... 5' i Yes(b) Majority elected Texas: ..-.,... 10 \ . 20 • Yes .• Two-thirds present Utah. 5 Yes Two-thirds elected Vermont. 5 (0) No Two-thirds present Virginia. . 7(c) 30(c) , ,; Yes Two-thirds present(;ic) Washington,, S 10 Yes(ab) Two-Thirds pre.sent , West Vh-glnla 5 15 Yes(g) Klajority clcctedtad) Wisconsin...... 6(f) 6(f) Yes(ab) Two-thirds. p,resent Wyoniing...... • f 3 . i5(c,m) • Yes Tww.-jthirds ritected' Guam. . 10 • • 30 Yes ,.J4-niembers/- •—•'—-•• Puerto RIco;....'... 10 • 30(c) Yel . TWo-tbirds elec-tcd TTPI ;...... 10 30 Ves Tl/ree-fourths elected Virgin Islands...... 10(f) 36(c,f) •Yes •- Tji'o-thirds' elected .•\ ,"•^1 • :*> LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATIOH 73 LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE: EXECUTIVE. VETO—Continued .(Footnotes) » •Sundays excluded. ' . . (p) In practice. Legislature closes consideration of bills three (a) Bill retu^nrd to house otoriRin with objections, except in days beforcadjournmcnt sine die. However, some bills may be Kansas'where all bills are returned to House. "presented" to GoveVnor during last three days of session. , (b) The Cpvernor can also reduce items in appropriations (q) Bill passed in one seraion becomes law if not returned with- measures. ^ .; iri three (fays after the'ncit meeting in Maine,'a"nd within two (c) Sunda'ys included. Penniylyania, except if the last day , days after convening of the next session in South Carolina. * falls on Sunday. • ' ^ (r) Goveriior is required to return bill to Legislature with his (d) If Lejtislature'preventa the return of a bill by adjourninf; objections within three daysafter beginning of Ihe next session. a special session, the bill does not become law unless sighed (s) If Governor does not return bill in IS days, k joint resolu within 30 days. tion is necessary for bill to become law. ' (c) Except Sundays and legal holidays; Hawaii: except Satur (t) When the Legislature adjourns, or recesses for a period of days, Sundays, holidays, and any d^ys in which the Lesislafure 30 days or more, the Governor may return within-45 days any is m recess prior to itsadjburnmenl. bill or resolution to the office of the Secretary of State with ({) After receipt by Governor. his approval or reasons for disapproval. A bill vetoed in odd (g) Governor may veto items of appropriation bill and items : years siiall be returned for consideration when the Legislature vetoed may be reconsidered in accordance with rules for dis reconvenes the following year. In even years- Legislature to approved bills., Maryland: right of item veto on supplementary reconvene first Wednesday following first Monday in September appcopriatinn bills only. * • for not riibre than 10 days to consider vcto«l bills. - (h) Constitution withholds rightlo veto constitutional amond- (ti) Governor may^ veto items in any appropriations bills. menis. ', . ' Thcsgitems may be. restored by three-fifths vote. Noappropria- (i) Vetoed biJIs shall be returned to the jpreaidiiig officer of tio»(!j|tan be m^fle in excess of the recommendations contained the house in which they originatrtl within 3S^^days from, date of in ihe^ Governor's budget unless by a tuii>-thirds vote. The adjournment. Such bills may be considered at';atiy time within excess,approve \J ••-^-*%, .-.i' . * ^ «•:•. r V '^ 4> Af , f 1970 AND 1971 SESSIONS, INTRQDUGTIDNS AND ENACTMENTS I Asof JanuaryJS, 1972 / Regular-sessions J \ Extra sessions Number of Number of Number No. of No. of ^-introductions—^ •—enactments-^ of • ^-introductions-^ '-enactments^ Keso- Reso- meas- Length Resq- Reso- Length • Slate or ' lu- . l"- Ures of^' lu- Ve .of ^ other jurisdiction Duration of session' Bilis tions Bills tions vetoed session:^ Duration of session* iiills tions Bills tions toes session\ Alabama.. May 4- Sept. 22. 1971 4.150 77 . :C«>5(a) 12 36 L Feb. 23-Feb. 27. 1970 83 8 20(a) 2 1 5 L J April 1 -May 1. 1971 227 8 70 ^ 7 0 16 L Nov. 15-Nov. 19, 1971 • 154 ' 10 43 ^2 i 3 5 L Nov.; 30-(b) N.A. N.A, N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Alaska... Jan. 12-Jiinc 7. 1070 718 257 253(a) 83 10 146 C Jan. U-May 11, 1971 717 135 131 45 5 120 C ~A'rlzona".TT -Jan. 19-May 12. 1970 710 46 223 17' 0 121 C. Jan, 5-Jan. 19. 1970 7 3 1 d 0 15 C Jan. 11-May 14. 1971 " 573 34 204 9 4 124 JC: Sept. 27-Oct. 22, 1971 14 2 4 0 0 26 C Arkansas.. Jan. Il-Ai>ril 19, 1971 1.4.58 30 829 • 4 26 98 C March 2-MarcIi 7, 1970 754 0 186 0 23 6 C California. J:«i. 5-Si-i)t. 2.?. 1970. 2.538 599 . 1,628 •289 77 262 C Dec. 6-(b) .33 12 3 .N.A. 3 N,A. Jan. 4. 1971 -Jan. .1. 1972 4,738 s 545 . 1.824 274 157 364 C • Colorado..;. Jan. 7-Marcli.26, 1970 251 76 106 29 0 79 L Jan. 6-May 17, 1971 1,035 90 389 20 7 l.?2 L , Connecticut. Jan. 6-June9. 1971 6,696 322- 1.3()1 214 166 86 L Oct. 6-Oct. 6. 1970 1 0 1(a) 0 1 L June ll-.'\ug. 12. 1971 18 29 8 23_. 14 L AUK. 2-AUR. 3. 1971 (c) 2 h , • ; , •. Sept. 7-Sept. 7. 1971 (r) 1 L Delaware... Jan. l.Wune29. 1970 ~ 782 204 449 155 3 44 L July26.1971-Jan. 11,1972 M3 42 8 27 7 L Jan. 12-Junf .TO. .1971 1.079 259 312 193 5 (d) •^ Florida April 7-lune 5. 1970 4,119 281 1.025 lOS 40 60 C / June 10-June 10, 1970 0 0 2(a) 0 0 1 C April 6Tjunc4. 1971 3,925 252 953 25 8 60 C Oct. 9-Oct. 9'. 1970 23 4 17(a) 0 0 1 C Nov. 17-Nov. 17. 1970' , 1 0 1 0 0 1 C Jan. 27-Feb. 4. 1971 / 47 17 9 6 0 9 G June9-Jiine24. 1971- ' 101 -18 33 10 0 16 C Nov. 29-Dec. 9. 1971 99 19 21 4 0 11 C Georgia. ..., Jan. 12rFeb. 21, 1970 1,002 366 566 211 17" 40 C Sept. 24-Oct. 8, 1971 26 • 11 17 9 0 15 C Jan. 11-Marcli 12. 1971 1.448 463 811 122 20 45 C Hawaii Jan. 21-Mav 12. 1970 1*76 •576 214 2.50 7 70 L Jan. 20-Ai)ril 16. 1971 2.9.SO 657 215 227 9 60 L Idaho.'. Jan. l.?->Iardi 7. 1970 511 55 26-1 36 3 54 C March 22-April 8. 1971 43 4 10 18 C Jan. ll-Ntarch 20, 1971 660 103 •" M>S 38 6 70 C ^ Illinois.. 1.643 49 253 1 10 318 C N|ichiftan. . Jan. 13-Dec. ;<0. 1971 2.951 77 233 1 2 (d) Minnesota. . ri . Jan. 5-May?4. 1971 6.012. 966 5 7 W) May 25-Oct. 30, 1971 502 (h) 48 (d) Jan. ft lArri\ 6. 1970 (h) 104 L Mississippi 1,940 0 "635 0 5 Dec. 8-Dec. 9. 197 l(i) Jan. S-JApriStT. ^'"1 2,244 90 C , 0 604 0 8 90 C r Missouri Jan. 6-Junc 30. 1971 1,368 75 247 10 175 C Jan. 19-Feb. 2, 1970 1 0 1 n 0 6L April 15-June 1.3. 1970 44 I 34 1 0 27 L Nov. 13-Dec. 30.1970 24 4 4 0 0 . 19 L Montana ..'...' Jan. 4-March 4, 1971 963 140 444 103 10 60 C March 8-April 3. 1971 .50 28 '11 19 0 31 C June 7-June 25. 1971 51 15 19 6 0- 19 C - Nebraska,...... ;.. Jan. 5-May 26. 1971 1,042 0 555(a) 0 8 90 L June 9-Jurie 16. 1970 7 6 6 2 • 0 6L Nevadu.>>.. Jan. 18-April 26, I97l 1,505 184 681 • 91 . 3 99 C New llnntp^hlu. . Jan. 6. 1971 -Jan. 6. 1972 ' .,r.356 148 :•. 5.S9(a) 45 -.. 3 (<1) March 25-April 30. 1970 95 11 57 15 L New Jersey... Jan. 13, 1970-Jan. 12, 1971 2,.S9S 2.36 338 46 54- 365 C. Jan. 12, J971 -Jan. 11,1972 922(0 103 401 22 6 365 C. New Mexico. . Jan. 20-Kcb. 20. 1970 ,2.U 37 . 89(a) 8 4 30 C • Jan. 19-March 20, 1971 59. . 327 15 45 60 C New York Jan. 7 -.April 20, 1970 14,W8(f) 190 1,048 66 292 104 C Dec; 15-Dec.l8. 1971 1 1 3 0 4 C Jan. 6-JuIy 6. »971 15,193 175 1,214 63 .305- 182 C Dec. 27. 197J-Jan. 3.. 1972 18 10 2 0 8C . North Carolina.. . Jan. l3-Oct. .SO. 1971 .2.622 • 101. 1,248 .40 U) . 141 L North Dakota Tan. 5-March 16, 1971 1,072 188 611 HI 13 60 L Ohio Jan. 13 June 26, 1970 (k) (k) (k) (k) , (k) (k). Jan. 4-r)ec. 22. 1971 ' ' 11452 140 187 42 2 N.A. Oklahoma Jan. 6-April 15. 1970 596 150 338 Cf) l'.l(f) 16(f) 58 L July 1-July 1. 1971 ^JO 2 0 0 1 L • Ja». .S-Junc 11, 197L " 874 205 3.S6 148 3 90 L Oreftori. Jan. 11 -June 10, 1971 •1,911 155 781 ;24 1 151 C Nov. 16-Nov.^22. 1971 =' 18 10 4 0 7 C Pennsylvania Jan. 6-Nov. 1'^. 1970 1.091 91 .SOI • 6 IS (<1) Jan. .S Dcci 28, 1971 3,042 182 287 8 4 ( N ..: .-.'i'^.-. LEGiSLATTIVE,SERVICE AGENCIES BY ED CRANE* ESPITE. COMMON RECOGNITjON \that a ductive staff system; use of comprehensive strong and viable legislative' insti personnel-systems; the extent to which D tution requires extensive and di professional staffing must necessarily be verse professional staffing, and despite^ nonpartisan; the benefits of academic continuing expansion of such staffing, the versus in-service training for legislative •1970-71 biennium found legislative serv staff; consolidation of service agencies; ice agencies under unprecedented pres and tlie utilization of specialists versus sures for increased and more sophisti generalists in various staff positions. cated products. These pressures resulted - The legislative branch has continued from revenue problems caused by a na-. to diminish its reliance on other branches tional economic slowdown; the acceler fpli: "staffing services as it expands and ated pace of legislative operations lin diveifeifies its own staff. many States as a' result of implementing constitutional changes providing for An MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION nual sessions and budgets; consequent The renewed emphasis on "manage augmentation of interim studies; greater ment" at all levels and branches of gov utilization of staff services by legislators, ernment has had its-impact on the legis who are nearer staff for increasing por lative branch. It may be argued that the. tions of time; and, many agi-eed^ a new ability of the legisldtiv&'branch to realize and aggressive breed of post-reapportion- its full potential in the coming decade ment legislator. Some also felt the na rests substantially/on development of ef tional legislative organizations were fective rrieans of '/managing" itself. stimulating demand for more staff serv Though clerks and secretaries and ices in the Legislatures. • sergeants at arms are the oldest of the These pressures,- in cohjuriction with permanent legislative staff assistants, dur near-continuous study to which most ing the past biennium they havfe consti Legislatures are now subject froni within tuted a key element in the cbntinuing and without, may signal the end of a^. modernization of numerous Legislatures, period of transition anH experimentation spearheading new developments in rules « in staffing patterns, which has prevailed and application of new technctlogies to for roughly a decade. If the decade of the the legislative process. [As annual sessions seventies is to be one of consolidation and increase, more States have converted to establishment of the State Legislature as permanent staffs of this nature..A small a fully coordinate branch of government, number retain part-time clerks and sec legislative staffing systems must reach full ure tar ies^^ The Clerks and Secretaries maturation. Workshop of the National Legislative „ Among the matters which have been Coriference has undertaken management- under consideration during this period conscious projects t<>;standardize legisla are: the degree of centralization or de tive nomenclature and document, for- centralization conducive; to a most pro- inats. During the twentieth century, other *.Mr. Crane is a former member of the staff oi/ autonomous siervice agencies emerged to the Lexington office of the Council of State Gov provide additional services such as re ernments. .Assisting in preparation of this chapter search, legal, and fiscal services. Thus, in were Mrs. Carolyn Kenton and Mrs. Barbara Nel son, of the Council's Research .Department,/and rnany States, a decentralized patterr\^6f. Mr. Leo Kennedy, a former .meiliber of the de joiht,. frequently nonpartisan, specialized partment. service agencies came to prevail. Inde- 76 /. •\- LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 11 pendently hired assistants, for legislators ment agency model. Created with com and committees have become the most mittees and subcommittees, paralleling recent addition. In some States, the he- staff divisions, it consists of the Legisla centralized staff pattern was complicated tive Coordinating Council, a Research.- byv competition between houses and 'Department, Joint Committee on Legis parties. There was generally no single lative Services and Facilities, Fiscal and focal point or single executive committee Audit Divisions, and Re.visor of Statutes. for the Legislature. Tljose legislative nianagement agencies . Over the past several biennia, however, ' \, ->1 - 78 ^ rHE~]^^0,K OF THE STATES function. Individual legislators will ob tain. r(?search and bill-drafting..,5e:5;vices ' , POLICY ANALYSIS, RESEARCH . AND . through the committees, which wiTl'-se.t . > •REFERENCE SERVICES ""^ ^ priorities in .their subject areas. In Wy-. ' ''-.^The agencies proviiding policy analysis,, oming, a new, consolidjited'Legislative research arid reference services have, un- Service Agency will operate-under direc dergone continuing evolution since the tion of the Legislative Management beginning of .the tVventieth century. The CounGil. This agency, in addition to its legislative reference bureau movement other duties, will also staft standing and dominated' the service agency fiekUliiring interim committees. ., - x, •-• ^the first third of the century, and the Legislative?Countils have "assumed the . legislative coiincil movement increasingly J . >. legislative manag&ment ' function in dominated the scen*e during the second Alaska, ^ Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Keii- • third ofv the' centur)'. Some pbservcrs tucky, IVlaine, Montana, ;^Nebraska,_ Ne think a third phase may now be under vada, ',Ne\v' Jersey, New > Meofico, North~~--ivay, involving greater decentralization Dakota, and South Dakota. ;• • of research sen'ices, ,with "coordination In sdme States, joint rul(^^ommittees V , through ;a comprehensive "manageirient" ,.have assumed the management function agency. . ' : 'for the entire Legislature, bijfor a.^single Oldest of the permanent legislative house only. This is the case M the States agencies, the legislative reference bureaus of California, Minnesota, andrUhio, and maintained specialized liljraries for col the Virgin Islands. ''"'. lection, of'reference materials tailored to .In seeking'wjays to modernize the pror meet the requirements of lawmakers and ceduri^s and. administrative stri^cture of prepared background reports bri, prob the New \'oi-k Assembly, the 5peilker an'd lems facing the Legislature; as well as, his staff utilized the services of th,e Ameri on req,uest, spot, research service, for in can Management Association's Center for dividual legislators. In. I'QOl, theA.Viscon- Planning and Development to help them, sih Legislative- Reference Library be-, design and conduct a series of^ji-depth came the firsC°and within se\'eral decades, seminar sessions. ' ' • two-thirds of the States aswcll as the U.S.: In all! likelihood, agencies performing Congress-had eistabhshed agencies of tfiis the central legislative management func nature. Currently, all States maintain tion will continue to emeage and be such reference andlibrary facilities. How strensfthened. Tlie exact mechanism'and ever, they have been absorbed, into the the .specific functions will continue to successor agency, the legislativeTcoun'cil, vary,as has been the case with the preced in 30 States, and legislative reference ing specialized servic'& agencies. "Entities bureaus remain as distinct entities in only performing ^llie management function 6 States. Other library arrangements are will probably be best fitted to undertake also used: a special division within the unification, consolidation or coordination state library assisted in 11 Sta;tes; state of legislative services in the future, shoiild libraries provided legislative reference that trend prove ejiduring. At the same services in 15'States; and libraries under tjme.'such devices might well accommo- legislative jurisxliction afded in 3 States. 'date'another enierging..trend toward/'de- . Fiscal service agencies had such collec centralized" sta,ffing of committees on a. tions in 2 States. ;partisan or nonpartisan basis. This can be ^The legislative council movement was accomplished by providing personnel sys launched when Kaijsas established the. tems which assure that alulegislative em first permane,nt agency of this nature in ployees meet minimnm professional 1933, Legislative councils are joint com standards, while accommodating direct' mittees of the Legislature, permanent, supervision by coifimittee chairmen and continuing, and bi-partisan in nature, rationalizing the division of labor be which meet periodically between sessfons, tween centralized and decentralized, consider a wide, range of problems ex-, partisan arid horipartisan staff ofTthe"" "pected to^confront the next session, and" Legislature. direct staff r-esearch on .thdse problerris. s I • OJK. LEGISLATURES AND LEQISLATION 79 Althoughs'coimcils have also accumulated possible exception is Minnesota; after a diversity of ancillary functions from abolishing its legislative council in 1967, . State to State, most of them undertake it developed a decentralized group of re studies oji their own initiative, in ad- search agencies.Tn 1969, the Minnesota _dition to those.authorized or directed by Legislatu.re created "a joint Legislative , the Legislature. Some councils irely pri- Services Commission to supervise the re-. '\ marily upon staff research reports, while . maining Legislative Reference Library, - others utilize^ participation of co'uncil ,Increasijigly, legislative coimcils were *" nierhbersin taking'policy positions and not the only permanent legislative serv making recommendhtions on substantive ice agencies preparing research reports. legislative programs] many of which are W^hile they continued to prepare such, re subsecjuently enacted. At thexinception of ports in 40 States, they retained the power the legislative • council movWient, the and the practice of preparing reconimen- .. distinguishing characteristic.' was direc- dations for substantive legislative* pro t-ion-by a committee of legislators, which grams in a diminishing number of States, '^ over a period of time, engendered sub •29. Twenty-eight agencies, in 20: States stantial maturation and expansion of its also prepared .research r-eports; and 12 functions, in-contrast with the predeces agencies^ in 9 States also r£commended sor legislative reference bureau. Another substantive legislative programs. The . key feature of legislative councils- has latter function was passing increasingly to been the continOing res"earch staffs which professional staff assigned 'exclusively to . allowed comprehensiv^e, impartial studies leadership caucus, and to standing and of public issues, frequently at less cost| interim committees. • t and with greater awareness of other areas, . Staiffing patterns of some legislative re of state and locar concern than, corre search agencies show, signs of evolution sponding interim research performed by from a small staff of generalists to a larger ad hoc committees assisted by temporary staff allowing special expertise and more staff. -With the advent, of professionally sophisticated policy analysis. The Cali- ; staffed ^standingvand interim committees fornia Assembly Office of Research and coordinated through councils, manage the Connecticut Office of Policy Research ment agencies, or legislative leaders, this utilize specialists .on a • project and a i is now less. and less- a distinguishing .'permanent basis, respectively. /feature. ' . ' Iq 1969, .tlie New York Assembly cre It appears that the movement which ated a Standing Committee Central Staff brought' the legislative coimcil to a domi whose members possess a wide,range of nant position among legislative service professional training, matched to current agencies has reached its height. In many committee concerns. A committee coor States,/other service agencies are growing dinator arranges meetings and hearifigs, more [apidly. Those councils which are provides for supporting research by the • most dynamic appear to be going through central staff; and conducts inter-commit another meitamorphosis ^and are taking tee liaison. Legislative research emphasis oh the management function. At the end is increasingly on multi-disciplinary re of 1907, there were 44 councils. Since search,- done by teams, using advanced then;' the trend has been re\ersed. Coun techniques^ and outside contractors; some cils h.^ve been abolished in Connecticut, .of these projects involve, relatively large - 'Florida, Kansas, and Minnesota, New amounts pf-moneyi occasionally obtained Hampshire abolished the .Legislative through fedjeral grants, and have sotne- \ Study Committee in 1971, and its ifunc-: times resulted in major independent leg- .' tions have been assumed by the perma islative -policy initiatives. In some cases, • nent standing committees. States which ^ 'such projects are conducted by interim , have never had councils are California, committees. • -....:••• Hawaii, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, The ''disappearing interim'' . is be-" and West Virginia. Many of these are coming an increasing problem for those States where management structures and who manage interim study by the Legis ^ "functrons have'been most emphasized. A lature. Previously,; interim studies were* " 80 THE BOOK OF. THE STATES conducted on a long-terra basis, in virtual other types of legal services led neq,rly isolation from the departed legislative half the States, early in .the century, to body. Increased session time, mpre fre create agencies entirely or primarily re- quent sessions,' greater proximity bf legis s sJ3onsible for carrying out one or both of lators in the interim, and inore frequent these activities. New York created a bill- • hearings have resulted in continuous con- drafting staif in 1900 and Wisconsin: I'tact and involvemeht. established the first permanent office for Consequently, a major feature in the . Revkor of Statutes in 1909. changing foleof legislative councils is in*- By 1939; 38 States utilized formal.ar • creasing provision of research and staff rangements for providing legislators with, personnel for studies and hearings of drafting service and, duiring the 1968-69 " interim committees. The Ohio Legisla- biennium, the final i:wo States, Vermont / tive Service Gommission has done so for and Wyoming, did so also. Thus, legis several years. Vermont and Utah are lators in all States have some type of moving increasingly in this direction. legal assistance from^ermanent legisla The Wisconsin Legislative Council has tive service agencies. However, the ex established a special review committee to tent and nature of such services vary study alternative methods of providing widely. staff services for interim work. This is a Bill, drafting is performed by perma feature these councils have in common^ nent legislative service agencies in all with several m<^agement committees, in States. In 32 States it is performed, by ; contrast with the decentralized staffing of the Legislative Council or its staff agency. standing and" interim .comniittees in Other agencies which perform this serv larger States such as California, New ice include legislative reference bureaus, York, Illinois, arid Florida. In some States statutory revision agencies, arid,special council-type agencies loan staff, for special ized bill-drafting agencies. In nine Statesy projects to committees which also have more than one agency provides this type their own staff. of assistance. . The Maryland Legislature has engaged Implementation of new technology has in an interesting joint staffing venture, made it possible to reduce engrossing and where substantive and fiscal committees enrolling an^ other related administra are staffed by a combination of substan tive staffs, W'hile increasing the number tive experts or attorneys from the Legis . and quality'^of professional bill-drafting lative Council and fiscal analysts from thC; attorneys who specialize in an area of the _ Legislative Department of Fiscal Services.' law. Increasing erriphasis is placed on re Legislative policy is. stilL unduly in- view or draft of all amendnients by quali . fluenced at times by the executive branch fied staff prior to cq;isideration, to assure and its agencies, private interests, and tiie conformity with legal and technical re media. Whether .the approach is through quirements. ' ... ^ a legislative council or through newer and InM970-71, statutoVy revision was pro varying arrangements, developments of vided in 43 States. Fn 40 States, specialized the 1970-71 biennium make it evident ^statutory revision or other scr\ ce agen that many Legislatures are seeking .to cies under legislative juiisdiction per move to new levels of sophistication and. formed this -function. However, in .Mis relevance for both in-session and interim sissippi, North Carolina, and Rhode studies on which they must depend for Island, agencies not uiider legislative ju informed, independent, and judicious risdiction (Continued to provide this serv policy decisions. These efforts will have ice. In 20 States, legislative council staffs a coniinumgi impact on the evolution also provided statutory revision service. ^yhich has characterized legislative service This redects, in part, the view that elfec- agencies since the turn q.f the century. tive draftsmanship and revision require a high degree of research skill and substan '. / , LEGAL SERVICES tive information, in addition to techriital, The technicar nature of bill drafting, legal proficiency. ° , ^ statutory revision, legal counseling, and * As now carried on in many States, code *^" / LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLA TIQN 8.1 and statutory revision consists primarily . of revision of the form rather than the FISCAL SERVICES i substance of the law and most revision • After nearly a cenpry of constitutiotial programs are maintained on a continuous and other limitations.on legislative pow- , basis. Some type of form revision pro-, » ers over revenues and appropriations, the - gram has been established in all except movement toward independence and the following seven States and Terri- modernization of State Legislatures has ' tories: Arkansas, Delaware, Iclaho, Iowa, brought with it a renewed recognition of New Hampshire, Pehnsylvahia, Virgin the importance of a strong legislative Islands. A comparatively distinct service capability in this area. Legislative review area, called "substantive revision" has of revenues and expenditures, reduced - slowly emerged in the second third of the " to a perfunctory ritual a few decades ago, century. NewTorll broke newiground in has become a meaningful reality. The 1934 hy creating.its Law Revision Com-. unprecedented ' fiscal squeeze of the mission, charged with studying and rec 1970-71 bienniiim generated added, im ommending to the Legislature- policy petus toward increased fiscal staffing and ' changes in the field of so-called;, "private" more sophisticated fiscal review proce- law. Californi.i?» Louisiana, and. North dures. • -• , . — \.,^ ' Carolina have taken similar steps. Legis In 1971/the'ncw Legislative; Moderni lative Councils in several States—includ zation Committ^ of the National Legis ing Alaska, Montana, North Dakota,! lative, Conference undertook a major Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin—have , proje^Jt to review the legislative appropri-, been moving into this field, ' /••. i 82 THE BOOK OF THE STATES fessional staff; and in 3 States by a board lature required that a partial. program . or commission. In 9 Sxates, more than one budget be submitted to it in 1973. The agency performed one or both of these Connecticut- Legislature received a grant functions. to conduct training programs] for legis During 1970^-71, Alaska created a Leg lators in effective review and evaluation, islative Budget and Audit Committee, of executive" programs and their per joining two. divisions in a single agency. formance, with emphasis , on moving North Carolina' began staffing fiscal re toward a legi.slative lindQistand^ng of the view as a division of the Legislative Serv value of PPBS as a tool to effective policy ices Committee, Avith an appropriation making. jStich an appreciation w'ould be of $375,000. In Utah, the Joint Budget- essential for concentration by fiscalstaff Audit Committee now meets monthly to and legislators on goals and policy, rather give close scrutiny to fiscal problems be- than the day-to-day operation of state tvveen sessions; staff for the fiscal analyst's agencies. office has been expanded. The Indiana The Florida Legislature is illustrative Legislative Council has substantially ex- of trends to increased staffing in the fiscal paiided staffing of its fiscal division to area. In the 20-year-period between 1951 provide the capability for.in-depth re and 1971, the legislative fiscal staff grew view of selected programs, and an audit from one man in each house, borrowed division is to be established. The New from the executive branch, to 2 full-time Jersey Legislature created an Office of directors, 10 fiscal analysts', an attorney, Fiscal Affairs which will include the exist and an economist, in addition to a num ing^ offices of the State Auditor qnd the ber ;6f assistants, interns, and secretaries. Legislative Budget and Finance Director. The purpose of the new office is to insure ' t -t^- POST AUDIT concurrent post auditing of all state The'post audit of state expenditures is' transactions' and accounts-and ascertain said to be in the midst of a "revolution" compliance with legislative intent by- by many of its state practitioners. This the conduct of perforniahce audits and was the gist of discussions at',regional efficiency studies, review of.the fiscal im meetings of-j&ie Council of State Govern plications upon the State of/federal pol ments and af the Annual Meeting of the icies and programs;-and the examination National Legislative Conference in 1970 and audit of the application of state bond and 1971. The n'lovf.ment toward placing issue proceeds. In New York, the As postSudit. under legislative control has sembly-W'ays and Means Committee has been particularly marked. This function added a special staff unit oi\taxation and was performed iii 3 States, in 1951 and fiscalpolicy. • . . 21 States in 1961. By the .end of 1971; Trends continue toward independent post auditing«was performed by a staff handling and a revised format for the agency or by a staffed.special committee budget of the Legislature proper, Florida in 29 States aiid by standing commiuees adopted an omnibus legislative appropri which had a stafT in 3 States. »' ation in 197L North Carolina transferred As the .post-audit fimction has been authority to develop and submit the legis brought under legislative control, there lative budget from the Lieutenant Gover has been growing awareness of past limi nor to the President Pro Tern. At the tations in scope. Earher emphasis had same time, the Florida Legislature sub been almost entirely in the area\ of il jected itself in 1970 to the purchasing legal spending and criminal violations, laws which apply to the executive branch. embezzlen^.eht, for example, or outright During 1970-71, the legislative branch misspencli^g of funds. Many Legislatures showed increasing concern with the.mVn- .•_move d significantly during, the 1970-71 ner in which the executive budget is pre- . biennii'ii|ii tq give equal emphasis to the pared and presented. Hawaii has been legislative overs^ht function, emuodied one of the most active Legislatures in en in the concept of~the performance and/ couraging its executive to implement a program, audit, with a concern for the. PPB system. The ^»Iorth Dakota Legis benefits of each program in relation to the •-i-i' •: -\ •V'.: •£ ^ LEGISLA TURES AND LEGISLATION 83. expenditures. This, in turn, has gen tensive analyses of ma'npower and drug erated renewed legislative concern with abuse programs which may set standards the goals of programs and the develop for similar efforts in other States. • ment of indicators by which their success The continuing trend toward strength- or failure may be. gauged. ening'of legislative post auditing as an - The increasing emphasis on policy and element in continuous and comprehen management functionis of the Legislature sive legislative budget and fiscal review means the auditor needs far more than a has hit an occasional snag. A performance line-item budget to go by. Also needed is post-audit bill passed by both houses of a statemerit of goals and legislative intent the^Connecticut Legislature in 1971 was against which to measure performance. subsequently vetoed by the Governor. Interim; committees of the Legislature There are instances in^which "the Legis-. .are also becoming increasingly involved .lature proviides for related action by the in the declaration and implementation.of executive branch. In 1971, the North Da legislative intent through their oversight- kota Legislature appropriated- funds tq functions. the State Auditor for {Performance post During^the 1970-71 biehnium, the audits in/selected state agencies. The • > Washington Legislature removed the North Carolina Legislature has pre- • program audit function from the execu served an autdnomous, elected State Au tive branch, and established its own .staff ditor. • to review canformity with legisrative in . Through their participation in a con tent. The Florida Legislature has. de tinuing series of "federal-state fiscaPnian- veloped consultative procedures for clari agemeiit conferences," legislative audi- ' fying legislative intent, in cooperation tors have helped take the lead in efforts with the executive branch. Chairmen of . to develop a common "basis for audit..- the legislative appropriations committees standards, among the levels and branches are'recpiired to.furnish, jointly, to the of government. . Department of Administration and to, the Aiiditor Gcfneral, information on in STAFF TRAINI.NG AND DEVELOPMENT tent relative to any amendment made to During 1970-71, continuing attention budgets submitted to the Legisjiitur.e. jwas devoted to the quality and number ^he Legislative Auditor in,Florida \iak of legislative staff assistants. Througliits.. ' fey responsibilities for development of a, Committee on Training and Develop 'management' information system which ment, the National. Legislative Confer is a prerequisite for ihe PPB system ence, in cooperiation with the Council'of targeted for installation there. InKansas, State Governments, continued its in- a new Legislative Post-Audit Division service training programs for legislators has .neplaced the elected State Auditor fand staff. After three years of operation, and.will/submit performance audits and more than 1,000 persons had attended, other reports to interim committees deal some 50 of these seminars, covering a' ing with the specific programs. The wide range of topics in two basic areas— • Wyoming Legislature established a new substantive problems suc;h,as health, and audit division, w'ith a charge to undertake technical skill-training such as research performance' audits. A' new Legislative or fi.scal review. The New Jersey Legisla Audit Advisory Committee will study ture was one which developed a line-item . and malce recommendations in this area appropriation to finance attendance at 'for Pennsylvania. In a number of States, these seminars. This experience provides thje fiscal review and audit functions are a basis for further development, experi- . twin divisions of bn&. agency, 'fhe Oregon mentation, and diversification. Legislature has increased the staff of its The Intergovernmental Personnel Act legislative fiscal officer to provide for per of 1970 provided potential opportunities . formance auditing of programs. In op for Legislfitures and their associations to eration for several years, now, the New develop training programs which would York Joint Legislative Commission on . be.JCuncied under»the act. The iVIinnesota Expenditure. l^eview has published ex- Legislature carrieci on its own program of J-",- ' •• '-:• •• "..•• '.i...... - ^ „•- ^.T • •-' ; v..„- 84 THE BOOK OF THE STATES ^1 in-service training and workshops for ber of other States. Where staffing is members and staff. partisan or personal, there is less basis for Also launched was an effort to develjgp^ • continuity. public administration, curricula in iirii- In recognition of the need for quality versities across the. country whicH would personnel, legislative staff salaries in give more emphasis to state government, creased substantially during 1970"-7l. /.,, and particularly to State Legislatures. The high was about $40,000 annually Professional graduate degree programs with most agency staff directors in the for legislative staff personnel were draAvn $20-30,000 range, and top assistants close up for Ohio State ^niversity, the Uni- _ behind. Most committee staff and middle- versity of. Arizona, Arizona State Uni level personnel of service agencies were versity, the[University of Missouri at Kan in the $8-20,000 range. Generally, larger sas City, and the University of Kentucky. • .States paid more, and smaller States less; As of 1971, however, lack of either state or An increasing number and proportion of federal funds still constituted-a barrier to professional personnel worked oh a full- implementation of these programs. time,, year-round basis. Salaries of. con Other opportuhities for professional' gressional staff are generally in a much staff development and interchange of - higher range! /' '• ideas are provided through national "and "There was significant variationlin han regional workshops of the Council of dling of legislative overtime wbrl?. One State Governments and the National •State paid over $50,000 for overtime in Legislative Conference, in such specialti^es the 1971 session, as a means of motivating as research, legal, administrative, fi^scal,...... productivity---as-well-~as-.longe r hours. committee and leadership jiaC,^ Many States pay no overtime, but pro For the time being, the wide use and vide compensatory time off for clerical acceptance of legislative intern programs people, and assume that- overtime.is in helped fill the gap left by absence of uni herent in professional-level staff salaries. versity graduate training programs for Some Legislatures fix staff salaries admin professional legislative staff. A significant istratively, and others by resolution. -proportion,of legislative interns go on to become valued permanent professional NEW KINDS OF STAFFING . legislative staff, particularly in' those" Several new kinds of_staffing emerged States where interns serve on a full-time in the past decade and hajLa major, im basis. pact on legislative operatic^ These in- ' In addition to the need for consolida cliided -Staffing for legislative leaders,' tion and coordination of staff services to" caucuses, committees, and individual the Legislature, recruiting and retention legislators. of highly trained personnel for all phases Nearly threerquarters of t,he States re-% of legislative staffing was recognized as-a ported an increase in pidfessional assist necessity. Sorne Legislatures sought to de ance (or standing committees since 1965. velop unified personnel systems to deal Three basic methods are used to prbvide effectively with matters of needs, qualifi professional staff for standing coinmit- cations, hiring, salary, retirement, etc. tees:, permanent legislative service agen TKe Florida Legislature has developed a cies! provide -staff in 42 States, standing personnel handbook, complete with a committees hire their own assistants in coniprehehsive ciassification system and 14 States, and executive agencies provide pay plan for legislative persohnel. It is assistance in 7 States. Some States use reported that the Minnesota llegislature • more than one methodMh dne^;^te. a eliminated patronage, as a consid'eratfon university provides some \assistahce arid from hiring of many legislative person in,another State staff is hired in*the"one nel; The California Legislature has ISeeri : house by an operations comiijittee and in able to recruit and retain qualified per the other house by the.party leadel'ship-.. sonnel on a nonpartisan basis for its con .office.' ••'".•/."• tinuing committees. It is still too early Although some type, of professional for a judgrnent on new staffing in a num staff assets tance is available to one or more LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 85 standing 'committees.in all States, the ington and that particular Legislature. . -\. . number of committees which receive as : The Legislative Council in North Da-; ' sistance and the type of assistance, full- kot^'i has assigned a full-time federal-state time or piart-time, varies considerably coordinator. The Kentucky Legislative among- the States. Almost universally, Research; Commission has established a pi'ofessional assistance is provided for "T cmporary OfHce for Federal Programs", fiscal committees; In approximately"oihe- which will have as one of its resppnsibil- fourth of the States assistance is availalple ftTt?r»the obtaining of federal grants for to^ail. committees. In some of these, all the Kentucky Legislature, e committees have individually i assigned Int^g;overnmcniali Cooperation Com-. ~ professionals on a full-time basis, while missions in several States have been ^ other States provide full-time assistants staffed ar{d have become more active. to some committees and part-time assist Kansas,. Maryland, and Wisconsin are ex- • ants to the remaining committees as amples. ; \ • ... - •.'••• needed. A substantial number .of cbni- Fflort.s by numerous organizations, re mittees received assistance in lliis manner sulted in a 1969 announcement bv the-, in eight States arid only a small numlier — . - -J ff' of committees are so assisted in the re U.S.- Office of Management and Budget^^JH' maining Stales. that State Legislatures should be full^;^:T eligiljle for fecleral grants relating to/poU^V'^' Far less commonly is provision made icy development. It was subsequently an,f' for providing professional as.sistance for noiinced.in4971 that this could includes / individual legislat<^rs; States such'as Calt- planning and management grants. ^A fornia, Maryland, Michigan,, a.,nd Texas number of Legislatures have obtained have pioneered in providing such assist such grants, including California, Idaho, .' ance to menil^ers of one or both houses. Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota; Nebraska, i' Party caucus assistants are included jn North .Dakota, and Oklahoma. Howeypr,^ the legislative budget and staffing system- only a fewJiave acquired the in-hou5e ex in several States, with the addition of pertise needed to develop a:n application V Indiana and Connecticut in 1970 and that can strongly compete, for federal \I971. funds. i..- --1 . .FEDERAL-ST,'\TE.RELATIONS PUBLIC IN'FGRMATION .'As the vigor of legislative efforts to in As they looked ahead to' the seventies, fluence Congress and'executive agencies legislators recognized the need to provide has increased, tlie need to strengthen the" the kind of information.to, and commu;; in-house capability of each Legislature hication. with, the general public that : to respond- in its own terms has become would.encourage the public to have high recognized as.an imperative. The "Execu expectations for its State Legislature, to tive Comriiittee of the >;ational Legisla be informed of its contributions to the tive Conference in 1970-71 urged public interest, and to support efforts to .- /strengthening of federal;-state relations strengthen the IcgislaJtive institution. . • operations within State Legislatures. Ad • The 1970-71 biennium was a periods ditionally, the 1971 edition oiSufTgested of continuing exploration and experi A- • Stale Lcgisfaiiori- conlains a »resoIution mentation in this area. A diversity ol providing for each Legislature to estab public Itiformation" services- was pro lish a staffed Joint Committee on Federal- vided through various mechanisms..The * State Relations, or to stfiff a functioning North Dakota Legislative Council added Commission on Interstate Cooperation, [Continued on page 94) , - The Intergovernmental Relations Com «»=sja. ^Sce articles by Albert J. Lipson, 'Xcgislative mittpe of the National Legislative Con Grantmansbip: Califorrfia SiyXc," State Govern- ference sought to stimulate movement in inent, Winter, 1971; by F. Robert Edman, "Fed . this direction by establishing a "federal- eral Grants-in-Aid to State Legislatures," Slate state coordinatqr'\ in each Legislature, to., Gdveniment, Summer, 1971; "National Legisla tive Conference Achieves Broadened Eligibility • serve as a focal point and prime contact for Federal Grants to State Legislatures," The - for key communications between Wash ATTtcrican Legislator, October,.\971. - .-y. • • •' / - .9 •• •• " • •' • . •••• ,. '••••••• ; .- • • ••• • " LEGISLATIVE COUNCII^S AND COUNCIL-TYPE AGENCIES: dRGANIZATION & ^vlEETINGS Slate requires representation of Meetings •required' ' ' -^-:5 Officers Number of members Selection of members elected A Con- by At Kepre- Ex Term • gres- least Ap- Ex- Politi- sional member Year Sen seuta- ojficio pointed officio (no. of ship guar- On cnl ^ dis- :/:• Stale Agency created ators lives or other Total in) (b) Other yrs.) (c) terly call' parlies tricts Other Alabaina.v.... LeKi.slative rc.iinril * 1945 4 6 8 18 8(b) 10(d) 4 ' Alaska...... I^'KisIativc Council . 19.S.1 4 4 2 10 8 2 2 • - Arizona Legislative {!outicil i9.S.S 6 6 12 12 , 2 (f) • • (e) Arkanaat^^... .. Legi.siativL-Council 1947 9 17 ^^ 4 30 2(a) '•i(b) 24(h) (i)^ * Colorado...... 1.^'Kislative Council 1953 6 6 2 14 12(j) • 2 (k) • Connecticut... Joint Conit. on L«.-Ki.slative Mfit. 1969 2. 1.9 12 3(a) 9(b) . (k) (c) (1) • Delaware -Lf>«alativt; Council l'J66 2( 2 6 10 ''(a) 6(b) (k) (c) Florida... Joint Legislative M-gt. Cojht. • '.1968 3 3 - 6 6 - ,(k^ • Georgia...... Legi.slative Services Comt. - 1961 .. .. 10 10 10(b) -..Jm) (c) Idaho.' Legislative Council • • 1963 4 • '4 6 14 8 6(b) 8(n) \-. (k) • (o) ^-^ Illinois.;... Legi.slative Council • 19.57 8 8 .4 20 16 4(b) • (k) • • • Indiana...... Legislative Council 1967 .4 .'39 16 7(a)- 9(b) (i) • (c) • w Iowa Legislative Council . 1969 5- 5 -6 16 10 6(b) . 2 • • ' (p) ^ Kansas I^'gislative ("oordinating Cguncil 1971 .. .•. 7 •7 '7(b) (m) • (c) (n) (q) Kentucky Legislative Research Coriiin. 1948 ... . . • 14 14 14(b) . (k) • (c) (1) Louisiana..... Legislative Council 1952 8 8 2 16 18 2 i 4 • (o) ' Maine. legislative Research Comt. 19.19 * 7 10 2 17 2 2 • • Maryland...... T.egishitive Council 1939 10 11 9 30 " '21(j) 9(b) (i) (0 (c) .• Massachusetts. Legislative Research Council 1954 4 8 .. 12 12 (k) (c) ., ..; Michigan- Legislative Coiiiicil 1965 6 . 6 "2 14 ..12(a) '2(b) (k) • • Missouri Comt. on Legis. Research 1943 10 ^10' :.. 20 20(a) ("~k) • • Montana , Legislative Council 1957- -6 67 .. 12 .12(a) (r) • • (p) Nebraska Legislative Council- 19.i7 _' 49 (Unicameral) : 49 49(.s) (s) • (t) Nevada.;..... Legislative Commission 1945 . '6 6 .. 12 12(d) 2 • New Jersey.. . Law Kevis. & LeKis._Sery. Comm. 1954' 6 6 12 12 (k) -• • • New Mexico. Legislative Council" , 1951 . 5 6 13 . i:(a) 2(b) 2 • • • North Carolina egislative Research Comm. 1965 5 5 • 12 . 10(a) 2(b) (c) North Dakota. 5 : 5 .15 S(b) tegislative Council 1969 10(a) • Ohio...... '•••—• 6 6 14 12(a) 2(b) (k) • Oklahoma..... Legislative Service Cohim. 1953 :48 99 147 147fi3) (s) • Legislative Council 1939 (u) (") Pennsylvania.. 50 203 253 253(.s) (s) (c) (V) Rhode Island.. Joint .State Govt. Comm. 1937 3 4 . . 7 2 (c) Legislative Council 1939 South Carolina Legislative Council 1949. 5 • 5(b) ..-> (m) '• (w) South Dakota. legislative Research Council 1951 35 70 105 105(s) (8) =1 Texas. .. Legt-'ilative Council . » 1949 . 5 10 2 17 15 .2 _ (i) (c) • Utah,...... IvCgialiitiveiCoiincil i 1947- 8 ' 8 16 16(a) 2 • f 1965 7 - ' 1 16 • 14(i) 2 "Vermont.... legislative Council. V •'•• 2 • • • Virginia-.... J956 5 14 14 (i) • Advisory Legislative Council 0 • • / 1 Waishinftton. Legislative-Coupcil 1947 -14 15 2 31 29(j),' 2(b) • Wisconsin;.-. Joint Ix'gishitivc Council 1947 3 . 5 • 11. 19 8(a).- il(b) 2. • • • Wyominft. . . Legislative Management Council 1971 2 2 : 7(z) 11 : ; 6(b) y 5(aa) (k) • (e) (a) Appointments to Council are.made.by I\resi(leht of Senate and Speaker o£ House for New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Washingtpn: President Pro Tcm; Speaker. Itj tlfeir resi>eclive houses unless othcrwi.se nbted as follows: ' . ' , , North "Carolina. Senate President; Arkansas; Uy Governor, one from i-'ach house, to represent him on the Council. , •; if clcctc Legal Pre Recom- Continuous Refer- Bill coun pares ' mends study of Budg Leg-" Cen Date ence drafting seling bill substatT- Pre stale reve etary isla- tral agency library for Stdtu- for and tive legis pares nues and review live man Slate or estab facili- Legis- lory legis law sum lative' research Spot expendi- and post age-^ other jurisdiction lished Service agency ties lature revision lators maries program reports research lures analysis audit men! Alabamia. 1945 Legislative Council — -^ .. — — — 1945 *Legi,^l Alaska 1953 Legislative Council ' — — — . — ' — 1953 * Legislative Affair's Agency ic if. it ^ i^ ,1955(b) Legislative Budget and Audit Committee — — — • —.'. . — • 1955 \Legislative Audit Division ' — ^ — — . — T- • A - 1971 ^Legislative.Finance Division —• "5 — —' — , -^ • • Arizona ... 1953 I^egislative Council \. if • if • if — . :if. • 19.S7 Department of Library and Archives' *^ if ^— — .— ' — 1966 Joint Legislative Budget Committee — — — .. . — .^ — House Committee.on Administration — — .-— -- — —= Arkansas...... 1947 . Legislative Council — — — .—• — • • (a) 1947 * Bureau of Legislative Research if . -if — ic ic • • c» 1953 Legislative Joint Auditing Commitlee — — — — . '— • (a) if 00 195-3 '\Division of Legislative Audit — — .^^ :— • California...... 1913 Legislative Counsel Bureau — if if if if • 1904 Administrative-Legislative Reference Service if — — — ' — (State Library) ... . . ' 1941 Joint Legislative Budget Committee ' •. if ^ — — — . — 1953 Law Revision Commission — — i( — — • • '1955 Joint Legislative Audit Committee — — — — — •. 1955 '\Legislative Audit Bureau — — ' — _ — • ^ '• .• 1967(b) Office of Research -— — . — 3 — {Assembly Rules Committee) Joint Rules Committee — — — — • • ." Colora'do ... . 1953 • Legislative Council '• if — -^ : — 1969(b) Committee on Legal Services '— — -if if 1968(b) Legislative Drafting Office — if . —^ • if' (Committee on Legal Services) q; •; .1956 \ Joint Budget Committee — '•—; ' — — >. 1965 , Legislative Audit Committee ' • — — ' —• ' • -1- Connecticut. 1969 Florida:.... 1968(b) JointLegislativcManageme.nl Committee if — if if . ; "i 1967 Legisliilive Auditing Commiltee • ' " -^ •-••••. - — .... Senate Ways and Means Commiltee -r-, • '. House Appropriations Committee • . " —; • 1967,.' Law Revision'Commission — Georgia. 1961(b) Legislative Services Corhmittee, '' — —•' ^ .••• 19.'i9 ^Office of Legislative. Counsel • • 1970. Office of Legislative Budget Analyst . V T:- — .• . .• 191-Uc) State Library - * 1923 Department of Audits and Accounts -r- * . • — Guam...; 1969 • Legislative Research Bureau -k — •• .•••• 1950 Legislative Counsel to the Legislature — * 1957 Legislative Fiscal Analyst, — • Hawaii. 1943 Legislative Reference Bureau . if'-' • 19.S9 Revisor of Statutes • . • ' — • 1959 Legislative Auditor — Idaho... 196.?«; 'Legislative Council • . ' ic 1967 • Legislative Budget and rFiscal Committee -7- -^•- (.legislative Council) ' lUinola... 1937 ; Legislative Council '• -^ 1913 Legislative Reference Bureau -if • 1937 i Budgetary Commission — • ' 1957 •• Legislative Audit Commission . . T— 1966' Legislative Researxh Section {State Library) ir 00 India'na.. 1967(b) Legislative Council -ic .... ' Connn. on State Tax and Financing Policy — • Slate Library •*• • Iowa. 1969(b) Legislative Council ' . — 1969(b) *Legislative Service Bureau' if. • 1939 Legislative Reference Bureau ^ -k • . • ' {State Law.Library). ' ' •. 1 1951 Budget and Financial Control Committee^ -^ • 1961 . •\Office of I.egislative Fiscal Director " — Kansas. 1971-(b) Legislative Coordinating Council .-k • • i90<){c) State Library ' . , ^ .• , • • Kentucky. t9.i8(b) Legislative Research Cdmmisi'ion .-if • 1966 Legislative Audit Committee {Legislative Research Commission") Louisiana... 195i2 ' Legislative Council ." ic ,.-•• • 1946(c) State Library • • 193a State Law Institute '^ • '• •••-• 1962 Legislative- lUidgrt Commiltee . . • — • 1962' Office of Legislative Auditor ... — • %• .Maine..,,:'...., 19.?9 ' Legislative Research Committee ' , — 'V* • -k. 1971(b) Law and I.egiHalhie^Reference Library '''- if • — •. {Legislative Research-Committee) ' 1907 .' Department of Audit ;'.' .- — • — ^: ••") •4: PERMANENT LEGISLATIVE SERVICE AGENCIES—Contiaucd Legal . Pre Recom Continuous Refer Bill coun pares mends -study of Budg- Lf-S- Cen . Date ence drafting seling bill substan Pre- " state reve- etary isla- tral • agency library for.. . Statu for and tive legis pares ^ nnes and review. tive 'man • Slate or estab facili I.egts- tory legis law sum lative research Spot expendi- arid •post age other jurisdiction lished .Service aRency ties lature revision lators maries program reports research tures analysis .audit ment ' Maryland. lO.IO Legislative Council • • .1966(b) *l)epartmcnt of Legislative Reference. • 1968(b) Department (if Tiscal Service's • • ..... State Library "' ' , • .-^ . • • _ Massachusetts. 1954 Legislative Research Council "" " — • 1954 . *Legislalive Research Bureau ^— 1971 Joint Committee on Post Audit 6" Oversight — • ,1971 iLegislative Post Audii 6*Oversight Bureau — • >1908 Legislative Reference Division (State Library) ikf • .,....• Se7uile ('ounsel ' ' y . ' — • • • • .'. ... House (Untnsel ;- . .-., — • • WAbifl) House \Vays and Means Committee ' "• -7- • . . . . . Senate Ways and Means Commiiiee — • • Michigan, .f.... 1965 Legislative Council -i • .,• — • 1941 * Legislative Service Bxireau i^ • i 1965 Law Revision Commission — • 196*5 Legislative Auditor General _ — • to 1965(cl) Senate Appropriations. C'ommptee — • o 1965 •iLegislative L'iscal Agency •/ . — • 1970(cl) House Appropriations Committee — • 1970 • •fLegislative Fiscal .-Xgency — • Senate Business Committee . ' — •ko — - V •• House Policy Committee ' — — ;.••* Minnesota 1968 Legislative Reference Library -k • House Research Department' • —- • ; '. (House Rules Committee) "^ Senate (Counsel (Senate Rules Committee') — • • • State Law Library / • '•'•.. ic ' 1939 AV-t'ixor of Statutes — • .1964 (.1) Senato'I'inance Committee . r— • • • 1964(d) House'Appropriatiuns C'ommittee —, Senate Rules and Administration Committee —^ '••-4- Jlouse Rules and Legislative Admin.'C'omt. — • Mississropl...... - 19;?8 .Legislative Reference Bureau (.State Library) -ic • 1971 Senate J.egi.'ttativc Services Office — Office of .Setretdry of the Senate ^ —' i'iio House Management I'ommitteei'^ — • • 1944 Revisor of-'Stattiles (Department of Justice) — t^ 1955' Commission of ^Budget and Accounting • — • — Missouri...... 1943 Committee on'Legislative Research '•' iic • • 1965 . Committee on State Piscai Affairs . --':' — • — Montana.. .:., 1957 Legislative ('ouncil . "tc 1967 ' Legislative Audit Committee ' , —: 7..- • e v.. <'••. .K Nebraska...... 19.37 Legislative Council • ^* • ••• • Nevada -. . . . . 1945 - Ltgistalive Commission • ' " — • 1945 *Legiilalive CaUftsil Bureau -k • State Library ' -'i.^ -^ New Hampshire. 1963". Office of Legislative Services \ ,. —7 1913 Legislative Service (Sfate Library) if • 1947 Legislative Fiscal Committee — • • • New Jersey 1954 Law Revision b' Legislative Services Comm. ,— •••••,, 1971 Office of I'tscal Affairs (Law Revision and :— .Leeistall\ • ' ^" North Dakota. 196^(b) Legislativej::ouucil ?, •y; 1963 I^egislaiive'A.udit arid Fiscal Review Comt. Ohio. 19.'>3(b) Legislative Service Commission • • • 1910 • Legislative Reference liureau • • • ..., House Rul^ Committee •," •. Oklahoma...... 19.39(b) Legislative Council . .j • i_..-.:v^ 1969tb) Legislative Reference Division / — • ^(Department of Libraries) •Oregon. 1971(b) Legislative Counsel Committee • • - • .i971{b) • Joint Committee iin Ways and Means and • Emergency Board • • 1971(b) Legislative Administration Committee 1913(c) State Library . • .. ' • •_^ '•• ••- • •.. • ..-- ;!''•••.•'• ^ • ^•\.' •••••7, PERMANENT.LEGISLATIVE SERVICE AGENCIES—Concluded Lei-al Pre Recom • Continuous Refer Bitl coun pares mends study of Riidg- l.es- Cen Date , ence '•' drafting. seling bill substan . Pre • state reve etary isla- tral " . oRtncy. l-ibfiiry for Statu for and tive legis pares nues and review . live man State or .' esldh- facili Legis- • tory legisz law sunf- lative research Spot expendi- aitd post age-' olher jurisdiction lished Service agency ties lature '• revision lators' riiaries program reports research lures analysis. audit ment Pennsylvania.. 19.57 Joint Slate Government Cotnmissid-it \ • 4c 1909. Legislative Reference Bureau ic • 1959 Legislative Ihulget and. Finance Committee — . • • • 1871 House Majoriiy Appropriatioits Committee ^ -tc • • .• • 1966 House Minority Appropriations Committee -k • 1883 Setiate Majority' Appropriations Committee -ic • • V*.*, '•^^ 1966 Senate .Minority Appropriations Committee ir • . Puerto Rico. . . 1954 Office of Legislative Servic,es . ic ••' k 1950 Commission for the Codification of the Laws — 1954 Joint Legislative ('ommiltce on Reports • —. from the Ctmir oiler ... . '" . 1952 ^Office of the Controller ''•'•'••. — Rhode Island... •19.39(b) Legislative Council ' ' • •*- • 1907 Legislative Reference .Bureau (Slate Library) if 't • • • • Assistant in Char fie of Law-Revision — • • • ' (Office of Secretary of State): '.'.' ' • 1939 Finance Comt. of House of Representatives —;. South Carolina. 1949 ' l.egislative Council • • to 1954 Code Commissioner • South Dakota... 1951 " Legislative Research Council • - • . • • * .- — ••.. • 1943 Department of Audits and Accounts —-:'• ••-..' — Tennessee..- ... 1953 '. Legislative Couricil Committee ''•-. • • • • .... State.Library and ^^jiives. • 1953 Code Commission -- j.' 1835 Department of Audit , •k 1967 Fjscal Rei'iew Committee ••••. :-k Texas.: 1949 Legislative Council, - 1969(b) Legislative Reference Library • • 194T Legislative Budget Board • • • • • (a) 1943 Legislative Audit Committee •*^- Utah;...... :. 1947 : Legislative Council ' ' .• ;— 1966 • Joint Budget and Audit Committee • • — -A • - 1966 Joint L.egdl Services Committee (o) • — 1966 Joint Legislative Operations Commilt'ee '' — -" •-•••k- State Library " • • -k Vermont. 1965 Legislative Council - •'' . "k • • -- 1957 . Statutory Revision Corhmission — Virginia.. 1936 Advisory Legislative Council •••—• 1914 *Division of Statutory Research b" Drafting k • 1948 .Code Commission • . .. ^- ^ • 1928 General Assembly AuditingX'.Qmmittee — .1928 • -[Auditor of Public Accounts — Ci^- c virgin Islands.. Legislative Counsel -'. if- :• : •- ,. :• - / • ^Washington • 1947 Legislative Council ' '**' -^ • • • • • ,' ""•• .'.. ••_ 1-851 State Library . , .. •. .'•*•• • t9..W Legislative Budget Confmittee —. — ,.— •,—.• • • • ' • ^ 1951 Statute Law Committee" . ' — •• . ••-• . .- ,••• - ,: ..^:-- A West Virginia. . 1947 Joint Committee on Government'aiid Finance, • — 1953 Legislative Auditor (Joint Comrnittee -if = ' -Z -r Z •-•.••.*• on Government and Finance) — . • 1965 Office of Legislative Services {Joint , •^— • • •'•• —, Committee on Government and Finance) ".•••. ''..•. Wisconsin...... 1947 Joint Legislative Council . -^-^ • 196.^(b)' legislative Reference Bureau 1967(b) Revisor of Statutes Bureau 1966 Legislative Audit Bureau , , 1-968 . Legislative Fiscal Bureau . 1963 Joint Committee on Legislative Organitation Wyoming.. 1971(b) Legislative Management Council ;197l *Legijslative Service Agency • . . . . State Library^ > CO •Agency which provides staff services for legislative council *or other centra! Research established as a state agency in 1966; State Fiscal Research Bureau createtl in 1947, functions agency, by.statute giveh a different name, in 13 States. incorporatetl into' Department of Fiscal Services in 1968. Ndrlh Caro/i>ia; Legislative Council tAgency which provides staff services for legislative fiscal review oraudit committee, in createtl iii'1963-, replaced by Legislative Research Commission in 1965. Noith Dakota: Lcgisla- eight .States and J'uerto Uico. , tive Research Con'imittee createtl in 1945, nante.changed to Legislative Council in 1-969. (a) Also responsible for prei«irinK a state budget. Ohio: I'rogram Commission createtl in 1943, replaceil by-Legislative Service Commission in (b) Atayka: Legislative Audit Comnn'U'ee created in-1955, rtame. changed to Lesi-slative 1953. 0<:/aAumu.-Legislative Council.createtl iii 1939, but not activatetl until 1947; Legislat'ive Budget and Audit Committee in 1971. California: Assembly LcBi.slalive Refuience Service Ri;ference and Research Division services establishetl in.State. Library in 1917, divi0it)n formal- create«l in 1961, combined with Chief Consultant's Office to form Assembly Office of Research izetl by statute in 1949, became Governmental S»;; vices Branch in Department of Libraries in in 1967. Colorado: Coihniittee on Statute Revision createil in 1951 ami Committee on Legis-' . 1967, name changedito Legislative Reference Division in 1969.. Oregon: Legislative Counsel lalive l\)rafling"created in 19')8, combined into Committee on Leg:il 5>ervice8in 19o9. Connecti Comniittee crtstted.in 1953, replacetl by Joint Committee on Rules and Resolutions in 1969,; cut: Legislative Coi"><"il createtl in 1937, replaced by Joint Committee on kegi.slative Man replacetl.by Lt^islative Counsel Committee in 1971; Legislative' Fiscal Committee creattKiy. agement in 1969; Office'of Policy Research and. f Jflice of Kiacal Research created in 1969. in 1959, functions assumetl by Joint Ctmimitlee on VVaya and .Means (during session) and;; became Office of Legislative Research in 1970; Legislative Research Department creafeti irjo Emergency Board (during interim) in I97i;j! Coniinillee on Legislalive Administration created'' 1947, becaihe Legislative Commisaionera Office in 1969. Drlawflre: .Legislative Reference in 1969, name changed to Legislative AJHlministration Committee in 1971. Rhode lilttnd; Bureau created in 194S, functions taken over by Legislative Council (crea_t«l 1066) in 196<^. Legislative Council created in 1939 but not activateti until 1959. Texas: Legislative Reference Florida: Legislative Council created in 1949, replaced by Joint Legislative Management Coni- Division'of State Library createtl in 19.09, functions transferred to Legislative Reference' .mittttc in 1968. Georgia: Join't Committee on Operations of the General Assembly create -..-a*- i ,•••':- I . :i T--. 94 THE BOOK OF THE STATES • (Continued from page 85) was charged to develop rriodel security a journalist to its staff. A number of Leg legislation, correspondi,E[g rules of ^pro islatures have installed toll-free telephone cedure, and an operating manual service for instint access by any citizen In conjunction with such efforts, most to information on bill status or other Legislatures tightened up security ar features of legislative activity.. These in rangements, emphasized greater profes- ' clude Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, New sional training in-security personnel, de York, South Carolina, and West Virginia.' veloped con^ngency plans distinguishing Variations include conference ,calls for between procedures for handling lawful dispersed .news media conferences. The dissent and acts of terrorism, and trained norida Senate has !'gone to the people" legislative leadership to make key de - (?•- with traveling committee hearings held cisions and delegate authority toVtrairied in different locatipns throughout the personnel. "; State on many subjects. At least 28 States have,provided live.television coverage of SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 'sessions, many in conjunction with edu Puring 1970-71, Legislatures began to- •\ cational netw'Orks. 'Connecticut and, define deafly the need to organize and \^' Georgia had extensive programs. ilaff themselves in such a. way as to as Thus far, however, only a few States sure the capability to incorporate, the have initiated a full-scale legislative in most current knowledge arid technolog% formation office. Some rely (!in services of in all phases'of lj|;^| iegisiative decision-t information offices in the executive making process. This was a biennium of. ^ ^ branch. Maryland hired a private con experimentation with a diversity of ap sultant to operate a part-time program. • proaches, including funding and staffing ' In most cases, public information is pro- of special research projects; advisory com ... v.ided on an ad hoc basis by staff who are.: mittees of scientists and technologists, di- • 'not information specialists, and ,who have vided into special panels (California As- many othfer responsibilities. sembly^ Michigan);, science advisors on . .. Nevertheless, developments of the past leadership staffs (New York Assembly) or . biennuim suggest that Legidatures will on Legislative Council .staffs (Illinois); . be increasingly focusii^^their efforts on extensive staffinjg for in-depth interim better, more complete public infomia- comrnittee. studies of a specific problem; tion'programs, staffed by professionals in joint legislative-executive cominissioni t6e field. More and more States are;taking (Georgia); spi&cial institutes or "think • special measures to provide public access tanks" to accelei-ate application of avail V ..to meetings, documents, and actions of able, knowledge' t6 public problems; and the Legislature. \ / : - ad hoc task'/fbrces of legislators and sci- • entists as issties arose. The National Leg ' LEGISLATIVE SEduRiTY . islative Gbn&^rence' established a new The decade ended with, a burst of dis Committee on Science and Technology ruptive activity whith affected a number to riionkor- these developments, to assist of Legislatures and caused grave concern in the stimulation of further experimen in most. Resulting Jrom a panel discis tation, to provide the Legislatures with sion at the 1970 meeting of the .National comparative information, on various ap Legislative Conference, an' NLC Com proaches, and to help develop-channels mittee on. Legislative Security Arrange betweeri .^tate Legislatures and the "sci ments was established. The committee entific coinmunity." -V, - r~--=^rj,X; ;i.--,'^;>.;v .--i .-•". .-^-v-ivHr- —.-..«v,«i •^^ J r^ .f- r- I 2 / Legislation TRENDS IN STATE LEGISLATION, 1970-1971 HE NATIONAL ECONOMIC slpwdown ff^ arid the thrust to modernize stiate' r- FINANCE Tgovernment influenced the trend' of Tax increases-• were Afidespread;;-al state legislative activiit,y during the 1970- ' though of lesser 'proportions than in the 71 biennium. • 1968-69 biennium. Three ^tates—Ohio, Faced with a declining r^te of revenue Pennsylvania and Rhode Island—adopted growth and increased costs, the States ini-' personal income taxes. Seven States m-. tiated a number of remedies. Outlays for creased sales taxes—Louisiana, New Jer education, although continuing at -rec sey, Connecticut, Minnesota, Mew York, ord levels, w'ere trimmed somewhat. ]Sew Tennessee and Texas. Legislatures also attempts were made to'provide state, turned to motor .fuel, cigarette, and alco funds to support nShpublic schools. The holic beverage taxes as sources of added whole.subject of welfare received renewed revenue. ' • • attention. Measures were introduced in The tax incraases, in themselves, were many States to try to. hold Avelfare costs in nothing new. They always are a rhajoii line. Meanwhile, the States generally consideration during legislative sessions. urged, at a minimum, greater federal in In the 1970-71 biennium, how-ever, it volvement in welfare, and at the maxi- became incr^singly clear that the States munti, a total federal takeover of welfare were reaching their taxing limits. There costs. In the realm of direct financial pro were several taxpayer revolts, illustrated grams, many States raised taxes and there by tax referendums in Maine, Missoifri was a concerted effort toward^ed^ral reve and other States,, the defeat of a number nue sharing. Modernization efforts, meaffi- of mtpjor bond issues, rfnd similar, actions. while, gained momentum throughout, The States were looking toward the fed i state government. " ' eral government for revenue sharing, and , it appeared the, plea w(3uM soon be an LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS "^ swered with some form of new federalaid. •.•••• ^ In 1970, 42*€.egislatures met in either regular or special sessiiQns, or sessions con GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION (f'». tinued from the previous year. In 1971, For the Legislatures," reapportionment all 50 Legislatures held regular or special .'^ was a major consideration. By late 1971, sessions. Many chapters elsewhere in this 29 Legislatures had completed legislative volume, which deal with specific subject reapportionment, Nineteen had accom areas, include treatment of legislative plished/congressional reapportionment. measures enacted in those fields. .The fol- This /T'egislatures were modernizing lbv\ring account presents a few e'kakiples throygli increased staffing, better alloca and points to some of the ov.erall trends tion c^f tjine, and the move toward annual of the legislation during.the biennium. sessions. By the beginning of 1972, 33 95 :., y r- f f • ff^ 'rr- '^ y- gi^.^ ^ / • .r~-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AN!) DIRECT LEGISLATION, 1970-1971 HANGESAFFECTiNG the legislative and a merit systeni, A Connecticut chgnge executive branches and state finance .made the Attorney General a cpnVtifu- G dominated proposals adopted jn tionally elected officer rather .than statu statewide elections during 1970 and 1971. torily elected. North Carolina voters ap The electorate passed on such proposals proved reduction of state government either.in the form^of.amendments to the departments to 25 and granted the Gover state constitution, bond issues, or other- nor reorganization'powefs, subject to leg- propositions submitted at the pollsi Most islaltive veto. The Montana electorate ajD- of the action was taken in the November proved reduction in the number of state 1970 elections. departments to no more than 20. Mary The following summary by no means land authorized the Governor; to reor describes all of the enactments, but it in ganize the executive branch, subject to dicates the scope of measures involved. legislative veto/The new Illinois cohsti-. •ff^-^- tution likewise gives the Governor reor-, • LEGISLATURES • gainization powers. Annual legislative sessions were pro Action was widespread in changing the posed during the biennium in. a number "length of terms and the manner in which of States and received voter approval in they are served. Indiana voters approved Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, an increase from two to four years in the Nebraska, and Virginia, North Carolina terms of the Auditor, Treasurer, and Sec voters gave the Legislature power to call retary of State. Kevada limited the Gov a special session with approval of three- ernor to two terms arid set tip a merit sys fifths of the members. The Maine elecr tem for executive branch employees. In torate also allowed the Legislature to con-- New Mexico, four-year terms were ap vene itself. «• proved for Constitutionally elected execu In Maryland, the number 6f days the. tive officers and team election of the Gov- Legislature may meet annually, was in pernor and Lieutenant Governor was creased and a legislative compensation adopted. Nebraiska. voters also approved commission established. Idaho voters team election of the Governor and Lieu passed an initiative measure calling for a tenant Govern'ofT^andmade the latter a reduction in legislative pay and in the full-time officer. • ; ' number of days for which expenses „are allowed. In West Virginia, a legislative CouRTi' •' compensation cornmission was approved . Indian^ revised its state high court sys and 60-day annual se;ssions established, tem. Maryland voters approved creation with elimination of the 30-day restriction of a uniform system of district courtsand on off-year isessions. reused methods of removing judges. The court system in Nebraska wasalso revised," ADMINISTRATION, including provision for legislative estab EXECUTIVE BRANCH lishment of all courts inferior to the Su Various forms of government reorgani preme Court. zation were approved by the voters dur ing the biennium. In Colorado, approval ELECTIONS was/given to creation of a state personnel Voters in a number of States approved system and department of personnel, reduction -of the voting .age during the comprising all state employees and most biennium, but such actions were, siiper- > . appointed officers, to be run according to seded in 197'1 by nationwide adoption 97, :i?X ,.«>••. . .• •98 THE BOOK OF THl^ S<^ATES .• * •", • . of the Twenty-sixth Amencjrnent to the exempt property. Nebraska voters ap U.S; Constitution, which granted 18 year proved of legislative conti-ol over invest olds the right to vote in all elections. ment of education funds and pejinitted The other major area of electiori the state board of education to issue reve change was, in voter resftJency require nue bonds for facilities at instiiution4 of ments for state, and. local elections. Illit higher learning..New. Jersey voters au .noi^, iowa, Maryland,. Massachusetts, thorized a dqubling of the property tax Ohio, Utah and Virginia set a six-month exemption' allowed senior citizens to ' voter residency. Coldrado voters approved $160, with the State to reimburse mu a three-month residency*. nicipalities one-half of such exemption. The Utan electorate gave pennission to CONST^-UTIONS " the Legislature to adopt by reference fed- . New or extensively revised constitu eral income tax la^s. tions were approved during the biennium BOND ISSUES by voters iri three Stajeis—Illinois, North i0' Carolina and Virginia..New constitutidns Bond issues, met mixed reaction from .were rejected in Arkansas, Idaho and Ore- the voters in 1971-72. The largest pro gonl Calls for constitutional conventions posal of all—a S2.5 billion is^ue for high were approved in Alaska* Northj^Dakota ways and rapid.trariisit in New York—was and Montana and turned down by voters defeated;;- . -, ' > ; in Ipwh, Maryland and Oklahoma. Alaska voters approved 11 bond issues for uses ranging from 529.7 million for ^ FINANCE AND TAXATION ' university and college construction to S3 Both Michigan and Nebraska decided million for a remote housing program. against state aid for stucfehts iri'nonpub California vote;rs approved a $250 million lic schools, With the' exception of. bus bond issue for local sewage facilities and transportation in Michigan. In Florida,. .$60'millioh for recreation,.fish and wild an amendment to the constitution per- life development. A §750 million issueJ^r ' rriitted a corporate income taxi but con sewage arid pollutiori control won passage tinued the prohibition against individual in Illinois. The Maine electorate autho income taxes. The Kentucky electorate rized $50 million for school building con approved a homestead amendment which, struction isisue,'$4 million for cleaning oil exempts from property taxes the first spills in case pf'^n'emergency, and S4 milr S6,500 of assessed valuation of homes lion for loans to college students: Nevada owned by persons 65 orolder. The newly , voters approved a $5 million issue fpr adopted Jllinpis constitution contains lands for state parks. A $155 million issue provision ^r a flat rate income tax. for higher education buildings was passed . Among States where voters rejected in New Jersey along w-ith an $80 million changes in taxes were .Washington, \^ere issue to acquire lands fpr conservation a flat rate income tax was defeated; Mon and recreatiorh Missouri" voters'^apprdved 4^' tana,, where amove to reduce the 40 per-, issuance of $150 million in reveriire bonds cent income surtax to 10 percent and en for sewage treatment facilities. - - act a 2 percent sales and use tax was defeated; Maine, where repeal of the*c6r- -* ^ OTHER ASPECTS • porate and, individual income taxes w'as Virginia voters removed a constitu turned down; South Dakota, where an tional restriction against state lotteries.' initiative to establish a state incptne t^x On the' question of which course the and repeal pergonal property'taxes by, United States^ should take in Vietnam, 1973 was defeated; Alabama, where a rise Massachusetts' voters in 1970 chose with in the maxiinum income tax rate from 5 drawal on a planned schedule over imnie- to 7 perceiit was defeated; and New Mex diate withdrawal or a military victory. ico, where a move to eliminate the state- South Dakota voters legalized games oif- levy for the,current sqhool fund Ipsf.', ' • chance i6v ' charitable purposes. The / Minnesota permitted the Legislatiire to Texas electorate voted to-allow the^ sale define oj limit certain categories of tax- of mixed di"ink£!. y , \< 1» UNIFORM STATE LAWS ' BY FRANCES p. JONES* HE >JATIONAL CONFERENCE of Com tee to guide that 52-memb^r body. The missioners on yniforrri: State Laws Conference executive committee headed Tb'elieves it has developed'excellent bv Harold E. Read, Hartford, Connecti- •"products." Now, it must emphasize "sell -xy^t, also will stress progiams designed to ing" its uniform legislation |)rop6sals to speed state enactment*of uniform legisla State Legislatures. " v ' ^^ tion. The decision to Stress enactmeht of leg The.commissioners will have three ne^\• islation while continuing to draft the, best uniform acts to "sell" to their Legisla possibleuniforrpTacts apd codes was made tures. In Vail, the" Conference completed during the 80th- annual meeting of the dKafting and gave finaj approval to the Conference in Vail, Colorado, in August Uniform Alcoholisrii and Intoxication .1971. ' ' ,. ; r: >.: Treatment Act, the Uniform Abortion To guide this, effort, the Conference Act, and the'Uniform Disposition of chose Judge Eugene A. Burdick of Willis- Ct^munity Property Rights at Death ton, North Dakota, as its president for Act;: ^ ... • • ' the next two years. In his own State, the The alcoholism legislation is based pn judge diretted the legislative pi"ogram a policy "that alcoholics and intoxicated whith saw the North Dakota Legislature persons may not be Subjected to criminal enact more Conference-approved acts prose<;ution because of their consumption- than kny other State in 1971. The 11 uni of alcoholic beverages but rather should form and model acts enacted iir North Da be afforded a continuum of treatment in kota included legislation dealing with order that thev mav lead normal lives as adoption, driigs, jury selection, disposi productive members of society." tion of detainers and rendition of accused The action would establish a "division persons. of alcoholism" within a state department Other States which posted exceptional .^•of health or mental health. This division records in enacting Conference-endorsed would plan, create and maintain new legislation in 1971 included Colorado treatment programs and centers, and and Idaho. Colorado was one of four work for the improvement of existiiig pro States adopting the Uniform Consumer grams. The act w:oiild provide emergency Credit Code in 1971 and also becarrie the medical treatment for intoxicated persons first State to enact the divorce provisions and inpatient, intermediate, outpatient of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce and followup treatment for alcoholics. Act. Idaho.also enacted the Consumer Such treatment would not be provided CredirCtTtfe^md became the first State to through correctional institutions except adopt the Uniform Probate Code. as treatment for inmates. But-as Judge Burdick noted in ,Vail, Druiik driving penalties would not be those were exceptional States. To bring affected by the act. They would be ex other States up to the standard of excel cluded from provisions forbidding arrest lence set by a. few, the incoming Confer •for intoxication._._ ''^ ence president has named Judge William • •. "I The abortion act'-would permit abor A. Callow. of W'aukesha, Wiscc^sin, as tions during the first 20 week.s of preg- chairman of both the standing committee . nancv. The act also recommends that on legislation and a new.stcering commit- " physicians be allowed to jjcrform abpr-: *Mrs. Jones is Executive Secretary of the Na- tions after the. first 20 weeks of pregnancy . u'ohal Conference of Commissioners on Uniform if an unmarried girl was under 16, or if State Laws. they have."reasonable cause to believe" 99 I. 100 " THE BOOK OF THE STATES ^• tlie mother's life is in danger, a child will own criteria for drug placement. The be born with "grave physical or mental concern of legislators in the problem is defect," or rape of' incest was involved. evidenced by the fact that 15 States .The Uniform Disposition of Commu; adopted the .act in the first year of nity Prop^y Rights at Death Act applies promulgation. T to spouses who have been domiciled in a The Uniform Jury Selection and Serv jurisdiction which has a type of commu ice Act approved in 1970 makqs voter reg nity property regime and who move to a istration, lists the preferred choice of- jurisdiction which has no such system of names for preparing master lists of jurors, rnarital rights. The act defines the dis- establishes the key number system, and posite rights, at death, of either spouse provides that race,"color, religion, sex, na anc| preserves the rights of each in prop tional origin, or economic status are not erty which was community property prior bars to jury service. to change of domicile.. A Uniform^ Consumer Sales, Practices In 1970 the National Conference ap Act outlining deceptive sales practices proved the Uniform Marriage and Di arid.prescribing new legal remedies and a vorce Act designed to strengthen and pre Model Public Defender Act providing for serve the integrity of marriage and to the defense of needy persons were also safeguard meaningful family relation approved in 1970. ships. The act deals with solemnization One of the projects on which the Con and registration of marriage, marriage dis ference is working in cooperation with solution, and child custody. It would abol theLCouncil of State Governments is.a ish the. concept of "fault" in divorce Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Repara proceedings and make irretrievable tions Act based on the "no-fault" concept. breakdown of the niarriage relationship The proposal is being drafted with the the sole basis for its dissolution. help of a grant from the U.S. Department The exploding drug abuse problem in of Transportation. Work is scheduled to the past 10 years impelkcLthe Conference be completed on this act at the Confer to draft the UnifoBra\(OT>htrolled Sub- ence's meeting in San Francisco in Au stances Act which was approved in 1970. gust 1972. This act creates a coordinated and codi .Other uniform acts scheduled for fied system of drug control, similar to that final consideration in San Francisco in utilized at the federal level, which classi clude those dealing with landlord-tenant fies "all nArcotlcs, marihuana, and danger relations, disabled persons, legitimacy, ous drugs subject to control into five endowment funds, and public assem schedujfis, with each schedule having its blies. ' • »»^ r LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 101 RECORD OF PASSAGE OF UNIFORM AQTS^ As of October 15, 1971 V^H -LWIFORUACTS- O, Co 00 3--X "0 •W-, oo .o, • •^ OK >-~c». ^1 o •2 i: 3 Oi •• Sf • a - . t^O; 5 = k. •a 3 (3 •«< H"^ 3 "J? ,\j ^^ o t3 -.O "Stt • "a a * J c >> o> 3 5 Sldte or other <3 •o T3v»»~^, jurisdiction I I fe. It 5 } Alabama..... A- • k Alaska..... •...-.. -k ir •. k Arizona...... i.. ir ' • • • • - • k •. k Arkansas -k • ir • k • k , California • k • ir k Colorado. ir • • k k • k 'Connecticut '... -k ir ir. Delaware * • • k • V , Florida... • k Georgia • • ir •Hawaii... .. • k • • k • Idaho...... • • • • k Illinois.. • • .• • • k • k • Indiana • • .• • • ir • • Iowa...... -k • • ir • • • • 1^ Kansas • 'ir • ir • • j • • . Kentucky -k • • k .ir Louisiana. •A= k k Maine • • • • • k (fiSi) Maryland : k • • k • Massachusetts k • • ir- • ir Michigan... k • • • ir • k • • Minnesota -k, • • ir • k • Mississippi Missouri.....'...' . "A" • • • • Montana kj^ • • ir * • Nebraska ilr • • • • • Nevada '..... k • ir- • • ir • • * New Hampshire.: • • ir- • ir New Jersey. * •A- • • k , New Mexico k • -ir ir • k • • New York k • • • • ir • k , North Carolina...... -A: • •A- k k • North Dakota k ir • ir • ir Ohio • • • • • k • ir Oklahoma... * • • • ir Orefton...... k • ir k • Pennsylvania Ik- • • k • * Rhode Island k • • • • • • South Carolina 'A' • k • • •, gouth Dakota. •*• • •sir- • • • Tennessee -A- • • • • k • ir- • ir. Texas..... • • • k k Utah... .• • • k • • • • Vermont... i • .$r • • ir k ir • , Virginia * • k • k Washlnftton. k • • • •ir • ir • • West Virginia '• • • k • •k • • Wisconsin...!.. ^A" • • • k ir Wyoming • • • ir • k • • District of Columbia,.. k • • • • • k • Puerto Rico ^...... • • • k Total.. :. 42 47 23 41- 25 3S 43 34 49 SO 46 35 •Prepared by the National"Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State I-aws. iThe table records.state adoptions of nets currently being recommended by the Conference for adoption by all jurisdictions. For complete list of uniform and model acts promulgated by the Conference, see Handbook of the Natianal Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Slcte Laws. > -(f Aa amended. ' A 102 THE BOOirOF THE STATES RECORD OF PASSAGE OF UNIFORM ACTS-Continued As of October 15, 19.71. • -UNIFORM ACTS—Covlinued- in o, a •-1 « 0^ I it •a 1 S c3- }! ^ !! 1^ o ^3 Slate or other S it- jurisdiction 1^ ^5 I Alabartln • • iz Alaska • tr iz Arizona •it iz Arkansas ix' iz_ iz California • • •if iz Colorado • • • iz Connecticut • • iz Delaware ^, iz. .Florida. • •ir iz Georfila. TV iz Hawaii.. • .if iz Idalio... • a • Illinois. • •sir •ft- Indiana. it. •!!r Towaew • • .it iz Kansas. •iz iz Kentucky. '•iz- Louisiana. • iz- Maine. ... iz. Maryland, •ir iz Massachusetts. • -iz iz Mlchi(ian. . iz' Minnesota • • Sz. Mississippi..... • •* iz Missouri. • iz. Montana. • • iz Nebraska. • •iz iz Nevada.. • • •(z iz New Hampshire. •k if iz New Jersey...... • iz iz New Mexico • • iz • -Cz iz New York • • 1?) iz North Carolina. iz North Dakota.. ir Ohio h iz Oklahoma. .-... •iz iz Oregon • • iz- iz Pennsylvania. . , ix • iz iz Rhode Island. . • ' iZ' iz South Carolina. • iz-' iz South Dakota. •iz Tennessee. . . . .iz: Texas •iz Utah • iz Vermont • • iz iz Virginia...... • • • it iz Washington:.. • • • iz iz West Virginia. • • • ^. Wisconsin. • • iz iz Wyoming • •iz iz iz District of Columbia. • iz iz Puerto Rico.. iz iz A Total. 26 24 48 14. ^ 17 10 IS .1 37 SI' 50 (a). Has adopted.lhe Council of State Governments' form of Support of Dependents Act, which ia similar to'the Conference Act. /•• • )•. ..• •. . ,b . :Jb, LEGISLAJ'URES AND LEGISUATION 103 RECORD OF PASSAGE PF UNIFORM ACTS-Continued •:• Asof October 15, 4971 V . -UNIFORM ACTS—Continued- in a- Q IT, u 3 • o 9 •o. •a a- .2^ c^C^ ^ i^ • '3 ,»^ fe J- Co 5 3 •^ Is ^ c I I Slate or'other I tS jurisdiction . Alabama ... Alaska' • . .Ai^zona' ; Afrahsas ...California .... Colora'do .Connecticut .... Delaware . Florida . Georjiia , '.Hawaii • .. .Idaho . Illinois . Indiana 'it ,.. .• Iowa . Kansas .Kentucky / J. .Louisiana 3k- Maine . Maryland • . Massachusetts Michigan. -tr ,.. . .Minnesota . .Mississippi ^ .;.... Missouri ,,.'.. .Montana ..... Nebraska Nevada .New Hampshire ...... New Jersey • New Mexico ....;:. .New York .North Carolina • ir'. . .North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma • ...... Oregon .. .Pennsylvania .. .Rhode Island .South Carolina . South Dakota ... .Tennessee Texas * .Utah ,.•.... Vermcfnt • .. ...Virginia ; .Washington ^^• . West Virginia. Wisconsin .Wyoming .District of, Columbia Puerto Ri,co" 3 4 18 U • Total -4, . - I \ ' . THE koOK\OF 'THE STATEfS \ \ . V RECORD OF PASSAGE OF UNIFORM ACTS-Continued AV of October 15, t971 „\ UNIFORM ^ACTS—Conlinued- 'A 3 - K a. O //^ ,1 „ tv s •uRv o Slple or other 5^ • • jiirisdkiion '-5 to • •^ Alabama \ ic • Alaska...... ,...... Vt • Arizona, .y :...:...:.-... . -y^- •• ;V ..\ Arkansas ^ ....•• ' -jlr, ••\ • \ CaUfomja....;. • V •*• Colorado i^ \ \..,.\ .:•-•••• -k. \ * Connecticut.....,;";,..., ic Delaware .'. •/ic" V W- . ..!• Florida. • Georftla. • • Hawaii ir • Idaho • \.. •k \ •••• ilHnois ..^•>. • •k.:k:% Indiana :,•."...... -k • • • Iowa ?...... ' -k' _ Kansas , -jlr- • .\ • Kentucky -k • Louisiana • Maine. ... .5 + Maryland. K/. .... -k Massachusetts -k Mlehiiian -k • - - ;. • J Minnesota Vt • Mississippi -k' Missouri. .\ .. -^ • Montana -jlr • Nebraska ilr Nevada...... ilr • • New Hampshire i^ New Jersey. ilr New Mexico. 1 -jlr • New York....;..... if North Carolina.... ; -k North Dakota -k • Ohio • Oklahoma. . ^ • Oregon •*• • Pennsylvania. <>. •*• Rhode Island -jlr •k South, Carolina. • -k South Dakota., k Tennessee -k • Texas .. -k • Utah. TT...... • • Vermont -k Virftinia...... • • • Washintiton •*• West Virginia...... • • • Wisconsin -k • Wyoming.... yj-. • • District of Columbia... •*• • Puerto Rico • '^Total! 49 27 11 11 20 38 \- LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 105 RECORD OF PASSAGE OF UNIFORM ACTS-Continued \ AsorOctober 15, 1971 California Colorado Connecticut ... Delaware kentuckjr Louisiana, Maine's, ... Maryland \ Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota - Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada \ .\.. .New Hampshire .A. New Jersey y New Mexico \i,,... .\. New York North Carolina . North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma V Orefton . .\ .... Pennsylvania .: Rhode Island . . . .\ .South Carolina South Dakota ..,, .Tennessee Texas Utah '<.... Vermont Virftinia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming District of Columbia Puerto Rico Total 106 THE BOOK OF THE STATES: RECORD OF. PASSAGE -OF UNIFORM ACTS-Continued , Asof October .15, 1971. 'A -UNIFORM ACTS—Continued^ • f OS &3 2 3 -o c5 I 3 "S^ (")•{- il 3 =1 u •If Stale or other •c"g-^ jurisdiction ' li I a ^ I "-1 Alabama ^ .. .. ' Alaska -k Arizona '.....'.. Arkansas ..;...... CaHfornia. i... ..;. Colorado ;.... i... .. • Co'nnectlcut -k • Delaware Florida • \ Georfiia k Hawaii..... • • • Idaho.... • • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa .. • Kansas ;.....'. -k • >s Kentucky Louisiana.: " .. • Maine • Maryland .. . Massachusetts Michigan *-. Minnesota ... • Mississippi ...... :.>. - .. Missouri Montana -k «... Nebraska.. . .- • Nevada; " • •New Hampshire.V New Jersey ..,^-... New Mexico;....". New York • J- North Carolina • North Dakota .'. :. .• • • Ohio...... :..., • Oklahoma ..•> • Oregon , Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina .: • • South Dakota -.•. Tennessee ...;.,.: • Texas "..."..... Utah..: .., .. .• Vermont \ .. Virftinia .. Washinjtton : W West Yiralnla... • Wiscohsln. ..;... '...... - • • Wyoming District of Columbia • Puerto Rico. .. • - Total:..:..,.,. v.. 7 48 13 1. . J / LEGISLATURES'AJYD LEG-ISLATLON 107 RECORD OF R\SSAGE OF UNIFORM ACTS-Concluded. As of October 15; 1971 ; e^i -UNIFORM ACT'S—Cqndudedr- •fe •fas' • . c to . to •2 S5- •SO 1 •CO, S& I . . : • «-.-.' So i2 *** 5^ Statf or other jurisdiction a ^ Alabama s • Alaska .-. .Arizona Arkansas California .' - ^ Colorado \' ..'.'..;; .Connecticut .Delaware Florida ••••'. Georgia ..Hawaii ..• •,. Idaho • . ^ I • ;;... Illinois .' Indiana ._.,...... Iowa • Kansas Kentucky • ..'...; ,.. .Louisiana '...... Maine : Maryland '.. ;•• Massachusetts ,. .. Michiiian ..'... Minnesota Mississippi ...... : Missouri . . . .Montana ..:.'. Nebraska -. Nevada New Hampshire ....' .\ ...... New jersey , .New Mexico New York '. \\ North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma . . ..: .".... Orefton Pennsylvania Rhode Island ••. \' . .-. . .South Carolina . S', .South Dakota, i V •..-•. 1 V...... Tennessee , Texas Utah , .: ,. .Vermont .Virftinia Washington • .West VlrSinia ...... !...... Wisconsin ... Wyoming District of Columbia J .... .Puerto Rico IS If . ..! ...... ;....»..; ..Total ••"••• •• \,- . " Jrt> <• • >•• €?i, SUGGESTED STATE LEGISLATION, 1971-1972 <&• BY LEO F. KEN.NEDY* f\CH YEAR'siNcE 1941, the Couucil of cernihg the best methods which it has ..State Governments' Committee on found for approaching these problems. E Suggested State Legislatjon has de The content of the bodies of law in veloped a volume of suggested draft bills •^the several States varies widely. Needs and statements on problems of general in differ-and each State needs to determine terest to the States. The volume, 'Sz'/g- its own.public policies. Proposals in Sug gested State Legislation, is widely dis gested State Legislation rmy he enacted tributed to state officials, libraries and virtually intact in a given State or they, others. , ^. may be enacted in such a manner as a The committee is composed of state - State may consider a useful addition to its legislators, legislative service agency per law. Suggestions, of course, are passedv sonnel. Attorneys General, members of .. oyer if a State finds it does not have the Commissions on Interstate Cooperation, problems involved, or that its existing Uniform State Law Officers and other body of law'is satisfactory in the area con state officials.,Members of the committee cerned, or that it prefers anot^ier ap represent their States and are chosen in proach. ' ^ a manner decided by individual States. Although the proposals are no more Proposals for committee consideration than suggestions, they are of necessity are received from individual state officials, drafted in a standardized form. There associations of state officials, committees fore, theyshou.ld be introduced only after of the Council, private organizations and careful consideration-of local conditions. federal agencies. The U.S. Office of Man Existing constitutional and statutory re agement and Budget acts as liaison with quirements in a State'must be examined the committee gathering various propo and the proposed legislation altered, as sals which federal agencies may wish to' needed to fit given situations. call to-the attention of the States. The During the biennium the committee proposals are first reviewed by the Sub initiated a nQ,\v' procedure for the distri committee on Scope and Agenda. If se bution of approved items. The procedure lected by the subcommittee, the i^ems are was initiated pursuant to a motion passed . then submitted for consideration by the by the Council of Sta:te Governments' full committee. When drafts of pr6|5osals Executive Corrimittee at its April 1970 have been prepared,, they are distributed meeting. The Executive Comniittee dis I '-i to members of the full committee in ad-*" cussed in depth the relevancy and impor ' vartce of meetings so that members can tance of many items carried in previous ' review them and consult concerning them volumes of Suggested State Legislation. in their respective States. , The Executive Comrriittee believed that Approval of proposals by the commit the inclusion of trivial matters materially tee does" not constitute a committee rec weakened the volume's impact on legis ommendation that all States adopt the lators. In light of this discussion, it was proposals verbatim. Rather, it indicates siiggested that a "two^^iered" or dual ap recognition that a number of States have proach be developed whereby major ap- problems in certain specific areas and that . proved items would be printed in the. the committee has made suggestions con- annual volume and minor items would simply be distributed tc legislative service ; *Mr. Kennedy is Supervisor, kesearch Division, agencies. Michigan Legislative Service Bureau. "He formerly •5^' wa\ Secretary for the Committee on Suggested Selected proposals of the 1971 and 1972 State Legislation. volumes are summ^itized in. the following t: 108 . ^ LEQISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 109 pag6s. An accompanying table lists, by fee based' on the type and amount of dis major sujbject,-bills and statements pre- charge. Another suggested act provides • sented in the committee's reports for broad state authority to regulate the ap those years. plication and use of pesticides. Further legislation requires licensing of oil trans THE 1971 PROPOSALS ferring facilities and prohibits the dis- Suggested State Legislation, Volume charge of oil' into state waters. XXX, for 1971, consists of 29 proposals The 1971 volume contains two ap accomJDanied by draft legislation and proaches for comprehensive state regula three statements regarding proposals of tion of community, antenna.or cable tele- 'interest to the States generally but with vi§ion (CATV). The approaches are out draft legislation. Five of the measures distinguished primarily by the degree of were drafted by the Advisory Commis state regulation. One approach treats sion on Intergovernmental Relations and CATV companies as public-utilities and I.-. 3-of the proposals were promulgated by . authorizes a state agency to regulate the the National Conference of Commission entry, rates, operating area and service of ers on Uniform State Laws. such companies. The underlying premise The U.S. Supreme Coyrt inHadley v. of the act is that CATV companies are af Junior College District held that the "one fected with a public interest and that they man, one vote" principle applies to popu- should be subject to comprehensive pub 'larly elected local governmental units. lic regulation. The second approach pro One draft in the 1971 volume establishes, vides less stringent state regulation and procedures for the periodic reapportion exempts rates from state regulation. ment of local governmental uniK;s con-^, One suggested draft creates a state , sistent with the Harf/ey decision. agency to-promulgate and enforce pipe Recently there has been a movement line safety regulations. The major prem toward creating legislative compensation ise of "the proposal is that safety problems commissions. At least seven States 1iave inherent in gas transmission warrant full- created such commissions since 1968. A time attention; therefore, the agency is draft contained in the 1971 volume cre free from involvement in rate regulation ates a lay commission to establish legisla and licensing in order to devote entire at tive salaries, per diem expenses and. tention to safety regulation. allowances. R.evie.w of these rates is man Consumer protection is the subject of\ dated at a suggested interval of two years. two drafts. One p intended to curb decep Commission members are appointed'by tive commercial practices in the pronio-. the presiding officers of each hotise and tion and employi^ent of giye-away games the Governor. or games of chance. Key among the act's Initiated by the. Intergovernmental Re provisions is the requirement that a re lations Committee of the National Legis tailer must file with the State a statement lative Conference, a concurrent resolu revealing the number of available prizes, tion in the 1971 volume is offered as one proportionate opportunity of winning, means of establishing a legislative fed >-! game rules, and the time period and geo eral-statefislations focal point. The reso graphic area covered by. the game. An lution suggests.that Legislatures.alterna other aci/iTequires that unit prices be in tively . establish a permanent joint dicated for certain consumer goods in • federal-state relations committee or staff order to aid the buyer in making more a functioning Commission on Interstate meaningful comparisons between differ Cooperation. ent brands of the same item. - Environmental protection is the subject Numerous States have undertaken a , of three drafts. Oneproposal requires any variety of steps to improve assessment person, including muniqpalities and state administration, but most have tended to agencies, to secure a permit befofe dis ignore the need to inform property own charging wastes into public waters. Those ers of assessment standards and the'pro polluting state waters must obtain a non cedure for assessment review and appeal. renewable temporary permiit and pay a One draft provides such procedures by A w 110 -fHE BOOK OF THE STATES requiring. assessors to inform property ture and location of the development. owners of the assessed value of their prop- The authority is required within 14 days . ' erty as it appears on the roll and the latest of receipt of such notification to either assessment ratio findings of the state tax approve the proposed location or sched- . department. Protests would be heard by ule a hearing thereon. the county assessors, local bbards of Further\legislation establishes a'state -^^property tax review or the commissioners •insuranjce guaranty association which is '^^pi the state tax agency. Appeal cpuld be amhori'zed to pay claims against insolvent \ taken from these initial review agencies insurers from funds raised by assessment to the state tax court, of other insurers. The biir focuses on / Another act would establish a two-level property and liability insurance and ex- ' ' : system of property tax organization and empts life and other forms of indirect in- administration. The bill would provide surance. for a state agency with responsibility foiC Based mainly on a .Flofida statute, one assessment supervision and equalization,-^ suggested act authorizes ^the ^Attorney ^assessment of all state-assessed property General to bring action: to revoke the and valuation research. The act would charters of domestic corporations con-• call for the qualification, duties and re-"* trolled by persons engaged in organized sponsibilities of county assessors and re- crime. In addition, similar suits may be lated'personnel, and for local, assessment- initiated to revoke permits of foreign cor districts, local or .county boards of re-view ' porations and to enjoin unincorporated and county boards of equalization. . businesses from unlawful practices. Three drafts deal with housing; One Two proposals in'the 1971 volume deal draft requires state certification of all with public en>ployee labor relations. factory-built housing and components be One'act governs the conduct of public fore such housing may be sold in the erhployee unions, associations and organi State. Once state approval is secured, the. zations. Another act offers two alternate housing is deemed to comply with all lo- approaches to public employer-employee cal building code manufacturing require^ relations. One eticompasses a collective • 1 ments. Another draft creates a state hous negotiations ajpproach and the second ing finance, agency to provide financing : provides the basis for meet -.and co'nfer of Jiousing for lower-iricome families. The in good faith proceedings. agency is empowered lb issue tax exempt . Additional drafts deal with a number . revenue bonds to finance jts activities, of subjects. One draft authorizes public which cover the entire home building bodies to levy assessments on property process including jye-construction, land owners who* benefit from water or waste development, construction and. perma disposal facilities. Another measure re- ' quires a specified state agency to dis «q> nent financing. A third draft enables two or more.local housing authorities to con tribute copies, of state publications to the solidate if the governing bodies of the: Library of Congress. A furthe/ act em local governments included in the area of powers the Federal Deposit Insurance the proposed authority resolve there is a Corporation to be the. receiver or liquida need for consolidation. " ! tor . for closed banks \ insured by the Based upon a Maine statute, one draft corporation. One draft sets uniform stan • offers a procedure by which commercial dards for the manufacture and distri- ' and industrial developments may be lo^ bution of commercial feeds, arid an cated in a manner, which will have a. other proposal complements the federal . .minimal adverse impact on the.natural Packers and Stockyards Act by providing environment. The thrust of the act is the procedures for'ascertaining accurate live- requirement that any person intending to -stock weights. Another suggested act re construct or operate.a development which quires all automotive repair dealers to may substantially affect local environ register with the State'in order to carry \. ment, before commending construction or on lawful business. At the cpre of this operation, shall notify the state authority draft are standards under which the State in writing of such intent and of the na may refuse to validate or invalidate a LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATTON 111 dealer's registration. A final draft pro debt service from tax revenues, the au vides for a State American Revolution Bi thority retires its bonds. centennial Commission to participate pi A >>further act jvould .provide for, the the planning and celebration of this Na creation of a position of public guardian • tion's bicentennial anniversary. to provide free or low-cost guardian and- r- Tlie 1971 volume contairis a statement conservator services for two classes of in which- suggests thait States may wish to dividuals-. First, the public guardian: consider adoption of an automobile pol would be available to serve those persons lution fee: Such a fee would attempt to who have no friends or relatives within levy the cost of air pollution against those the jurisdiction of the court able and . most responsible for it by charging driv-, willing to serve. Second, the public guard ers an amount proportional to the pollu ian would be available to persons whose tion produced by their respective vehicles. income or wealth is inadequate to pro Another statement suggests that States re vide,the requisite compensation to a pri- ; frain from setting terms and conditions of vate guardian, or conservator. local public employment which, are most One draft bill is consistent with the-a^, properly.subject to discussion or negotia 'provisions of Title II of the Uniforn^Re- tion between employers and employees. location Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of .1970 and THE 1972 PROPOSALS ' . would establish within each State a uni Volume XXXI of Suggested State Leg form relocation policy for persons and islation for 1972 contains 27 proposals businesses displaced by state and local accompanied by draft legislation; five programs. A displaced person would be statements regarding'proposals of inter entitled to reimbursement on the loss of est to the States generally; and one inter either (a) actual and reasonable expenses state compact. Twelve of the measures- 'involved in moving himself, his family, Were proposed by the Advisory Commis his business or farm operation. Or other sion on Intergovernmental Relations and personal property, or (b) a fixed payment five of the acts weYe promulgated by the in accordance with a fixed schedule., ,; National Conference of Commissioners Another measure establishes a proce on Uniform State Laws. dure for regulating the location, operij- One measure in the 1972 volume is tion and maintenance of major utility aimed at providing for a smoother guber generation and transmission facilities for ' natorial transition period. The act au reliable, abundant and econornical energy thorizes expenditures by the Governor- supply with due regard for the preserva elect for office spacei staff, services and tion and enhancement,of the environ sup'plies. The proposal assigns to the out ment and conservation of scenic, historic, going Governor .duties in assisting the recreational and other natural resources. Governor-elect and provides the Gover Control of explosives is the subject of nor-elect with aid in revising the budget one draft. The bill is designed to create drafted by the outgoing Governor. a state regulatory framework for all pur One suggested draft WQuld provide for chases, possession and storage of ex establishing a municipal bond author plosives by nonfederal licensees and per ity. The proposal, based upon Vermont mittees, and to legulate the technical r law, provides for an authority w-hich qualifications of all individuals usin^ex- pools a number of small local issues into plosives whether or not they arc subject to a single state-sponsored issue backed by Title Xrof-the,.Organized Crime Control- the tax levying powers of'^Ibcal govern Act of 1970. «' -•-- : I . mental units and a reserve fund. After the A draft bill on liability for pipeline ex-^, authority has.assembled a group of local plosions^appears in the volume. The pro issues, it sells an issue equal to the total posal provides that any owner, operator, amount of the local issues, plus a sum for or lessee Whose.pipeline facility is in a . the reserve fund. With the proceeds of its defective"cohdition is liable for injury to: bonds', the authority buys.thelocal bonds. any individual and 'for diamage to the As the local goyernmental units pay their property of any individual. The act places / m \ : .1 1 112 THE BOOK OF THE STATES on'the ga^ company a standard orstrict in the performance of their duties liif any liability Avith. the-presumption of tne ex criminal matter throughout the State, anj^ istence of defects, in •the pipeline facili to provide services of a special nature to ties by the ocGiyr^^nce^of the explosion. local law enforcement agencies withiri the Also, it gives'persons who su^er pefs "^ LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 113 waive any requirement for education and visions of the Model Residential Land training if it is determined that the appli lord-Tenant Code prepared by the Ameri- cant obtained equivalent qualifications •can Bar Foundation are summarized in. -while serving in the Armed Forces. A fur another-statement. A further statement ther proposal enables trustees, savings contains a number of revisions for the banks, building and loan associations, in State Air Pollution Control Act which was surance companies and other investors of carried in Suggested State Legislation for a fiduciary character to invest in obliga 1967. The amendments would serve to tions of the United States Postal Service.. reconcile the act with the Clean Air Act An ai^ditional measure authorizes absent of 1970. And, an additional statement tee voting by members of the Artned calls attention to an updated version of Forces, the merchant marine, citizens tem the State Public. Labor-Management Re porarily residing abroad and their fami lations Act which appeared in the 19.71 lies. ' volume. y- • The 1972 volume also contains a num The Interstate Corrections Compact, ber of statements on a variety of topics. included in the 1972 volume, enables One calls attention to assistance which member States to make contracts for co may be obtained from the U.S. Depart operative care^ treatment and refiabilita- ment of Housing and Urban Develop tion of offenders sentenced to or confined ment in preparation of legislation dealing in prisons or other correctional institu with development'of new communities, tions. Each member State may make one public housing and urban renewal boridis, or more contracts with any one or more of tenant membership on local housing au the other member States for the confine thorities, and elimination of specific dol ment of inmates of a sending State in insti lar limits for admission to public housing. tutions situated within . the receiving Another statement identifies the key pro States. The compact was drafted for the - visions which are needed for land-use Association of State Correctional Admin- ' 'I -I "SA ' •; 0 PROPOSALS OF THE COMMITTEE /ON SUGGESTED STATE LEGISLATION Volumes XXX and XXXI 1971 proposals are in roman type; 1972 proposals are in italics. So77Je titles are abbreviated. STATE GOVERNMENT CENERALLV 1, Absentee Votjn 7. Omnibus Prosecution At 2". Assessment Notification, Review and Appeal 8. Pipeline Safety Agency Procedure | 9. Property Tax Organization and Administra S. Gubernatorial ^Transition tion ,4. Judicial Constitutional Article . 10. State Department of Correction Act 5. Legislative Coi^ipcnsation Commission 11. State-Federal Relations Stafling 6. Omnibus Judicial Act ' CIVIL-LAW AND RIGHTS \> Landlord-Tendnt^Code* 2. Public Guardian -X I LOCAL GOVERN.\!E.\T AND URBAN AFFAIRS ijl. .Assessment, for Water or ^Vaste Disposal Fa 0. Model Relocation Assistance Act ; • • Cihtics jv 6. Municipal Bond'Autliority Certification of Factory-lniilt Housing 7. Site Location of Commercial Developments Consolidation of Local Mousing .Authorities 8. State Housing and Urban Development^ Local Government Reapportiomnent 9. State Housing Finance Agency PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT • Criminally Operated Businesses.— 6. Minimum Police Seivices. in Metropolitan Expanded State Services to Local Laiv Enforce Anas . ^' : , • -^^ . ment Agencies 7. Model State Explosives Act , Independent County Police Forces andMod- 8. Pipeline Liability evnizcd Sheriffs' Departments 9. Rural Police Protection Act Interstate Corrections Comfyact 10. Special Police Task Forces \. i^ Intrastate -Extraterritorial Police Powers 11. Upgrading Police Personnel Prattices . ^ HEALTH .VND EDUCATION Licensing of Former, Armed Forces Health 2. State Publications to Library of Congress Technicians CO.MMERCE, LNDUSTRY AND/LABOR 1. Authorizing Investment in Obligations of tlie 7. Liquidation of Closed Banks U.S. Postal Service: 8. State Community .Antenna Television .Act 2. Automotive Repair Dealer Registration 9. State Slandating of Local Employment Con 3. Consumer Information .Act ditions* 4. Games of Chance 10, State~~PuijHc Labor-Management Relations 5. Insiirahoe Company insolvency ~- -^^ Act • ^•~--^..,^^ 6. Iniernal Conduct of Public Employee Organi 11. State Public- LabM^Ianagement Relations zations • Act* >x NATUR.\L RESOURCES AND .AGRICULTURE 1. Automobile Pollution Fees* \ . 6. State Air Pqllutioh Control Act Amendment* 2. Land Use Plajming Legislation* - 7. State Livestock Weighmaster Liceiising Act 3. Oil Discharge Control >• 8. Utility EnvironmentaiProtection Ah 4. Pesticide Use and .Application Act 9. Uniform Feed Bill " ,'"'^ - , ' 5., State Acceptance of Legislative Jurisdiction 10. Water Pollution F«es . Relinquished ky the U.S. • MISCELLANEOUS L American Revolution Bicentennial Commis sion • -V • ' . UNIFORM LAWSf • . . Model Escheat of Postal Savings System Ac- • 5. Uniform Jury-Selection and Service Act counts AcU 6. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act Model Public Defender"Act 7. Uniform Minor Student,Capacity-to Borrow Revised Uniform Adoption Act Act • . ' ' , • Uniform Controlled Substances Aj 8. Uniform Probate Code* *hidicatcs statement only; no suggested legislation carried. fPromulgated by the National Coqference of Commissioners on I'niform State Laws. 114