DOCSLIB.ORG

Section II LEGISLATURES and F LEGISLATION 1 .Legislative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section II LEGISLATURES and F LEGISLATION 1 .Legislative •• 1 Section II LEGISLATURES AND f LEGISLATION ii •••:-•• •. • • , ,, • • 1 .Legislative Organization and Services 2. Legisl-ation V ^ 55- «;» >^ -^ V. 3CP Legislative Drganization; and Services TURE AND PROCEDURES BY HERBERT L. WILTSEE* F STATE legislatures have been the for­ apportionment issue has waned.,Several gotten or ignored brahch of govern­ new national programs, with appreciable I ment during the past generation or support from foundations, came into two, as many believe, that was conspicu­ existence in 1964^-65 to arouse and sustain ously not the case in 1962-65. It. is appor­ interest in representative lawmaking tionment, primarily, that has occasioned bodies, to stimulate needed research in this revival of attention. aspects of the legislative process, and to Apportionment was spotlighted on encourage adoption of needed changes. March 26, 1962, when the United States Notable in this connection is the Citizens Supreine Court rendered its decision in Conference on State Legislatures; another Baker'v. Carr (369 U.S. 186). It has com­ is the American Assembly (of Columbia manded public attention ever since as University) series of conferences on state judicial, legislative and" administrative legislatures, scheduled for inauguration actions have effected alterations in legis­ in 1966. The National Municipal League,"* lative districts, and as the voters have sponsor of the American Assembly confer­ elected reapportioned lawmaking bodies. ences, also has inaugura*: id a periodical In view of the remarkable speed with State Legislatures Progress Reporter as which state legislative reapportionment, part of its State Legislatures Project, had taken place by the close of 1965—es­ launched.in 1965. pecially remarkable since a new "round" Several constitutional conventions or of reapportioning activity was set off on constitutional revision commissions in a June 15, l'S64, with the Supreme Court's number of states have been or are to be ruling in Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533) convened, and they will focus attention that districts for both houses of a state on changes in legislative provisions. States legislature should be constructed ". as now involved in such revision programs nearly of equal population as is practi­ include California, Connecticut, Florida, cable. .,."—it appears likely that reappor­ Idaho, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, tionment along basically "one man, one Rhode Island, Tennessee and Utah. Po­ vote" lines will have become an accom­ litical scientists in recent years have plished reality in most states by the close been developing new techniques of analy­ of the 1966-67 biennium. sis and investigation, and these have be­ There are indications, however, that come productive of findings that will our. state legislatures niay continue, to assist in strengthening the legislatures. An receive greater public attention in the outstanding work in this connection is M • coming years, even after interest iii the the volume by William J. Keefe and Mor­ ris S. Ogul, The American Legislative •Mr. wiltsee is Director of the Southern Office of the Council of State Governments and Secretary Process—Congress and the States (1964). of the National Legislative Coriference. Most significant, perhaps, is the action 37 ^ 0 V, 38 THE BOOK OF THE STATES of the past biennium by a large rriajority time inthis or the preceding century that . of the legislatures themselves in initiating this will have been the case. reexaminations of the legislative process. Litigation has involved reapportion­ Such studies were going on at the end of ment in the vast majority of states. As 1965, according to a preliminary report 1965 ended, there were only four states of the Citizens Conference on State Legis­ whose redistricting had not been sub­ latures, in a total of thirty-one of the jected to or actually accomplished by states. It is noteworthy that in many of court action: Alaska, Kentucky (whose these states new legislators from reappor­ 1963 reapportionmient in special session tioned districts have made common cause narrowly averted a suit), Maine and with veteran legislators in deploring the South Dakota. Oregon belonged to this lack of public awareness and appreciation select group until December, 1965, when of the law;makers' tasks, and in urging a suit was filed, by residents of eastern studies that can lead to needed improve- • Multnomah County, alleging discrimina­ ments. A new member of Illinois' "blue tion. ribbon" House of Representatives in 1965 Apportionment plans based on popula­ seemed to capsule the thinking of most tion, as of January 1, 1966, either, were freshman legislators when he stated that used in the last pr are available for use he was "appalled by the conditions under in the next election in a total of forty which we have to work." The basic needs states, according to a National Municipal of most legislatures, certain to be under­ League survey. Some of these have re- , lined by many of the studies now under ceived only provisional court approval, way, were summarized by a long-time ob­ and later changes will be required. The server of the Montana legislature as; 1) remaining ten states either faced court decent offices, meeting rooms and other challenges (Louisiana and Mississippi), physical facilities; 2) a reasonable level or were under orders to apportion or were of compensation; 3) more time for ade­ to see alternative action take place (Ha­ quate consideration of the budget and waii, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North legislation; and 4) more help, to gather Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and analyze factual data as a basis for and South Carolina). decisions. The rapidly unfolding reapportion­ • • 1 • '. ' '^ • •• " . ment developments in 1962 and after APPORTIONMENT have been reported periodically and at When an article corresponding to this length by two national organizations—the was written in late 1963 for the preceding Council of State Governments and the edition of The Book of the States, there National Municipal League. These re­ were only twelve states whose legislatures porting services group apportionment had not been reapportioned sinc6 the activities into two periods: ^ (1) from decennial census of 1960. By the close of Baker v. Carr (March, 1962) to Reynolds 1965 that figure had dropped tq three: v. Sims (June, 1964), when twenty-eight Minnesota, where a 1965. reapportion­ states reapportioned at least one house, , ment was vetoed and the entire legislature relying in most cases on population for will run at lafge in 1966 unless a special one house and on other factors, including session or the court promulgates a plan; area, in,the other; (2) since Reynolds and Pennsylvania, where the State Supreme companion cases announced the "one Court has assmned the task ofVedistrict- man, one vote" criterion. ihg, the legislature having been, unable In the year and a half since the Reyn­ to agree on a plan; and Rhode Island, olds decision: where a legislative commission was cre­ • twenty-four states haVe reapportioned ated in 1965 to supervise a state census one or both houses by legislative action and propose a plan of apportionment for (in eight,,court tests are pending); the 1966 session. Thus it appears likely • five had one or both houses reappor­ that within six or seven years of a decen­ tioned by boards, commissions or similar A nial censusj all of the legislatures will means (Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois House, have been reapportioned-^urely the first Michigan,. Ohio—but Michigan's 1964 •' ' I «3) LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 39 action was invalidated in late 1965); large against the "field," but in a. few » • seven had one or both houses reappor­ (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia and Oregon) tioned by courts (Alabama House, Illinois providing that candidates declare for a Senate, Montana, North Dakota, Okla­ particular numbered post or seat. Of homa, Wisconsin, Wyoming Senate); widespread interest as this is written is • five which reapportioned froni 1961 the Federal District Court decision: in through early 1964 appear to face no im­ Swann V. Adams (Southern. District of mediate . court problem (Kentucky, Florida, December 23, 1965) upholding . Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, West Vir­ a section of a multi-member district pro­ ginia) ; - . - vision in Florida's 1965 reapportionment • two, reapportioned in 1963, Louisiana act. This contested section (Section I (5), ; and Mississippi, currently face litigation; HB 19, Second Special Session, 1965) prtf- , • four are expected to see legislative ac­ vides that no two Senators in a multi- tion in early 1966, three undei: court county, multi-Senator district shall reside order (Kansas, North Carolina, Rhode in the same county until each county in Island, South Carolina); the district has a Senator residin^j^herein, • five face other problems: Minnesota although all voters in the multi-county and Pennsylvania mentioned above; district elect all such Senators. Hawaii, whose 1965 legislative action was The use of "weighted votes"—assigning invalidated, and an order was given by variable numerical values to the votes of federal court for a constitutional conven­ the various members of a legislative body,- tion to act in time for 1966 sessions; to reflect differing sizes of constituencies Idaho, whose 1965 special session appor­ —has been considered. This approach tionment of both houses was invalidated, was suggested by courts as ai temporary in December; and Missouri, where an expedient in cases involving Maryland October 1965 special session proposed an (1962) and Washington (1964; but in this amendment that was approved by the case the court later withdrew the sugges­ voters in mid-January 1966, providing tion). Legislatures in six or eight states for a bipartisan commission to reappor­ have considered but did not act on tion the House of Representatives. weighted voting plans. Courts have in­ In the search for new patterns of appor­ validated variants of weighted voting in tionment, various issues have arisen. The five states: Mississippi and Oklahoma in use of iiiulti-member districts. to elect 1962; New Mexico and New Jersey in part of the membership of a house is one 1964; and New York iii 1965.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Constitution Article I ARTICLE II
    Preamble We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. ARTICLE I. STATE BOUNDARIES 1. Designation of boundaries The boundaries of the State of Arizona shall be as follows, namely: Beginning at a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, as fixed by the Gadsden Treaty between the United States and Mexico, being in latitude thirty-two degrees, twenty-nine minutes, forty-four and forty-five one- hundredths seconds north and longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, forty-eight minutes, forty-four and fifty-three one -hundredths seconds west of Greenwich; thence along and with the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico in a southeastern direction to Monument Number 127 on said boundary line in latitude thirty- one degrees, twenty minutes north; thence east along and with said parallel of latitude, continuing on said boundary line to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred nine degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one-hundredths seconds west, being identical with the southwestern corner of New Mexico; thence north along and with said meridian of longitude and the west boundary of New Mexico to an intersection with the parallel of latitude thirty-seven degrees north, being the common corner of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico; thence west along and with said parallel of latitude and the south boundary of Utah to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one- hundredths seconds west, being on the east boundary line of the State of Nevada; thence south along and with said meridian of longitude and the east boundary of said State of Nevada, to the center of the Colorado River; thence down the mid-channel of said Colorado River in a southern direction along and with the east boundaries of Nevada, California, and the Mexican Territory of Lower California, successively, to the place of beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • "Opportunities for South Dakota" Report
    Opportunities for South Dakota Office of the Executive Director June 2003 Message from the Executive Director Armed with these issues during roundtables and other information about discussions with the Regents and its leadership. long-term The Regents’ partners in education, those in the demographic K-12 community, have been willing participants shifts taking place in multiple discussions. These have included in South Dakota, meetings with the South Dakota Board of the Board of Education, school leadership groups, the state’s Regents initiated a teachers, and several local school boards. discussion in Obviously, there are many others who might have March 2002 been consulted. Nonetheless, the variety of about South backgrounds of those involved has provided a solid Dakota’s future base for understanding the critical issues. educational opportunities. Linked to ever-present This report offers a synthesis of many ideas conversations about maximizing resource and opportunities. With continued examination investments in state services, including higher and dialogue, these ideas may make a difference education and the special schools, along with in long-term policy and actions. Hopefully, questions about how South Dakota would somewhere within the context of the 14 respond to changes in the national and opportunities identified, there is sufficient room international economy, this dialogue became an to address any substantive policy item that arises. opportunity to think more about where we are and where we might go. This is not a plan or roadmap for South Dakota regental policy and action. It is a tool, At the Regents’ direction, the Executive however, for continuing the review and Director was tasked with preparing a report on development of ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Legislature Details
    Alabama Legislature WHERE IS THE ALABAMA STATE HOUSE LOCATED? The Alabama State House is located at 11 South Union Street in Montgomery. The House of Representatives chamber is on the 5th floor and the public viewing gallery for the House is located on the 6th floor. The Alabama Senate chamber is on the 7th floor and the public viewing gallery for the Senate is located on the 8th floor. WHAT ABOUT LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS? The 2021 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature will convene on February 2. The Legislature convenes in regular annual sessions on the first Tuesday in February, except (1) in the first year of the four-year term, when the session will begin on the first Tuesday in March, and (2) in the last year of a four-year term, when the session will begin on the second Tuesday in January. The length of the regular session is limited to 30 meeting days within a period of 105 calendar days. There are usually two meeting or “legislative” days per week, with other days devoted to committee meetings. Special sessions of the Legislature may be called by the Governor, with the Proclamation listing the subjects which the Governor wishes considered. These sessions are limited to 12 legislative days within a 30 calendar day span. In a regular session, bills may be enacted on any subject. In a special session, legislation must be enacted only on those subjects which the Governor announces in his proclamation or “call.” Anything not in the “call” requires a two-thirds vote of each house to be enacted Every four years (quadrennium), the members of the House and Senate must reorganize the Legislature, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Nevada Legislative Manual: Chapter I—Members of the Nevada Legislature
    LEGISLATIVE MANUAL CHAPTER I MEMBERS OF THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE MANUAL BIOGRAPHIES OF MEMBERS OF THE NEVADA SENATE LEGISLATIVE BIOGRAPHY — 2019 SESSION LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE KATE MARSHALL Democrat Born: 1959 – San Francisco, California Educated: University of California, Berkeley, B.A., Political Science/English; University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, J.D. Married: Elliott Parker Children: Anna, Molly Hobbies/Special Interests: Hiking, family sporting events LEGISLATIVE SERVICE Served in 1 Regular Session Years in Senate: First elected Lieutenant Governor, November 2018 President of the Senate, 2019 to Current Page 5 LEGISLATIVE BIOGRAPHY — 2019 SESSION KELVIN D. ATKINSON Democrat Senate District 4 Clark County (part) Small Business Owner Born: 1969 – Chicago, Illinois Educated: Culver City High School; Howard University, Washington, D.C.; University of Nevada, Las Vegas Children: Haley Hobbies/Special Interests: Reading, watching the Raiders and Lakers, studying politics, traveling LEGISLATIVE SERVICE Served in 9 Regular Sessions and 12 Special Sessions Years in Assembly: November 2002 to November 2012 Years in Senate: November 2012 to Current Leadership: Assembly Senior Chief Deputy Whip, 2011 Senate Co-Minority Whip, 2015 and 2015 Special Session Senate Assistant Minority Floor Leader, 2016 Special Session Senate Assistant Majority Floor Leader, 2017 Senate Majority Leader, 2019 Legislative Commission: 2013; 2015; 2017 Interim Finance Committee: 2011 Assembly Committees: Commerce and
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Montana Legislative Scorecard
    MONTANA LEGISLATIVE 2007 SCORECARD Support Conservation Politics With Your Gift Montana Conservation Voters’ mission is to elect conservation candidates, hold elected officials accountable and educate and activate voters on a wide range of conservation and environmental issues. This scorecard is central to that mission. By providing concrete information on how your legislator voted on conservation bills, MCV helps you choose whom to sup- port in upcoming elections and whom to hold accountable. MCV is a grassroots organization – which means we need you! Please consider becoming a member of Montana Con- servation Voters or increasing your contribution amount to help support the publication and distribution of this scorecard. Membership in MCV brings many benefits – check them out at www.mtvoters.org. Please read this scorecard and then take action. Talk to your neighbors, friends and family about how the legislature af- fects Montana’s quality of life – our clean air and water, open spaces, wildlife and public health. Become a member of MCV and ask them to do the same. Make your voice heard and your vote count! PO Box 63 NON-PROFIT Billings, MT 59103 US POSTAGE PAID [email protected] BILLINGS, MT www.mtvoters.org PERMIT #63 www.mtvoters.org [email protected] (SNAPSHOT CONT.) Though citizens don’t often sue over agency MEPA decisions (lawsuits under MEPA have been filed only 39 times out of over 39,000 state actions that have been reviewed under MEPA in 36 years), Lange still erupted with an- gry rhetoric at the close of a hearing on his bill. “I’m sick and tired of people that are paid to stand up here and go to court and obstruct facilities just because they don’t like it,” he said.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Candidates, State and Local Ballot Measures, Political
    2011 Corporate Political Contributions The following candidates, state and local ballot measures, political parties and other committees received corporate campaign contributions from Sempra Energy in 2011: Candidate/ Committee/ Organization Party Office Sought Total Abed, Sam N/A Mayor, City of Escondido $530.00 Achadjian, Katcho REP California State Assembly $3,000.00 Adams, Steve N/A City Council, City of Riverside $500.00 Aguinaga, Louie N/A Mayor, City of South El Monte $300.00 Alejo, Luis DEM California State Assembly $1,000.00 Allen, Michael DEM California State Assembly $1,000.00 Anderson, Joel REP California State Senate $1,500.00 Arakawa, Alan N/A Mayor, County of Maui $1,000.00 Atkins, Toni DEM California State Assembly $3,000.00 Azevedo, Kathy N/A Mayor Pro Tem, City of Norco $300.00 Bates, Pat N/A County Supervisor, County of Orange $500.00 Berryhill, Bill REP California State Senate $2,000.00 Berryhill, Tom REP California State Senate $3,000.00 Block, Marty DEM California State Assembly $3,900.00 Block, Marty DEM California State Senate $1,000.00 Blumenfield, Bob DEM California State Assembly $2,000.00 Bocanegra, Raul DEM California State Assembly $1,950.00 Bonilla, Susan DEM California State Assembly $2,600.00 Botts, Bob N/A City Council, City of Banning $99.00 Bradford, Steven DEM California State Assembly $7,800.00 Brandman, Jordan N/A City Council, City of Anaheim $250.00 Bric, Gary N/A City Council, City of Burbank $250.00 Broome, Sharon DEM Louisiana State Senate $500.00 Buchanan, Joan DEM California State Assembly
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Sen. Angus S. King Ten Comparisons, Then &
    4. Sen. Angus S. King Ten Comparisons, Then & Now October 17, 2013 Introduction ngus King’s career richly reflects Maine’s long tradition of civic leaders who combine a suc- cessful business career with major contributions toA public service. In the 1980s and early ’90s, we re- member him as host of MaineWatch, a weekly public television program that probed political and policy matters in Augusta and Washington. After the shutdown of Maine State government in 1991 and the hardening of partisanship in Augusta, he ran and won the gover- norship as an independent, pledging to work for bipar- tisan solutions to public issues. In eight years as the State’s Chief Executive, he succeeded in a broad range of areas. His administration oversaw the largest acquisition of conservation easements on private lands of any state in the nation. Maine became a leader in the use of the Internet to provide citizens with new ways to access State agencies for services and assistance. His successful effort to provide laptops for all middle school students placed Maine at the forefront nationally in integrating computers into public school instruction. During part of this period, the Maine Senate was Republican-controlled while the House was led by Democrats. The two chambers had widely differing ideas about the role of government and, especially, the content of the State budget. Still, Governor King was able to work successfully across party lines. As Michael Michaud, one of the two Senate leaders at that time and now Maine’s 2nd District Congressman said, “Governor King was one who could bring both sides together effectively.” The message of his time in Augusta seems to have in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • 110Th Congress New Member Pictorial Directory
    P!"#$!"% &' ()" C*++,(("" *- H*./" A%+,-,/(!$(,*- New Member Pictorial Directory Prepared under the direction of THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION V"! -*- E)0"!/, C)$,! +$- | J.$-,($ M,00"-%"!-M1D*-$0%, R $-2,-3 M"+&"! N E W M E M B E R P I C T O R I A L D I R E C T O R Y A R I Z O N A A R I Z O N A Democrat — 5 Democrat — 8 Harry E. Gabrielle MITCHELL GIFFORDS RESIDENCE: Tempe, Arizona RESIDENCE: Tucson, Arizona EDUCATION: Arizona State U., B.A. 1962 EDUCATION: Scripps College, B.A. Sociology (political science); M.P.A. 1980 and Latin American History; Cornell University, Master of PROFESSION: High school teacher; college Regional Planning; Fulbright instructor Scholar POLITICAL CAREER: Tempe City Council, 1970-78; PROFESSION: Small Business Owner mayor of Tempe, 1978-1994; sought Democratic nomination POLITICAL CAREER: Arizona House of Representatives for superintendent of public 2000-2002; Arizona Senate instruction, 1994; Ariz. Senate, 2003-2005 1999-2006 (assistant minority leader, 2005-2006); Ariz. Democratic Party chairman, 2005-2006 Page 1 C A L I F O R N I A C A L I F O R N I A Democrat — 11 Republican — 22 Jerry M. Kevin O. MCNERNEY MCCARTHY RESIDENCE: Pleasanton, California RESIDENCE: Bakersfield, California EDUCATION: Ph.D. in Mathematics from the EDUCATION: Undergraduate and Masters in University of New Mexico Business Administration from California State University, PROFESSION: Wind Energy Businessman Bakersfield POLITICAL CAREER: Democratic Nominee for U.S. PROFESSION: Business Owner; District Director, House 2004 Congressman Bill Thomas POLITICAL CAREER: Calfornia State Assemblyman; Assembly Republican Leader Page 2 N E W M E M B E R P I C T O R I A L D I R E C T O R Y C O L O R A D O C O L O R A D O Republican — 5 Democrat — 7 Doug Edwin G.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Montana Legislative Services Division Montana Legislative
    PO BOX 201706 Helena, MT 59620-1706 Montana Legislative Services Division (406) 444-3064 FAX (406) 444-3036 LegalMontana Services Legislative Office Services Division TO: Districting and Apportionment Commission FROM: K. Virginia Aldrich, Staff Attorney RE: Litigation Background and Districting and Apportionment Criteria DATE: May 31, 2020 This memorandum was prepared as background information for the Districting and Apportionment Commission (Commission), and it does not represent any opinion or action on the part of the Commission. I. Introduction and Important Deadlines The U.S. Constitution provides that an "actual Enumeration" of the population must be made every ten years under provisions set by Congress.1 Under federal law, the Secretary of Commerce is commanded to "take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April" every ten years.2 Thus, April 1, 2020, is officially designated Census Day, the date that determines who is counted and where each person is counted. As a result, seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are apportioned to the states based on the census, and the federal government uses census numbers to help allocate federal funds. By law, the U.S. Census Bureau must complete and report the total population count by state to the U.S. President within nine months after Census Day.3 Within a week of the opening of the 117th Congress4, the President must transmit to Congress a statement showing the total population in each state and the number of congressional representatives to which each state is entitled.5 P.L. 94-171 redistricting data must be reported to the "Governor of the State involved and the officers or public bodies having responsibility for legislative apportionment or districting of such State" within one year after the census date.
    [Show full text]
  • Accountability Report
    Accountability Report Summer 2007 Policy Goal #1: Access: Every qualified South Dakotan shall have access to public postsecondary education. Policy Goal #2: Quality: South Dakota public universities and special schools shall provide a quality educational experience. Policy Goal #3: State Wealth: South Dakota public universities shall engage in activities designed to enhance the state’s long–term economy. Policy Goal #4: Efficiencies: South Dakota public universities and special schools shall continue to seek means for improving efficiency in the delivery of educational services. * Information in this publication was produced by Regents Information Systems unless otherwise noted. 1 Accountability Report 2006-2007 Policy Goal #1: Access: Every qualified South Dakotan shall have access to public postsecondary education. 1. Strengthen the connection of universities in the preparation for postsecondary education in the K-12 community. 2. Educate a greater proportion of high school graduates and the adult working population. 3. Increase retention and graduation rates. 2 Public higher education recognizes that Access curriculum delivery today must respond to the state's changing environment. Strategies are focused on K-12 preparation, non-traditional students, and improved retention and graduation rates. System Enrollment • Enrollment has continued to grow steadily. System Enrollment Fall Total Head Count Enrollment 30,720 30,901 29,533 29,716 29,844 28,446 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Retention • Emphasis is placed on the importance of retaining
    [Show full text]
  • Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance
    Maine Policy Review Volume 29 Issue 2 Maine's Bicentennial 2020 Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance Don Nicoll [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Nicoll, Don. "Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance." Maine Policy Review 29.2 (2020) : 34 -38, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol29/iss2/5. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. ART OF GOVERNANCE Ed Muskie, Political Parties, and the Art of Governance by Don Nicoll creating parties, recreating them, dumping Abstract some and building others, and struggling In its 200-year history as a state, Maine has gone through three major political for power continues today, with credible realignments and is now in the midst of a fourth. The Jefferson Democratic Re- fears about the viability of our representa- publicans supplanted the Federalists to achieve statehood. The Republican Par- tive democracy. ty dominated state politics from the eve of the Civil War until 1954. The Maine The year 2020, the bicentennial of Democratic Party, under the leadership of Edmund S. Muskie and Frank Coffin, the creation of the state of Maine, may be transformed it into a competitive two-party state. Now the goals of open, re- another seminal year in the political life of sponsive, and responsible governance that Muskie and Coffin sought through the United States and the survival of healthy competition and civil discourse are threatened by bitter, dysfunctional representative democracy.
    [Show full text]