ALEC and the Battle of the States

Right Wing & Corporate Ascendancy:

The Challenge for Progressive Collaboration Sources for this report include:

Defenders of Wildlife & National Resources Defense Council 2002 report, Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States: The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Council;

People For the American Way Foundation’s Right Wing Watch;

National Education Association 1998 report, The Real Story Behind ‘Paycheck Protection:’ The Hidden Line Between Anti-Worker and Anti-Public Education Initiatives: An Anatomy of the Far Right;

David Callahan, “Clash in the States,” The American Prospect, (June 18, 2001);

Web sites and materials from the American Legislative Exchange Council, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Council for State Governments, Heritage Foundation, National Council of State Legislatures, National Governors’ Association, National Institute for Money in State Politics, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, State Policy Network and member conservative policy think tanks;

Individual states’ Web sites;

www.stateline.org, The Nation, American Prospect, and numerous media outlets;

Emails and conversations with secretaries of state and legislative staff members in various states.

Copyright © 2003 People For the American Way ALEC and the Battle of the States

Right Wing & Corporate Ascendancy:

The Challenge for Progressive Collaboration

Prepared by Anita F. Gottlieb January 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 5

POST-NOVEMBER 5, 2002: THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE STATES ...... 9

REPUBLICAN VICTORIES; RIGHT-WING TRIUMPHS OVER MODERATES...... 9 TURNOVER OF STATE LEGISLATORS ...... 11 Term Limits...... 11 Redistricting...... 12 FINANCING STATE RACES...... 13 THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IN THE STATES...... 15

LIKELY TARGET STATES FOR DEFENSIVE BATTLES ...... 15 THE FISCAL CRISIS IN THE STATES ...... 17 POLICY MAKING IN THE STATES ...... 18 Media Vacuum...... 18 Part-Time Legislators...... 19 NETWORK OF RIGHT-WING STATE POLICY THINK TANKS...... 20 AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC)...... 23

“PAY TO PLAY”...... 23 ALEC PRIORITY ISSUES ...... 25 Privatization ...... 25 Anti-Environmental Regulation ...... 25 Anti-Worker and Anti-Union ...... 26 Tort “Reform” and Judicial Activism...... 26 Reduce Taxes and the Size of Government ...... 26 CRITICAL BUDGET BATTLES...... 28 THE PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGE...... 29

LIST OF APPENDICES...... 31

OREWORD

F Throughout its history, People For the American Way has consistently sounded the alarm about the increasingly powerful influence of the religious right and the network of right-wing policy and political organizations that have made building a base in the states a high priority. At no time has the cause for alarm been greater, as what once were extremist voices on the fringes of the public debate now occupy leadership positions in state capitals across the country, as well as in Washington, D.C. In 2002, Defenders of Wildlife and the National Resources Defense Council released a report that gave added focus to the corporate role in the right-wing infrastructure, Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States: The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This exposé aimed to “shine the public spotlight on a corrosive, secretive and highly influential power in state capitals.” It illuminated the stark contrast between the public interest and the corporate special interests that operate through ALEC.

Founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, ALEC’s early years were dominated by social issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion rights, school prayer and D.C. voting rights in Congress. Christian fundamentalism continues to be a galvanizing force for many ALEC legislators, but the extensive expansion of ALEC’s model legislation is a direct measure of growing corporate influence. As the Trojan Horse report makes clear, ALEC, which purports to be “the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators” is, in practice, a way for corporations to funnel money through a tax-exempt organization to:

• Create model state legislation and supporting documentation through task forces where corporate representatives not only have an equal voice to the legislators, but also have a veto; and,

• Finance and/or heavily subsidize trips primarily for Republican state legislators and their families to prime tourist destinations for events with corporate sponsors.

The confluence of corporate and right-wing agendas, when coupled with the ascendancy of their political power in the states, poses a dire threat to the progress

1 made in the last 30 years in the arenas of civil rights, environmental protection, reproductive rights, economic justice, health care, education and workers’ rights. ALEC is not only the centerpiece of the Right’s well-coordinated attempt to enact that agenda in the states; it also plays a key role in their strategy to inject radical ideas into national policy debates.

Progressives need a collaborative and equally coordinated effort to successfully counter ALEC’s influence, expose its corporate and right-wing ties, and defeat dangerous proposals launched by this “common enemy.” We commissioned this report by Anita F. Gottlieb, who has extensive experience working with policy development and legislative leaders across the states, as part of our efforts to catalyze increased collaboration among progressive national organizations and our allies on the front lines in the states.

This report only briefly summarizes the ALEC profile detailed in Trojan Horse. It attempts to take the next step and inform progressives’ strategies to counter ALEC by further illuminating the current political context in which ALEC and its allies are operating and by highlighting current ALEC policy priorities.

One context is the steady trend toward Republican hegemony in the states. In 2003, Republicans hold more state legislative seats than Democrats for the first time in over 50 years. However, partisan control does not tell the full story. In many states, the alarming trend is the defeat of moderate candidates by right-wing-supported opponents who, once elected, are making radical inroads into state policy debates on a broad range of issues.

ALEC’s power can only be understood when viewed within the context of the well- coordinated network of right wing think tanks with which they share a free-market, anti-government ideology. Indeed, ALEC is the corporate-funded pivotal point where this network—ranging from national organizations like the Heritage Foundation to state-based think tanks that comprise the State Policy Network— connects with state legislators who can enact the right-wing agenda into laws and regulations in each state. Peeling back the layers of this interconnected infrastructure

2 in the states is the only way to understand the “echo chamber” effect that has contributed so significantly to their success.

The time is right for progressive forces to come together to expose and counter the deceptive and insidious work of the American Legislative Exchange Council. It is, indeed, time to hold this group, and its members, accountable for the greater public interest.

Ralph G. Neas Rodger Schlickeisen President President People For the American Way Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund

3

NTRODUCTION

I On the morning of November 6, 2002, most Washington progressives’ first conscious thought was that the Democrats had lost the US Senate and that now Congress and the Presidency both were in Republican hands for the first time in many decades. Particularly because of the right-wing influence of the Republican leadership, they feared the dire consequences this could have on the progressive agenda.

But something else happened on November 5, 2002. And that “something else,” when considered in the context of the dramatically increased role that states have taken on in the past two decades, could have as great an effect on every American and on our political, economic, and natural environment as will the political change in Washington.

When state legislatures are organized in 2003, Republicans will hold more legislative seats than Democrats for the first time since 1952.1 Republicans will control both houses of more state legislatures than will the Democrats. Republican governors will occupy state mansions in more states than will Democrats.2 Republicans will control both legislative houses and the governor’s office in more states than will Democrats.

Shifting power to the states is part of the broad right-wing effort to turn back the clock on advances made in the progressive agenda on a state-by-state basis, in areas where federal retreat wasn’t possible. The necessary complement to that is an electoral strategy focused on shifting the balance of power in the states.

The 2002 elections were not an aberration. As the charts on the following page illustrate, 2002 was consistent with the long-term trend toward Republican hegemony in the states.

1 National Conference of State Legislatures. 2 National Governors Association. 5 Party Control of State Legislatures and Governors: 1968-20033

40

35

30

25 Democrat 20 Republican Split 15

10

# State Legislatures Controlled 5

0

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2003

40

35

30

25 Democrats 20 Republicans Third Parties 15

10 # Governors Controlled

5

0

196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003

3 These tables are adapted from information in Appendices 1,2 and 3 and additional information from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association. 6 During the late 1990’s, as the number of Democrats and progressives holding elective office in state capitals was decreasing,4 the influence of far-right organizations and their corporate allies was increasing. There were three primary reasons for this escalating influence. First was the increase in activity by single-issue, right-wing groups and corporations in primary and general elections. They became major financial contributors to the dramatically rising cost of state campaigns, rigorously pursuing an electoral strategy that pitted right-wing candidates against progressives and moderates. Second was the development and growth of a highly coordinated network of ultra-conservative think tanks, ranging from state-based and single-issue focus to national organizations like the Heritage Foundation, that have built a state infrastructure to support the right-wing policy agenda.5

Third, and perhaps most important, was the growth of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),6 the lynchpin of right-wing policy development in the states.

ALEC, which was founded in 1973 by religious right conservative activist Paul Weyrich to focus on right-wing social issues, had by the 1990’s become the voice of corporate America in the states. ALEC calls itself “the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators.” In reality, it is the non-profit guise that gives corporations a veto over model legislation.

Focusing media scrutiny and the public’s attention on the “real” ALEC, and its members, is long overdue.

This report:

Details the post-November 5, 2002 political environment for the progressive agenda in the states by:

• Tracing how corporations working with the ultra-right during the past decade seized more and more governors’ offices and state legislatures;

• Discussing the results of the 2002 state elections and the factors that led to the Republican takeovers;

• Presenting the outcomes in each state and an analysis of which states are ripe for right-wing action; and

4 In 1993, there were 31 Democratic governors. By 1996, there were 17. In 1990, Democrats controlled both chambers of 28 legislatures; after the 2000 election, that number had declined to 18. 5 For a detailed report on the interrelationships of conservative groups, particularly those that strive to reduce the influences of unions, see NEA, The Real Story Behind ‘Paycheck Protection.’ 6 For a detailed report on the history, finances, and activities of ALEC, see Defenders of Wildlife & NRDC, Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States: The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Exchange Council. 7 • Examining the future of the progressive agenda in the states in light of the post- November 5, 2002 political landscape and the potential impact of the budget crisis in the states on that progressive agenda.

Exposes the threats posed by the web of national and state organizations through which right-wing and corporate special interest state policy is developed and enacted and identifies some of the specific policies currently on ALEC’s agenda by:

• Discussing the important structural differences between state legislators and members of Congress;

• Showing the network of interconnecting think tanks, corporations, and right-wing organizations that have influenced elections, policy development, and policy enactment in the states; and

• Examining ALEC and its right-wing policy agenda, including some new areas of ALEC action.

8 OST-NOVEMBER 5, 2002: THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT PIN THE STATES Republican Victories; Right-Wing Triumphs Over Moderates On November 5, 2002, the President’s party broke a 65-year streak by not losing state legislative seats in the midterm election. In the 2002 midterm election, in which over 84 percent of America’s 7,382 state legislative seats were up in 46 states, it was the Democrats, not the President’s Republican party that suffered significant losses.

From a high point in the early 1970’s when the Democrats controlled 37 state legislatures, Democratic state legislative control of both chambers has drifted downward through the high 20’s in the mid 1980’s to its current, post-November 5 low of only 16 state legislatures, from 18 just prior to the election.7 Republicans captured seven legislative chambers that had been tied or held by Democrats until 2002. As a result, Republicans will control both houses of the legislature in 21 states.8 (See chart on following page.)9 After the 2000 elections, Republicans controlled only 17.

From 1971 to 1994, Democrats held a majority of the state governors’ offices.10 Yet even before the 2002 election had begun, Republicans held 27 gubernatorial posts to the Democrats’ control of 21.11 The one slightly bright spot in the 2002 elections for Democrats is the increase in Democratic governors to 24. However, this was not because the Democrats won more races, but rather because Republicans were defending 23 of their 27 governorships, while the Democrats only had 11 of their 21 seats at stake.12 Voters in 2002 elected 22 Republican and only 14 Democratic governors. In states like Maryland and Georgia, election of a Republican governor breaks decades-long Democratic hold and likely will contribute to strengthening these states’ GOP and future electoral prospects.

The numbers could get even worse for Democrats. Between November 2003 and November 2005, there will be elections for 16 governors,13 10 of whom are Democrats14 and only 6 Republicans. Gubernatorial and state legislative elections will be held in Mississippi, Kentucky, and Louisiana in November 2003.15

7 See Appendix 1: Partisan Control of State Legislatures, 1968-2003 8Democrats will have a majority in both chambers in 16 legislatures and 12 will be split. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is non-partisan. 9 Appendix 3: Gubernatorial & Legislative Control. 10 See Appendix 2: Governors' Political Affiliations, 1968-2001 11 ME & MN’s governors were Independents. 12 No Independent governors were elected in 2002. 13 NH and VT elect governors every 2 years. 14 In VA, where the legislature is heavily Republican, the Democratic governor cannot succeed himself and there will be an election in 2005. In Missouri, another state with a strong Republican control of the legislature, the Democratic governor’s mansion is open in 2004. 15 MS currently has a Democrat-controlled legislature and governor; KY’s legislature is split and the governor is a Democrat; LA has a Democratic legislature and a Republican governor. 9 Map Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURES: 21 Republican Governors: 12 Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah Democratic Governors: 9 Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURES: 16 Republican Governors: 8 Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island Democratic Governors: 8 California, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia

SPLIT CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURES: 12 Republican Governors: 5 Georgia, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Vermont Democratic Governors: 7 Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington

NON-PARTISAN STATE LEGISLATURES: 1 Republican Governors: 1 Nebraska

10 As dramatic as the partisan numbers are, they do not fully convey the increasingly rightward shift in state legislatures. Pro-choice Republicans who have held on to their seats (often, against ultra-right primary opponents) are isolated islands of Republican moderation. In some states, ultra-conservative Democrats, not Republicans, are the obstacle to achieving progressive policies.

This rightward shift in state legislatures poses obvious immediate dangers in upcoming legislative sessions, but progressives should be equally alarmed when they consider the long-term implications. State legislators are an important pipeline of future state-wide and national leaders. More than 50% of the members of the 107th Congress served in their state legislatures—41 Senators and 231 members of the House of Representatives.16 Ultra-conservative state leaders have already been well-integrated into right-wing networks when they begin their tenure in Congress or as Governor.

Turnover of State Legislators Even before the first vote was cast, it was clear that the 2003 state legislatures would have the most new faces in decades, surpassing the previous record of 25% new legislators elected in 1992. Legislative turnover rate is typically about 18% every two years, but the expected rate for the 2002 elections will be closer to 27% when the final tally is completed. By November 5, over 1,330 of the 6,200 legislators who held seats that were up for election were no longer on the ballot because of term limits, voluntary retirement, or losses in the primary. Term limits and redistricting were the most significant factors in the record number of new members of state legislators.17

Figures are not yet available, but if the trends set in recent years continue, state races will set new spending records again in 2002. Although some inroads were made by public financing advocates,18 many state legislative races were heavily financed by conservative special interests and corporations with business before the legislature.

Term Limits In the early 1990’s, term limits were a rally cry for the right-wing. It is easy to understand why. Faced with the reality of Democratic majorities in state legislatures, it was a clever mechanism to overcome the election advantage of incumbency and create more opportunities to funnel right-wing money into more evenly contested open seats. The impact it has had on state legislatures should not be underestimated. Indeed, the National Council of State Legislatures has called term limits the most significant change to the state legislative institutions since the legislative modernization movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Oklahoma, California and Colorado passed the first legislative term limit laws in 1990. 19

16 See Appendix 4: Former State Legislators in the 107th Congress. 17 In addition to the other factors affecting turnover, RI is reducing the size of its legislature by 37 seats & ND by 6. The NY Senate is increasing by one so the total of state legislators in 2003 will be 7,382. 18 Notably in AZ & ME. 19 A number of states, particularly in the South, have long had term limits for governors. 11 By the end of 1996, 17 additional states20 had followed their lead:

• In 1992 Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming passed term limit laws. • In 1993, Maine passed a term limit law. • In 1994, Idaho, Massachusetts and Utah all enacted term limit legislation. • In 1995, Louisiana followed with its own term limit law. • In 1996, Nevada enacted its term limit legislation.

However, the lure of term limits has clearly diminished. Since 1996, only Nebraska, in 2000, has enacted term limit legislation. In an election in November 1999, Mississippi became the first state to refuse to impose term limits on its legislators, four years after voters rejected similar restrictions for all state elected officials. In addition, term limits have been repealed in four states. In three, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington, the State Supreme Courts declared term limits unconstitutional. In 2002, Idaho became the first state where the legislature voted out term limits. The Wall Street Journal described the action: “Idaho is known for conservative politics and antigovernment activists. Yet lawmakers there by wide margins overrode a veto by Republican Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to dump eight-year limits passed by voters in 1994, citing less public support for caps.”

Term limits were in effect in 11 states in 200221 and as a result 330 state legislators were prohibited from running for re-election. The percentage of legislators termed out in various states ranged from seven percent in the Montana House to 71 percent of the Michigan Senate.22

Although no one yet is certain of the ultimate effects of term limits,23 it is clear that term limits increase turnover and, therefore, individual legislators have less time to become expert in either the legislative process or issue areas. Because of the part- time nature of most state legislative positions and the paucity of legislators’ personal staff, lobbyists and organizations like ALEC fill the vacuum and are particularly influential.

Redistricting Ultra-conservatives understood that taking control of state legislatures in order to control redistricting (both in state legislative and Congressional districts) would take many years of work, but would result in gains that would last many more. State level Republican wins in the 2000 election increased their influence in state redistricting and thus played a major role in the Republican gains in 2002. This clearly is acknowledged on the Republican National Committee Web site:

20 See Appendix 5 for Term Limited States. 21 Term limits are enacted, but not yet effective in five states—OK, UT, WY, NE, & NV. 22 See Appendix 6 for Term Limited Legislators by State in 2002. 23 There is no research data on the real effects of term limits. The Joint Project on Term Limits, a cooperative effort among the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the State Legislative Leaders Foundation and a group of legislative scholars, is currently assessing the effects of term limits on state legislatures and identifying successful approaches for dealing with them. The Project began in July 2001 and is scheduled to be concluded in December 2004. 12 “The elections held in November of 2000 were critical to Republican efforts to participate in the redistricting process. Maintaining control of key governorships and legislative bodies was essential because even a small number of races won or lost throughout the country would have drastically altered the redistricting landscape. The success of the Republican Party at the state and local level in November of 2000 ensured that GOP interests will be well represented during this round of line- drawing. The GOP enters the 2000 redistricting cycle in its strongest position in decades.”24

Redistricting was a major factor in 2002’s large turnover. Every legislative district in the country, except those in Maine and Montana, was redistricted in the 18 months before the November 2002 election. In states where courts or independent commissions drew the redistricting plans,25 many incumbents were put into districts together and some chose to retire.

In most states, the party in control plays the largest role in redistricting. Historically, incumbents, sometimes even from the minority parties, often have been protected, but that is not always the case. For example, the 2001 Virginia redistricting controlled by a Republican legislature and governor, placed a number of Democratic incumbents in the same districts and resulted in the Republicans increasing their control in the 100-member house from 54 to 64 in the 2001 Virginia state legislative elections. This large increase demonstrates the huge impact redistricting can have, particularly considering it occurred at the same time a Democrat won the Virginia governor’s race.

The Virginia strategy model, maximizing Republican control, often by packing minorities into the smallest possible number of districts, was repeated in most states where Republicans controlled redistricting.

The significance of redistricting on legislative control should not be underestimated. Because incumbents have a significant advantage in elections, eliminating incumbents increased the influence of corporate and right-wing money in the states. The recent redistricting shapes the 10-year framework for upcoming state and national elections.

Financing State Races As with every election, the question of financing was crucial to the outcome of the 2002 state elections. However, in two states, Arizona and Maine, a majority of the candidates for state office financed their campaigns solely with public funds. According to Public Campaign’s analysis, in Maine, 62% of all candidates (231 out of 372) on the November ballot participated in that state’s Clean Elections system, which offers candidates the option of receiving full public financing in exchange for limiting their spending and rejecting private donations. In Arizona, 53% of all the candidates (84 out of 158) ran “clean.” These candidates included the newly elected Democratic governor and 70% of all the contenders running for statewide offices.

24 http://www.rnc.org/redistricting 25 AK, ID, MD, MN, & WA. The law in IA specifically forbids considering incumbents. 13 These participation rates are about twice the rate seen in both states in 2000, the first time candidates had the option of seeking public funding.

In other states, private money has played an increasingly important role.26 It is now not uncommon for state legislative races to cost over $100,000. In the 2000 elections in Florida, state senate candidates raised an average of $281,855 and the House candidates raised an average of $114,198. In Texas, the average raised in the House was $123,358, and the average Texas senate candidate raised over $678,000.27

Corporations with business interests before state legislatures have become major players in state political contributions. For example, private-prison companies gave more than $1.1 million in campaign contributions to state-level candidates in 14 southern states during the 2000 elections. Texas candidates benefited most heavily from these contributions, with 156 candidates receiving more than $361,000 of the $1.1 million given by private-prison interests in the 2000 election cycle. North Carolina followed, with 107 candidates receiving $226,500. Florida ranked third, with 122 candidates there receiving nearly $158,500. And the money proved influential. In several states where private-prison interests gave heavily, lawmakers subsequently passed measures to bolster private prisons or defeated efforts to reduce funding for them.28 Analysis of the 2000 data (the last year for which data is available) reveals several important facts about legislative fundraising. Candidates who already hold office raise more money than political newcomers, and the candidate who raises the most money usually wins. Eighty-three percent of winners were those who raised the most money in their races.

The party that controls the legislature also controls the money. The Institute for Money in State Politics reviewed money raised by winning candidates grouped by legislative control, Democratic or Republican.29 Using their calculations, Democrats ended up with more legislators in 23 states, and, in those states, Democratic candidates out-raised Republicans 64 percent to 36 percent. Exactly the opposite occurred in states where Republicans were in control.30

The advantage of legislative control becomes even more apparent if examined in another way. If only states in which one party controlled both houses of the legislature before the election are considered,31 the difference between the money raised by winning candidates in majority vs. minority parties is even greater.

26 Although not discussed in the Report, right-wing and corporate money also has flowed into state judicial races. 27 See Appendix 7: Dollars Per Vote and Average Amounts Raised, 2000 General Election. 28 The Institute for Money in State Politics, www.followthemoney.org. 29 ibid. Measured by number of legislators in the total legislature after the election, not by which party had control of the chambers. Includes the states for which the Institute could obtain data. 30 See Appendix 8: Comparison of Legislative Control and Total Raised by 2000 Election Winners. 31 In Appendix 8, that would eliminate Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. 14 HE FUTURE OF THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IN THE TSTATES In addition to the factors discussed above, there are certainly other national factors, such as the President’s popularity, as well as local influences that affect the outcome of specific elections. However, the long-term trends that have resulted in the shift of power in the states create consequences for progressive action that are relatively simple to understand. With fewer progressives and moderate Democrats and more right-wing, corporate-oriented legislators in leadership positions, not only will progressive legislation often not be considered, but more and more defensive battles will have to be fought. The greatest threats—already being promoted by ALEC and touted by the right-wing echo chamber—are legislation that retreats from hard won victories in areas such as civil, voting, and individual rights, worker safety, protecting children, conservation and the environment, health care, public education, a fairer tax system, and economic and social justice.

There are three stages where the ultra-conservatives and their corporate allies have been successful:

• Electing ultra-conservatives; • Developing and coordinating a state policy agenda; and • Shaping the debate and building support to pass this agenda.

As the 2003 state legislative sessions begin, the radical right’s successes in creating this new political landscape in state capitals, combined with the dire financial shape of the states, should be a high priority concern for supporters of a progressive agenda.

Likely Target States for Defensive Battles The following 12 states will have a Republican governor and Republican control of both legislative chambers:32

• Alaska • Montana • South Carolina • Colorado • New Hampshire • South Dakota • Florida • North Dakota • Texas • Idaho • Ohio • Utah

In nine other states, Republicans will control both legislative chambers, with a Democrat in the governor’s mansion:

• Arizona • Michigan • Virginia • Iowa • Missouri • Wisconsin • Kansas • Pennsylvania • Wyoming

32 There are only 8 states where the Democrats exercise that control: CA, IL, ME, MS,NM, OK, TN, and WV. 15 In a December 3, 2002 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Dick DeVos, chairman of the Education Freedom Fund (EFF)33 identified a short list of states where school voucher programs stand the best chance of success. DeVos’s first tier consists of Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Colorado, and to a lesser extent Virginia, South Carolina and New Hampshire. His second tier states are Utah, Arizona, and Ohio.

The similarity to the lists above is not a surprise. In all the states on DeVos’ target list, Republicans control both chambers of the legislature, and in seven of the ten the Governor is also a Republican. While for different issues, different states will be the focus, these are the states in which the right and corporations will focus efforts through ALEC to pass new right-wing and special interest legislation and to roll back past progressive actions.

It is important to note that the reason DeVos identified those states for likely voucher success is that not only has there been an increase in the number of Republican legislators, but also that recently elected Republicans are often significantly more right-wing than their predecessors, as noted above. Single issue groups have become very active in Republicans primaries; notable are anti-choice groups that have targeted pro-choice Republicans in primaries.

But it is not just anti-choice groups that have been active in state legislative elections. In his Heritage Foundation speech, DeVos, described the work of the Great Lakes Education Project (GLEP), whose mission is to recruit school choice candidates and guide them to primary and general election wins. GLEP recently identified Michigan legislative candidates who must be defeated to change the balance of power in their house. According to DeVos, GLEP claims credit for replacing four of the six swing vote Republicans in the primaries with right-wing legislators whom they hope will effectively end the Democrats’ blockage of voucher programs. In his speech, DeVos called for the formation of more groups like the GLEP.

In truth, many such groups already exist. In addition to the single-issue right-wing groups, multi-issue, ultra-conservative groups and corporate PAC’s are already major forces in state elections.

Once the legislatures have moved to the right, there are coordinated organizations to provide model legislation and push right-wing policy. There is an interconnected web of national and state groups that develop right-wing state policy, generate media interest, and build grassroots support. One example is Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), whose co-chairman is Congressman Dick Armey. CSE describes itself not as a think tank (although it has a separate foundation that does policy work), but rather “hundreds of thousands of grassroots citizens dedicated to the highest level of personal involvement in public policy activism.” CSE’s website includes testimonials from notables such as Governor Jeb Bush and Congresswoman Patricia Harris.34

33 EFF was founded in 1991 by then State Senator Dick Posthumus (Lieutenant Governor of Michigan until January 2003 and the defeated 2002 Republican candidate for governor) to use charitable donations to fund tuition assistance to private schools. According to their Web site, the type of schools chosen by scholarship recipients is: Catholic 56.9%; Protestant 34.8%; Non-Religious 3.8%; Jewish 1.6%; Islamic 1.5%; Other 1.4% (emphasis added.). 34www.cse.org. In addition to an office in Washington DC, CSE has state chapters in Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, (cont., pg.17) 16 The Fiscal Crisis in the States In November 2002, the National Governors’ Association (NGA) declared that state governments, with $67 billion in budget shortfalls, were facing their most difficult fiscal crisis since World War II. The NGA’s biannual report found that despite significantly curtailing state spending, 37 states already have been forced to reduce their enacted budgets by about $12.8 billion in fiscal 2002. About mid-way through the current fiscal year, 23 states plan to reduce their net enacted budgets by more than $8.3 billion.35

Many states already have exhausted “easy” budget cuts and have drawn down their rainy-day funds. They have cut government administrative expenses, frozen hiring, or instituted early retirement schemes. States also have postponed expenses into future years, used bonds instead of current revenue to finance certain types of expenses, and/or accelerated future revenues into the current year. Because these actions encompass almost all of the least painful ways to reduce expenditures, the most difficult decisions are still ahead.

There are many reasons for the crisis in state budgets. The sluggish economy affects both states’ revenues and their expenditures. During the boom economic times, between 1994 and 2001, 43 states enacted major tax cuts (primarily on personal and corporate income and estate taxes36) and increased spending on a wide range of programs. Coverage of Medicaid and children’s health37 was expanded during the 90’s and the dramatic increase in healthcare costs has further exacerbated the current budget woes in the states.

Many states’ personal and corporate tax systems are tied to the federal tax system and, therefore, directly to the 2001 Bush tax cuts. When the federal tax breaks to corporations and higher income taxpayers took effect, state revenues also fell. In addition, one provision of the phase out of the federal estate tax has already cost states a significant portion of their estate tax revenue and by 2005 could drain $5 billion a year from state treasuries.

New federally-imposed mandates in the areas of homeland security, election law reform, and educational testing have required new state actions without providing adequate funding.

Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Washington as part of their goal of systematically building a permanent and sustainable army of volunteer citizen activists. 35 www.nga.org 36 According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 81% of the states’ tax decreases during this period were in these areas of taxation generally benefiting higher income individuals and families. As a result, more of the state tax burden fell on lower income individuals and families. 37 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which passed in 1997, allowed states to expand Medicare or use other state programs to provide health insurance to uninsured children in families at up to 200 percent of Federal Poverty Level. 17 States, having exhausted most of the easy fixes and seeing no immediate improvement in the economy, are faced with only a few choices:38

• Find more “economies”; • Raise taxes; or • Cut services.

What steps the states take and how they implement them will have a major impact on the lives and environment of every person living in America for many years to come.

Policy Making In The States Most progressive national organizations focus on federal policy making. As the era of states’ rights faded and the role of the federal government expanded in many areas, for decades, Washington, D.C. progressives viewed Congress and the executive branch as “where all the action is.”

The right wing and corporations strategically devoted significant resources to states. They recognized that they could pass pieces of their agenda in some states that could not be enacted in Washington and they pushed for devolution, shifting more power to states. A number of factors contribute to their policy victories in the states:

• Right-wing and corporate special-interest policies that would receive great attention at the national level can be introduced, and in some instances enacted, with little media or national attention.

• The vast majority of state legislators are part-time and lack the staff support enjoyed by members of Congress.

• Right-wing think tanks, both national and state based, have for years been developing “model” state legislation—and effective communications strategies to sell them.

• Few community organizations have the resources to track state legislation and most national progressive organizations have focused almost exclusively on national policy.

Media Vacuum Currently, much state legislative activity flies under the radar screen of both national and state media. For example, until the November 2002 class size ballot initiative in Florida put education funding under the glare of publicity, state legislators and the governor had for years been able to quietly renege on campaign promises for this top priority concern of voters.

Although the policies that often have the most direct impact on citizens are enacted at the state level, there is often little coverage of the day-to-day legislative workings as the size of the press corps covering state capitals has declined dramatically in recent

38 Most states have constitutional requirements mandating balanced operating budgets. 18 years. Even in the largest states, TV outlets do not maintain regular crews available to cover state legislative news, and in almost every state, newspapers have downsized their statehouse bureaus or closed them altogether.39

The Pew Charitable Trust funds an online state news service, www.stateline.org, “to help journalists, policy makers and engaged citizens become better informed about innovative public policies.” It is an invaluable resource for those seeking information, but it clearly does not fill the vacuum in the public debate created by the lack of “real-time” state policy coverage in the popular press.

The downsides of this media vacuum in state capitols are clearly manifest. However, it also presents an opportunity for progressives to concentrate both state and national media attention on a few strategically selected battles. By packaging materials for outlets with decreased resources to do their own investigative and news reporting, it is possible to expose right-wing and corporate special interest legislation promoted by ALEC legislators. State media outlets, it seems, “compensate” for their lack of state house coverage by giving full, often repeated, coverage to issues and action that become controversial.

Part-Time Legislators Most state legislator positions are considered to be part-time and are paid accordingly. Only nine states — California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — have full-time legislatures, so that in most states, legislators work full-time in other positions, in addition to their legislative duties. In over a third of the states, legislative salaries are less than $20,000 a year.40 41

In the early 1960’s, only 19 state legislatures met annually. The remaining 31 held biennial regular sessions. All but three (Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia) held biennial sessions in the odd-numbered year. Ten of the 19 states with annual sessions limited the "off-year" sessions to consideration of budgetary and fiscal matters.

By the mid-1970’s, the number of states meeting annually had grown tremendously — up from 19 to 41. However, several of these states used a "flexible" session format in which the total days of session time were divided between two years; these states included Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont.

Today, 44 state legislatures meet annually. The remaining six states — Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas — meet every other year. All of the biennial legislatures hold their regular sessions in the odd year. Six states have limited scope sessions, that is, where one year of the biennium is limited to consideration of specific types of legislation. The states with limited scope sessions are Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina and Wyoming.42

39 www.stateline.org 40 Although in most states, legislators receive per diem while the legislature is in session. 41 See Appendix 9: 2002 State Legislator Compensation and Living Expense Allowances During Session. 42 National Conference of State Legislatures; also see Appendix 10: 2003 Legislative Regular Session Calendar. 19 The demands on state legislators’ time have been steadily increasing. In addition to longer legislative sessions and more committee meetings, constituents expect legislators to respond to constituent requests and attend community events. The majority of legislators must run every two years, and as elections have become more expensive, they must spend more time raising campaign funds.

Issues also have become more complex as devolution has moved issues to the states that formerly were the province of the federal government. While staff has increased in state legislatures and most state legislators have access to legislative staff, except in the case of full-time legislators, having personal policy staff is “quite rare.”43

It is into this vacuum that ALEC and the conservative think tanks have moved.

Network of Right-Wing State Policy Think Tanks During the 1990’s, right-wing policy voices in the states multiplied.44 National conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation now have state relations departments, and many of these departments are closely linked to state-based organizations. In 1989, there were 12 independent, free market-oriented, state-based, public policy research organizations. Now there are 40 groups in 37 states that belong to the State Policy Network (SPN), a coordinating body that “evolved from the Madison Group, an informal confederation of the state think tanks and their supporters that existed in the early 1990s.” 45 SPN’s leadership events are held in conjunction with Heritage Foundation meetings and its members are closely linked to the many national groups promoting free market policy solutions.

While the inter-related nature of the right-wing think tanks, foundations, political organizations, corporations, and media is well documented,46 the SPN is a particularly illustrative example.47

43 Conversation with Brian Weberg, National Conference of State Legislatures. December 9, 2002. 44 David Callahan in “Clash in the States,” in The American Prospect, (Vol. 12, no.. 11, June 18, 2001), describes the growth of conservative state think tanks and contrasts their funding with that of progressives efforts such as the Center for Policy Alternatives, State Fiscal Analysis Initiative and the Economic Analysis and Research Network, or regional organizations like Northeast Action, which are dwarfed by the huge infusions of money into the conservative groups. 45 www.spn.org. 46 People For the American Way Foundation’s Right Wing Watch (www.pfaw.org) details many of the inter-relationships between national and state conservative groups as does the NEA report, The Real Story Behind “Paycheck Protection.” 47 A list of some of the SPN board members even more clearly demonstrates the interrelationships with conservative foundations. Carl Helstrom, Senior Program Officer for The JM and Milbank Foundations, is Chairman of SPN. The other members of the SPN Board include, Ted Abram, Director of the American Institute for Full Employment (a state-by-state effort to privatize employment training programs); Alejandro Chafuen, President of Atlas Economic Research Foundation (an international think tank development organization based in Fairfax, Virginia); Derwood Chase, Chairman of the Chase Foundation of Virginia (a private foundation that supports only market-oriented policy organizations); Byron Lamm, former President of SPN and current Chairman of the Center for Education Reform; Bob Poole, President of the Reason Foundation. 20 SPN’s description on its Web site is “the professional service organization for America’s state-based, free market think tank movement.” However, SPN’s “On Line Directory” includes many groups pushing the religious right social agenda, particularly anti-choice and anti-gay, with no discernable free market economic interest.

The SPN On Line Directory’s links in Florida illustrate the interconnection as well as the size and sophistication of the network:48

James Madison Institute Tallahassee,FL CEO Foundation of Central Florida Maitland, FL Codina Group, Inc. Coral Gables, FL Economic Council of Palm Beach County West Palm Beach, FL Florida Family Council Tampa, FL

The James Madison Institute is a “Florida-based, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to advancing such timeless ideals as economic freedom, limited government, federalism, traditional values, the rule of law, and individual rights. The Institute’s mission is to keep the citizens of Florida informed about their government and to shape our state’s future through the advancement of practical free-market ideas on public policy issues.” It maintains very close ties to the Florida legislature; indeed, during ALEC member state Representative Tom Feeney’s tenure as Speaker, the Madison Institute was hired as a consultant to provide legislative “training” for newly elected legislators. It is at the forefront of high profile policy battles, including efforts to privatize public education through vouchers and limit environmental regulation.

The Florida Family Council “promotes Judeo-Christian principles and ideas, and issues that strengthen the family.”49

The Codina Group’s appearance in the list of state policy organizations is even more interesting. The link leads to a page that says, “Codina Group, Inc., Contact Information: Mr. Jeb Bush, Two Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, FL 33134; Phone: (305) 520-2300.” In fact, the Codina Group, Inc. is a major Florida real estate development firm, formerly the Codina-Bush Group, started by Jeb Bush and Armando Codina in 1981.

The Economic Council of Palm Beach County, Inc. was formed in 1975, as a not-for- profit, non-governmental, non-partisan organization. Its self-described mission is to create an environment to help business prosper. Its members include the PGA of America, BellSouth, and Florida Power & Light Co.

Some state-based organizations listed in SPN’s On Line Directory,50 such as the Heartland Institute51 located in Illinois, provide resources that play an important support role across the states. With a full-time staff of 14, Heartland provides some

48 Links listed on the SPN directory for Florida on December 9, 2002. 49 www.spn.org 50 www.spn.org 51 www.heartland.org 21 specific policy proposals in the form of model legislation. One chilling example that was authored by ALEC, but can only be found on the Heartland Web site, is the “Cash Benefits to Unwed Minor Parents Act”:

“Requires that the appropriate state-level Department of Social Services shall not provide any cash benefits to a child born out-of-wedlock or to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age, or for the individual, until the individual attains such an age.”52

Heartland’s major focus is distilling the “think pieces” that provide the intellectual and ideological underpinnings for the right-wing agenda. Its stated mission is to “help build social movements in support of ideas that empower people, including parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”

Heartland’s “PolicyBot,” described on its Web site as “the Internet's most extensive clearinghouse for the work of free-market think tanks, with more than 10,000 studies and commentaries from over 350 think tanks and advocacy groups,” also provides connections to policy papers on almost every right-wing social issue. Heartland covers the following comprehensive list of subject areas:

• Agriculture • Family and Culture • Real Estate, • Budget • Government Insurance, Financial • Civil Rights • Health Care • Regulation • Crime • Humor • Smoking • Economic Development • Law • Spanish Language • Economy • Media • Taxes • Education • Philanthropy • Transportation • Employment • Politics • Welfare • Environment • Privatization

The echo chamber effect is clearly demonstrated by state policy research and advocacy organizations that make extensive use of Heartland materials, using similar arguments and language to support ultra-conservative policy proposals in each state. Some of the SPN state-based members include: the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a 501 (c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan research institute guided by the core principles of limited government, free enterprise, private property rights and individual responsibility, (Board chair is Wendy Lee Gramm, wife of former Senator Phil Gramm); the Washington Policy Center; the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan; the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research in Massachusetts; the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in California.

Almost every one of these right-wing state organizations also has a link to the one organization that is the primary influence in right-wing and corporate-influenced policy development—the American Legislative Exchange Council.

52 See Appendix 11: Cash Benefits to Unwed Minor Parents Act 22 MERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC)

A In May 1990, ALEC Executive Director Samuel Brunelli stated this vision in a Heritage Foundation publication:

“ALEC’s goal is to ensure that these (conservative) legislators are so well informed, so well armed, that they can set the terms of the public policy debate, that they can change the agenda, that they can lead. This is the infrastructure that will reclaim the states for our movement; these are the people who will make conservative policy, this is our army that we must prepare and support for the battles at hand. If we ever hope to govern America, it is critical that the conservative movement achieve this goal.”

ALEC and its allies have indeed been successful at building a well-coordinated infrastructure in the states. ALEC itself is the pivotal point where that infrastructure connects with state legislators. During the 1990’s ALEC grew from a $2 million to a $5 million organization, heavily funded by corporations that can be the direct beneficiaries of legislators’ decisions. ALEC is governed by a board of six legislators and eight private sector representatives. The current private sector chair represents the pharmaceutical industry association, PhRMA.53

“Pay to Play” Corporations “pay to play,” paying membership dues ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 in return for equal participation with legislators on the task forces that shape ALEC model legislation. 54

The task forces are55: • Civil Justice • Commerce and Economic Development • Criminal Justice • Education • Energy, Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture (EENRA) • Federalism • Health and Human Services • Tax and Fiscal Policy • Telecommunications and Information Technology • Trade and Transportation

Each task force is chaired by a state legislator and a private sector representative, and no legislation can be approved without private sector agreement.56 Some of ALEC’s corporate members are well-known names, e.g., Enron, Coors Brewing, Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds. It takes some research to understand the interests of others, e.g., the EENRA Private Sector Chair represents ASARCO Inc., one of the world’s largest producers of lead, bismuth and specialty chemicals.

53 See Appendix 12: ALEC Board Members. 54 Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States Defenders of Wildlife and National Resources Defense Council, 2002. 55 See Appendix 13: Listing of All ALEC Model Legislation. 56 See Appendix 14: ALEC Task Force Chairs. 23 InsideEPA.com (1/17/03) recently exposed another method ALEC uses to further corporate interests—promoting industry-funded studies. A new ALEC model bill would derail states’ efforts to adopt new controls on carbon dioxide emissions.57 The bill was highlighted at the same ALEC meeting at which industry groups presented their new study “indicating that efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions could jeopardize health.” The study’s funders included the Edison Electric Institute and the National Mining Association.

Corporations also underwrite ALEC’s annual meetings in August and December.58

Right-wing organizations like the National Rifle Association are also long-time ALEC members and participate in shaping model state legislation and resolutions aimed at urging Congressional action. For example, when gun control legislation was pending in Congress, ALEC encouraged passage of state resolutions opposing a waiting period to buy firearms and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.59

Many of the task force public sector chairs hold important positions in their state legislatures. Before being elected to the Nevada Senate in November 2002, Dennis Noland, Public Sector Chair of the Commerce and Economic Development Task Force, was Minority Whip of the Nevada Assembly. Prior to the 2002 election, state Representative Jim Ellington was the Chair of the Conservation and Water Resources Committee in Mississippi, in addition to serving as ALEC’s Public Sector Chair for the EENRA Task Force.

The ALEC Web site describes the work of each task force and lists the major issues it covers.60 Many of ALEC’s major issues are addressed by more than one task force. For example, privatization is a central underlying theme that is manifest in legislative proposals made by each task force.

Another less well known, but interesting, cross-cutting issue is “junk science,” a term ALEC frequently uses to describe scientific findings that do not support its view of the world. Junk science appears as an issue under Criminal Justice, Health and Human Services, Education and EENRA.

The “junk science” example illustrates the ALEC model bills and resolutions that legislators can easily adapt for introduction in their state. For example, there is a “common sense” model bill to keep “junk science” out of state courts, the title of which makes it seem hard to oppose.61 The language ALEC uses sounds very reasonable, even compelling. In fact, many of the model bills would do the opposite of what the titles seem to suggest. To support each of their models, ALEC gives

57 See Appendix 15: ALEC Model Bill “Conditioning Regulation of Non-Pollutant Emissions on Science” 58 Trojan Horse; also, see Appendix 16: ALEC 29th Annual Meeting - August 2002; and Appendix 17: ALEC States and Nation Policy Summit - December 2002. 59 Trojan Horse 60 See Appendix 18: ALEC Education Task Force as an example. 61 See Appendix 19: The Common Sense Scientific and Technical Evidence Act Model Legislation. 24 legislators easy access to logical sounding arguments and effective language to use in defending their positions.62

ALEC Priority Issues ALEC produces hundreds of model bills, any of which may be adapted and introduced by individual legislators. Judging from recent ALEC conferences, their Web site and periodicals, the following areas summarize the priority policy issues that ALEC will be pushing in upcoming legislative sessions.

Privatization Education is a major arena in which ALEC’s devotion to the private sector and to reducing government plays out. This is not surprising, given that education is one of the largest components of state budgets. Vouchers, termed “school choice,” and tax credits for private school tuition have been the primary vehicles to drain money from public schools.63 A more recent strategy is the “Tax Credits for Education Act” which would allow a credit against taxes in the amount of voluntary contributions, up to specified amounts, to school tuition organizations, defined as tax-exempt charitable groups that provide scholarships or grants to children to allow them to attend a school of their parents’ choice. (This differs from the deduction that a taxpayer who itemizes receives for all other charitable contributions because it would provide a dollar for dollar credit to be subtracted from taxes owed.)

Education privatization efforts do not stop at the classroom door. The “School Board Freedom to Contract Act” was touted by Sodexho Marriott and other corporate interests at recent ALEC conferences as legislation that would open the door to private contracting of ancillary services such as janitorial and food services and transportation.

Similar ALEC model bills promote privatization of human services, a phenomenon that is well underway in states, including child support enforcement services, foster care and adoption services, welfare-to-work programs, and a wide range of other government services (e.g., “Competitive Contracting of the Department of Motor Vehicles Act”). Free market health care solutions dominate ALEC health care proposals. More than half of the states have followed ALEC’s lead encouraging the use of private prisons to house inmates. Though Social Security reforms will be decided at the national level, ALEC promoted resolutions in state legislatures urging Congress to “modernize,” that is privatize, Social Security.

Anti-Environmental Regulation The ideological coherence behind ALEC’s environmental proposals is trust in the market and/or corporations to take care of all environmental and conservation problems. The Washington Times (4/23/98) reported the Earth Day comment of the staff director of ALEC’s Task Force on Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, “The best chance we have to improve the environment is to break the stranglehold of the command-and-control policies promoted by the EPA and the extremist environmental lobby.”

62 See Appendix 20: ALEC Description of Junk Science in our courts, in our environmental policy, in our classrooms, and in our workplaces. 63 See Appendix 21: ALEC School Choice Contacts; shows allied organizations. 25 Contrary to their seemingly innocuous titles, this task force’s model bills are aimed at weakening environmental regulations. The “Environmental Good Samaritan Act” would give developers immunity from prosecution while they are cleaning up land they polluted. The “Environmental Audit Privilege and Qualified Disclosure Act” jeopardizes the public’s right to know about environmental, workplace, and environmental hazards by protecting the secrecy of polluters that conduct “self- audits” and report their own violations. Environmentalists’ evaluation of ALEC’s “Private Property Protection Act” is that, if successful, it could lead to the effective dismantling of such broadly popular environmental-protection laws as the 1972 Clean Water Act, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Anti-Worker and Anti-Union ALEC proposals consistently attempt to reduce the membership and the political power of unions, including the “Right to Work Act” and reducing the number of public employees, a highly unionized sector, through privatization and contracting. The same “paycheck protection” initiative that failed at the California ballot box has been translated into a model bill by ALEC and promoted in more than 20 states. A new piece of model legislation, the “Teacher Choice Compensation Act,” “creates a program whereby teachers may be eligible for performance-based salary stipends if they opt out of their permanent contract and meet measurable student performance goals…”

ALEC supports minimum sentencing requirements, but not a minimum wage; model bills include “Starting (Minimum) Wage Repeal Act” and “Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act.” Other ALEC measures make it more difficult for employees to receive workers’ compensation and urge the Congress to oppose “ergonomic regulations based on unsound science.” There is also a push to change current public employee defined benefit plans to a defined contribution plan, which would have a significant negative impact on retirement security.

Tort “Reform” and Judicial Activism Numerous ALEC proposals seek to limit liability and reduce lawsuits, especially those of employees against employers, consumers seeking redress from corporations for product liability, and citizens suing for environmental damages. “Disorder in the Court,” a multi-year ALEC project to “stop regulation through litigation,” was an important topic at both ALEC national meetings in 2002. Their handbook for state legislators, Achieving Civil Justice: ALEC’s Disorder in the Court Project, includes seven model bills to stop what it claims are courts bypassing legislative authority to create policy from the bench.64

Reduce Taxes and the Size of Government The centerpiece of the right-wing strategy to reduce government is opposition to taxes, especially proposals that increase the progressivity of a state’s tax system and taxes on corporations. Models such as the “Capital Gains Tax Elimination Act” were promoted by ALEC in the states well before these ideas gained currency in Congress.

64 See Appendix 22: ALEC’s View of Disorder in the Courts. 26 ALEC and its allies will use the current budget crisis in the states and increased Republican majorities as an opportunity to move their agenda under the guise of seeking balanced budgets in the states. They will also take advantage of this chance to restructure the role of state governments and reduce those governments’ ability to protect, educate, and assist citizens, regulate corporations, and enforce their own laws.

The Right sees the current state budget crisis as the opportunity to reduce the size of state governments, which they claim have grown at an explosive rate during the past decade. State government spending did increase during the 1990’s at a rate greater than increases in population and inflation. However, if total federal, state, and local spending as a percentage of GNP is considered, then government spending actually declined during the 1990s. State and local spending did increase slightly as a percentage of GNP as devolution moved government responsibilities from the federal to the state and local levels.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, taxes were cut in a number of states from 1994 to 2001 and most of these cuts made the state systems more regressive, thus, placing a proportionally larger burden on poorer families and individuals. The “emergency” tax increases enacted in 2002, largely consumption taxes, have placed an even larger burden on low-income taxpayers.65

While conservatives want all taxes reduced, the right wing goes one step further, believing that taxes that do exist should not be progressive.66 The ALEC Tax Reform and Taxpayer Rights statement is no exception and begins: “Progressive income taxes place an undue burden on the taxpayer.”67

Conservatives have spent the past decade legislating requirements that make it difficult to increase state budgets, including budget caps, balanced budget requirements, and a supermajority votes to increase taxes.68 These strategies are systematic tools to achieve the right wing’s goal of all but dismantling government. The objective, as right-wing strategist Grover Norquist put it, is “to cut government in half in twenty five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.”69

65 See Appendix 23: “State Tax Increases of 2002 Largely Have Failed to Address Problem of Regressivity.” 66 Conservatives tend to look at the relatively large percentage of total income taxes that are paid by the wealthiest taxpayers, rather at the percentage of a person’s or family’s income that is paid for all taxes. 67 See Appendix 24: ALEC Tax Reform and Taxpayers’ Rights.) 68 For example, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Arizona, Delaware, and Washington all have rules requiring a “supermajority” of legislators to enact tax increases, but those supermajority rules do not apply to all fee increases. In part because of this restriction, each of these states raised Medicaid co-payments, but none raised taxes in 2002. Notably, each of these states enacted significant tax cuts in the 1990s; under those states’ supermajority rules, tax cuts require the votes of fewer legislators than tax increases. 69 The Nation, May 16, 2001 27 Critical Budget Battles ALEC and its right-wing allies have placed the highest priority on preparing for the 2003 budget battles in the state capitals, as well as in Congress. By January 2002, the Washington Policy Center had developed a policy brief, Ideas for Balancing the State Budget Without Raising Taxes. ALEC has a detailed plan developed by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (similar to the Washington brief) with budget cutting strategies.70 These plans seek to foreclose any discussion of tax increases.

The ALEC plan, Show Me the Money: Budget Cutting Strategies for Cash-Strapped States, lists 10 strategies for facing the budget crisis:

• Go Where the Money Is: Reduce Workforce Costs; • Spread the Pain: Impose Broad-Based Spending Cuts; • Modernize Government: Reform Entitlement Programs (market based); • Turn Capital Assets into Financial Assets: Sell or Lease Government Assets and Enterprises; • Apply Antitrust to Government: Introduce Competition in Service Delivery; • Fund Results: Reduce or Eliminate Programs That Perform Poorly; • Change the Incentives: Reward Employees for Saving Money; • Get Rational: Reduce Duplication and Overlap; • Take the Cost Out: Use Technology to Slash Overhead; • Arm for Battle: Create Cost-Cutting Brigades.

None of these strategies address the adequacy of the current resources for needed programs, and they ignore the fact that more people need government to assist them at the very time when tax revenues are decreasing because of an economic slowdown. None of these strategies address tax reform.

States are already making major program cuts, particularly those states that cut taxes in the last decade. Many of these cuts are in Medicaid and childcare subsidies. In addition, a number of states are already raising tuition in state schools.71 72

70 www.ALEC.org 71 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 72 See Appendix 25: Current Budget Problems in 34 States with Major Tax Cuts in the 1990’s. 28 HE PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGE

T The war in the states is a war for the future of the progressive agenda. The battle lines have been drawn. Progressives need to heed the last strategy in ALEC’s list, Arm for Battle: Create Brigades.

The right-wing infrastructure that is now in place to influence state elections and public policy was not created in a single election cycle. The strategic focus and coordination needed to increase the progressive national and state collaboration necessary to counteract their power cannot be built overnight. This is a long war that will take many years to win, but collaborative progressive efforts and success in strategically selected battles could turn the tide.

29

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: PARTISAN CONTROL OF STATE LEGISLATURES 1968-2003...... 33

APPENDIX 2: GOVERNORS’ POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS, 1968-2001...... 34

APPENDIX 3: GUBERNATORIAL & LEGISLATIVE CONTROL ...... 35

APPENDIX 4: FORMER STATE LEGISLATORS IN THE 107TH CONGRESS ...... 36

APPENDIX 5: TERM LIMITED STATES...... 38

APPENDIX 6: TERM LIMITED LEGISLATORS BY STATE IN 2002...... 39

APPENDIX 7: DOLLARS PER VOTE AND AVERAGE AMOUNTS RAISED, 2000 GENERAL ELECTION...... 40

APPENDIX 8: COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROL AND TOTAL RAISED BY 2000 ELECTION WINNERS...... 41

APPENDIX 9: 2002 STATE LEGISLATOR COMPENSATION AND LIVING EXPENSE ALLOWANCES DURING SESSION...... 42

APPENDIX 10: 2003 LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION CALENDAR ...... 44

APPENDIX 11: CASH BENEFITS TO UNWED MINOR PARENTS ACT...... 45

APPENDIX 12: ALEC BOARD MEMBERS ...... 46

APPENDIX 13: LISTING OF ALL ALEC MODEL LEGISLATION AND RESOLUTIONS...... 47

APPENDIX 14: ALEC TASK FORCE CHAIRS...... 50

APPENDIX 15: CONDITIONING REGULATION OF NON-POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ON SCIENCE ...... 51

APPENDIX 16: ALEC 29TH ANNUAL MEETING – AUGUST 2002...... 53

APPENDIX 17: ALEC STATES & NATION POLICY SUMMIT – DECEMBER 2002...... 54

APPENDIX 18: ALEC EDUCATION TASK FORCE...... 55

APPENDIX 19: ALEC MODEL LEGISLATION: COMMON SENSE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EVIDENCE ACT ...... 56

APPENDIX 20: ALEC’S DESCRIPTION OF JUNK SCIENCE ...... 57

APPENDIX 21: ALEC SCHOOL CHOICE CONTACTS ...... 58

APPENDIX 22: ALEC’S VIEW OF DISORDER IN THE COURT...... 59

APPENDIX 23: CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: STATE TAX INCREASES OF 2002...... 60

APPENDIX 24: ALEC TAX REFORM AND TAXPAYERS’ RIGHTS ...... 61

APPENDIX 25: CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES ...... 62

1 APPENDIX 1: PARTISAN CONTROL OF STATE LEGISLATURES 1968-2003

Democrat Republican Split 1968 20 20 8 1970 23 16 9 1972 26 16 7 1974 37 4 8 1976 35 4 10 1978 31 11 7 1980 29 15 5 1982 34 11 4 1984 26 11 12 1986 28 9 12 1988 29 8 12 1990 30 6 13 1992 25 8 16 1994 18 19 12 1996 20 18 11 1998 20 17 12 2000 16 18 15 2002 18 17 14 2003 16 21 122

1. Elections for Nebraska unicameral legislature are non-partisan 2. Includes Oregon with 50/50 Senate split, Republican control of House

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

33 APPENDIX 2: GOVERNORS’ POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS, 1968-2001

Year1 Democrats Republicans Third Parties 1968 24 26 1969 20 30 1970 18 32 1971 29 21 1972 30 20 1973 31 19 1974 32 18 1975 36 13 1 Independent - Me. 1976 36 13 1 Independent - Me. 1977 37 12 1 Independent - Me. 1978 37 12 1 Independent - Me. 1979 32 18 1980 31 19 1981 27 23 1982 27 23 1983 34 16 1984 35 15 1985 34 16 1986 34 16 1987 26 24 1988 27 23 1989 28 22 1990 29 21 1991 29 19 2 Independents - Conn. and Ark. 1992 28 20 2 Independents - Conn. and Ark. 1993 30 18 2 Independents - Conn. and Ark. 1993 31 17 2 Independents - Conn. and Ark.1 1994 29 19 2 Independents - Conn. and Ark. 1994 29 20 1 Independent - Conn.2 1995 19 30 1 Independent - Me. 1996 18 31 1 Independent - Me. 1996 17 32 1 Independent - Me.3 1997 17 32 1 Independent - Me. 1998 17 32 1 Independent - Me. 1999 17 31 1 Independent - Me., 1 Minnesota Reform Party - Minn. 2000 18 30 1 Independent - Me., 1 Minnesota Reform Party - Minn. 2001 19 29 1 Independent - Me., 1 Minnesota Reform Party - Minn.

1. Table reflects figures after inaugurations for each year. Some figures may have changed because of resignations or other changes in the Governors’ offices. 2. In April 1993, Alabama Gov. James Folsom, a Democrat, replaced Gov. Guy Hunt, a Republican. 3. In April 1994, Alaska Gov. Walter J. Hickel changed his party affiliation from Independent to Republican. 4. In July 1996, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, replaced Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, a Democrat. Source: National Governors Association

34 APPENDIX 3: GUBERNATORIAL & LEGISLATIVE CONTROL

Governor House Senate State Party Total Seats Dem Rep Indep/Other Total Seats Dem Rep Indep/Other Alabama Rep 105 64 41 0 35 25 10 0 Alaska Rep 40 13 27 0 20 8 11 1 Arizona Dem 60 21 39 0 30 13 17 0 Arkansas Rep 100 70 30 0 35 27 8 0 California Dem 80 48 32 0 40 25 14 0 Colorado Rep 65 28 37 0 35 17 18 0 Connecticut Rep 151 94 57 0 36 21 15 0 Delaware Dem 41 12 29 0 21 13 8 0 Florida Rep 120 39 81 0 40 14 26 0 Georgia1 Rep 180 106 73 1 56 26 30 0 Hawaii Rep 51 36 15 0 25 20 5 0 Idaho Rep 70 16 54 0 35 7 28 0 Illinois Dem 118 66 52 0 59 32 27 0 Indiana Dem 100 51 49 0 50 18 32 0 Iowa Dem 100 46 54 0 50 21 29 0 Kansas Dem 125 45 80 0 40 10 30 0 Kentucky Dem 100 65 35 0 38 17 21 0 Louisiana Rep 105 71 34 0 39 26 13 0 Maine Dem 151 80 67 4 35 18 17 0 Maryland Rep 141 98 43 0 47 33 14 0 Massachusetts Rep 160 136 23 1 40 34 6 0 Michigan Dem 110 47 63 0 38 16 22 0 Minnesota Rep 134 52 82 0 67 35 31 1 Mississippi Dem 122 86 33 3 52 33 18 0 Missouri Dem 163 73 90 0 34 14 20 0 Montana Rep 100 47 53 0 50 21 29 0 Nebraska2 Rep n/a n/a n/a n/a 49 0 0 49 Nevada Rep 42 23 19 0 21 9 12 0 New Hampshire Rep 400 119 281 0 24 6 18 0 New Jersey4 Dem 80 44 36 0 40 20 20 0 New Mexico Dem 70 43 27 0 42 24 17 0 New York Rep 150 103 47 0 62 25 37 0 North Carolina Dem 120 59 61 0 50 28 22 0 North Dakota Rep 94 28 66 0 47 16 31 0 Ohio Rep 99 37 62 0 33 11 22 0 Oklahoma Dem 101 53 48 0 48 28 20 0 Oregon3 Dem 60 25 35 0 30 15 15 0 Pennsylvania Dem 203 94 109 0 50 21 29 0 Rhode Island Rep 75 63 11 1 38 32 6 0 South Carolina Rep 124 51 73 0 46 21 25 0 South Dakota Rep 70 21 49 0 35 9 25 0 Tennessee Dem 99 54 45 0 33 18 15 0 Texas Rep 150 62 88 0 31 12 19 0 Utah Rep 75 19 56 0 29 7 22 0 Vermont Rep 150 70 73 7 30 19 11 0 Virginia Dem 100 33 65 2 40 17 23 0 Washington Dem 98 51 47 0 49 24 25 0 West Virginia Dem 100 68 32 0 34 24 10 0 Wisconsin Dem 99 41 58 0 33 15 18 0 Wyoming Dem 60 15 45 0 30 10 20 0 TOTALS: 26 Rep / 24 Dem 5411 2686 2705 19 1971 955 961 51

1. Four Georgia senators elected as Democrats in 2002 switched to Republicans after the election and shifted control of the Senate. 2. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is nonpartisan. 3. Oregon’s House is Republican. The Senate is split; in a 12/4 conversation, the Secretary of the Senate speculated there would be a power sharing arrangement that might not be finalized until early January. 4. Republicans and Democrats alternate control of the New Jersey Senate. Democrats control in the following periods: Dec. 02; March, April, July, August, Sept. 03; Jan. 1-6, 04. Republicans control: Jan., Feb., May, June, Oct., Nov. and Dec. 03; Jan. 7-12, 2004. (Source: NJ Office of Legislative Services)

Sources: Legislative— National Conference of State Legislatures; Gubernatorial—National Governors Association 35 APPENDIX 4: FORMER STATE LEGISLATORS IN THE 107TH CONGRESS

STATE UNITED STATES SENATE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 41 Total 231 Total 19 Democrats 120 Democrats 23 Republicans 110 Republicans 1 Independent Alabama Richard Shelby (R) Spencer Bachus (R) Sonny Callahan (R) Earl F. Hilliard (D)

Alaska Ted Stevens (R) Don Young (R) Arizona Jim Kolbe (R) Bob Stump (R)

Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R) Mike Ross (D) Vic Snyder (D)

California Joe Baca (D) Mike Honda (D) Ed Royce (R) Xavier Becerra (D) Barbara Lee (D) Adam Schiff (D) Howard Berman (D) Jerry Lewis (R) Hilda Solis (D) Gary Condit (D) Juanita Millender McDonald (D) William Thomas (R) Julian Dixon (D) Gary Miller (R) Mike Thompson (D) John Doolittle (R) Grace Napolitano (D) Maxine Waters (D) Sam Farr (D) Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) Henry Waxman (D) Wally Herger (R) Colorado Wayne Allard (R) Diana Degette (D) Scott McInnis (R) Tom Tancredo (R) Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R) Joel Hefley (R) Bob Schaffer (R) Mark Udall (D) Connecticut Joseph Lieberman (D) Nancy Johnson (R) James Maloney (D) Robert Simmons (R) John Larson (D) Christopher Shays (R) Delaware Michael Castle (R) Florida Bob Graham (D) Allen Boyd (D) Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) Bob Nelson (D) Corrine Brown (D) Mark Foley (R) Karen Thurman (D) Ander Crenshaw (R) Carrie Meek (D) Robert Wexler (D) Jim Davis (D) John Mica (R) Bill Young (R) Peter Deutsch (D) Adam Putnam (R)

Georgia Max Cleland (D) Sanford Bishop (D) Johnny Isacson (R) John Linder (R) Zell Miller (D) Mac Collins (R) Jack Kingston (R) Cynthia McKinney (D) Nathan Deal (R)

Hawaii Neil Abercrombie (D) Patsy Mink (D)

Idaho Michael Crapo (R) C. L. "Butch" Otter (R) Michael Simpson (R) Larry Craig (R) Illinois Peter Fitzgerald (R) Judy Biggert (R) Henry Hyde (R) Dave Phelps (D) Rod Blagojevich (D) Tim Johnson (R) Jan Schakowsky (D) Dennis Hastert (R) Ray LaHood (R) Gerald Weller (R) Indiana Dan Burton (R) Julia Carson (D) Baron Hill (D) Iowa Charles Grassley (R) Leonard Boswell (D) Kansas Jerry Moran (R) Todd Tiahrt (R)

Kentucky Jim Bunning (R) Ernest Fletcher (R) Anne Northup (R) Ed Whitfield (R) Louisiana Mary Landrieu (D) Richard Baker (R) Chris John (D) David Vitter (R) William Jefferson (D) Billy Tauzin (R) Maine Olympia Snowe (R) John Baldacci (D) Maryland Paul Sarbanes (D) Benjamin Cardin (D) Robert Ehrlich Jr. (R) Constance Morella (R) Elijah E. Cummings (D) Steny Hoyer (D) Albert Wynn (D) Massachusetts William Delahunt (D) Edward Markey (D) John Olver (D) Barney Frank (D) Joe Moakley (D) Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D) James Barcia (D) Dale Kildee (D) Michael Rogers (R) David Bonior (D) Carolyn Kilpatrick (D) Nick Smith (R) David Camp (R) Sander Levin (D) Bart Stupak (D) Vernon Ehlers (R) Lynn Nancy Rivers (D) Minnesota Gil Gutknecht (R) Betty McCollum (D) Jim Ramstad (R) William Luther (D) Collin Peterson (D) Martin Sabo (D) Mississippi Ronnie Shows (D) Gene Taylor (D) Roger Wicker (R) Missouri Todd Akin (R) Sam Graves (R) Ike Skelton (D) William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D) Karen McCarthy (D) Montana Max Baucus (D) Dennis Rehberg (R) Nebraska Doug Bereuter (R)

36 APPENDIX 4 CONT… STATE UNITED STATES SENATE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Nevada Richard Bryan (D) Shelley Berkley (D) Jim Gibbons (R) Harry Reid (D) New Hampshire Charles Bass (R) New Jersey Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) Robert Menendez (D) William Pascrell Jr. (D) Frank LoBiondo (R) Frank Pallone Jr. (D) James Saxton (R) New Mexico Joe Skeen (R) New York Charles Schumer (D) Gary Ackerman (D) John LaFalce (D) Major Owens (D) Joseph Crowley (D) John McHugh (R) Charles Rangel (D) Eliot Engel (D) Michael McNulty (D) Tom Reynolds (R) Benjamin Gilman (R) Gregory W. Meeks (D) Jose Serrano (D) Maurice Hinchey (D) Jerrold Nadler (D) Louise Slaughter (D) North Carolina Cass Ballenger (R) Robert Hayes (R) Charles Taylor (R) Howard Coble (R) Walter Jones Jr. (R) Melvin Watt (D) Bobby Etheridge (D) North Dakota Earl Pomeroy (D) Ohio Mike DeWine (R) John Boehner (R) Dave Hobson (R) Ralph Regula (R) George Voinovich (R) Sherrod Brown (D) Dennis Kucinich (D) Thomas Sawyer (D) Paul Gillmor (R) Robert Ney (R) Patrick Tiberi (R) Tony Hall (D) Michael Oxley (R) Oklahoma James Inhofe (R) Ernest Jim Istook Jr. (R) Frank Lucas (R) Don Nickles (R) Oregon Gordon Smith (R) Earl Blumenauer (D) Darlene Hooley (D) Greg Walden (R) Pennsylvania Robert Borski (D) James C. Greenwood (R) John Peterson (R) William Coyne (D) Melissa Hart (R) Joseph Pitts (R) Chaka Fattah (D) Joseph Hoeffel III (D) Todd Platts (R) George Gekas (R) John Murtha (D) Puerto Rico Carlos Romero-Barcelo (D) Rhode Island Jack Reed (D) Patrick Kennedy (D) Jim Langevin (D)

South Carolina Ernest Hollings (D) Henry Brown (R) Lindsey Graham (R) Floyd Spence (R) Strom Thurmond (R) South Dakota Tim Johnson (D) Tennessee William Jenkins (R) John Tanner (D)

Texas Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Kevin Brady (R) Chet Edwards (D) Sam Johnson (R) John Culberson (R) Gene Green (D) Ciro Rodriguez (D) Tom DeLay (R) Ralph Hall (D) Lamar Smith (R) Lloyd Doggett (D) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) Jim Turner (D) Utah James Hansen (R) Vermont Jim Jeffords (R) Virginia George Allen (R) Rick Boucher (D) Virgil Goode (I) Edward Schrock (R) Eric Cantor (R) Robert Scott (D) Norman Sisisky (D) Jo Ann Davis (R) Washington Maria Cantwell (D) Doc Hastings (R) Jim McDermott (D) Adam Smith (D) Patty Murray (D) Jay Inslee (D) West Virginia Robert Byrd (D) Shelly Moore Capito (R) Bob Wise (D) John D. Rockefeller Jr. (D) Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D) Tammy Baldwin (D) Gerald Kleczka (D) Tom Petri (R) Thomas Barrett (D) David Obey (D) James Sensenbrenner (R) Mark Green (R) Wyoming Mike Enzi (R) Barbara Cubin (R) Craig Thomas (R)

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

37 APPENDIX 5: TERM LIMITED STATES

TERM LIMITED STATES

HOUSE SENATE

Year Year of Enacted Limit Impact1 Limit Year of Impact1 Maine 1993 8 1996 8 1996 California 1990 6 1996 8 1998 Colorado 1990 8 1998 8 1998 Arkansas 1992 6 1998 8 2000 Michigan 1992 6 1998 8 2002 Florida 1992 8 2000 8 2000 Ohio 1992 8 2000 8 2000 South Dakota 1992 8 2000 8 2000 Montana 1992 8 2000 8 2000 Arizona 1992 8 2000 8 2000 Missouri 1992 8 2002 8 2002 Oklahoma 1990 12 2004 12 2004 Utah 1994 12 2006 12 2006 Wyoming 1992 12 2006 12 2006 Nebraska 2000 n/a n/a 8 2006 Louisiana 1995 12 2007 12 2007 Nevada 1995 12 2008 12 2008

1. The year of impact represents the first year in which incumbents serving when the term limits measure passed will no longer be eligible for reelection.

CONSECUTIVE VS. LIFETIME LIMITS Limit in Years Consecutive Lifetime Ban Arkansas, California, 6 house / 8 senate Michigan 8 total Nebraska Arizona, Colorado, Florida, 8 house / 8 senate Maine, Montana, Ohio, Missouri South Dakota 12 total Oklahoma 12 house / 12 senate Louisiana, Utah, Wyoming Nevada

TERM LIMITS REPEALS State Year Enacted Year Repealed Idaho 1994 2002 Massachusetts 1994 1997 Oregon 1992 2002 Washington 1992 1998

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

38 APPENDIX 6: TERM LIMITED LEGISLATORS BY STATE IN 2002 A total of 322 legislators in 11 states were termed out in the 2002 elections. The hardest-hit chambers were the Michigan Senate, where 71% of the current members were ineligible to run for re-election, and the Missouri House, where 45% of the current members could not run.

Legislators Termed Out in the 2002 Election Arizona House 9 of 60 members (15%) Arizona Senate 6 of 30 members (20%) Arkansas House 14 of 100 members (14%) Arkansas Senate 11 of 35 members (31%) California Assembly 20 of 80 members (25%) California Senate 7 of 40 members (17.5%) Colorado House 7 of 65 members (11%) Colorado Senate 5 of 35 members (14%) Florida House 14 of 120 members (12%) Florida Senate 12 of 40 members (30%) Maine House 28 of 151 members (18.5%) Maine Senate 8 of 35 members (23%) Michigan House 23 of 110 members (21%) Michigan Senate 27 of 38 members (71%) Missouri House 73 of 163 members (45%) Missouri Senate 12 of 34 members (35%) Montana House 7 of 100 members (7%) Montana Senate 15 of 50 members (30%) Ohio House 9 of 99 members (9%) Ohio Senate 4 of 33 members (12%) South Dakota House 7 of 70 members (10%) South Dakota Senate 4 of 35 members (11%) Total 3221 members

1. This is down from 330 (January 2002) due to mid-term resignations by eight termed out legislators in three states.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

39 APPENDIX 7: DOLLARS PER VOTE AND AVERAGE AMOUNTS RAISED, 2000 GENERAL ELECTION

Source: 2000 State Election Overview; National Institute on Money in State Politics

40 APPENDIX 8: COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROL AND TOTAL RAISED BY 2000 ELECTION WINNERS

Source: 2000 State Election Overview; National Institute on Money in State Politics

41 APPENDIX 9: 2002 STATE LEGISLATOR COMPENSATION AND LIVING EXPENSE ALLOWANCES DURING SESSION

Salary Per Diem (Allowance for Daily Expenses) Alabama $10/day (C) $2,280/month plus $50/day for three days during each week that the legislature actually meets during any session (U). Alaska $24,012/year $161/day (U) tied to federal rate. Legislators who reside in the Capitol area receive 75% of the federal rate. Arizona $24,000/year $35/day for the 1st 120 days of regular session & special session & $10/day thereafter. Members residing outside Maricopa County receive an additional $25/day for the 1st 120 days of reg. session & for special session & an additional $10/day thereafter (V). Set by statute. Arkansas $12,769/year $95/day (V) plus mileage tied to federal rate. California $99,000/year $121/day (V) by roll call. Maximum allowable per diem is paid regardless of actual expenses. Colorado $30,000/year $45/day for members living in the Denver metro area. $99/day for members living outside Denver (V). Per diem is determined by the legislature. Connecticut $28,000/year No per diem is paid. Delaware $33,400/year No per diem is paid. District of $92,500/year No per diem is paid. Columbia Florida $27,900/year $99/day (V) tied to federal rate. Earned based on the number of days in session. Travel vouchers are filed to substantiate. Georgia $16,200/year $128/day (U) set by the legislature. Hawaii $32,000/year $80/day for members living outside Oahu; $10/day for members living on Oahu (V) set by the legislature. Idaho $15,646/year $99/day for members establishing second residence in Boise; $38/day if no second residence is established & up to $25/day travel (U) set by Compensation Commission. Illinois $55,788/year $85/day (U) tied to federal rate. Indiana $11,600/year $112/day (U) tied to federal rate. Iowa $20,758/year $86/day (U). $65/day for Polk County legislators (U) set by the legislature. State mileage rates apply. Kansas $78.75/day (C) $85/day (U) tied to federal rate. Kentucky $163.56/day (C) $93.50/day (U) tied to federal rate (110% Federal per diem rate). Louisiana $16,800/year $116/day (U) tied to federal rate. Additional $6,000/yr (U) expense allowance. Maine $10,815/year for 1st $38/day housing or reimbursement for mileage in lieu of housing at the rate of .28/mile up to $38/day. $32/day meals regular session; (V) set by the legislature. $7,725/year for 2nd regular session. Maryland $31,509/year Lodging $96/day; meals $30/day (V) tied to federal rate and compensation commission. Massachusetts $50,122.80/year From $10/day-$100/day, depending on distance from State House (V) set by the legislature. Michigan $77,400/year $12,000 yearly expense allowance for session and interim (V) set by compensation commission. Minnesota $31,140/year Senators receive $66/day and Representatives received $56/legislative day (U) set by the legislature. Mississippi $10,000/year $85/day (U) tied to federal rate. Missouri $31,561/year $72/day (U) tied to federal rate. Verification of per diem is by roll call. Montana $71.832/day (L) $58/day (U) plus trip mileage reimbursement. Nebraska $12,000/year $85/day outside 50-mile radius from Capitol; $30/day if member resides within 50 miles of Capitol (V) tied to federal rate. Nevada $130/day maximum Federal rate for Capitol area (V). Legislators who live more than 50 miles from the capitol, if require lodging, will be of 60 days of session paid Hud single-room rate for Carson City area for each month of session. New Hampshire $200/two-year term No per diem is paid. New Jersey $49,000/year No per diem is paid. New Mexico None $145/day (V) tied to federal rate & the constitution. New York $79,500/year Varies (V) tied to federal rate. North Carolina $13,951/year $104/day (U) set by statute. North Dakota $125/day (C) Lodging reimbursement up to $650/month (V). $250/month additional compensation set by statute. Ohio $51,674/year No per diem is paid. Oklahoma $38,400/year $103/day (U) tied to federal rate. Oregon $15,396/year $85/day (U) tied to federal rate.

42 APPENDIX 9 CONT… Salary Per Diem (Allowance for Daily Expenses) Pennsylvania $61,889.71/year $124/day (V) tied to federal rate. Can receive actual expenses or per diem. Rhode Island $11,236/year No per diem is paid. South Carolina $10,400/year $95/day for meals and housing, for each statewide session day and cmte meeting (V) tied to federal rate. South Dakota $12,000/two-yr term $110/legislative day (U) set by the legislature. Tennessee $16,500/year $124/legislative day (U). Session attendance is verified by roll calls submitted by the House and Senate Chief Clerks. Committee attendance is verified by roll calls submitted by each standing committee’s office. Texas $7,200/year $124/day (U) set by Ethics Commission. Utah $120/day (C) $75/day (U) lodging allotment for each calendar day, tied to federal rate. $42/day (U) per diem for each calendar day. Vermont $536/week during $50/day for lodging and $37/day for meals for non-commuters; commuters receive $32/day for meals (U) set by the session legislature. Virginia $18,000/year Senate $115/day (U) tied to federal rate. $17,640/year House Washington $32,064/year $82/day (U) tied to federal rate (85% Olympia area). West Virginia $15,000/year $115/day during session (U) set by compensation commission. $150/Day for attendance during interim. Wisconsin $44,333/year $88/day maximum (U) set by compensation commission (90% of federal rate). Wyoming $125/day (L) $80/day (V) set by the legislature, includes travel days for those outside of Cheyenne.

Key: L = Legislative day C = Calendar day V = Vouchered U = Unvouchered N/R = No Response

Source: National Council of State Legislatures

43 APPENDIX 10: 2003 LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION CALENDAR Current as of July 22, 2002 State Convenes Adjourns Comments Alabama 03/04/03 06/16/03 Organizational session begins Jan. 14, 2003 Alaska 01/21/03 05/21/03 Arizona 01/13/03 late April Arkansas 01/13/03 03/13/03 California 12/02/02 mid-Sept Colorado 01/08/03 05/07/03 Connecticut 01/08/03 06/04/03 Delaware 01/14/03 06/30/03 Florida 03/04/03 05/02/03 Organizational session begins Nov 19, 2002 Georgia 01/13/03 mid-March Hawaii 01/15/03 early May Idaho 01/06/03 late March Organizational session begins Dec. 5, 2002 Illinois 01/08/03 * Indiana 01/13/03 04/29/03 Organizational session begins Nov 19, 2002 Iowa 01/13/03 late April Kansas 01/13/03 late April Kentucky 01/07/03 03/30/03 Louisiana 03/31/03 06/23/03 Maine 12/04/02 06/18/03 Maryland 01/08/03 04/07/03 Massachusetts 01/01/03 * Michigan 01/08/03 * Minnesota 01/07/03 05/19/03 Mississippi 01/07/03 04/06/03 Missouri 01/08/03 05/30/03 Montana 01/06/03 late April Nebraska 01/08/03 early June Nevada 02/03/03 06/02/03 New Hampshire 01/08/03 late June Organizational day is Dec 4, 2002 New Jersey 01/14/03 * New Mexico 01/21/03 03/21/03 New York 01/08/03 * North Carolina 01/29/03 early July North Dakota 01/07/03 04/30/03 Organizational session is Dec 2-4, 2002 Ohio 01/06/03 * Oklahoma 02/03/03 05/30/03 Organizational day is Jan. 7, 2003 Oregon 01/13/03 mid-July Pennsylvania 01/07/03 * Rhode Island 01/07/03 late June South Carolina 01/14/03 06/05/03 South Dakota 01/14/03 late March Tennessee 01/14/03 late May Texas 01/14/03 06/02/03 Utah 01/20/03 03/05/03 Vermont 01/08/03 mid-May Odd-yr session traditionally is extended 15 days; if done, adjournment will Virginia 01/08/03 02/06/03 change to 2/ 22 Washington 01/13/03 04/27/03 West Virginia 02/12/03 04/12/03 Organizational session begins Jan 8, 2002 Wisconsin 01/06/03 * Wyoming 01/14/03 early March

* Legislature meets throughout the year

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

44 APPENDIX 11: CASH BENEFITS TO UNWED MINOR PARENTS ACT

CASH BENEFITS TO UNWED MINOR PARENTS ACT

Model Legislation

{Title, enacting clause, etc.}

Section 1. {Title} This Act may be cited as the Cash Benefits to Unwed Minor Parents Act

Section 2. {Definitions} As used in this Act:

“The department” means the appropriate state level Department of Social Services.

Section 3. {Denial of Benefits Provision}

The department shall not provide any cash benefits to a child born out-of-wedlock or to an individual who has not attained eighteen years of age, or for the individual, until the individual attains such age.

Section 4{Establishment of Paternity Provision}

Upon the birth of a child to an unmarried woman, the paternity of the child must be acknowledged by both the child’s mother and the natural father in the form of an affidavit to be filed with the Department at both the local and state levels, and given to both the mother and father separately.

Section 5. {Severability clause}

Section 6. {Repealer clause]

Section 7. {Effective date}

Source: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artID=6397

45 APPENDIX 12: ALEC BOARD MEMBERS

National Board of Directors Private Enterprise Board

Louisiana Representative Donald Ray Kennard Kurt L. Malmgren, PhRMA First Vice Chairman Chairman

Kansas Senator Susan Wagle Jerry Watson, American Bail Coalition First Vice Chair First Vice Chairman

Mississippi Senator Billy Hewes, III Scott Fisher, Phillip Morris Mgmt. Corp. Second Vice Chairman Second Vice Chair

Georgia Representative Earl Ehrhart Pete Poynter, BellSouth Corporation Treasurer Treasurer

Iowa Representative Delores Mertz Edward D. Failor, Sr., Iowans For Tax Relief Secretary Secretary

Oklahoma Senator Jim Dunlap Michael K. Morgan, Koch Industries Immediate Past Chair Immediate Past Chairman

Allan E. Auger, Coors Brewing Company Chairman Emeritus

Ronald F. Scheberle, Verizon Chairman Emeritus

Source: http://www.alec.org, 1/18/03

46 APPENDIX 13: LISTING OF ALL ALEC MODEL LEGISLATION AND RESOLUTIONS As of December 1, 2002 A National Energy Strategy Economic Civil Rights Act Access to Medicaid Act Economic Liberty Resolution Accountability in Government Amendment to the Constitution Education Accountability Act Accuracy in Pleading Act Education Certificate Act Acknowledgement of Paternity Act Education Enterprise Zone Act Affordable Housing Construction Stimulation Act Efficiency in Government Act Affordable Housing Tax Credit Electronic Commerce and New Economy Data Collection Act After-Market Crash Parts Act Electronic Government Services Act Agriculture Bio-Security Act 8-8-02 Electronic Home Detection Act ALEC Energy Principles Electronically Issued Warrants Act Alt. Language for Workers’ Comp Medical Records Disclosure Elimination of Double Recoveries Act Alternate Certification Act Elimination of Non-Federally Mandated Benefits Alternative Dispute Resolution Act Emergency Services Personnel Protection Act Alternative Method of Court Appearances Act Employee Rights Reform Act An Act to be Amended to ALEC’S Medical Savings Account Bill Employer Standing Act Anabolic Steroids Act Employment Reference Immunity Act Anti-Automated Enforcement Act Enabling Legislation for On-line Bidding Act Anti-Crime (Secured Release) Act Enabling Legislation for Public-Private Electronic Info. Network Partn Anti-Stalking Act English Fluency in Lectures at State Institutions of Higher Education Assumption of Risk Act Enterprise Zone Act At-will Employment Act Environmental Audit Privilege and Qualified Disclosure Act Automobile Theft Prevention Act Environmental Good Samaritan Act Background on Air Quality Related Values Act Environmental Literacy Improvement Act Bail Agent Education and Licensing Act Environmental Rules Oversight Act Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act Exclusionary Rule Act Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution Expanded Consumer Choice in Financial Services Act Biotechnology Resolution Factory-Built Housing Act Blood Safety Act Fairness in Litigation Act Bogus Receipts and Universal Product Codes Act Fairness in Statute of Limitation Reopeners Resolution Budget Reserve Account Act Federal Grant Review Act Business Development for TANF Recipients Act Federal Mandate/Federal Encroachment on State Sovereignty Audit CAFÉ Resolution Federalism Capital Gains Tax Elimination Act Fiscal Note Act Career Ladder Opportunities Act Food Safety Protection Act Charter Schools Act Forum Non Conveniens Act Child Abuse Investigation Reform Act Full Employment Act Children’s Health Insurance Program Act Full Employment Program Civic Literacy Act Government of the People Amendment to the US Constitution Civil Procedure Rule Equity Resolution Government-Related Insurers Not to be Authorized Act Civil Rights Act Groundwater Protection Act Class Actions Improvements Act Habitual Juvenile Offender Act College Funding Accountability Act Habitual Violent Offender Incarceration Act College Savings Account Act Health Care Tax Relief Equity Act Commission on Economy and Productivity in State Government Act Health Insurance Reform Act for Individual Coverage Common Sense Scientific and Technical Evidence Act Health Insurance Reform Act for Small Business Coverage Comparative Fault Act Hearsay in Public Hearings Act Competitive Contracting of the Department of Motor Vehicles Act Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere Act Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture Act Housing Affordability Impact Statement Act Conditional Post Conviction Release Act Housing Out-of-State Prisoners in a Private Prison Congressional Delegate Mandate Constitution Act Ignition Interlock Device Act Consistency in Firearms Regulation Act Independent Contractor Definition Act Constitutional Amendment For Victim’s Rights Independent External Review for Health Benefit Plans Act Constitutional Defense Council Act Independent Revenue Forecasting Act Consumer Awareness Act of Future Premium Rates Infectious Disease Prison Testing Act Consumer Banking Act Inmate Labor Disclosure Act Consumer Choice Motor Vehicle Insurance Act Insanity Defense Reform Act Consumer Price Index Resolution Insurance Fraud Act Criminal History Record Check For Firearm Sales Act Insurance Pool Act Criminal Justice Drug Testing Act Intensive Probation Act Criminal Record Reporting Act Intermodal Policy Resolution Declaration of Sovereignty Internet Taxation Resolution Defense of Free Market and Public Safety Resolution Interstate Compact Sunshine Act Deferred Presentment Services Act Item-Reduction Veto Constitutional Amendment Disarming a Law Enforcement Officer Act Joint and Several Liability Act DNA Profiling Act Joint Legislative Committee on Federal Mandates Act Drug and Alcohol Defense Act Judicial Sentencing Disclosure Act Drug Dealer Liability Act Juvenile Identification Act Drug Free Workplace Act Kinship Care Act Drug Liability Act Labor Organizations Deductions Act Drug-Affected Infants Act Labor Peace Agreement Preemption Act Drug-Free Housing Project Act Landowners’ Liability Act Drug-Free Post-Secondary Education Act Learnfare Act Drug-Free Schools Act Legal Consumer’s Bill of Rights Drunk Driving Prevention Act Licensing and Certification of Businesses and Professionals Act 47 APPENDIX 13 CONT… Limits on Multiple Punitive Damages Resolution Resolution in Favor of a Federal Flat Tax Litigation Accountability Act Resolution in Favor of a Tax Credit on Charitable Donations Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act Resolution in Favor of a US Const. Amendment on Judicial Taxation Local Jurisdiction Consent of National Monument Designation Resolution in Favor of Requiring Expedited Waiver Procedures Long-Term Care Equity Protection Act Resolution in Opposition of Carbon Dioxide Emission Standards Long-Term Care Inflation Consumer Protection Act Resolution in Opposition to Disruptive Union Organizing Long-Term Care Insurance Act Resolution in Opposition to S. 1602, The Chemical Security Act Long-Term Care Tax Credit Act Resolution in Opposition to the Use of Transportation Taxes for Mandated Benefits Review Act Resolution in Opposition to Violence in Labor Disputes Mandatory Demand Reduction Assessment Act Resolution in Support of Employee Involvement Market Based Medicaid Reform Act Resolution of Health Care Financing Administration Regulations Medicaid Reimbursement for Drugs Act Resolution of the State Regulation of Insurance Medical Savings Account Act Resolution on Anti-Trust Exemption for Physician Cartels Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Act Resolution on Child Firearms Safety Minors on Welfare Residency Act Resolution on Environmental Justice Model Appeal Bond Waiver Act Resolution on Equitable Motor Carrier Regulatory Fees Money Laundering Act Resolution on Fast Track Trade Negotiating Authority Multi-Passenger Transportation Deregulation Act Resolution on Federal Health Insurance Reform Legislation Municipal Sanctions Assessment Act Resolution on Federal Medicaid and Welfare Block Nationwide Interstate Banking Act Resolution on Firearms Purchase Waiting Periods Noneconomic Damage Awards Act Resolution on Franchise and Business Agreement Legislation Obscenity and Child Pornography Act Resolution on Maintaining Confidentiality Of Patient-Identifiable Info Offer Of Settlement Act Resolution on Medicare Co-Payments Omnibus Common Language Act Resolution on Medicare Co-payments for Outpatient Hospital Services Open Enrollment Act Resolution on Negative Impacts of Pharmaceutical Price Controls Open Parole Hearings Act Resolution on Non-Verified Science Curriculum Funding Opening Contracting Act Resolution on Patient Access to Physical Therapists’ Services Ozone Attainment State Implementation Plan Act Resolution on Preserving States’ Rights to Regulate Health Insurance Parental Accountability Act Resolution on Prison Expenditures Parental Notification and Choice in Bilingual Education Act Resolution on Quality Managed Care in a Litigious Marketplace Parental Rights Amendment Resolution on Release Time for Union Business Periodic Payment of Judgments Act Resolution on Secondary Boycotts Personal and Business Flat Tax Act Resolution on Semi-Automatic Firearms Personal and Commercial Computer Protection Act. Resolution on Social Security and Personal Retirement Accounts Personal Information Security Act Resolution on State Millennium Immunity Policy Resolution on Reform of New Source Review Regulations Resolution on State Use Tax on Prescription Drug Samples Political Funding Reform Act Resolution on States’ Rights: Vehicle Weight and Size Regulations Power Plant Siting Act Resolution on Stop-Loss Insurance Pre-Complaint Notice Act Resolution on Straight A’s: Academic Achievement for All Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Act Resolution on the Federal Employer’s Liability Act Prescription Non-Narcotic Assured Access Act Resolution on the Federal Highway Trust Fund Prevailing Wage Repeal Act Resolution on the McCarran-Ferguson Act Prevention of Illegal Payments to Inmates Incentive Act Resolution on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Principles on “Proposed Socially Conscious” Investments Resolution on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Principles Regarding Prescription Drug Benefits Resolution on The Use Of CFC’S and MDI’S Prison Industries Act Resolution on Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Privacy and Security of Government Required Data Protection Resolution on Trade Promotion Authority Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act Resolution on Unilateral Trade Sanctions Private Property Protection Act Resolution on United States Encryption Export Restrictions Privatization of Child Support Enforcement Services Resolution Opposing any Increase in the Starting Wage Privatization of Foster Care and Adoption Services Resolution Opposing Comparable Worth Legislation Privatization of Welfare-to-Work Programs Act Resolution Opposing Ergonomic Regulations Based on Unsound Science Product Liability Act Resolution Opposing Federal Reg. to Extend Unemployment to New Parents Product Liability Resolution Resolution Opposing Federal Restrictions on Truck Driver Hrs. of Service Product Safety Analysis Incentive Act Resolution Opposing Federal Standards for Monopoly Bargaining Prohibition of Negative Check-Off Act Resolution Opposing Frivolous Complaints and Permits Extortion Prohibition on Compensation Deductions Act Resolution Opposing Gov. Imposed Caps or Elimination of ATM Fees Proof of Custody Act Resolution Opposing OSHA’s Proposed Ergonomic Standards Property Investment Protection Act Resolution Opposing OSHA’s Proposed Ergonomics Plan Property/Casualty Insurance Form Filing Act Resolution Opposing OSHA’s Proposed Ergonomics Work Restriction Property/Casualty Insurance Modernization Act Resolution Opposing Racial and Ethnic Gerrymandering Public Document Cost Disclosure Act Resolution Opposing the United Nations Drive for Global Taxes Public Employee Freedom Act Resolution Requesting Congress to Cite Its Const. Authority Public Employees’ Portable Retirement Option (PRO) Act Resolution Supporting Federal Pension Portability Legislation Public Employer Payroll Deduction Policy Act Resolution Supporting Organ Donation Education Public Transportation Consumer Protection Act Resolution Supporting Private Market Initiatives For Child’s Health Insurance Publication of Drug Offender Photographs Act Resolution Supporting Private Scholarship Tax Credits Punitive Damages Standards Act Resolution Supporting Reporting Requirements for Public Sector Unions Pupil Transportation Cost-Effectiveness Act Resolution Supporting Territorial Rating Quality Education and Teacher and Principal Protection Act Resolution to Eliminate the Employee Trip Reduction Provision Real Estate Economic Growth Resolution Resolution to End State-Enabled Newborn Testing Monopolies Remote Video Court Appearance Act Resolution to Oppose the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Renewability of Individual Health Insurance Act Resolution to Repeal Special Privileges in Transit Rent Control Preemption Act Resolution to Repeal the Federal Unified Gift and Estate Tax Residency Requirements for TANF Recipients Act Resolution to Repeal the Non-Transportation Federal Fuels Tax Resolution Against “Pay at the Pump” Automobile Insurance Resolution to Restate State Sovereignty Resolution Against Federal Weight-Distance Tax Proposal Resolution Urging Congress To Modernize Social Security Resolution Calling for Reform in the FDA Resolution Urging Congress to Oppose Credit Card Rate Ceilings Resolution for a Limited Constitutional Convention Restricting the Use of Random Sampling Techniques for Census 48 APPENDIX 13 CONT… Reverse Mortgage Enabling Act TANF Continued Eligibility or Benefits Act Right to Buy Public Housing Act TANF Limits on Benefits for Additional Children Act Right to Farm Act Tax and Expenditure Limitation Act Right To Work Act Tax Indexing Act Rural Hospital Deregulation Act Taxpayer Protection Act School Board Freedom to Contract Act Taxpayer Right to Appeal Act School Violence Prevention Resolution Teachers’ Right to Know Senior Financial Security Program Act Tenant Management Act Separation of Powers Act Ten-year Statute of Repose Act Separation of Powers: Prevention of Retroactive Judicial Lawmaking Testing and Reporting of New HIV and HCV Cases Act Set of Principles on Toll Roads Theft from Three Separate Mercantile Establishments Act Shock Incarceration Act Third Theft Felony Act Smoke Testing of On-Road Diesel Vehicles Time Limits on TANF Benefits Act Smoke Testing of On-Road Diesel Vehicles Roadside Inspections Treatment Center Accountability Act Sound Federal Fiscal Policy Resolution Truth in Forecasting Act Starting (minimum) Wage Repeal Act Truth in Sentencing Act State employee Drug-free Workplace Act Truth in Spending Act State Implementation of Clean Water Act (TMDL) Requirements Uniform Bail Act State Payment for State Mandates Act Uniform Photographic Records Act State Pesticide Preemption Act Uninsured Motorist Stipulation of Benefits Act State Protection of Air Quality Related Values Act Unused Property Market Act State Regulatory Responsibility Act Urban Transit Administration Act State Responses to Kyoto Climate Change Protocol Use of a Minor in Drug Operations Act State Sovereignty for Air Quality and Visibility Act Vegetative Filter Strips Act Statement of Principles for Slamming Verifiable Science Act Statement of Principles on Federally Mandated Blood Alcohol Lev Victim and Witness Address Confidentiality Act Statement on Aviation Funding Victim Impact Statement Act States’ Initiative Constitutional Amendment Volunteer Immunity and Charitable Organization Liability Limit Statute Limitations for Offenses Against Children Act Waste Tire Abatement Act Statute of Limitation Reduction Act Water/Wastewater Utility Public-Private Partnership Act Student Right to Learn Act Whistle Blower Immunity Act Summary Judgment Procedure Act Workers’ Compensation as Exclusive Remedy Resolution Super-Majority Act Workers’ Compensation Fraud Warning Act Suspension of Driving Privileges Act Workplace Drug Testing Act Suspension of Professional Licenses Act Workplace Responsibility Act TANF Applicant Job Search Program Youth Firearm Safety Resolution

Source: www.alec.org

49 APPENDIX 14: ALEC TASK FORCE CHAIRS

Commerce and Economic Development Chairs: Health and Human Services Chairs:

Nevada Assemblyman Dennis Nolan Indiana Representative Dave Frizzell Public Sector Chair Public Sector Chair

Ed Conklin, McDonald’s Corporation Bill O’Connor, MEGA Life and Health Insurance Private Sector Chair Private Sector Chair Criminal Justice Chairs: Education Chairs:

Wisconsin Representative Scott Suder South Carolina Representative Harry Stille Public Sector Chair Public Sector Chair

Dennis Bartlett, American Bail Coalition Jeffrey Ballabon, PRIMEDIA, Inc. Phillip Bissett, Guardian Interlock Systems Private Sector Chair Private Sector Chairs Energy, Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture (EENRA) Chairs: Civil Justice Chairs:

Mississippi Representative Jim Ellington Oklahoma Senator Scott Pruitt Public Sector Chair Public Sector Chair

Bob Quick, ASARCO Inc. Victor Schwartz, Esq. Private Sector Chair Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP Private Sector Chair Tax and Fiscal Policy Chairs: Telecommunications and Information Technology Chairs:

Colorado Senator Bob Hagedorn Missouri Representative Gary Burton Public Sector Chair Public Sector Chair

Teresa Jennings, American Express Company Frank Thompson, Verizon Communications Private Sector Chair Private Sector Chair Trade and Transportation Chairs: Federalism Chairs:

Kentucky Representative Paul Marcotte No members listed. Public Sector Chair

Vacant Private Sector Chair

(Public sector chair titles are pre-2002 election. For example, Dennis Nolan was elected to the Nevada Senate in November 2002.)

Source: Material on www.alec.org as of 1/18/03.

50 APPENDIX 15: CONDITIONING REGULATION OF NON-POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ON SCIENCE

Purpose:

The following language, as a freestanding bill or amendment to, e.g., a bill to regulate C02, requires a State [EPA] Administrator ensure an assessment considering certain criteria prior to formally proposing or implementing regulation of any emission not listed as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.

Under this approach to propose regulation of C02 or implement a statutory cap, whether or not required by other state authority, the Administrator must first report whether the proposal:

(1) reasonably demonstrates that the authority is necessary to protect the environment or public health or welfare; (2) is likely to have a substantial and significant adverse effect on fuel or energy availability or price, its impact to be balanced against any benefits reasonably identified as deriving from the proposal [asserting both benefits and costs], and (3) possesses feasibility and benefits comparatively superior to alternative means toward achieving the same end, potentially yielding the same or better result but with a stimulative impact in lieu of a putative negative economic impact (citing the example of expedited asset depreciation).

This initiative is not accurately portrayed as requiring a cost-benefit analysis that must yield particular results in order for a proposal to advance. A proposal with no benefit or tremendous cost can still advance. It is instead a "regulatory right to know" requirement of disclosure, to accompany any such proposal, assessing any detectable benefits, and their relationship to costs.

An alternative approach is to create a process mimicking the CAA requirement for listing criteria pollutants, for any effort to regulate an air emission not regulated as a pollutant under CAA.

Be it enacted by of the

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the "Conditioning Regulation of Non-Pollutant Emissions on Science."

Section 2. Required Assessment For Regulating Non-Pollutant Emissions.

Notwithstanding any other authority, prior to proposing regulation or implementing statutory limitation of an air emission not listed as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 7408 or 7412), the [State EPA] Administrator shall ensure and consider a specific, independent regulatory Assessment.

Section 3. Required Elements Of Assessment. An Assessment pursuant to Section (2) of this Act shall - (i) include a detailed analysis of –

(a) improvements in environmental quality or public health or welfare expected to result from the proposed emission control or prohibition, employing specific environmental and other indicators as applicable; and (b) the likely direct and indirect effects of the proposed control or prohibition on the availability and price of fuel and electricity in the State; (c) a comparison of such likely market impacts to potential benefits reasonably identified as deriving from the proposal; and (d) the comparative feasibility and benefits of achieving similar results through alternative means with a more positive economic impact.

(ii) demonstrate whether the proposed emission control or prohibition is necessary to protect the environment or public health or welfare.

Section 4. Criteria For Regulatory Proposal. The Administrator shall fully detail in his regulatory proposal as described in Section (2) of this Act whether -

(i) the assessment pursuant to Section (3) of this Act reasonably demonstrates that the authority is necessary to protect the environment or public health or welfare;

51 APPENDIX 15 CONT…

(ii) the control or prohibition is likely to have a substantial and significant adverse effect on fuel or electricity availability or price that clearly outweighs any benefits reasonably identified as deriving from the control or prohibition; (iii) the State has sufficiently assessed the comparative benefits of achieving the same end through flexible, incentive-based means, for example by expediting capital turnover through providing accelerated asset depreciation or otherwise modifying capital gains or other tax schedules, including a detailed assessment of those alternatives considered and their benefits; and

(iv) the proposal is a comparatively superior approach to alternative approaches analyzed.

Section 5. Assessment Procedural Requirements. (i) SCIENTIFIC COMPONENT - Prior to formally proposing regulation as described in Section (2) of this Act, the Administrator shall empanel no less than five (5) qualified experts in related fields but independent of any regulatory agency, to assess and report on the specific potential environmental benefits to be derived from the proposal and from alternatives pursuant to Subpart (3)(i)(d) of this Act, employing discrete environmental indicators;

(a) the Administrator shall to the extent possible ensure balance among the panel in terms of appointees' documented positions on related matters, and shall minimize potential appearances of conflict of interest; (b) the panel's report shall be included in the Assessment pursuant to Section (2) of this Act and published as part of any regulatory proposal covered by this Act, and its written deliberations made available to the public at the same time; and (c) the panel's analysis and considerations shall resemble to the extent applicable that required under 42 U.S.C. 7408 for determining criteria pollutants.

(ii) ECONOMIC COMPONENT - Prior to formally proposing regulation, the Administrator shall empanel no less than five (5) qualified experts in related fields but independent of any regulatory agency, to assess and report on the potential economic impacts associated with the proposal and potential alternatives;

(a) the Administrator shall to the extent possible ensure balance among the panel in terms of appointees' documented positions on related matters, and shall minimize and avoid where possible potential appearances of conflict of interest; and (b) the panel's report shall be included in the Assessment pursuant to Section (2) of this Act and published as part of any regulatory proposal covered by this Act, and its written deliberations made available to the public at the same time.

(iii) PUBLIC NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT - The Administrator shall provide public notice and reasonable opportunity for comment with respect to the panels' reports in addition to or as part of the regulatory notice and comment procedure, and shall grant such comments due consideration in finalizing any such proposal.

Section 6. {Severability} [Insert Severability Clause]

Section 7. {Repeal} [Insert Repealer Clause]

Section 8. {Effective Date} [Insert Effective Date]

Source: www.alec.org

52 APPENDIX 16: ALEC 29TH ANNUAL MEETING – AUGUST 2002

(Tentative) ***Agenda Highlights*** Tuesday, August 6th Noon - 6:00pm Annual Meeting Registration Desk Opens 7:00pm - 10:30pm Leadership Dinner and Reception (Invitation Only) Wednesday, August 7th 7:30am - 5:30pm Registration 9:00am - 10:00am Task Force Chairs Meeting 11:30am - 1:00pm Opening Lunch Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao 1:15pm - 3:00pm Concurrent Workshops The ‘New’ War on Drugs: The Pharmaceutical Debate Disorder in the Court: Combating “Regulation Through Litigation” 3:15pm - 5:00pm Concurrent Workshops Disorder in the Court - Pharmaceutical Litigation Crisis in State Spending 6:30pm - 8:30pm Grand Opening Reception

Thursday, August 8th 8:00am - 9:15am Breakfast Bjorn Lomborg,author The Skeptical Environmentalist 8:00am - 5:30pm Registration 9:30am - 10:45am Concurrent Workshops Global Warming: Turning up the Heat on Markets Financial Services and Information Exchange 11:00am - 12:30pm Concurrent Workshops The Living Wage: Coming to a Town Near You? Doctors & Patients: Cost-Effective Medicaid 12:30pm - 2:15pm Luncheon Secretary of Education Rod Paige 2:30pm - 5:30pm Task Force Meetings Civil Justice Education Energy, Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture Health & Human Services Trade & Transportation 5:00pm - 6:00pm Incoming Chairman’s Reception (Invitation Only) Evening State Delegation Night

Friday, August 9th 8:00am - 9:15am Breakfast United States Representative Mark Green 8:00am - 3:30pm Registration 9:30am - 10:45am Concurrent Workshops Subprime Lending: Expanding Access to Capital Media Training 11:00am - 12:15pm Concurrent Workshops Online Privacy: Who Should Lead? Environmental Education: Sound Science Curricula for K-12 12:30pm - 2:15pm Luncheon Secretary, HUD, Mel Martinez 2:30pm - 5:30pm Task Force Meetings Commerce & Economic Development Criminal Justice Tax & Fiscal Policy Telecommunications & Information Technology 5:30pm - 6:30pm Chairman’s Reception (Invitation Only) 6:30pm - 8:30pm The Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award Banquet U.S. Senator Zell Miller 8:30pm - 11:30pm Desert & Dance Reception

Saturday, August 10th Open Activity Day

Sunday, August 11th 8:00am - 9:30am Prayer Breakfast *Invited Source: www.alec.org 53 APPENDIX 17: ALEC STATES & NATION POLICY SUMMIT – DECEMBER 2002 (Tentative) ***Agenda Highlights***

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10th Broadband Parity Hearing 9:30am – 11:30am Telecommunications and Information Technology Competition Subcommittee Meeting 1:30pm - 5:30pm

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11th Homeland Security Working Group 8:00am – 5:00pm Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Meeting 9:30am - 4:45pm Joint Board of Directors Meeting Noon - 5:00pm Registration Desk Opens Noon – 5:00pm State Chairs Meeting 3:00pm – 5:00pm Hospitality Suite 9:00pm – 11:00pm

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12th Registration 7:00am - 5:00pm Task Force Meeting 9:00am – Noon - Education Opening Luncheon - U.S. Senator Don Nickles 12:30pm – 1:45pm Just Say Yes to Prescription Drugs Workshop 2:00pm – 3:15pm Consumer Control in Medicaid - The Final Frontier Workshop 3:30pm – 4:45pm Chairman’s Reception (by invitation only) 5:30pm - 6:30pm Gala Holiday Reception 6:30pm – 8:30pm Hospitality Suite 9:00pm – 11:00pm

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13th Summit Registration 7:00am - 5:00pm Breakfast 8:00am – 9:15am - Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism - Robert Novak (CNN) Disorder in the Court Workshop 9:30am – 10:45am The Unintended Consequences of Excise Tax Increases Workshop 11:00am – 12:15pm Luncheon 12:30pm – 1:45pm Air Quality: Do Particulates Matter? Workshop 2:00pm – 3:15pm The ABCs of School Choice Workshop 3:30pm – 4:45pm Leadership Reception(by invitation only) 5:30pm - 6:30pm Leadership Banquet 6:30pm - 8:00pm - Utah Speaker Martin R. Stephens Hospitality Suite 9:00pm – 11:00pm

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14th Breakfast 8:00am – 9:15am Debate on School Choice Task Force Meetings 9:30am – 12:15am - Civil Justice - Criminal Justice - Commerce & Economic Development - Energy, Environment, Natural Resources, & Agriculture - Health & Human Services - Tax Reform and Tax Expenditure Limitation (TEL) Subcommittee Luncheon 12:30pm – 1:45pm - G. Gordon Liddy Task Force Meetings 2:30pm – 5:15pm - Tax & Fiscal Policy - Trade & Transportation Media Training 2:30pm – 5:00pm State Delegation Night Beginning at 6:00pm

Source: www.alec.org

54 APPENDIX 18: ALEC EDUCATION TASK FORCE

The mission of the Education Task Force is to help promote excellence in our country’s educational system. The task force is helping to reach that level of excellence by advocating for strong accountability in public schools and advancing education reform policies, such as charter schools and vouchers that grant parents and students the means to choose the schools that best meet their educational needs. Each year, the task force releases ALEC’s annual Report Card on American Education. The Report Card is a comprehensive look at the state of public education all across our nation. It consistently shows that there is no statistically evident correlation between educational performance and teacher salaries or expenditures per pupil - clearly refuting the claims of teachers unions that more money equals better education. The task force will continue to focus on those policies that hold teachers accountable for the education they are providing as well as developing new ideas on how businesses can become partners in educating the next generations of our children.

Major Issues: Charter Schools Civic Literacy Educators’ Liability Improving Public Education Junk Science in Our Classrooms School Choice

Major Report: Download the “Report Card on American Education” (PDF/1.4MB).

News Task Force Meeting (2002 Annual Meeting) Orlando, FL, August 8, 2002

Education Secretary Rod Paige Addresses the ALEC Annual Meeting

Members of the Education Task Force heard from U.S. Congressman and former ALEC member John Culberson on IDEA reauthorization; Florida Lt. Governor Frank Brogan on Florida’s school choice programs; Robert Enlow of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation on how the Supreme Court decision might impact their states; Tracey Bailey from the Association of American Educators discussed his group and how it is impacting teacher unions in various states; and Utah Speaker of the House Marty Stephens on how federal land holdings impact the western states and their education funding. Task Force members also approved the following pieces of model for the Board of Directors’ consideration:

Tax Credits for Education Act - This act allows a credit against taxes in the amount of voluntary contributions up to specified amounts to school tuition organization, defined as tax-exempt charitable groups that provide scholarships or grants to children to allow them to attend a school of their parents choice. Teacher Choice Compensation Act - This act creates a program where by teachers may be eligible for performance-based salary stipends if they opt out of their permanent contract and meet measurable student performance goals based on a value-added test instrument developed by the state department of education.

One-To-One Reading Improvement Act - This Act creates mentoring programs for the improvement of student reading skills that utilizes one-to-one instruction between low-performing students and mentoring volunteers.

Resolution Commending Channel One Network - This resolution hereby recognizes and commends the important public private partnership that exists between the Channel One Network and local educators throughout the nation and further states that the decision of whether to partner with Channel One and utilize this important resource is best made by local educators with input from students, parents, teachers, principals and administrators in the local community.

Task Force Meeting (2001 States and Nation Policy Summit) Washington, DC, December 12, 2001

Members of ALEC’s Education Task Force met in conjunction with the States and Nation Policy Summit. Task Force members heard presentations from the Milken Family Foundation’s Lew Solmon on their Teacher Advancement Program; Ohio University Professor Dr. Richard Vedder on for profit prisons; the National Council on Teacher Quality’s Dr. Michael Polliakoff on their new nation certification program for teachers; and from HOSTS, Corp. founder Bill Gibbons on their student reading mentoring program.

Chairs: South Carolina Representative Harry Stille Public Sector Chair

Jeffrey Ballabon, PRIMEDIA, Inc. Private Sector Chair

Andrew LeFevre Education Task Force Director

Source: www.alec.org 55 APPENDIX 19: ALEC MODEL LEGISLATION: COMMON SENSE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EVIDENCE ACT

ALEC's model Common Sense Scientific and Technical Evidence Act is designed to ensure that state courts follow the same guidelines in admitting expert opinions about scientific and technical matters as judges in the federal courts. These guidelines help assure that the evidence admitted is reliable and trustworthy. Specifically, the Act would ensure, by way of example, that a proffered scientific opinion was in fact developed in accordance with the scientific method.

By ensuring that the federal and state standards are similar, the Act will prevent forum shopping and overburdening state courts with cases that involve so-called "junk science" that would not pass muster in the federal system. Key components of the bill include: operational definitions of scientific and technical knowledge that are consistent with the United States Supreme Court decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), a rule of evidence that is comparable to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, dealing with expert opinions, and a prohibition, analogous to the one governing federally funded scientific research, that would preclude an expert who has accepted a contingent fee from testifying.

Model Legislation [Title, enacting clause, et cetera]

Section 1. {Short Title.} This Act may be known and cited as the Common Sense Scientific and Technical Evidence Act.

Section 2. {Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony}

(a) Expert Testimony. Testimony in the form of an opinion concerning a scientific, technical, or other specialized matter may be admitted, but only if the court determines that the opinion-

(1) is based on scientific knowledge, where the opinion purports to be scientific, including medical, or technical or specialized knowledge, where the opinion purports to involve knowledge from other technical or specialized disciplines;

(2) will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and

(3) is presented by a witness who is qualified as an expert.

(b) Scientific, Technical or Other Specialized Knowledge. In determining whether an opinion is based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, and hence sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission, the court shall consider, among other factors, whether the opinion follows from or is based on

(1) a theory or methodology developed in accordance with the scientific method, including, where appropriate, publication in the peer-reviewed literature, or such other systematic method of acquiring knowledge that is generally accepted in the relevant discipline to ensure reliability and validity;

(2) the theory or methodology or the relevant techniques based on that theory or methodology and underlying the opinion have a sufficiently low error rate to ensure reliability, or the experimental results underlying the theory or methodology have been replicated by different laboratories and different researchers; and

(3) the theory, methodology or opinion, as the case may be, is generally accepted in the relevant scientific, technical or other community.

(c) Assisting Trier of Fact. An opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, if and only if the court determines the following:

(1) The relationship between the opinion and the supporting theory and experiments is sufficiently close and congruent so as not to render the opinion speculative; and

(2) The opinion may be validly and reliably drawn from the theory.

(d) Expert Witness.

(1) A witness with knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field may testify as an expert with respect to that particular field.

(2) Notwithstanding the above, the testimony of an expert witness may not be admitted if the witness is entitled to receive any compensation contingent on the outcome of any claim or case with respect to which the testimony is being offered.

Section 3. {Interpretation}. In interpreting and applying this Act, the courts of this State shall be guided by the opinions of the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

Section 4. {Effective Date} This Act shall become effective upon enactment and shall apply to all trials commencing on or after the effective date. Source: www.alec.org 56 APPENDIX 20: ALEC’S DESCRIPTION OF JUNK SCIENCE

In Our Courts: In many cases, judges have ignored legal principles in order to allow action against manufacturers of unpopular products, in particular firearms and tobacco. In some cases, states have been given “super-plaintiff” status, allowing them the right to recover greater damages from a manufacturer than an individual is able to. This essentially eliminates 1) a company’s or an industry’s tort defenses and 2) the necessary burden of proof from plaintiffs that the defendant did indeed cause the claimed injury.

Allowing states to use a statistical correlation—“junk science”—between an activity and state expenditure for alleviation of an injury to the public has successfully done away with two key elements of tort law. In the tobacco lawsuits for example, “[s]tates did not have to prove that a particular manufacturer’s product caused a particular citizen’s injury; courts allowed statistics to solve government’s causation problem.”*

During the 1980s and 1990s, product liability cases flooded the justice system resulting, in many cases, in the withdrawal of truly beneficial products, “such as the anti-morning sickness drug Benedectin from the marketplace and caused companies such as Dow Corning, the manufacturer of breast implants, to file for bankruptcy.”** The reason for this onslaught of liability cases was the introduction in the 1980s of “junk science” into courtroom proceedings.

Sensing the need for action, the United States Supreme Court in 1993 affirmed the role of the justice as a gatekeeper of scientific evidence, in order to assure that allegedly scientific testimony was reliable and accurate (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1992). In 1999, the Court extended this ruling to apply to all expert testimony. At the state level however, there is work remaining to be done. Some states have not yet adopted these standards, resulting in many cases in private attorneys forcing their cases into state courts, rather than federal courts (also see ALEC’s Class Action Reform policy topic page).

In Our Environmental Policy: Increasingly, “junk science” has dictated the direction in which environmental policy is headed. Current regulations, restrictions, and government intervention are so pervasive that if no action is taken to counter this trend, economic progress and prosperity face near paralysis. The danger to our economic progress that the “precautionary principle” presents far outweighs the perceived potential dangers to our environment.

In Our Classrooms: Students are increasingly exposed to classroom and textbook material designed to influence their point of view about certain topics. Furthermore, many classes in political action theory promote political action activity. These two facts, when presented together, present a threat to education and to the greater society as an entire generation of students matures into advocates of causes in which they may have been inadvertently coerced into believing, and for which they may feel coerced into fighting.

Students have the right to be educated from textbooks and curricula based on sound scientific evidence, and textbooks should be written in language appropriate for education that is understandable, factual, and based on sound scientifically replicable data.

In the Workplace: Some states and the federal government are experimenting with regulations which they believe will reduce back, arm, neck and other musculoskeletal strains and aches, often referred to as “repetitive stress injuries” (RSI’s).

There is no consensus in the medical and scientific communities on the causes of or remedies for RSI’s and one’s likelihood of suffering an RSI may be linked to any one of or combination of factors, including the improper use of equipment, a person’s general fitness, vitamin in-take, job satisfaction or level of stress at home.

The only medical and scientific consensus that exists when it comes to ergonomics is that more research is needed. Therefore, any ergonomic regulations would be based on unsound science.

Ergonomic regulations would mandate costly experimental engineering controls in the workplace with no assurance they would prevent any injuries. Ergonomic regulations would result in increased costs to small and large employers documented to be in the billions of dollars with no guaranteed benefits to employees.

Source: www.alec.org

57 APPENDIX 21: ALEC SCHOOL CHOICE CONTACTS

Mr. Joseph Bast Mr. Lawrence C. Patrick, III Heartland Institute Black Alliance for Educational Options 19 South LaSalle, Suite 903 501 C Street NE, Suite 3 Chicago IL 60603 Washington DC 20002-5809 Phone: 312 - 377- 4000 Phone: 202 – 544 – 9870 Fax: 312 – 377 – 5000 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Matthew J. Brouillette Mr. Lawrence W. Reed The Commonwealth Foundation Mackinac Center for Public Policy 225 State Street, Suite 302 140 W. Mail Street Harrisburg PA 17101-1129 Midland MI 48640 Phone: 717 – 671 – 1901 Phone: 517 – 631 – 0900 Fax: 717 – 671 – 1905 Fax: 517 – 631 – 0964 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Robert Enlow Ms. Tracie Sharp The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation State Policy Network One American Square, Suite 1750 6255 Arlington Blvd. Indianapolis IN 46282 Richmond CA 94805 – 1601 Phone: 317 – 681 – 0745 Phone: 501 – 965 – 9700 Fax: 317 – 681 – 0945 Fax: 510 – 965 – 9600 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. John E. Kramer Mr. Fritz S. Steiger Institute for Justice Children First American 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200 901 McClain Road, Suite 802 Washington DC 20006 Bentonville AR 72712-0330 Phone: 202 – 955 – 1300 Phone: 501 – 273 – 6957 Fax: 202 – 955 – 1329 Fax: 501 – 273 – 9362 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Mrs. Susan Mitchell Ms. Bridgett Wagner American Education Reform Coucil Heritage Foundation 2025 N. Summit Avenue, Suite 103 214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. Milwaukee WI 53202-1362 Washington DC 20002 Phone: 414 – 319 – 9160 Phone: 202 – 608 – 6050 Fax: 414 – 332 – 2222 Fax: 202 – 675 – 6043 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Source: www.alec.org

58 APPENDIX 22: ALEC’S VIEW OF DISORDER IN THE COURT

ALEC found the trend of bypassing legislative authority to create policy from the bench has manifested itself in four distinct but related ways:

1. Judicial Nullification. In the last few years, State Courts have issued 85 rulings striking down tort reform laws passed by the legislatures. This is just the most egregious example of courts usurping the powers of the legislature. 2. Activist Litigation. Activists unable to succeed in the legislative arena are increasingly joining forces with plaintiff attorneys and state and local officials to pursue mass litigation against entire industries. What they have been unable to impose through regulation, they are attempting to impose through litigation. 3. Court-Created Causes of Action. Judges have issued a number of rulings that have created entirely new causes of action under tort law. The most recent example was in Louisiana, where a judge found that the mere expectation of possible injury is sufficient grounds for a suit and the awarding of damages. 4. Court-Ordered Tax Increases. In at least 19 states state district courts have ruled education funding systems unconstitutional. As a result, legislatures have been forced to impose new taxes or raise existing taxes, in order to comply with these judicial mandates.

Source: Nevada Public Research Institute

59 APPENDIX 23: CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: STATE TAX 1 INCREASES OF 2002

STATE TAX INCREASES OF 2002 LARGELY HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS PROBLEM OF REGRESSIVITY — WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS Economists widely recognize that state and local tax systems are “regressive”; that is, lower-income families pay a greater share of their incomes in taxes than do higher-income families. This regressivity results largely from states’ substantial reliance on consumption taxes. Poor families spend larger shares of their income on items subject to tax than higher- income families do, so consumption taxes take larger shares of poor families’ incomes. State personal income taxes generally are at least somewhat progressive, because they have rate structures that tax higher incomes at higher rates, or because they exempt the first several thousand dollars of each family’s income.

The large tax cuts states enacted from 1994 to 2001tended to make tax systems more regressive, because states reduced taxes paid predominantly by higher-income households – specifically, personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, and inheritance taxes — far more than they reduced sales taxes and other consumption taxes which are most burdensome for lower-income families. Of the $35 billion in net tax cuts enacted from 1994 to 2001, some $28 billion were cuts in personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, or inheritance or estate taxes; only about $1 billion in net tax cuts were reductions to sales and excise taxes. In other words, when states cut taxes in the 1990s, the benefits of the tax cuts flowed disproportionately to higher-income families.

Now that states have begun to raise taxes again, the burdens also have been directed disproportionately to lower-income families. This is because increases in consumption taxes — cigarette, general sales, alcohol and gasoline taxes — have represented the great majority of the tax increases of 2002, representing $5.1 billion or 60 percent of the total. Increases in personal and corporate income taxes have been far smaller.

1. Excerpted from The State Tax Cuts of the 1990s, the Current Revenue Crisis, and Implications for State Services; Nicholas Johnson, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2002.

60 APPENDIX 24: ALEC TAX REFORM AND TAXPAYERS’ RIGHTS

Progressive income taxes place an undue burden on the taxpayer. Forty-four states impose broad-based income taxes, and the income tax rates are progressive in all but six of those states. As incomes rise to match inflation, the progressive income tax structure automatically extracts higher percentages of that income for state budget coffers. A “flat tax” system is more equitable for all taxpayers.

If a state insists on imposing a progressive income tax, tax rates should be indexed. Indexing the tax rate with the rate of inflation ensures that taxpayers are equally burdened. Indexing also prevents “bracket creep,” which forces taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though real income has remained flat.

The best income tax system is a flat income tax. Though the ultimate flat tax on income would be zero percent—no income tax at all—if an income tax must be imposed, a flat rate system is preferable to a progressive rate structure. Currently, fourteen states have either a zero percent tax on income or a flat rate tax on income. Most evidence demonstrates that states with no income tax have experienced much greater economic growth than those that impose an income tax.

Capital gains taxes are detrimental to capital investment and economic growth. Capital gains taxes have devastated industries such as banking and real estate. The result is reduced employment opportunities for all Americans. Many economists believe that greater economic activity spurred by lower capital gains taxes will generate enough state tax revenues to pay for the revenue loss caused by a tax cut.

Occasionally, an employee’s compensation, promotion, or evaluation is based upon previous tax collections or assessments. This occurrence not only violates an employee’s privacy, but also inhibits the employee from advancing because of previous transgressions that may or may not have an impact on future performance. This practice needs to be stopped.

Taxpayers are often required to pay a tax assessment in order to have the ability to exercise their right to dispute or appeal the assessment. This “pay-to-play” requirement places an undue burden on taxpayers and especially on small businesses. Even if the appeal is valid and the taxpayer receives money back as a result of the appeal, that period of reduced liquid funds poses a threat and this practice should be eliminated.

Source: www.alec.org

61 APPENDIX 25: CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES

CURRENT BUDGET PROBLEMS IN 34 STATES WITH MAJOR TAX CUTS IN THE 1990S

Examples Of Major 1994- Tax Increase Enacted in 2002 Medicaid Cuts Enacted in FY 02 Cuts in Other Services — Some 2001 Tax Cuts and/or Planned in FY 03 — Examples Examples*

Major tax increase (over Smaller tax increase 3% of state tax revenue) (between 1% and 3%)

Arizona Reduced personal income Cigarette tax Considering cutting eligibility for Froze child care provider tax rates, reduced corporate increase(voter- pregnant women. reimbursements. Reduced aid to taxes, eliminated state approved) disabled adults and funding for after- property tax. school programs. California Top income tax rates Temporary business Delayed coverage expansion for Froze child care provider expired, increased tax increase 200,000 parents, reduced funding to reimbursements. Cut funding for dependent credit, reduced local eligibility offices education for welfare recipients. $750 vehicle taxes. million in unspecified cuts to be made by governor. Colorado Reduced personal income Reductions in eligibility planned or Five counties have closed childcare tax rate, reduced sales tax likely enrollment. University tuition increase rate, new tax credits of up to 9 percent for2002-03. Connecticut Reduced personal and Cigarette and Plans to cut eligibility for seniors; Closed child care enrollment for many corporate income taxes, gasoline tax considering benefit reductions. families. Closed special courtrooms motor fuel taxes, and increases, limit for drug offenders. inheritance taxes corporate credits Delaware Reduced personal income Instituted co-payments and reduced Delaware State University tuition up 7 tax rates outreach. percent for 2002-03. Florida Reduced intangibles tax Reduced dental benefits for 28,000 Increased child care wait lists .Several individuals, reduced eligibility for thousand state workers laid off. senior citizens. Georgia Reduced personal income Estimated 5,000 individuals will lose taxes, eliminated sales tax coverage; reduced coverage for those on groceries moving from welfare to work. Hawaii Reduced personal income Cigarette tax increase Planned teacher bonuses canceled. taxes and sales tax on offset by income tax business-to-business sales cut Idaho Reduced personal income Eliminated some dental benefits, Tuition increases at state universities tax rates reduced eligibility for disabled. of 10-12 percent two years running. Iowa Reduced personal income Reduced dental services. State university tuition up 18.5percent tax rates and inheritance tax in 2002-03; additional 17.6 percent increase proposed for next year. State worker furloughs and layoffs. Kansas Repealed inheritance tax, Sales tax rate Reductions in benefits and eligibility University of Kansas tuition increased increased personal income increase, other planned or likely over 20 percent for 2002-03; cut aid to tax deduction, and new increases schools $17.5milion. corporate tax credits Maine Increased personal exemption ,reduced sales taxes Maryland Reduced personal income Cigarette tax Tuition at state universities increased tax rates ,new sales tax increase, offset by 9.5 percent over two years. exemptions, corporate tax income tax cut cuts Massachusetts Reduced personal income Income tax and 50,000 individuals lost health Reduced number of child care slots; taxes and corporate income cigarette tax coverage. Co-payments increased. reduced funding for employment taxes; reduced estate tax increases services for cash assistance. Michigan Reduced personal income Cigarette tax Postponing/dropping plan to expand Froze revenue-sharing with local tax rate and single business increase, offset by coverage to low-income working governments for 2003 at nominal 2002 tax rate income tax cut families. levels. Minnesota 1999 and 2000: reduced Eligibility cuts planned or likely University tuition increases of personal income tax rates 7.5percent to 16 percent for 2002-03. Missouri Reduced personal income Health coverage may be eliminated State university tuition increased14 taxes, reduced sales tax on for 36,000 low-income parents. percent for 2002-03. groceries Dental coverage eliminated for 300,000 people. Montana Reduced personal income Increased cost-sharing (highest in Increased parent fees for childcare and tax, repealed inheritance tax nation). froze child care provider reimbursements. Cut local school funding below 2002 levels. Nebraska Reduced personal income Sales and income tax 25,000 people lost health insurance Cut eligibility for child care subsidies. taxes increases, others

62 APPENDIX 25 CONT…

Examples Of Major 1994- Tax Increase Enacted in 2002 Medicaid Cuts Enacted in FY 02 Cuts in Other Services — Some 2001 Tax Cuts and/or Planned in FY 03 — Examples Examples*

Major tax increase (over Smaller tax increase 3% of state tax revenue) (between 1% and 3%)

New Jersey Reduced personal income Corporate tax Stopped enrolling additional working State university tuition increased by tax rates increases, others poor families. up to 10 percent. New Mexico Reduced personal income Cut eligibility for child care subsidies. tax rates, reduced gasoline tax New York Reduced personal income Cigarette tax tax rates, reduced estate tax, increase, offset by reduced corporate income income tax cut tax rates, repealed sales tax on clothing North Carolina Reduced personal income Reduced eligibility for pregnant teens. Aid to local governments cut taxes, repealed intangibles $333million for FY 2003; localities tax, repealed sales tax on will have option to raise sales tax ½ groceries cent to make up the difference. Ohio Reduced personal and Considering limits on use of Reduced state housing assistance for corporate income taxes and prescription drugs. the elderly. Average 18 percent tuition estate tax increase for new state university students. Oklahoma Reduced personal income Raised personal Planned elimination of coverage tax rates income tax rates for79,000 people. Oregon Reduced personal and Cigarette tax increase Will increase cost-sharing and reduce Eliminated substance abuse treatment corporate income taxes benefits. for 2,500 individuals. Community college enrollment cut by25,000. Pennsylvania Reduced corporate income Cigarette tax increase Eligibility reductions planned or Expanded child care wait lists; Penn and franchise taxes likely. State tuition up 13.5 percent for 2002- 03. Rhode Island Reduced personal income Cigarette tax Cut benefits, raised co-payments for Cancelled planned child care tax rate increase, offset by families and children. expansion; university tuition up 8.7 income tax cut percent for 2002-03. Texas Reduced property tax Considering co-payment increases and (replaced lost revenue from other changes state funds) Utah Reduced personal income Cut benefits, raised co-payments University of Utah tuition increase of tax rate, sales tax rate 9.3 percent for 2002-03. Vermont Reduced personal income Cigarette tax increase Considering co-payment increases. tax rate Virginia Reduced local vehicle Plan to lay off several thousand property tax(replaced lost workers; university tuition increases revenue from state funds) averaging 11 percent implemented and additional increases considered. Washington Reduced business taxes and Eliminated coverage for legal Cut eligibility for child care vehicle taxes immigrants in Medicaid, reduced assistance; increased parent co- eligibility for elderly and disabled. payments. University tuition increased Further cuts considered. 16percent. K-12 aid cut $92 million. Wisconsin Reduced personal income Under funding of Medicaid and Average tuition increase of 9percent at taxes children’s health program by $60 state universities. million will lead to unspecified cuts later.

Notes: 1. Major tax cuts and increases are those exceeding 3 percent of state tax revenue. 2. States with smaller tax cuts in the 1990s are not shown. *Many states also reduced or froze Medicaid payments to providers.

Sources: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured; Children’s Defense Fund; National Association of State Colleges and Land-Grant Universities; National Conference of State Legislatures; news reports; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

63

2000 M Street, NW 1101 14th Street, NW Suite 400 Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20005 202/467-4999 202/682-9400 www.pfaw.org www.defenders.org