Section II LEGISLATURES AND LJEGISLATION 1. Legislatures 2. Legislation V; fi ^ •U ^9 /""^•. C^ aS''. \ \ .\ P- \ .. SO' 1 Legislatures <^i>^ NiW, LEGISLAliYE ORX3ANIZATION AND SERVICES BY LEO F. KENNEDY* fc> r I IHE MOVEMENT to modernize State quate legislative compensation; a more I Legislatures,contintied to accelerate productive committee system; better during 1968-^9;"Jn each of the States equipment and facilities; and improving actions werie taken^^^modernize the Leg­ the quality and increasing the numbeTof " islature. Part of a long-term movement, staff assistants. these actions were based upon the realiza­ Various elements stimulated and sup­ tion that Legislatures needed to develop ported the legislative modernization more adequate structures, procedures and movement such as legislative study staff services if they were to solve the com­ groups, the voters and national organiza­ plex problems facing the States. tions interested in legislative improve­ The legislative modernization move­ ment. ' /. ment was part of a broader movement Diiring the biennium numerous com­ aimed toward revitalizing state govern­ mittees both within and outside Legisla­ ments. XVhether directed 'toward broad tures studied the legislative process and constitutional or functional changes, recommended improvements. In forty- these efforts were set in the context of so­ four States studies were made by legisla­ cial developments that challenged the tive cominittees, staff agencies, constitu­ antiquated structures and processes of tional revision committees and citizens' many state governments. These techno­ groups. In many. States comprehensive logical, ecological and demographic"~de- examinations of* the legislative process velopments created a host of challenges were conducted; however, in other States which the States, and more specifically the the studies were limited in scope. Often State Legislatures, needed to solve if they formal reports were prepared, and by the were to continue to play a vital role in the end of 1969 eighty-one reports were issued federal system. in thirty-five States. The goal of the legislative moderniza­ Many of the suggested, improvements tion movement was an effective decision­ in legislative organization, procedure and making process addressed to urgent prob­ staffing could be realized by legislative lems. To achieve this aim legislative action without recourse to constitutional modernization Was directed toward a change. In States with constitutional re­ number of specific goals: more efficient strictions on legislative organization, pro­ scheduling of legislative activities; ade- cedure and power, proposed changes were submitted to the voters for their approvalr-t *Mr. Kennedy is Assistant Director of Research The">oters generally supported the rec­ of the Council of State Governments. Assisting ommended changes, as evidenced by the in-the preparation of this chapter, by provision of fact that'they approved fifty-two of sixty- much of tne data for it were-Miss Virginia Cook, Mrs. Carolyn Kenton ahd Mrs. Barbara Nelson of eight constitutional amendments dealing the Council of State Governments'; staff. with the Legislature submitted during 51 52 THE BOOK OF THE STATES .1968-69, (For further details on constitu­ than once in two; years. The ariiendment tional amendments, see. page 5.) did not specifically establish an annual The legislative modernization move­ session, but it enabled the Legislature to ment also was stimulated by the activities do so if it wished. As of late 1969 the and reports of national organizations in­ Legislature had not done so. Annual ses­ terested in legislative improvements. The sion pr'oposals were defeated in Kentucky Council of State Governments, through and Texas in 1969. - . its committees on legislative moderniza­ The trend toward providing for annual tion and training, regional conferences sessions slowly gained momentum. Con­ and affiliated organizations, fostered the stitutional provisions existed for annual modernization movement. One of its sessions in six States by 1947, in eighteen affiliated organizations, the National States by 1961 and, excluding Wisconsin, Legislative Conference, contributed an— twenty-six States by 1969. Annual session important stimulus to, the movement.. projx)sals were scheduled t{^be on the bal­ The Citizens Conference on State Legis­ lot in 1970 in several Stat/es including latures provided much research, informa­ Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada tion and advisory sei'vice. The Advisory and Origgon. • Commission on Intergovernmental Rela­ Another approach used to expand the tions sponsored periodic conferences for session time structure was to eliminate legislative leaders. In addition, the Na­ restrictions on topics Vk^hich may be con­ tional Municipal League, the National sidered during the second year session. Conference of State Legislative Leaders Two annual session States, Hawaii and and university groups demonstrated con­ Delaware, dropped the restriction on sub­ siderable interest in legislative moderni­ ject matter for the alternate year session. zation. With the addition of Delaware and Ha­ waii, twenty-one annual session States SESSIONS had no restriction on subject matter dur­ During 1968-69 many States took ac­ ing the/alternate year. However, in five tions directed toward a more effective use annual session States—Colorado, Louisi­ of the legislative biennium through bet­ ana, New Mexico, Utah and West Vir­ ter distribution and organization of ses­ ginia—the second year session was limited sion time.^ Two trends were evident: to budget and fiscal matters. Legislatures were experimenting with' Other approaches used to increase the more expanded time structures and they session time structure were to eliminate were developing procedures for more or ease the limitation on length of regular efficient internal organization of the ses­ and special sessions^^ During the biennium sion time. • Arizona and North Carolina eliminated The movement toward an expanded the restriction for regular and special ses­ time structure encompassed numerous sions. Delaware dropped the restriction approaches. One approach was to amend on special sessions and increased the regu­ the constitution to provide for annual lar session length by providing that both sessions. Mississippi voters in July 1968 the even and odd year sessions adjourn approved an annual session proposal and by the last day of June. Hawaii eased the Florida, Idaho, Iowa and Utah voters limitation during the alternate year by passed annual session measures in No­ increasing the number of days allowed vember 1968. from thirty to sixty calendar days. In addition to the favorable action by Special sessions were utilized to expand voters in the five States inentioned above, the amount of time available for. formal special notice should be made of an legislative deliberation. During 1968-69 amendment approved by the Wisconsin a total of thirty-eight special sessions were voters deleting the provision prohibiting held in twenty-four States. Actually, spe­ the Legislature from meeting more often cial sessions were called less frequently in 1968-69 as compared with 1966-67 ^For a further elaboration on this approach see • The Time Structure of Legislatures Today, Wis- . when fifty-one were held. Possibly the consin Legislative Rieference Bureau, May 1968. , easing of reapportionrnent presstires and LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 53 the move toward longer and more fre- session. These meetings Were a useful quent sessions were reflected in the re- procedure by which new members could duced number ol special sessions. be .acquainted with their duties, legisla-. Legislatures were also attempting to tive procedures, staff services, major pro- achieve a better distribution^ of session grams, and each other. New legislators, days by alternating sessjon and recess pe- and often veterans, attended these meet- riods without adjourning sine die or by ings which lasted from one to several days, splitting the sessions. Either approach had Beginning with Massachusetts in 1933, the advantage of permitting standing the number of States providing orienta- committees to function during the recess tion conferences for legislators has in- period. Legislatures in Illinois, Ohio, . creased over the years. By the end of the Tennessee, _ Vermont and Wisconsin, 1950s such sessions had been held in at which met biennially, achieved the effect least thirty-two States, and during 1968- - of an annual session by utilizing their 69 forty-six States reported holding these power to recess rather than adjourn sine meetings. Idaho held its first conference die. Through thisr^procedure these Legis- in 1968 and Louisiana reinstituted its con- latures were able to meet during the sec- ference in 1968. Thirty-one States held ond year of their biennium. Annual ses- conferences prior to the session, while six- sion States such as California, Georgia, - teen held, conferences early in the session. ^Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Minnesotahad two meetings, one prior to Island and Pennsylvania recessed at least the session and one early in the session, once during the biennium and gained the Other procedures used to increase legis- advahtage of a better distribution of ses- lative efficiency were presession bill draft- sion timie. ' . ing and presession bill filing. Through The second basic trend was more ef- the yeairs Legislatures have relied more ficient internal organization of session and more on these procedures as a