When it comes to
state and local government, there are different types of tensions. Just like
the national Constitution, which serves as a document reflecting the
governments enumerated powers, each state has their own State Constitution.
This state document outlines what state and local governments can or cannot do.
As stated by Dillon’s rule, local governments can only exercise what is allowed
by the state. These powers must be explicit powers. When there is any doubt
with the legality of a local government, the state’s power is favored. Despite
this seemingly straightforward set-up, there is still tension between the local
government and the state government.
One area of tension is in the amount
of power that states grant local government. There is not one uniformed amount
of power that states grant local governments throughout the country. Instead,
the amount of power given to local governments vary widely in different states.
For example, some states give local governments a lot of power. While other states
are significantly more conservative in the amount of power they give local
governments; for example by forcing local governments to refer to legislature
for approval to act. Often, state government regulates the finances, service
standards and structures of the local government. This causes some tension
between the two types of governments because local governments do not always
control their finances.
Another area of tensions between the
two is with mandates. Specifically speaking, unfunded mandates are the ones
that cause more tensions. A mandate is an order given by the state in which all
local governments must obey. From the states’ point of view, mandates are
necessary to ensure that desired goals are reached, mandates reflect uniformity
within the state and they also promote coordination. From the local point of
view, mandates that are not funded by the state can prove to be costly. Because
of the extra costs that mandates bring, local governments push for such things
as mandate reimbursements. Local governments also demand that the state clearly
explain their logic in pushing for mandates and local governments want greater
flexibility in implementing the provisions of mandates.
Another key area of tension between
the two governments is in regards to money. The local governments want more
money, more control on how to spend it, as well as more control in raising
money. In areas where sates have most control in funding th local governments, we
see that local governments want more freedom in deciding where the money should
go.
Regional governance has been another
area of tension. In the US, the term is city-county consolidation. Here, local
governments join to form a much larger government. This is done in an effort to
gain wider area solutions to problems, while giving up their power and
authority to the larger government. However, according to the choice theory,
this has some negative effects. A major con is that the consolidation of
governments robs the people of important choices and inefficiencies.
In addition, some local governments,
such as those in California, have resulted to hiring lobbyist to represent
their interests at the state legislatures.
But, these tensions do have a positive affect.
Tensions between the state and local
government reflect the tensions between our three branches of government. In a
smaller scale, we can see the frustration between state and local governments
reflect the frustrations between the executive, judicial and legislative
branches. These problems serve as a system of checks and balances. Also, they
demonstrate that there are people very much aware of what is going on, and they
make their interests heard by bringing up their issues in both local and state governments.
