Tag Archives: progressive federalism

Progressive Federalism: Bifurcate All the Things

Politics, , , , , , , ,

The 10-5 en banc decision by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocks laws in Mississippi and Texas allowing for ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day, will likely be appealed by SCOTUS, which may very well allow for the ruling to stand nationwide for federal elections. This, alongside congressional action supporting the SAVE Act which would double-block noncitizens from voting in all federal elections, shows where things are headed under Trump-Musk.

Under the shadow of this regime, perhaps the most expensive part of progressive federalism will be the bifurcation between state and federal functions, even if for progressive ends.

But in terms of vital elections, postal mail and the census, blue states will need to separate as much of their operations from those of the federal government in order to legally and functionally protect themselves and their citizens from federal overreach, reject federal funding, and maintain their sovereignty.

Bifurcation is a major, inevitable part of progressive federalism, no matter how high the price tag. It will allow blue states to innovate in favor of their residents, even in times such as these.

Bifurcated voter rolls and state elections

Separate voter rolls for state-local and federal elections would protect blue state elections from federal overreach:

  • In addition, it would protect permanent residents who wish to vote in select local elections.
  • Protect LGBTQ voters
  • Allow for holding (preferably consolidated) state and local elections on a separate date from the federal election

Like Obamacare, this is a Heritage Foundation idea which can be repurposed for progressive ends. Arizona, since 2014, has been the pioneer in pursuing this idea, as voters who are unable to provide hard documentary evidence of citizenship are only able to register as “federal-only” voters under Arizona law until they are able to provide such evidence.

The progressive response would be to switch it somewhat: “federal-only” ballot (general or special) for those who can provide such evidence of citizenship, “state-only” ballot (on another date) for those who can’t.

To reiterate, this will also help blue states who want to hold general elections on a date separate from the federal election, possibly in an odd year. I would like to see state, local and lower elections held together on Sundays or Saturdays.

And any worry that this would overburden election works should be eased by making the state legislature (1) unicameral (2) termed to four years and (possibly 3) staggered.

Separate state census

The United State Census Bureau cannot be the only survey agency in town anymore. As it is coming close to adding a citizenship question and has repeatedly failed to institute requested reforms such as identifying incarcerated prisoners to help end prison gerrymandering, it is perhaps time to bring back state censuses. This would also be beneficial for LGBTQ residents who have not been correctly identified in past censuses.

Separate state postal service

  • An example of “local post”
  • Complete with separate postage stamps, letter boxes and mail trucks
  • Protection from the Comstock Act and other federal censorships (i.e., on obscenity)
  • Postal banking (which was previously a feature of the USPS from 1911 to 1966)
  • Vital for carrying state-level mail ballots
  • Potential state census assistance

State communications commission

The FCC has been beset by conservative opposition for decades when it comes to regulatory capacity, especially when it comes to issues such as net neutrality. Now that conservatives have control over the FCC, blue states (like California) have the opportunity to stake out more regulatory power over communications within their borders, even within constitutional boundaries. The time for state communications commissions is upon us.

Interstate election security compacts

The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a good example of a nonprofit foundation acting as a de facto interstate compact commission in its assistance to state governments, namely in maintaining voter rolls.

Now Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is making such a move regarding protection of elections from foreign interference:

After the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) cut funding to its election security programs, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) is taking matters into his own hands and forming an alternative program to fill CISA’s void for state and local election offices.

According to a memo obtained by Democracy Docket, Fontes’ office wants to form a new organization called VOTE-ISAC, “an independent organization committed to safeguarding elections and restoring international confidence in the integrity of our democratic processes.” The idea for the program is to fill the void left by CISA’s crucial Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC). 

A spokesperson for Fontes’ office told Democracy Docket that he started work on this plan well before CISA cut its EI-ISAC program and has already been in touch with different states and stakeholders to get on board with the proposal. 

We need more of this, in the absence of federal support. In addition:

  • Interstate replacements for the FEC regarding campaign finance
  • Interstate Replacement for the EAC for election standards,
  • Interstate redistricting clearinghouse which eases disputes between states regarding redistricting at all levels.

Protect voters’ rights to free and fair elections

And of course, it is a good time to pass legislation like:

  • State Voting Rights Act
  • Independent Redistricting amendment
  • Universal vote-by-mail
  • Right to free and fair elections amendment
  • Multi-winner proportional representation for state and local elections
  • Campaign financing regulations for ballot initiatives

State DARPA and defense intelligence

The firings of professionals, including TGNC individuals, from military and civilian service in the federal government have opened a door for expanding state defense force capabilities.

A research and development (R&D) office under a state defense force can help to hire some of these trained professionals back into the realm of military science, research, development and innovation without federal interference. 

This proposal would establish a minimal operation which, if allowed, can expand further based upon the wishes of the legislature and the needs of the SDF command structure. 

In addition, it would allow for the hiring of those who wish to continue pursuing trained, intelligence-related work, particularly in the field of geospatial intelligence. 

Finally, it would fit into the larger purpose of redirecting all feasible resources in the larger state military department (which usually runs both the National and State Guards under a state adjutant general) to within and under the state defense force specifically, as the state can no longer expect the Department of Defense of the United States to abide by shared values. 

And more

interstate equivalents to CDC, Department of Education, HHS, NPS, HUD, etc.

Tools and Theaters for Progressive Federalism

Politics, Politics2, Uncategorized, ,

Reading more about “progressive federalism”, or using “states’ rights” to enact progressive policy. Might have to put “progressive federalism” in your vocabulary. 

Honestly, it’s hard for me to come to grips with it because of the abuse of “states’ rights” and the greater trust. Progressives and liberals have invested so much trust into federal, national remedies as a matter of ending the “patchwork quilt” of some states having more progressive laws on an issue than other states. So many key rulings liberalizing society have come from SCOTUS throwing a wrench into prohibitive state laws. Now we have to abandon this and go fight within the states as a matter of tact in fighting the White House? It sickens me that this is how this century’s civil rights advances will have to be determined, but here we are. 

I also don’t think we can truly exercise progressive federalism without “initiative & referendum” (I&R) at the state level. Almost all of the states which have I&R are west of the Mississippi, and except for two states in the South, no other Southern states east of the Mississippi allow civilians to draw up petitions and gather signatures to put questions on the ballot. Some liberalizing laws at the state level have come from I&R, especially on decriminalizing/legalizing cannabis and regulating gerrymandering. With conservative supermajorities in state legislatures, we will have to make some deals to make I&R more available to the rest of the South. 

Progressive federalists must be willing to fight at any and every level for every possible tool to enact empowering reforms. The era of relying on SCOTUS and White House EOs to make key progressive decisions is over, but it shouldn’t mean that we’re on our own.

Atlanta/Fulton County as a Theater for Progressive Federalism

An example of progressive federalism as an act of dissent: Atlanta. 

When Atlanta City Council passed cannabis decriminalization (or, more precisely, “defelonization”), political leaders at the state level spoke out against the reform, claiming that only the state government can decriminalize it. When I asked him about it, even Rep. Calvin Smyre, our State House Dean, noted his opposition to cities taking this lead. 

But is there a state law mandating that a city has to use its resources to enforce state law? And should Democrats run away from, or embrace, cities and counties scaling down their resources from being used to enforce state law to the letter?

Now, even Fulton County has followed Atlanta and South Fulton city in defelonizing cannabis. And as both the largest city and largest county in Georgia, there should be a “spillover” effect to other parts of Metro Atlanta. 

Maybe we should embrace this municipal rebellion, because it calls the Georgia anti-cannabis lobby’s bluff, calls them to put up or shut up. This can apply to sanctuary cities, cities with non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people, local minimum wage hikes, city ID cards, etc. If we can’t dissent municipally, how can we show our policy work at the state level? If we can’t dissent state-wise, how can we propel progressive change at the federal level?

Let’s embrace the spirit of dissent of Atlanta and Fulton County as a policy for more Georgia cities, and take charge of the political conversation.

Black Lives in Progressive Federalism

It’s thrilling and stressful that African-American activists will now be even more cognizant and promotive of the role of local political power in , as we don’t have the ear of Republicans or conservatives who are ascendant in the federal level of government. But even during the Obama years, the Bush years, the Clinton years, those who advocated for 

Progressive Federalism Reader