Course PSCI 6324, Local and State Government and Politics

Professor Robert Lowry

Term Fall 2009
Meetings Monday 4-6.45 pm, SOM 2.903

Professor’s Contact Information

Office Phone 972-883-6720
Office Location Green Hall 3.533
Email Address robert.lowry@utdallas.edu
Office Hours Monday 3-4; Wednesday 1:30-3:30.

General Course Information

The course takes a comparative approach to the study of political

behavior, organizations and institutions in local and state government in
Course Description the United States. We will also address intergovernmental relations and
areas of public policy where state and local governments are particularly
important.

On completing this course, students should:

- Be familiar with the political science literature on local and state
government and politics in the United States.
Learning
- Understand the major variations in political behavior, organizations
Objectives/Outcomes
and institutions across state and local jurisdictions and their possible
effects.
- Be able to evaluate competing explanations for differences in policy
outputs and government performance across state and local jurisdictions.

Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson, Politics in the American States: A

Comparative Analysis, 9th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press 2008. (Referred
to in the readings assignments as “G&H.”)

John P. Pelissero, Cities, Politcs, and Policy: A Comparative Analysis.

Washington, DC: CQ Press 2003.
Required Texts &
Materials Christopher R. Berry, Imperfect Union: Representation and Taxation in
Multilevel Governments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Available October, 2009.

Additional readings are listed at the end of the syllabus and indicated in
the assignments by numbers in brackets. The list of readings may be
revised as we proceed.
 2

Academic Calendar

Date Topic(s) & Assignments Readings

Aug. 24 Course introduction
G&H ch,. 1, 2; Pelissero ch. 2; [11],
Aug. 31 Federalism and intergovernmental relations
[16], [32]
Sept. 7 No Class- Labor Day
G&H ch. 3,4; Pelissero ch. 3,4; [1], [17],
Sept. 14 Parties, interest groups, and civil society
[43]
Sept. 21 Direct Democracy and Election Rules G&H ch. 5; [3], [7], [20], [30], [40]
G&H ch. 6; [12], [25], [26], [27], [39],
Sept. 28 State Legislatures
[41]
State Executives and Bureaucracies G&H ch. 7; [5], [13], [19], [34], [37]
Oct. 5
Paper topics due
Oct. 12 State Courts and judges G&H ch. 8; [8], [9], [10], [15]
Oct. 19 Local government institutions Pelissero ch. 6, 7, 8, [6], [31]
Oct. 26 MIDTERM EXAM
Pelissero ch. 13; [21], [28], [29], [36],
Nov. 2 Policy diffusion. Metropolitan areas.
[38], [42]
Public order and government services; Fiscal G&H ch. 9, 10; Pelissero ch. 9, 11; [2],
Nov. 9
policy [14], [22]
G&H ch. 11, 12; Pelissero ch. 12;[4],
Nov. 16 Education and public welfare
[18]
Nov. 23 Student Presentations
G&H ch. 13, 14; Pelissero ch. 10; [23],
Nov. 30 Regulation and economic development
[24], [33], [35]
Special districts Berry, all
Dec. 7 Papers due
Take-home final distributed
Dec. 14 Take-home final due, 5 pm

Course Policies

Grades will be based on the following four factors, each weighted equally: (1) class
participation; (2) a midterm exam in class on October 26; (3) a 10-15 page research
paper on a topic of the student’s choosing; (4) a take-home final exam. Paper topics
are due October 5. Students will make in-class presentations of their papers-in-
Grading Criteria
progress on November 23. Completed papers are due the last day of class, December
7. The take-home final will be handed out then and is due December 14.

The grade for the paper project will be based on the final paper. Paper presentations
will be factored into the class participation score.

Review memos will not be accepted after the day they are due; if you miss your
Late Work assigned week for a medical or family reason, you will be allowed to do a different
week later in the semester. If you miss for any other reason you will be penalized 50
%, provided you do a different week later.

Attendance is mandatory at student presentations April 16 and 23. Attendance on

Class Attendance other days is expected, and unexcused absences will affect your class participation
score. Students who prepare review memos are expected to take a lead roll in
discussion for that week.
Student Conduct
and Discipline The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and
 3

regulations for the orderly and efficient conduct of their business. It is the
responsibility of each student and each student organization to be knowledgeable
about the rules and regulations which govern student conduct and activities. General
information on student conduct and discipline is contained in the UTD publication, A
to Z Guide, which is provided to all registered students each academic year.

The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the

procedures of recognized and established due process. Procedures are defined and
described in the Rules and Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas
System, Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title V, Rules on Student Services and
Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of these
rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students,
where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and
regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).

A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of
citizenship. He or she is expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the
Regents’ Rules, university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject
to discipline for violating the standards of conduct whether such conduct takes place
on or off campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties are also imposed for such
conduct.

The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic
honesty. Because the value of an academic degree depends upon the absolute
integrity of the work done by the student for that degree, it is imperative that a student
demonstrate a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work.

Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements, acts or omissions
related to applications for enrollment or the award of a degree, and/or the submission
Academic as one’s own work or material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic
Integrity dishonesty involves one of the following acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or
falsifying academic records. Students suspected of academic dishonesty are subject to
disciplinary proceedings.

Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and
from any other source is unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s
policy on plagiarism (see general catalog for details). This course will use the
resources of turnitin.com, which searches the web for possible plagiarism and is over
90% effective.

The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of

communication between faculty/staff and students through electronic mail. At the
same time, email raises some issues concerning security and the identity of each
individual in an email exchange. The university encourages all official student email
correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email address and that faculty
Email Use and staff consider email from students official only if it originates from a UTD
student account. This allows the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in
the identity of all individual corresponding and the security of the transmitted
information. UTD furnishes each student with a free email account that is to be used
in all communication with university personnel. The Department of Information
Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T. Dallas
mail forwarded to other accounts.

Withdrawal from The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-
Class level courses. These dates and times are published in that semester's course catalog.
Administration procedures must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to
 4

handle withdrawal requirements from any class. In other words, I cannot drop or
withdraw any student. You must do the proper paperwork to ensure that you will not
receive a final grade of "F" in a course if you choose not to attend the class once you
are enrolled.

Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and
Activities, of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.

In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, evaluations, or other

fulfillments of academic responsibility, it is the obligation of the student first to make
a serious effort to resolve the matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or
committee with whom the grievance originates (hereafter called “the respondent”).
Individual faculty members retain primary responsibility for assigning grades and
Student evaluations. If the matter cannot be resolved at that level, the grievance must be
Grievance submitted in writing to the respondent with a copy of the respondent’s School Dean.
Procedures If the matter is not resolved by the written response provided by the respondent, the
student may submit a written appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not
resolved by the School Dean’s decision, the student may make a written appeal to the
Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal will appoint and convene
an Academic Appeals Panel. The decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is final.
The results of the academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.

Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the
Dean of Students, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting
the rules and regulations.

As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work
unavoidably missed at the semester’s end and only if 70% of the course work has
Incomplete
been completed. An incomplete grade must be resolved within eight (8) weeks from
Grades
the first day of the subsequent long semester. If the required work to complete the
course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the specified deadline,
the incomplete grade is changed automatically to a grade of F.

The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities educational

opportunities equal to those of their non-disabled peers. Disability Services is located
in room 1.610 in the Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30
a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is:

The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22
PO Box 830688
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
Disability (972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)
Services
Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make those reasonable
adjustments necessary to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. For
example, it may be necessary to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders
or animals (in the case of dog guides) for students who are blind. Occasionally an
assignment requirement may be substituted (for example, a research paper versus an
oral presentation for a student who is hearing impaired). Classes enrolled students
with mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible facilities. The
college or university may need to provide special services such as registration, note-
taking, or mobility assistance.

It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an
 5

accommodation. Disability Services provides students with letters to present to

faculty members to verify that the student has a disability and needs accommodations.
Individuals requiring special accommodation should contact the professor after class
or during office hours.

The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other required
activities for the travel to and observance of a religious holy day for a religion whose
places of worship are exempt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code,
Texas Code Annotated.

The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity sponsor as soon as

possible regarding the absence, preferably in advance of the assignment. The student,
so excused, will be allowed to take the exam or complete the assignment within a
reasonable time after the absence: a period equal to the length of the absence, up to a
Religious Holy maximum of one week. A student who notifies the instructor and completes any
Days missed exam or assignment may not be penalized for the absence. A student who fails
to complete the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a
failing grade for that exam or assignment.

If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the absence [i.e., for the
purpose of observing a religious holy day] or if there is similar disagreement about
whether the student has been given a reasonable time to complete any missed
assignments or examinations, either the student or the instructor may request a ruling
from the chief executive officer of the institution, or his or her designee. The chief
executive officer or designee must take into account the legislative intent of TEC
51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief
executive officer or designee.
Off-campus, out-of-state, and foreign instruction and activities are subject to state law
Off-Campus and University policies and procedures regarding travel and risk-related activities.
Instruction and Information regarding these rules and regulations may be found at
Course Activities http://www.utdallas.edu/BusinessAffairs/Travel_Risk_Activities.htm.
Additional information is available from the office of the school dean.

These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor.
 6

Additional Readings

In addition to the books by Gray and Hanson, Pelissero, and Berry, the following
readings are also required. Unless otherwise indicated, they can be accessed by searching
for the journal title on the library’s website.

[1] John H. Aldrich. 2000. “Southern Parties in State and Nation.” The Journal of
Politics 62(August): 643-670.

[2] James E. Alt and Robert C. Lowry. 1994. "Divided Government, Fiscal
Institutions and Budget Deficits: Evidence From the States." American Political Science
Review 88(December): 811-828.

[3] Stephen Ansolabehere, Alan Gerber, and James Snyder. 2002. “Equal Votes,
Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American
States.” American Political Science Review 96(December): 767-777.

[4] Michael A. Bailey and Mark Carl Rom. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate
Competition Across Health and Welfare Programs.” The Journal of Politics 66(May):
326-347.

[5] Charles Barrilleaux and Michael Berkman. 2003. “Do Governors Matter?
Budgeting Rules and the Politics of State Policymaking.” Political Research Quarterly
56:409-17.

[6] Christopher R. Berry and William G. Howell. 2007. “Accountability and Local
Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting.” The Journal of Politics 69(August): 844-
858.

[7] Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct
Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives are Created Equal.” State Politics and
Policy Quarterly 4(Fall): 345-363.

[8] Paul Brace and Brent D. Boyea. 2008. “State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty,
and the Practice of Electing Judges.” American Political Science Review 52(April): 360-
372.

[9] Richard P. Calderone, Brandice Canes-Wrone and Tom S. Clark. 2009. “Partisan
Labels and Democratic Accountability: An Analysis of State Supreme Court Abortion
Decisions.” The Journal of Politics 71(April): 560-573.

[10] Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Slip Op. No. 08-22 (June 8, 2009).
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html
 7

[11] Daniel J. Elazar. “The States and the Political Setting,” in American Federalism:
A View from the States 84-127. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 2d ed. 1972. e-
Reserve

[12] Morris P. Fiorina. 1994. “Divided Government in the American States: A

Byproduct of Legislative Professionalism?” American Political Science Review 88(June):
304-316.

[13] Brian J. Gerber, Cherie Maestas, and Nelson C. Dometrius. 2005. “State
Legislative Influence over Agency Rulemaking: The Utility of Ex Ante Review.” State
Politics and Policy Quarterly 5(Spring): 24-46.

[14] Elisabeth S. Gerber and Clark C. Gibson. 2009. “Balancing Regionalism and
Localism: How Institutions and Incentives Shape American Transportation Policy.”
American Journal of Political Science 53(July): 633-648.

[15] James L. Gibson. 2008. “Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts:
Legitimacy Theory and ‘New-Style’ Judicial Campaigns.” American Political Science
Review 102(February): 59-75.

[16] William T. Gormley, Jr. 2006. “Money and Mandates: The Politics of
Intergovernmental Conflict.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 36(Fall): 523-540.

[17] Danny Hays and Seth C. McKee. 2008. “Toward a One-Party South?” American
Politics Research 36(January): 3-32.

[18] Rodney E. Hero and Robert R. Preuhs. 2007. “Immigration and the Evolving
American Welfare State: Examining Policies in the U.S. States.” American Journal of
Political Science 51(July): 498-517.

[19] Alisa Hicklin and Kenneth J. Meier. 2008. “Race, Structure and State Governments:
The Politics of Higher Education Diversity.” The Journal of Politics 70(July): 851-860.

[20] M.V. Hood, III and Charles S. Bullock, III. 2008. “Worth a Thousand Words? An
Analysis of Georgia’s Voter Identification Statute.” American Politics Research 36(July):
555-579.

[21] Christine Kelleher and David Lowery. 2002. “Tiebout Sorting and Selective
Satisfaction with Urban Public Services: Testing the Variance Hypothesis.” Urban
Affairs Review 37(January): 420-431.

[22] Stephen Knack. 2002. “Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence
from the States.” American Journal of Political Science 46(October): 772-785.
 8

[23] David M. Konisky. 2007. “Regulatory Competition and Environmental

Enforcement: Is there a Race to the Bottom?” American Journal of Political Science
51(October): 853-872.

[24] Mark Lubell, Richard C. Feiock, and Edgar E. Ramirez de la Cruz. 2009. “Local
Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth.” American Journal of Political Science
53(July): 649-665.

[25] H.W. Jerome Maddox. 2004. “Working Outside of the State House (and Senate):
Outside Careers as Indicators of Professionalism in American State Legislatures.” State
Politics and Policy Quarterly 4(Summer): 211-226.

[26] H.W. Jerome Maddox. 2004. “Opportunity Costs and Outside Careers in U.S.
State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29(November): 517-544.

[27] Christopher Z. Mooney. 2009. “Term Limits as a Boon to Legislative

Scholarship: A Review.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 9(Summer): 204-228. E-
Reserve

[28] Michael Mintrom. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.”
American Journal of Political Science 41(July): 738-770.

[29] Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2009. “The Politics of Diffusion: Public Policy in the
American States.” The Journal of Politics 71(January): 192-205.

[30] J. Eric Oliver and Shang E. Ha. 2007. “Vote Choice in Suburban Elections.”
American Political Science Review 101(July): 393-408.

[31] Garrick L. Percival, Martin Johnson and Max Nieman. 2009. “Representation and
Local Policy: Relating County-Level Public Opinion to Policy Outputs.” Political
Research Quarterly 62(March): 164-177.

[32] Paul Posner. 2007. “The Politics of Coercive Federalism in the Bush Era.”
Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37(Summer): 390-412.

[33] Matthew Potoski. 2001. “Clean Air Federalism: Do States Race to the Bottom?”
Public Administration Review 61(May/June): 335-342.

[34] Colin Provost. 2003. “State Attorneys General, Entrepreneurship, and Consumer
Protection in the New Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33(Spring): 37-
53.

[35] Elaine B. Sharp and Donald Haider-Markel. 2008. “At the Invitation of the Court:
Eminent Domain Reform in State Legislatures in the Wake of the Kelo Decision.”
Publius: The Journal of Federalism 38(Summer): 556-575.
 9

[36] Charles R. Shipan and Craig Volden. 2006. “Bottom-Up Federalism: The
Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States.” American Journal of
Political Science 50(October): 825-843.

[37] Manuel P. Teodoro. 2009. “Bureaucratic Job Mobility and the Diffusion of
Innovations.” American Journal of Political Science 53(January): 175-189.

[38] Paul Teske, Mark Schneider, Michael Mintrom and Samuel Best. 1993.
“Establishing the Microfoundations of a Macro Theory – Information, Movers and the
Competitive Local Market for Public Goods.” American Political Science Review
87(September): 702-713.

[39] Gregory S. Thielemann and Donald R. Dixon. 1994. “Explaining Contributions:

Rational Contributors and the Elections for the 71st Texas House.” Legislative Studies
Quarterly 19(November): 495-506.

[40] Jessica Trounstine and Melody E. Valdini. 2008. “The Context Matters: The
Effects of Single-Member versus At-Large Districts on City Council Diversity.”
American Journal of Political Science 52(July): 554-569.

[41] Carol S. Weissert and Karen Halperin. 2007. “The Paradox of Term Limit
Support: To Know Them is NOT to Love Them.” Political Research Quarterly
60(September): 516-530.

[42] Thad Williamson. 2008. “Sprawl, Spatial Location and Politics: How Ideological
Identification Tracks the Built Environment.” American Politics Research
36(November): 903-933.

[43] V.O. Key, Jr. “Nature and Consequences of One-Party Factionalism,” in Southern
Politics in State and Nation 298-311. New York: Random House 1949. e-Reserve