The Tension Between State and Local Governments
The relationship between States and their localities in many cases is strained. State government gives their local governments life, they create the laws for them. However, throughout history, state governments have not treated their localities as they suppose to. That is why the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) stated on the state-local relation “Legislators should place a higher priority on state-local issues than has been done in the past. The time has come to change their attitude toward local governments.” They want the state governments to see localities as partners in the federal system.
It is the state that can decide the amount and type of authority a local government could have to operate effectively and efficiently. The state government holds all legal powers, and the amount and type of authority are varied. Some states give their localities the power to restrain themselves, but other more conservative states force them to wait for the legislators approval so they can act. A rule was established and laid down by Iowa judge John F. Dillon in 1868 called “Dillon’s rule.” The rule was to limit those powers that granted by the state to those localities. The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) on the relations between the states and their localities, “The laws and constitutions of each state are the basic legal instruments of local governance.” The ACIR believes in the importance of the distribution of the power between both the state and its jurisdictions, which goes with Dillon’s rule.
Money mostly is the reason for the tension between state governments and their localities. Local governments enjoy their own revenue such as user fees and property taxes, however, they depend on their state to give them a proper income. 40% of the state goes to its localities. Local officials want their state to fund them and give them the ability to decide what is good for them. Not only this, but also they want to take control over how they want to spend it. For example, the state of North Carolina transfers about 7% of the state corporate tax revenue to its localities for school capital costs only. Also, many local officials seek the Second-order Devolution, so they can shift the power from the state government to them.
State mandates are also a reason to create a big friction between states and local level of governments. When a big problem happens in the local officials, states tend to come up with a solution. For example, in Florida, they saw the problem with solid waste management, so they legislate a new law requires counties to set up a lot of recycling programs. Not only that, but also counties were required to achieve at least 30% recycle rate.
I do not see how this tension between state and local governments can be healthy for our political system. It creates problems and sometime people will start losing their trust in their governments. In my opinion, I feel that the local government should have the ability to set their budget. In addition to that, they need to be empowered by their state governments to legislate new laws, without waiting for the state legislators to approve it. It also depends on the importance of that law if it will help improve the life in that jurisdiction or not.