States Push Back Against Federal Overreach Amid Extended Government Shutdown
The ongoing government shutdown has stretched into its 29th day, leaving the House of Representatives at a standstill and threatening to exhaust SNAP food assistance by Saturday. While the federal government’s gridlock and extremism are on display in Washington, D.C., the broader landscape across the United States presents glimpses of optimism.
This year, states have taken a stand against federal overreach, notably challenging proposals such as the move to end birthright citizenship. A current legal battle involves 25 states suing the federal government to prevent the termination of food aid. These actions reflect states’ resistance to what is seen as a sweeping power grab by the White House. Yet, states are not just resisting; they are also pioneering new approaches.
Justice Louis Brandeis once described states as “laboratories of experimentation.” While Congress struggles with issues like campaign finance due to filibusters, states such as New York are advancing with their own reforms. New York’s new election rules incorporate matching funds for small contributions, significantly democratizing political donations and attention. This initiative is currently the most robust response to the implications of Citizens United.
The Role of State Courts and Constitutions
The Brennan Center is spearheading two initiatives to harness state policymakers’ creative potential. State courts, distinct from federal courts, serve as crucial defenders of rights and equality. State constitutions provide strong protections, with 49 states enshrining the affirmative right to vote. These state charters address diverse issues from climate change and criminal defense rights to much more.
In early November, the Brennan Center, in collaboration with the Northwestern University Law Review, will host a Chicago conference, The Power of State Constitutional Rights. This event will bring together judges, scholars, and advocates to explore how state courts are advancing voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and more. Discussions will highlight “unique rights” protected solely by state constitutions, such as the natural rights articulated by John Locke.
State constitutions often include Equal Rights Amendments ensuring women’s equality and environmental protections. These frameworks expand constitutional possibilities in a nation where the U.S. Constitution has not been amended for over three decades. The conference will feature Jeffrey S. Sutton, a federal judge and state constitutional law expert, emphasizing the unnoticed but vital role of American federalism.
New Initiatives and Regional Focus
This week also marked the introduction of the Brennan Center’s Partnership for Southern Impact, a collaboration with Fisk University, a distinguished HBCU in Nashville, Tennessee. This initiative is based at the John Lewis Center for Social Justice, honoring a notable Fisk alumnus.
The South, characterized by both promise and challenges, is the fastest-growing region, fueled by communities of color. Despite economic dynamism, the region faces issues such as severe gerrymandering, voter suppression, and a high incarceration rate. The future of the South is tied to the nation’s trajectory.
State legislators in the South often lack resources to develop effective policies. The Partnership for Southern Impact aims to support these efforts by providing access to social scientists, lawyers, and communication experts to transform innovative ideas into actionable policies.
The initiative’s launch in Nashville convened legislators, journalists, academics, and advocates to discuss key policy issues expected to influence Southern state legislatures. A panel led by Lauren-Brooke Eisen focused on prison conditions, highlighting states as potential reform venues. Discussions also covered voting rights and electoral integrity, addressing the push for mid-decade redistricting. Kareem Crayton facilitated a roundtable on governance strategies, underscoring the potential for bipartisan compromise even in supermajority legislatures.
While state-based approaches should not replace national actions, especially when federal intervention is necessary to curb state-level rights abuses, the current dynamic at the state level is invigorating. It suggests a budding political movement that could eventually reshape national policies and laws.
