tklw2

7 Governors

North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue wields a large VETO stamp in turning down the 2012 legislative budget bill.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

· To understand the evolution in powers of the governor from postcolonial days to the present.

· To be able to discuss the diverse roles of the governor.

· To evaluate the dynamics of working with the legislature to enact policy.

· To be able to explain the formal powers of the office today and how they are used.

· To analyze the informal powers of the office, their importance, and how they can enhance the formal powers.

· To explain the responsibilities of the other elective statewide executive branch offices.

Today's governors are the most important chief executive officers in the United States, with the sole exception of the president. The governors even speak as voices of authority on

( 2/28/2018 ) ( 166 )

( 49 /61 )

important national policy issues. Although they do not always agree on what they want, the governors have recently been influencing Congress and the president as never before in our history. Asserting themselves as a righteous third force in U.S. politics and speaking through the National Governors' Association (NGA) and the media, they have helped shape federal reform of welfare, education, and health care policies, and even led the response to combating global warming. And while Congress feuds along partisan and ideological lines over virtually all issues of significance, the governors preach—and often practice—partisan peacemaking to reach common policy ground with their own legislatures to advance positive policy changes. The challenges of conciliation are complicated by a voting public with no stomach for raising taxes and constricting state budgets, in which some three- quarters of expenditures are earmarked to education, Medicaid, and local government. The governors must make tough choices. Some bravely advance tax hikes despite the

( 2/28/2018 )

possible electoral consequences. Others impose brutal spending cuts on prisons, aid to the poor and helpless, and higher education.

Their responsibilities are prodigious. But the governors' enhanced visibility and contributions in national politics and policy are a tribute to their policy-making capacity and responsiveness to common—and uncommon— problems affecting the citizens of their respective states. It also reflects the policy leadership of the states in the U.S. federal system.

The Office of Governor

It has been said that the American governorship was conceived in mistrust and born in a straitjacket. Indeed, because the excesses of some colonial governors appointed by the English Crown resulted in strong dislike and distrust of executive power by the early American settlers, the first state constitutions concentrated political power in the legislative branch.

HISTORY OF THE OFFICE

Early governors were typically elected by the legislature rather than by the voters, were restricted to a single one-year term of office, and had little authority. Two states, Pennsylvania and Georgia, even established a plural (multimember) executive. Slowly the governorships became stronger through longer terms, popular election, and the power to veto legislation, but power did not come easily. The movement for popular democracy during the Jacksonian era led to the election of other executive branch officials, and reaction to the excesses of Jacksonian democracy resulted in numerous independent boards and commissions in the executive branch. Although governors did gain some power, they were not able to exercise independent authority over these executive boards and commissions.

In the early 1900s, along with their efforts to democratize national politics and clean up the corrupt city political machines, Progressive reformers launched a campaign to reform state government. Their principal target was the weak executive branch. Efforts to improve the state executive branch continue throughout in the twenty-first century. The essential goal has been to increase the governor's powers to make them more commensurate with the increased duties and responsibilities of the office. As a result, constitutional and statutory changes have fortified the office of the chief executive, reorganized the executive branch, and streamlined the structure and processes of the bureaucracy. The capacity of governors and the executive branch to apply state resources to the solution of emerging problems has

167

( 2/28/2018 ) ( 166 )

thus been greatly enhanced. 1 And, as observed at the beginning of this chapter, the governors have become prominent players in national policy making.

TODAY'S GOVERNORS

Today, being governor is a high-pressure, physically demanding, and emotionally draining job. As one political scientist states, “Governors must possess many skills to be successful. They are expected to be adroit administrators,

( 2/28/2018 )

( 167 )

dexterous executives, expert judges of people, combative yet sensitive and inspiring

politicians, decorous chiefs of state, shrewd party tacticians, and polished public relations managers.” 2 The job is also hard on the governor's private life. It consumes an enormous number of waking hours at the expense of family activities; hobbies; and, in some cases, more significant moneymaking opportunities in law, consulting, or business.

Fortunately, governorships are attracting well-qualified chief executives, most of whom are a far cry from the figureheads of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the stereotypical backslapping, cigar-smoking wheeler dealers of the early twentieth century. Today's governors are better educated and better prepared for the job than their predecessors were. A large proportion of recent governors hold law or other advanced degrees. Most of today's governors paid their political dues in state legislatures, gaining an understanding of important issues confronting the state, a working familiarity with influential figures in government and the private sector, and a practical knowledge of the legislative process and other inner workings of state government (see Table 7.1 ). About one- third of governors have served previously as elected state executive branch officials, including lieutenant governor and attorney general (AG). Several are former mayors.

Although previous elected experience is a tremendous advantage in winning a governorship, a number have come straight from the private sector, touting their business credentials. The attractiveness of the governorship is evident in the fact that several of the current chief executives left a congressional seat to take statewide office. Why would someone desert the glamour of the nation's capital for the statehouse in Baton Rouge, Topeka, or Oklahoma City? For political power and the opportunity to make a difference in one's own state. Simply put, being a state chief executive is just more rewarding and more fun.

Although still predominantly white males, today's governors are more representative of population characteristics than former chief executives were. Two Latinos serve as governors: Susana Martinez of New Mexico (2011– ) and Brian Sandoval of Nevada (2011– ). Two African Americans have been elected governor: L. Douglas Wilder, Virginia (1990– 1994) and Deval Patrick, Massachusetts (2006– ). A third, David Paterson, rose to the governorship in New York upon Eliot Spitzer's resignation in the aftermath of a prostitution scandal. Gary Locke, the first Asian American governor not from Hawaii, was elected governor of Washington in 1996. Bobby Jindal (2007– ) was elected as the first Indian American (Asian) governor in 2007 in Louisiana, and Nikki Haley (2011– ) in South Carolina. A substantial number of women have been elected to their state's top office, and six were serving in 2012 (see Table 7.1 ).

168

TABLE 7.1 Women Governors, 2012

NAME	STATE	PARTY	FIRST YEAR ELECTED	AGE FIRST ELECTED	PREVIOUS PUBLIC SERVICE
Jan Brewer	AZ	Republican	2009 *	64	Secretary of state; state legislature
Beverly Perdue	NC	Democrat	2008	62	State legislature; lieutenant governor
Nikki Haley	SC	Republican	2011	39	State legislature
Christine Gregoire	WA	Democrat	2004	57	State attorney general
Mary Fallin	OK	Republican	2011	56	U.S. Congress; state legislature; lieutenant governor
Susana Martinez	NM	Republican	2011	51	District attorney
*Brewer assumed the governorship in 2009, when Governor Janet Napolitano became the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and then was elected to a four year term beginning in 2011.

169

The path to the governorship of Delaware's former governor Ruth Ann Minner makes a compelling rags-to-riches story. She had to drop out of school at sixteen to work on a tenant farm. At seventeen she was married. Widowed with three children when her husband died at age thirty-two of a heart attack, Minner worked two jobs, earned her high school equivalency degree, and eventually graduated from college. She remarried and took a job as a secretary for former Delaware governor Sherman Tribbet. A few years later, she won a seat in the statehouse, and later moved to the state senate and the lieutenant governorship. In 2000, Ruth Ann Minner, a former governor's secretary, was elected chief executive of Delaware.

GETTING THERE: GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGNS

Without question, the governorship is an alluring office. Occasionally its luster attracts true wackos as candidates. One such case was Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey. A self- proclaimed PhD and “Satanic Dark Priest, Sanguinarian Vampyre and … Hecate Witch,” Sharkey announced his candidacy for the 2006 governorship of Minnesota. A former pro- wrestler and co-owner of “Kat's Underworld Coven,” the gubernatorial wannabe announced a unique plan for dealing with terrorists who might be tempted to infiltrate the Gopher State. Any such terrorist caught in Minnesota would “find out what the true meaning of my nickname “The Impaler” means.” Literally, the unfortunate suspect would be impaled on a stake on the capitol grounds. 3 Another colorful candidate was Texas mystery writer, songwriter, and performer Kinky Friedman. His progressive country band in the 1970s called “Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys” recorded various alternative hits, including “They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore,” “Asshole from El Paso,” and “The Mail Don't Move Too Fast in Rapid City, South Dakota.” While cracking jokes and one-liners, he also campaigned on serious issues, including election reform and education improvement.

Friedman again placed his name in the Democratic primary in 2009, only to lose again. Georgia's 2010 gubernatorial candidate Neal Horsley, running on the Creator's Rights party ticket, revealed in an interview that “When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.” 4

The lure of the governorship must be weighed against the financial costs. Campaigning for the office has become hugely expensive. Because candidates no longer rely on their political party to support them, they must continuously solicit great sums of money from donors to pay for campaign costs—political consultants, opinion polls, air travel, media advertisements, telephone banks, direct mailings, websites, and interactive video links.

( 2/28/2018 ) ( 168 )

( 169 )

170

Until 2010, the most expensive governor's race was the 2002 election in New York, in which $146.8 million was spent by three candidates. Loser Thomas Golisano spent $76.3 million; the winner, George Pataki, spent “only” $44.2 million. But in 2010 candidate Meg Whitman spent $141.5 million of her own money, and $160 million in total, only to lose in the California election! Official figures do not include in-kind donations, such as free transportation, door-to-door canvassing, telephones, and other contributions from supporters. On a cost-per-vote basis, races in the 2009 gubernatorial elections ranged from

$33.60 in Louisiana to only $0.41 in Missouri. 5

Money has a profound influence on gubernatorial elections, but it isn't the only important factor. As one veteran of political campaigns has reflected, “Everyone knows that half the money spent in a political campaign is wasted. The trouble is that nobody knows which half.” 6 Other factors are also important in candidate success, such as incumbency and the strength of the candidate's political party in the electorate, 7 because party identification usually translates into votes for a party's candidate. High-profile candidates stand a solid chance of being elected because they possess campaign skills, political experience, and other characteristics that help them raise the campaign funds needed to get their message and persona across to the electorate. 8

Incumbency is a particularly important aspect of a candidate's profile. An incumbent governor running for re-election stands an excellent chance of victory; about three-quarters of incumbents have retained their seats since 1970. Incumbents enjoy a number of important advantages, including the opportunity while in office to cultivate popularity with the voters and collect campaign donations from interest groups. However, re-election is no sure thing. Budget and tax woes can lead voters to toss chief executives out of office, particularly those who, as candidates, pledged not to raise taxes but then do so after election. 9

Being Governor: Duties and Responsibilities

In performing the duties of the office, the governor wears the hats of top policy maker, chief legislator, chief administrator, ceremonial leader, intergovernmental coordinator, economic development promoter, and political party leader. Sometimes several of these hats must be balanced atop the governor's head at once. All things considered, these roles make the governorship one of the most difficult and challenging, yet potentially most rewarding, jobs in the world.

( 2/28/2018 )

DEVELOPING AND MAKING POLICY

Transforming good ideas from concept to practice is an exciting but extraordinarily difficult challenge for governors. A governor is the leading formulator and initiator of public policy in his state, from his first pronouncements as a gubernatorial candidate until his final days in office. The governor's role as chief policy maker involves many other players, including those in the

( 170 )

legislature, bureaucracy, courts, interest groups, and the voting public. Most major policies

are initiated by the governor, and success or failure depends largely on how competently the governor designs and frames policy proposals and develops public support for them. The governor must also follow through to see that adopted policies are put into effect as originally intended.

Some issues are by nature transitory, appearing on the agenda of state government and disappearing after appropriate actions are taken. These issues are often created by external events, such as a federal court decision that mandates a reduction in prison overcrowding; a new national law requiring a state response; or an act of nature such as a hurricane, tornado, forest fire, or flood.

Most policy issues, however, do not emerge suddenly out of the mists. Perennial concerns face the governor each year: education, corrections, social welfare, health care, the environment, and economic development. Cyclical issues also appear, increase in intensity, and slowly fade away. Examples of the latter type are consumer protection, ethics in government, reapportionment, and budget shortfalls. Of course, national policy issues sometimes absorb the governor's time as well, such as preparing for and coping with an influx of illegal immigrants, addressing economic downturns, and dealing with proposals to drill or “frack” for oil and gas in the state or just off state shorelines.

Several factors have contributed to stronger policy leadership from the chief executives in recent years, including larger and more capable staffs who are knowledgeable in important policy fields; a more integrated executive branch with department heads appointed by the governor; strengthened formal powers of the office, such as longer terms and the veto and budget powers; and the assistance of the National Governors Association (NGA) along with regional associations, which offer ideas for policy and program development. Of no small importance is the high caliber of individuals who have won the office in recent years.

MARSHALING LEGISLATIVE ACTION

The gubernatorial role of marshaling legislative action is closely related to that of policy maker because legislative action is required for most of the chief executive's policies to be put into effect. In fact, the governor cannot directly introduce bills; party leaders and policy supporters in the statehouse and senate must put the bills in the hopper. Dealing with legislators is a demanding role for a governor, consuming more time than any other role and representing for many the single most difficult aspect of the job.

171

Executive-Legislative Tensions Developing a positive relationship with the legislature requires great expenditures of a governor's time, energy, and resources. Several factors hinder smooth relations between the chief executive and the legislature, including partisanship and personality clashes. Even the different natures of the two branches can cause conflict. Governors are elected by a statewide constituency and therefore tend to take a broad, comprehensive, long-range view of issues, whereas legislators, representing relatively small geographical areas and groups of voters, are more likely to take

( 171 )

a piecemeal, parochial approach to policy making. Conflicts inevitably erupt during budget

time, when critical spending decisions are at hand. 10

172

According to one study, the amount of strife between the two branches is influenced by three factors: the size of the majority and the minority parties, the personalities of the governor and legislative leaders, and the nearness of an election year. 11 Following the 2011 elections, there were twenty-nine Democratic governors, twenty Republicans, and one Independent (Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). In many of the states today, the governor has to deal with a one- or two-house majority from the opposing political party. When the opposition party is strong, the governor must seek bipartisan support to get favored legislation passed. Often a governor facing a large legislative majority from the opposing party has only the veto and the possibility of mobilizing public support as weapons against the legislature. Yet minority governors like Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Jodi Rell of Connecticut earned reputations for being nonpartisan, while still getting their way on legislation important to them.

Independent governors don't even have a minority party to count on, but this situation doesn't preclude success. Former Independent governor Angus King of Maine asserted that not having a party affiliation brought some advantages. For instance, he says, “I have no automatic friends in the legislature, but I have no automatic enemies. I have 186 skeptics.” 12

A governor who ignores or alienates members of the opposing political party can quickly find himself in the desert without a drink of water. New York governor David Paterson compared legislators in Albany to “a bunch of bloodsuckers” who cater to special interests during the day and go home without taking action on bills. 13

New Jersey's Chris Christie entered the governorship as a Republican with tough talk and a brusque manner. He “never found a battle he didn't want to pick or a position he was willing to compromise.“ 14 He fought with the Democratic legislature over judicial appointments, taxes, employee pensions, education funding, and many other issues. Soon, however, even he learned the value of the occasional legislative compromise.

The approach of elections can also bring gubernatorial-legislative deadlock because incumbents in both branches of government may become extremely cautious or overtly partisan in their efforts to please (or at least not to offend) the voters while discrediting their opponents. Gridlock may result. These three conflict-producing factors of partisanship, personalities, and proximity of an election are intensified during debates on the budget, when the principal policy and financial decisions are made. In some instances, including in

Minnesota in 2010, executive-legislative stalemates have produced a state government shutdown, with negative outcomes for many, if not most, state residents.

Even in states in which the governor's own party enjoys a large majority in both houses of the legislature, factions are certain to develop along ideological, rural-urban, geographical, institutional (house versus senate), or other divisions. Ironically, a large legislative majority can create the greatest problems with factionalism primarily because a sizable opposition doesn't exist to unite the majority party. The stronger the numbers of the majority

( 172 )

party, the more likely it is to degenerate into intraparty rivalries beyond the governor's

control. As one Democratic governor lamented in the face of a 4-to-1 majority of his own party in the legislature, “You've got Democrats, you've got moderate Democrats, you've got suburban Democrats, you've got urban Democrats, you've got rural Democrats.” 15

173

Executive Influence on the Legislative Agenda Despite the difficulties in dealing with the legislature, most governors dominate the policy agenda, usually by working hand in hand with legislative leaders. The governor's influence begins with the “State of the State” address, which kicks off each new legislative session and continues in most states with the annual budget message. In 2012, governors stressed austere economic conditions and resultant budget problems, job creation, education improvements, state pension reform, immigration policy, and health care. 16 During the legislative session itself, the governor might publicly (or privately) threaten to veto a proposed bill or appeal directly to a particular legislator's constituency.

Most of the drama, however, takes place behind the scenes. The governor might promise high-level executive branch jobs or judgeships (either for certain legislators or for their friends) to influence legislative votes. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat, appointed two Republican legislators to posts in the executive branch to gain the legislative majority needed to pass a bill expanding betting on horse races. 17 Or a governor might offer some sort of pork barrel reward, such as funding a highway project in a legislator's district or approving an appropriation for the local Strawberry Festival. Private meetings or breakfasts in the governor's mansion flatter and enlist support from individuals or small groups of legislators. Successful governors can usually relate to representatives and senators on a personal level. Many are former members of the state legislature, so they can rely on personal connections and experiences to win over key members. One of the most successful governors today, for example, is Governor Mike Beebe (2007– ) of Arkansas, who labored in the state senate for twenty years and as attorney general for four, before winning the state's top office.

( pork barrel Favoritism by a governor or other elected official in distributing government monies or other resources to a part icular program , jurisdiction, or individual. )

In addition, all governors have legislative liaisons who are assigned to lobby for the administration's program. Members of the governor's staff testify at legislative hearings,

consult with committees and individuals on proposed bills, and even write floor speeches for friends in the legislature. Some governors designate a floor leader to steer their priorities through the legislature.

Most governors, however, are careful not to be perceived as unduly interfering in the internal affairs of the legislature. Too much meddling in legislative affairs can bring a political backlash that undermines a governor's policy program. The role of chief legislator, then, requires a balancing act that ultimately determines the success or failure of the governor's agenda.

GOVERNORS AND THE COURTS

Sometimes the best laid plans of governors are squelched by the courts, either state or federal. Florida Governor Rick Scott's aggressive and controversial actions to compel drug testing on all state employees and job applicants,

( 173 )

restrict the right of physicians to ask patients about guns in their houses, retract 3 percent of

state employee salaries, and censor K-12 textbooks spawned a tornado of lawsuits aimed at overturning his actions. 18 Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval's “No-Tax Pledge” resulted in a proposed state budget that, among other things, raided local government funds to balance the state accounts. With less than two weeks left in the legislative session, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that such local funds transfers were unconstitutional. Sandoval was forced to release a revised budget that included an increase in the personal income tax. 19 And in New Mexico, the state supreme court ruled against Governor Susana Martinez's freeze on publication of new pollution control measures by the state environmental agency. Such court actions demonstrate the need for governors and their legal staffs to be attentive to the legality of their actions and decisions.

ADMINISTERING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

As chief executive of the state, the governor is (in name, at least) in charge of the operations of numerous agencies, departments, boards, and commissions. In the view of many voters, the governor is directly responsible not only for pivotal matters such as the condition of the state's economy, but also for more mundane concerns such as clearing the snow off state highways in a timely manner. Most governors are sensitive to their chief administrative responsibilities and spend a great amount of time and energy attending to them.

Constitutional and statutory reforms, including the concentration of executive power in the office of the governor and the consolidation of numerous state agencies, have considerably strengthened the governor's capacity to manage the state. (See Chapter 8 for further discussion of public administration.) If governors are diligent and expeditious in appointing talented and responsive people to policy-making posts, they should feel no compulsion to micromanage the state's day-to-day affairs. Instead, they can focus their energies on leadership activities such as identifying goals, marshaling resources, and achieving results.

In many respects, the governor's job is comparable to that of the chief executive officer (CEO) of a very large corporation. Governors must manage tens of thousands of workers, staggering sums of money, and complex organizational systems. They must establish priorities, handle crises, and balance contending interests. But there are important differences as well. For one, governors are not paid comparably for their responsibilities. In terms of expenditures and employees, most states are as big or bigger than Fortune 500 companies, whose CEOs typically earn tens of millions of dollars a year in salary, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. Yet the fifty governors average only about

174

$128,700 in annual salary. (The highest paid is the governor of New York, at $179,000; the lowest is Maine's, at $70,000.) 20

In addition to being woefully underpaid, today's governors experience high levels of stress from interest group criticism, legislative sniping, extraordinarily long hours on the job, and constant media attention to every possible misstep. Sometimes even the comforts of home are denied to the chief executive and his family. California closed the governor's mansion in 2011 to address a small

( 174 )

part of that state's staggering budget deficit. Governor Rick Perry's mansion in Austin,

Texas, was torched by an arsonist, displacing him and his family.

Restraints on Management Reforms of the executive branch have allowed far more active and influential gubernatorial management, but significant restraints remain. For example, the separation-of-powers principle dictates that the governor share his or her authority with the legislature and the courts, either or both of which may be politically or philosophically opposed to any given action. Changes in state agency programs, priorities, or organization typically require legislative approval, and the legality of such changes may be tested in the courts.

The governor's ability to hire, fire, motivate, and punish is severely restricted by the courts; merit-system rules and regulations; collective bargaining contracts; independent boards and commissions with their own personnel systems; and other elected executive branch officials pursuing their own administrative and political agendas. Thus, most employees in the executive branch are outside the governor's formal sphere of authority and may challenge that authority almost at will. Career bureaucrats, who have established their own policy direction and momentum over many years of seeing governors come and go, usually march to their own tune. In sum, governors must manage through third parties and networks in the three branches of government, as well as in the private and nonprofit sectors. They have little unilateral authority.

Governors as Managers Some governors minimize their managerial responsibilities, preferring to delegate them to trusted staff and agency heads. Others provide strong administrative and policy leadership in state government. But the constraints on the governor's managerial activities are not likely to lessen, nor are the potential political liabilities. The governors who courageously wade into the bureaucratic fray must invest a great deal of time and scarce political resources, yet they risk embarrassing defeats that can drag their administrations into debilitation and disrepute. After all, “Reorganized the State Bureaucracy” hardly resonates as a campaign slogan. Meanwhile, in the face of social and economic change, the management of state government has become increasingly complex, and the need for strong administrative leadership more critical than ever before.

MASTER OF CEREMONIES

Some governors thrive on ceremony and others detest it, but all spend a large portion of their time on it because it helps garner re-election votes. Former governors remember ceremonial duties as the second most demanding of the gubernatorial roles, just behind

175

working with the legislature. 21 Cutting the ribbon for a new highway, celebrating the arrival of a new business, welcoming potential foreign investors, receiving the queen of the Collard Green Festival, announcing “Respect Your Parents Week,” opening the state fair, and handing out diplomas are the kind of ceremonial duties that take a governor all over the state and often consume a larger portion of the workweek than does any other role. 22 Even a seemingly pleasant task can have its personal horrors.

( 175 )

George A. Aiken, the late governor of Vermont, dreaded having to pin the ribbon on the

winner of the Miss Vermont contest because he couldn't figure out how to put the pin in without getting his hand under the bathing suit.

COORDINATING INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Governors serve as the major points of contact between their states and the president, Congress, and federal agencies. Everything from emergency response to settling disputes over cross-border water pollution issues are carried out through the governor's office. At the local level, governors are involved in allocating grants-in-aid, promoting cooperation and coordination in economic development activities, and various other matters. Governors also provide leadership in resolving disputes with Native American tribes involving casino gambling and related issues.

The role of intergovernmental coordinator is most visible at the national level, where governors are aided by the NGA and the state's Washington office. The NGA meets twice a year in full session to adopt policy positions and to discuss governors' problems and “best practice” policy solutions. The governors also meet in separate regional organizations. (C- SPAN covers national meetings of the governors.) The NGA's staff analyzes important issues, distributes its analyses to the states, offers practical and technical assistance to the governors, and holds a valuable seminar for new governors. The NGA, however, has recently come under fire from conservative Republicans, who object to the organization's perceived “tax-and-spend” agenda, even when it benefits their own states. In fact, in 2012, Republican governors of Texas, Idaho, Florida, and Ohio had withdrawn from the NGA over this and related concerns.

Most states have established Washington offices to fight for their interests in Congress, the White House, and, perhaps most important, the many federal agencies that interact with states on a daily basis. A governor's official inquiry can help speed up the progress of federal grant-in-aid funds or gain special consideration for a new federal facility.

Washington offices are commonly assisted by major law and lobbying firms under contract to individual states.

The governor's role as intergovernmental coordinator is of great importance. It reflects the elevated position of the states in the scheme of American federalism and the increasing state importance in national and international affairs. It is also a reaction to provocations and intrusions from the national government, such as unfunded mandates, poorly framed laws, and unwelcome blundering into state affairs. Acting together and as individuals, the

176

governors have exercised national policy leadership on critical issues such as environmental protection, climate change, taxation of Internet sales, public education, and health care reform. Frequently, when the national government confronts a policy problem, it turns to the states for solutions.

PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Unfairly or not, governors may be held responsible by the voters for their state's economic health. As promoter of economic development, a governor works to recruit businesses and tourists from out of state and to encourage

( 176 )

economic growth from sources within the state (see Chapter 14 ). Governors attend trade

fairs; visit the headquarters of firms interested in locating in the state; telephone and e-mail promising business contacts; and welcome business leaders. The role may take the governor and the state economic development team to Mexico, China, Germany, and other countries, as well as to other states. Governors also work hard to promote tourism. But mostly, economic development entails making the state's climate “good for business” by improving infrastructure, arranging generous tax and service incentives, and engaging in other strategies designed to entice out-of-state firms to relocate and encourage in-state businesses to expand or at least stay put.

When a state enjoys success in economic development, the governor usually claims a major portion of the credit. Sometimes the personal touch of a governor can mean the difference between an industrial plum and economic stagnation. Success stories are heralded proudly. Are incumbent governors punished in a re-election effort when promised economic growth falls short? Research findings on this question are mixed. 23

LEADING THE POLITICAL PARTY

By claiming the top elected post in the state, the governor becomes the highest-ranking member of her political party. This role is not as significant as it was several decades ago, when the governor controlled the state's party apparatus and legislative leadership and had strong influence over party nominations for seats in the state legislature and executive branch offices. The widespread adoption of primaries, which have replaced party conventions, has put nominations largely in the hands of the voters. And legislative leaders are a much more independent breed than they were, for example, in Illinois, when Governor Richard Ogilvie (1969–1973) brought up the need for income tax legislation during a breakfast meeting at the mansion. S enate president Russ Arrington angrily asked, “Who is the crazy son of a bitch who is going to sponsor this thing?” The governor calmly replied, “Russ, you are.” And he did. 24 Such an order is unlikely these days. Still, some governors get involved in legislative elections through campaign aid, endorsements, or other actions. If the governor's choice wins, she may feel a special debt to the governor and support him on important legislation.

The political party remains useful to the governor for three principal reasons. 25 Legislators from the governor's own party are more likely to support the chief executive's programs. Communication lines to the president and national cabinet members are more likely to be open when the president and the governor are members of the same party. And

177

finally, the party remains the most convenient means through which to win nomination to the governor's office.

As most states have highly competitive political parties, governors find that they must work with the opposition if their legislative programs are to pass. For Independent governors, a special challenge exists: how to govern without a party behind you to organize votes and otherwise push proposed laws through the convoluted legislative process. The recent record has been

( 177 )

mixed. Maine's Independent governor, Angus King, demonstrated a talent for working with

shifting legislative coalitions on various major issues, as has current Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee.

Formal Powers of the Governor

A variety of powers are attached to the governor's office. A governor's formal powers include the tenure of the office, power of appointment, power to veto legislation, responsibility for preparing the budget, authority to reorganize the executive branch, and the right to hire professional staff in the governor's office. These institutional powers give governors the potential to carry out the duties of office as they see fit. However, the formal powers vary considerably from state to state. Some governors' offices (Illinois, New York) are considered strong and others (Alabama, Georgia) weak. Also, the fact that these powers are available does not mean that they are used effectively. Equally important are the informal powers that governors have at their disposal. These are potentially empowering features of the job or the person that are not expressly provided for in the law. Many of the informal powers are associated with personal traits on which the chief executive relies to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the office. They are especially helpful in relations with the legislature.

178

( formal powers Powers of the governor derived from the state constitution or statute. informal powers Powers of the governor not derived from constitutional or statutory law. )

Both sets of powers have increased over the past several decades. And governors are more influential than ever before, primarily because of their enhanced formal powers; charisma, however, remains as important as ever. The most successful governors are those who employ their informal powers to maximize the formal powers. The term for this concept is synergism, a condition in which the total effect of two distinct sets of attributes working together is greater than the sum of their effects when acting independently. An influential governor, then, is one who can skillfully combine formal and informal powers to maximum effectiveness. Counted among the most effective governors in recent years are Michael

Leavitt (Republican, Utah), Tim Kaine (Democrat, Virginia), and Daniel Malloy (Democrat, Connecticut).

TENURE

The governor's tenure power has two characteristics: the duration (number of years) of a term of office and the number of terms that an individual may serve as governor. Both have slowly but steadily expanded over the past two centuries. From the onerous restriction of a single one-year term of office placed on ten of the first thirteen governors, the duration has evolved to today's standard of two or more four-year terms (only New Hampshire and Vermont restrict their governors to two-year terms). In addition, gubernatorial elections have become distinct from national elections now that thirty-nine states hold them in non- presidential election years. This system encourages the voters to focus their attention on issues important to the state rather than allowing national politics to influence state election outcomes.

( 178 )

179

The importance of longer consecutive terms of office is readily apparent. A two-year governorship condemns the incumbent to a perpetual re-election campaign. As soon as the winner takes office, planning and fund-raising must begin for the next election. For any new governor, the initial year in office is typically spent settling into the job. In addition, the

first-term, first-year chief executive must live with the budget priorities adopted by his or her predecessor. A two-year governorship, therefore, does not encourage success in matters of legislation or policy. Nor does it enable the governor to have much effect on the bureaucracy, whose old hands are likely to treat the governor as a mere bird of passage, making him almost a lame duck when his term begins. As Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York observed after serving four two-year terms during the 1920s, “One hardly has time to

locate the knob on the Statehouse door.” 26

By contrast, Virginia's governor, the only one who is restricted to a single four-year term, is a bit less confined in carrying out his responsibilities. But he really has only two years to put his programs and priorities in place, sandwiched on one side by the initial learning year and on the other by the lame-duck period. The incumbent needs another four-year term to design new programs, acquire the necessary legislative support to put them into place, and get a handle on the bureaucracy by appointing competent people to top posts. Eight years in office also enhances the governor's intergovernmental role, particularly by giving him sufficient time to develop and nurture key relationships and win leadership positions in organizations such as the NGA. The record of an eight-year chief executive stands on its own, untainted by the successes or failures of the office's previous inhabitant.

The average time actually served by governors has grown with fewer restrictions on tenure. The first gubernatorial graybeard was Illinois governor Jim Thompson, who stepped down after serving his fourth consecutive term in 1990—a twentieth-century record. 27 (North Carolina's Jim Hunt served four, nonconsecutive four-year terms, 1977–1985 and 1993– 2001). Other “comeback governors” were elected in 2010 in California (Jerry Brown, 1975–1983), Iowa (Terry Branstad, 1983–1999), and Oregon (John Kitzhaber, 1995–2003).

Long periods in office strengthen the governor's position as policy leader, chief legislator, chief administrator, and intergovernmental coordinator, as shown by the policy legacies left in Illinois by Thompson and in North Carolina by Hunt. Another sort of gubernatorial record was set by Cecil H. Underwood, who in 1956 became West Virginia's youngest governor at the age of thirty-four. He was re-elected for a second term in 1996 as the state's oldest governor at seventyfour years of age.

There is still some resistance to unlimited tenure. More than one re- election creates fears of political machines and possible abuses of office. And, pragmatically speaking, a long period of a “safe governorship” can result in stagnation and loss of vigor in the office. Even in states that do not restrict governors to two consecutive terms, the informal custom is to refrain from seeking a third term.

( 179 )

180

APPOINTMENT POWER

Surveys of past governors indicate that they consider appointment power to be the most important weapon in their arsenal when it comes to managing the state bureaucracy. The ability to appoint one's supporters to top positions in the executive branch also enhances the policy management role. When individuals who share the governor's basic philosophy and feel loyal to the chief executive and her programs direct the operations of state government, the governor's policies are more likely to be successful. Strong appointment authority can even help the governor's legislative role. The actual or implicit promise of important administrative and especially judicial positions can generate a surprising amount of support from ambitious lawmakers.

Unfortunately for today's governors, Jacksonian-style democracy and the long ballot live on in the plural executive . Most states continue to provide for popular election of numerous officials in the executive branch, including insurance commissioners, public utility commissioners, and secretaries of agriculture. Proponents of popular election claim that these officials make political decisions and therefore should be directly responsible to the electorate. Opponents contend that governors and legislators can make appointment decisions more properly, based on the recommendations of appointed executive branch professionals who are not beholden to special interests.

( plural executive A system in which more than one member of the executive branch is popularly elected on a statewide ballot. )

Perhaps appointment authority should depend on the office under consideration. Those offices that tend to cater to special interests, such as agriculture, insurance, and education, probably should be appointive. Less substantive offices such as secretary of state or treasurer probably should be appointive as well. It makes sense to elect an auditor and an AG, however, because they require some independence in carrying out their responsibilities. (The auditor oversees the management and spending of state monies; the AG is concerned with the legality of executive and legislative branch activities).

Many governors are weakened by their inability to directly appoint the heads of major state agencies, boards, and commissions. These high-ranking officials make policy decisions

in the executive branch, but if they owe their jobs in whole or in part to popular election or legislative appointment, the governor's authority as chief executive is significantly diminished. Although nominally in charge of these executive branch agencies, the governor is severely constrained in his ability to manage them. Such an arrangement would be unthinkable in a corporation.

The fragmented nature of power in the executive branch diminishes accountability and frustrates governors. Former Oregon governor Tom McCall once lamented that “we have run our state like a pick-up orchestra, where the members meet at a dance, shake hands with each other, and start to play.” 28 When the assorted performers are not selected by the chief conductor, their performance may lack harmony, to say the least. And elected statewide offices provide convenient platforms for aspiring governors to criticize the i ncumbent.

( 180 )

181

Most reformers interested in “good government” agree on the need to consolidate power in the governor's office by reducing the number of statewide elected officials and expanding the power of appointment to more policy-related, or “unclassified,” posts in the executive branch. Most states have increased the number of policy-making positions in the governor's staff and in top agency line and staff positions. But the number of elected branch officials has remained virtually the same for decades. Table 7.2 shows the range and number of separately elected officials. North Dakota has the greatest number with twelve statewide offices filled through elections: governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, AG, agricultural commissioner, chief state school officer, treasurer, labor commissioner, tax commissioner, two insurance commissioners, and utility commissioner. At the bottom of the list are the reformer's ideal states: Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Tennessee, which elect only the governor. The average number of elected officials is about eight.

Why has it been so difficult to abolish multiple statewide offices? The main answer is that incumbent education superintendents, agricultural commissioners, and others have strong supporters in the electorate. Specialinterest groups, such as the insurance industry, benefit from having an elected official—the insurance commissioner—representing their concerns at the highest level of state government. Such groups fiercely resist proposals to make the office appointive. Additional resistance may be credited to the fact that many citizens simply like having an opportunity to vote on a large number of executive branch officials.

TABLE 7.2 Separately Elected State Officials

OFFICE	NUMBER OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
Governor	50
Lieutenant governor	42
Attorney general	44
SOURCE: Adapted from The Book of the States 2011, Table 4.10. Reprinted by permission of The Council of State Governments.

OFFICE	NUMBER OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
Treasurer	39
Secretary of state	37
Education (superintendent or board)	14
Auditor	24
Secretary of agriculture	13
Controller	14
Public utilities commissioner	6
Insurance commissioner	12
Land commissioner	5
Labor commissioner	4
Mines commissioner	1
Adjutant General (National Guard)	1
SOURCE: Adapted from The Book of the States 2011, Table 4.10. Reprinted by permission of The Council of State Governments.

( 181 )

182

Professional Jobs in State Government The vast majority of jobs in the states are filled through objective civil service (merit-system) rules and processes. Governors are generally quite content to avoid meddling with civil service positions, and a few have actually sought to transfer many patronage appointments—those based on personal or party loyalty—to an independent, merit-based civil service (see Chapter 8 ). Gubernatorial sacrifice of patronage power is understandable in view of the time and headaches associated with naming political supporters to jobs in the bureaucracy. There is always the possibility of embarrassment or scandal if the governor accidentally appoints a person with a criminal record, a clear conflict of interest, or a propensity for sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior, or someone who causes harm through simple incompetence.

Moreover, those who are denied coveted appointments may become angry. One governor is quoted as stating, as he was about to name a new member of a state commission, “I now have twenty-three good friends who want [to be] on the Racing Commission. [Soon] I'll have twenty-two enemies and one ingrate.” 29 Governors who abuse the merit hiring system can be prosecuted, as were Kentucky governor Ernie Fletcher and fifteen members of his

administration, who were indicted in a hiring scandal in 2006. A governor benefits from a stable, competent civil service that hires, pays, and promotes on the basis of knowledge, job- related skills, and abilities rather than party affiliation, friendship with a legislator, or campaign donations.

( patronage The informal power of a governor (or other officeholder) to make appointments on the basis of party membership and to dispense contracts or other favors to political supporters. )

The Power to Fire The power of the governor to hire is not necessarily accompanied by the power to fire. Except in cases of extreme misbehavior or corruption, it is very difficult to remove a subordinate from office, even if such action is constitutionally permitted. For instance, if a governor attempts to dismiss the secretary of agriculture, he can anticipate an orchestrated roar of outrage from legislators, bureaucrats, and farm groups. The upshot is that the political costs of dismissing an appointee can be greater than the pain of simply living with the problem.

Several U.S. Supreme Court rulings have greatly restricted the governor's power to dismiss or remove from office the political appointees of previous governors. In a precedent-setting case, Rutan et al. v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990), the Court found that failure to hire,

retain, or promote an individual for reasons of political or party affiliation violates that person's First Amendment rights. 30

A good appointment to a top agency post is the best way for a governor to influence the bureaucracy. By carefully choosing a competent and loyal agency head, the governor can more readily bring about significant changes in the programs and operations of that agency. Where appointment powers are circumscribed, the chief executive must muster his or her informal powers to influence activities of the state bureaucracy or rely on the seasoned judgment of professional civil servants.

( 182 )

183

VETO POWER

As we noted in Chapter 6 , the power to veto bills passed by the legislature bolsters the governor as chief policy maker and chief administrator. A bill may be vetoed because its contents are contrary to a governor's principles or preferences, or for many other reasons. A veto accompanied by an explanation makes a powerful symbolic statement or can instruct the legislature about how the bill might be amended for the governor's signature. A veto can also punish an offending legislator or state agency by eliminating a favored program or severely cutting its budget. Often the mere threat of a veto is enough to persuade a recalcitrant legislature to see the governor's point of view and compromise on the language of a bill. Vetoes are not easy to override. Most states require a majority of three-fifths or two-thirds of the legislature.

Types of Vetoes The veto can take several forms. The package veto is the governor's rejection of a bill in its entirety. All governors hold package veto authority. The line item veto allows the governor to strike out one or more objectionable sections of a bill, permitting the remaining provisions to become law. Only Nevada, Maine, and six other states forbid this gubernatorial power. Several states permit a hybrid form of line item veto in which the governor may choose to reduce the dollar amount of a proposed item to hold down state expenditures or cut back support for a particular program. In some states, the line item veto is permitted only in appropriations bills.

The pocket veto , which is available in fourteen states, allows the governor to reject a bill by refusing to sign it after the legislature has adjourned. In two states (Hawaii and Utah), the legislature can reconvene to vote on a pocket veto; otherwise, the bill dies. A governor might use the pocket veto to avoid giving the legislature a chance to override a formal veto or to abstain from going on record against a proposed piece of controversial legislation.

A fourth type of veto is the executive amendment , formally provided in fifteen states and informally used in several others. With this amendatory power, a governor may veto a bill, recommend changes that would make the bill acceptable, and then send it back to the legislature for reconsideration. If the legislature concurs with the suggestions, the governor signs the bill into law.

( package veto The governor's formal power to veto a bill in its entirety. )

( line item veto The governor's formal power to veto separate items in a bill instead of the entire piece of proposed legislation. pocket veto The governor's power to withhold approval or disapproval of a bill after the legislature has adjourned for the session, in effect vetoing the measure. executive amendment A type of veto used by the governor to reject a bill and also to recommend changes t hat would cause the governor to consider the bill's approval. )

Use of the Veto The actual use of the veto varies by time, state, and issue. Some states, such as California and New York, often record high numbers of vetoes, whereas others, like Virginia, report few. On average, governors veto around 4 percent of the bills that reach their desks. 31 The variation among states reflects the tensions and conflicts that exist between the governor and the legislature. The largest number of vetoes typically occurs in states with divided party control of the executive and legislative branches. Occasionally, the governor stands as the last line of defense against a flawed bill backed by the legislature because of powerful interest groups or a bill passed just to score political points. It is not unknown for legislators to secretly ask the governor to veto a questionable bill they have just passed because the bill's contents, although undesirable, are politically popular. 32

( 183 )

184

Although the overall rate of veto utilization has not grown significantly, the proportion of successful legislative overrides has increased in the past two decades. This trend is an indication of the growing strength and assertiveness of state legislatures, the increase in conflict between the executive and legislative branches, and the prevalence of split-party government. Differences in party affiliation between the governor and the legislative majority probably provoke more vetoes than any other factor, especially when party ideology and platforms openly clash. New York Governor David Patterson vetoed some 6,700 budget items during a single week in 2010. Conversely, when mutual respect and cooperation prevail between the two branches, the governor rarely needs to threaten or actually use the veto. Most governors interact with the legislature throughout the bill- adoption process. Before rejecting a bill, the governor will request comments from key legislators, affected state agencies, and concerned interest groups. He may ask the AG for a legal opinion. And before actually vetoing proposed legislation, the governor usually provides advance notification to legislative leaders, along with a final opportunity to make amendments.

The veto can be a powerful offensive weapon that may be used to obtain a legislator's support for a different bill dear to the governor's heart, particularly near the end of the legislative session. The governor may, for instance, hold one bill hostage to a veto until the legislature enacts another bill that he favors. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did just that in 2008, when he began vetoing all bills sent to his desk until the legislature approved a budget bill; all told, he vetoed 35 percent of the bills sent to him that session.

Wisconsin's storied history includes the “Vanna White Veto” and the “Frankenstein Veto.” The first, abolished in 1990, permitted the governor to delete individual letters and numbers to change a bill's content. The second, which took a stake in the heart in a 2008 voter referendum, allowed the governor to strike out some words and piece together others to alter a bill's content. For instance, Governor Jim Doyle (2003–2011) used the Frankenstein Veto to delete 752 words from a bill, which effectively shifted $427 million from

transportation to education. 33

BUDGETARY POWER

The governor's budget effectively sets the legislative agenda at the beginning of each session. By framing the important policy issues and attaching price tags to them, the governor can determine the scope and direction of budgetary debates in the legislature and ensure that they reflect her overall philosophy on taxing and spending. All but a handful of governors have the authority to appoint (and remove) the budget director and to formulate

and submit the executive budget to the legislature. In Mississippi and Texas, budget authority is shared with the legislature or with other elected executive branch officials. And in these two states, two budgets are prepared each year, one by the governor and one by a legislative budget board.

Because full budgetary authority is normally housed in the office of the chief executive, the governor not only drives the budgetary process in the legislature, but also enjoys a source of important leverage in the bureaucracy.

( 184 )

The executive budget can be used to influence programs, spending, and other activities of

state agencies. For example, uncooperative administrators may discover that their agency's slice of the budget pie is smaller than expected, whereas those who are attentive to the concerns of the governor may receive strong financial support. Rational, objective criteria usually determine departmental budget allocations, but a subtle threat from the governor's office does wonders to instill a cooperative agency attitude.

The governor's budget requests are rarely, if ever, enacted exactly as put forward. Rather, they are usually argued and debated thoroughly in both houses of the legislature. A legislature dominated by the opposing political party is nearly certain to scorn and disparage the governor's budget as “dead on arrival.” Governors, who are elected statewide, must appeal to a large and diversified electorate. Legislatures must please localized geographic constituencies. Ultimately, “the governor proposes, but the legislature disposes.” In fact, no monies may be appropriated without formal action by the legislature. Which branch of government is most powerful in a budgetary sense? Research is inconclusive—it depends. 34 (The budget process is discussed further in Chapter 8 ).

During state budget crises, governors find themselves in an extremely vulnerable political position, particularly if they signed a “no new taxes” pledge when running for office.

Legislatures struggle with the governor over the question of who will assume primary responsibility for reducing state expenditures or hiking taxes. Usually, governors take the heat, and even light the match, by cutting spending, introducing tax increases, or both. 35 Such bold actions, though fully appropriate, are not taken without due caution by the governor because the electoral consequences can be direct and negative.

REORGANIZATION POWER

Reorganization power refers to the governor's ability to create and abolish state agencies, departments, and other offices and to reallocate administrative responsibilities among them. Reorganizations are usually aimed at the upper levels of the bureaucracy in an effort to streamline the executive branch and thereby make it work more efficiently and effectively. The basic premise is that the governor, as chief manager of the bureaucracy, needs the authority to alter administrative structures and processes to meet changing political, economic, and citizen demands. For instance, serious and recurring problems in coordinating the delivery of social services among several existing state agencies may call for a consolidated human services department with expanded powers. A governor with strong reorganization power can bring about such a department without approval of the legislature.

185

Traditionally, legislatures have been responsible for the organization of state government, and in the absence of a constitutional amendment to the contrary or a statutory grant of reorganization power to the governor, they still are. But today, more than twenty states specifically authorize their chief executive to reorganize the bureaucracy through executive order, through which the governor can make needed administrative changes when she deems

( 185 )

it necessary. All governors are permitted through the constitution, statute, or custom to

issue directives to the executive branch in times of emergency, such as during natural disasters or civil unrest.

186

( E xecutive order A rule, regulation, or policy issued unilaterally by the governor to change executive branch operations or activities. )

Administrative reorganization today takes place under the assumption that streamlined government improves bureaucratic performance and saves money by cutting down on duplication, waste, and inefficiency. Achieving a more efficient and user-friendly government is a top priority of most g overnors. Initiatives to reinvent or reinvigorate government aim to make the bureaucracy more flexible and responsive by changing incentive systems for state employees; privatizing certain operations; reducing layers of bureaucracy; implementing e-government; and consolidating information technology, purchasing and payroll, and human resource management activities.

Executive branch reorganization is widely practiced, but its actual benefits are often ephemeral. Reorganization typically achieves modest financial savings, if any at all, and it can produce bureaucratic infighting, delays, unanticipated financial costs, and widespread confusion. 36 Reorganization is not a panacea for state fiscal ills. However, executive branch reorganization may help to provide a clearer focus on a particular problem, such as the needs of children, or help to contain administrative costs, and it may serve various political purposes, such as rationalizing the pain of employee layoffs. 37

The Politics of Reorganization Reorganization is a politically charged process. Mere talk of it sounds alarms in the halls of the legislature, in the honeycombs of state office buildings, and in the offices of interest groups. Reorganization attempts usually spawn bitter controversy and conflict both inside and outside state government as assorted vested interests fight for favorite programs and organizational turf. Accordingly, comprehensive reorganization proposals are frequently defeated or amended in the legislature, or abandoned by discouraged chief executives. One study of proposed state reorganizations discovered that almost 70 percent resulted in rejection of the plan either in part or in its entirety. 38 Even when enacted, reorganizations may generate fierce opposition from entrenched interests in the bureaucracy and, in the final analysis, be judged a failure. In the memorable words of former Kansas governor Robert F. Bennett:

In the abstract, [reorganization] is, without a doubt, one of the finest and one of the most palatable theories ever espoused by a modern-day politician. But in practice … it becomes the loss of a job for your brother or your sister, your uncle or your aunt. It becomes the closing of an office on which you have learned to depend. … So there in many instances may be more agony than anything else in this reorganization process. 39

Most governors who have fought the battle for reorganization would concur. Perhaps such predictable opposition helps explain the rarity of farreaching state agency restructuring and the preference for small, incremental steps to reorganize and streamline state agencies. 40

( 186 )

187

STAFFING POWER

The governor relies on staff to provide policy analysis and advice, serve as liaisons with the legislature, assist in managing the bureaucracy, and provide constituent services.

Professional staff members are a significant component of the governor's team, composing a corps of political loyalists who help the governor cope with the multiple roles of the office. From the handful of political cronies and secretaries of several decades ago, the staff of the governor's office has grown in number, quality, and diversity. 41 Today, the average number of professional and clerical staff members is approximately sixty-two. In some larger, more

highly populated states, staff members number well over 100. The principal staff positions of the governor's office includes those of chief of staff, legislative liaison, budget director, policy director, legal counsel, scheduler, press secretary, and intergovernmental coordinator.

Perhaps the most important to the governor is her chief of staff. Among the wide range of duties discharged by the chief of staff are gatekeeping access to the governor, representing the governor's views, protecting the governor's time and good name, recruiting and filling appointive executive branch positions, coordinating emergency planning and response, and acting as personal confidant to the governor. 42

A question of serious concern, especially in the states whose governors have large staffs, is whether too much power and influence are being placed in the hands of nonelected officials. Clearly, professional staff members have been highly influential in developing and promoting policies for the governor in some states, particularly in states where the governor lacks a coherent set of priorities and lets the staff have free rein to advance their own agenda. In other states, the chief executive is very much in charge, relying on staff primarily for drafting bills and providing technical information. Given their physical and intellectual proximity to the governor, staff members are in a highly advantageous position to influence their boss. In their role as the major funnel for policy information and advice, they can affect the governor's decisions by controlling the flow of information and individuals into his office.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE FORMAL POWERS

In Table 7.3 , the states are scored according to the strength of the governor's formal powers of office. As noted, governors have won stronger powers during the past three decades. But how helpful are the formal powers? Despite the major transformation of the governor's

office, governors remain relatively weak because of the setting of state government. They must function within a highly complex and politically charged environment with formal authority that is quite circumscribed by the legislature, the courts, and constitutional and statutory law. Owing to the nature of our federal system, the national government effectively strips them of control over many policy and administrative concerns. Moreover, the business of state government is carried out in a fishbowl, open to regular scrutiny by the media,

( 187 )

interest groups, talk-show hosts, bloggers, Tweeters, and other interested parties.

Notwithstanding the continued constraints on the exercise of their authority, however, today's governors as a group are more effective than their predecessors were in carrying out their varied responsibilities. Today, the formal powers of the office are substantially strengthened, and, in general, qualified people are serving as chief executives.

TABLE 7.3 Relative Power of the Governors' Offices

188

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

VT RI AL IN NV WY CA ID AZ DE AR NM IL CO UT AK MA

OK MS SC GA KS HI MT CT IA ND MD

NC SD NH KY LA OR FL NE NJ

TX WI ME PA NY

VA MI TN WV

MN

MO

OH

U.S. Average: 3.5 WA

SOURCE: Adapted from Thad Beyle, http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/gubnewpwr.html . Reprinted by permission of the author.

In theory, governors with strong formal powers, such as the governors in Alaska, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, should be more effective than their counterparts in Vermont and Rhode Island. In practice, that tends to be true— but not always. The potential for power and influence must not be confused with action. A governor with strong formal powers enjoys the capacity to serve effectively, but he may choose not to do so or, for various reasons, be unable to utilize the formal powers properly. This point is indirectly confirmed by a study that finds that formal gubernatorial power does not translate into greater success for incumbent governors seeking re-election. 43 Alternatively, a governor with weak formal powers can nonetheless be an effective, strong chief executive if she actively and skillfully applies the levers of power available in the constitution and in statutes.

Informal Powers

No doubt a governor with strong formal powers has an advantage over one without them. But at least equally important for a successful governor is the exploitation of the informal powers of the office. These powers carry authority and influence that are not directly attached to the governorship through statute or constitution, but rather are associated with the human being who happens to occupy the governor's mansion. Governors who can

( 188 )

master these powers can be highly effective, even in the absence of strong formal powers.

The informal powers help transform the capacity for action into effective action. They react in synergy with the formal powers to create a successful governorship. An incumbent chief executive in the strong-governor state of Massachusetts will be hopelessly weak unless he also uses his personal assets in performing the multiple roles of the office. Alternatively, a chief executive in a weak-governor state such as Oklahoma can be remarkably successful if she fully employs her informal powers to excel in persuading the people in the state to adopt new ideas. The informal powers are not as easy to specify as the formal powers are.

However, they generally include such tools of persuasion and leadership as popular support; prestige of the office; previous elected experience; public relations and media skills; negotiating and bargaining skills; pork barrel and patronage; and personal characteristics such as youth, ambition, experience, and energy.

TOOLS OF PERSUASION AND LEADERSHIP

Popular support refers to public identification with and support for the governor and his priorities. It may be measured in terms of the margin of victory in the primary and general elections or in terms of the results of public opinion polls. Governors with large victory margins and high levels of public support can lay claim to a popular mandate. They can parlay popular support into legislative acceptance of a policy mandate, channeling the pressures of public opinion to their advantage. Popular support can quickly vanish when a governor's words or actions alienate voters and/or powerful interest groups, as demonstrated by the cases of Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida in their initial years in office (2011–2012). (See Governing in Tough Times)

The prestige of the office helps the governor open doors all over the world that would be closed to an ordinary citizen. National officials, big-city mayors, corporate executives, foreign officials, and even the president of the United States recognize that the governor sits at the pinnacle of political power in the state, and they treat her accordingly. Governors of California, New York, and Texas—the largest states—almost automatically assume roles of national and even international prominence. Within the state, the governor typically makes use of the prestige of the office by inviting important individuals for an official audience or perhaps to a special meal or celebration at the mansion.

Previous electoral experience is a valuable asset. Those who have made their way up the state's political ambition ladder by serving in the state legislature or serving as attorney general (AG) or lieutenant governor have learned how to find their way through political

189

briar patches and avoid tar pits. 44 They can also take advantage of political friends and allies they cultivated along the way. Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe (2007– ) leveraged the experience of twenty years in the state senate and four years as attorney general to get just about everything he asked for from the legislature. 45

Public relations and media skills help the governor command the “big mike”: the captive attention of the press, radio, and television. Any governor

( 189 )

can call a press conference at a moment's notice and get a substantial turnout of the state's

major media representatives, an advantage enjoyed by precious few legislators. Some chief executives appear regularly on television to explain their policy positions and initiatives to the people. Others write regular newspaper columns. Nearly all use blogs, Tweets, or Facebook messages for the same purpose. Frequent public appearances, staged events, telephone calls, YouTube, and even state-funded “public interest” advertisements delivered through the mass media are also tools in the governor's media box used to help develop and maintain popular support. Governors have used such techniques to attain statewide voter approval ratings of 85 percent and above. The ability to improvise in unpredictable, chaotic situations doesn't hurt. New York governor David Paterson illustrated that point effectively in 2009.

190

Governing in Tough Times

Governor Scott Walker (R-WI)

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker defends his efforts to limit public employees' collective bargaining rights.

New governors feel pressed to rush into action the platforms they campaigned on. Some are fated to experience pushback of a high order. Within weeks of his inauguration as governor of Wisconsin on January 3, 2011, Republican Scott Walker was regularly greeted with massive demonstrations. Having previously served as an elected executive of

Milwaukee County's Board of Supervisors, Walker assumed office with a history of fighting for austere budgets and reduced employee bargaining rights and benefits; he waded directly into a fight with state government workers. Executive branch employees, threatened by Walker's forceful call for legislation to diminish collective bargaining rights and health and retirement benefits for state workers, inflamed anger and resentment against Walker among the general populace, and initiated a petition to recall the new governor from office.

An Eagle Scout and the son of a Baptist preacher, Walker courted Tea Party support to win election as governor. He earned notoriety as a Tea Party and conservative favorite when he turned back $810 million in federal transportation dollars while pressing successfully for legislation to cut business and other taxes by $117 million. Next, Walker declared a budget emergency and demanded union sacrifices, including larger employee contributions for pensions and health care and weaker collective bargaining rights.

Union members and other supporters refused to roll over for Walker. To initiate a recall election, they collected more than 900,000 signatures, well above the 540,000 required. Only two previous governors had ever been recalled from office: California's Gray Davis in 2003 and North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921. Yet Walker's historic overreaching proved to be too much, too soon for many.

On June 5, 2012, the voters spoke. Walker became the first governor in history to survive a recall election. With 53 percent of the vote, he might have been damaged but he remained undaunted, and would serve out his term.

SOURCES: Monica Davey, “For Wisconsin Governor, Battle Was Long Coming,” nytimes.com (February 19, 2011); Associated Press, “Wisconsin Gov. Walker to Face Recall Election,” www.governing.com (March 30. 2012).

( 190 )

191

When the wife of Jonathan Lippman, whom Paterson had just nominated as a judge, fainted at a press conference during Lippen's remarks, the governor quipped to the audience, “It's the usual reaction when Jonathan is speaking.” 46 Spontaneity may serve the governor well, but one must also weigh his words carefully before speaking.

Effective governors know instinctively that the media can be a strong ally in carrying out their programs and responsibilities, and they cultivate the press like a flower garden. But media relations are a two-way street. The media expect the governor to be honest, forthright, and available. If he instills respect and cooperation, the governor's media relations can be “of incalculable value in his contest for the public eye and ear.” 47 After all, most or even all of what the public knows about the governor comes from the media.

Negotiating and bargaining skills are leadership tools that help the governor to convince legislators, administrators, interest groups, and national and local officials to accept his point of view on whatever issue is at hand. These skills are of tremendous assistance in building voting blocs in the legislature, particularly in divided-power settings in which hyperpluralism (such as exists in national politics) must be avoided. They also help persuade new businesses to locate in the state and help the governor effectively represent a state's interests before the national government. Washington governor Christine Gregoire's (2005–2013) reputation as a gifted negotiator and deal maker has helped her attain ambitious education and economic development initiatives.

Pork barrel and patronage are aspects of the seamier side of state politics. Although they are utilized much less frequently now than they were before the civil service reforms of the first half of the twentieth century, governors are still known to promise jobs, contracts, new roads, special policy consideration, electoral assistance, and other favors to influential citizens, legislators, donors, and others in return for their support. All governors have discretionary funds with which to help out a special friend who has constituents in need.

And although patronage appointments are now severely limited in most jurisdictions, a personal telephone call from the governor can open the door to an employment opportunity in state government.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUCCESSFUL GOVERNOR

The personal characteristics of an effective governor are nearly impossible to measure. However, leadership is generally agreed to be a very important quality. Leadership traits are difficult to define, but former Utah governor Scott Matheson identified the best

governors as “men and women who have the right combination of values for quality public service—the courage to stick to their convictions, even when in the minority; integrity by instinct, compassion by nature, leadership by perception; and the character to admit wrong and when necessary, to accept defeat.” 48

A successful governor achieves her objectives by blending these qualities with the formal and informal powers of office. For example, following the political campaign to win the election, the governor must conduct a “never-ending campaign” to win the loyalty and support of her cabinet,

( 191 )

state employees, the legislature, and the people if she is to be effective. 49 Sixteen-hour days

and one hundred-hour workweeks are not uncommon.

At the outset, successful governors are careful not to allow eloquent and elevated campaign promises to greatly exceed practical political possibilities. Realizing that to try to do everything is to accomplish nothing, they focus on a few critical issues at a time and marshal their formal and informal resources behind them. Eventually, the determined governor can wear down opponents. But more important, the successful governor exercises leadership by convincing the public that he is the person to pursue their vision and their interests. He prevails in the legislature by applying the pressure of public opinion and by building winning blocs of votes, and leads the bureaucracy by personal example. Above all else, the successful governor must be persuasive.

In short, the formal powers of the office are important to any governor, but even strong formal powers do not guarantee success. As noted earlier, they must be combined with the informal powers to be effective. Whatever approach the governor chooses as chief executive, her individual skills are probably more important than formal powers. 50 Evidence of this conclusion is provided by governors who have won and held their state's top job and successfully pursued their policy agendas in the face of significant opposition. A notable example is Indiana governor Mitch Daniels (2004– ), whose leadership led to dramatic improvements in the performance of state agencies, successful privatization efforts in highways and welfare, and even the legislature's reluctant approval of the Hoosier State finally adopting Daylight Savings Time. 51

Leaving Office

Upon leaving office, the vast majority of governors simply continue their public service in another venue. Four out of the last five presidents were ex-governors. President Obama raided the ranks of sitting governors to fill several key federal cabinet positions. California governor Jerry Brown was elected mayor of Oakland following his first years as governor, then as state attorney general, and finally, in 2010, as governor again; Colorado's Roy Romer became superintendent of Los Angeles, California's public schools; and Virginia's Douglas Wilder was mayor of Richmond. At least seven former governors are serving in the U.S. Senate.

Because state chief executives are held to higher standards today than ever before and are constantly under the microscope of the media and watchdog groups, illegal actions or

192

conflicts of interest are likely to be found out and prosecuted. Recently, this has occurred with alarming frequency.

All states but one provide in their constitutions for the impeachment of the governor and other elected officials (in Oregon, they are tried as regular criminal offenders).

Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the statehouse of representatives, and the impeachment trial is held in the senate. A two-thirds vote is necessary for conviction and removal of the governor in most states. Of the more than 2,100 governors who have held office, only twenty-three have been either impeached and removed from office or resigned under a cloud of legal problems. Besieged governors are much more

( 192 )

likely to resign than face a lengthy public scourging through impeachment and legislative

trial, or to be prosecuted upon expiration of their term.

The most recent governors to leave office in disgrace were James McGreevey of New Jersey, Eliot Spitzer of New York, and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. McGreevey resigned after a homosexual affair with an appointed agency head was revealed. Spitzer stepped down after getting snared in a federal prostitution sting operation. His dramatic rise and fall as AG and then governor of the Empire State shocked people across the nation. The Blogojevich saga involved a host of federal criminal charges, including trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat that was vacated when Barack Obama assumed the presidency.. It ended with the former governor convicted on eighteen corruption accounts and sentenced to fourteen years in prison.

But these fallen governors are the gubernatorial black sheep—the political throwbacks of state government who spawn media feeding frenzies. They deflect proper attention from the vast majority of hard-working, capable, and honest chief executives who typify the American state governorship today. On occasion, governors are impeached for the wrong reasons. In 2011, an 1871 impeachment was reversed by the North Carolina legislature, which pardoned William W. Holden. (Holden had been impeached by his political enemies for attempting to suppress the Ku Klux Klan.)

Other Executive Branch Officials

The states elect more than 300 officials to their executive branches, not counting the fifty governors, ranging from attorneys general (AGs) and treasurers to railroad commissioners. The four most important statewide offices are described here.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

This office was originally created by the states for two major reasons: to provide for orderly succession to a governor who is unable to fulfill a term because of death or other reasons, and to provide for an official to assume the responsibilities of the governor when the incumbent is temporarily incapacitated or out of the state. Seven states do not see a need for the office: Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Others attach little importance to it, as indicated by an extremely low salary (e.g.,

$7,200 in Texas) or the absence of official responsibilities. The historical reputation of the lieutenant governor was that of a corpse at a funeral; you are needed for the ceremony but

193

no one is expecting much from you or, as one wag suggested, “dismissed as a ribbon-cutting version of the appendix—prominently situated but without any discernible function.” 52

But in 2012, several former lieutenant governors had risen to occupy the executive office because of a death, impeachment, or resignation. Even when a governor's unplanned exit is not the cause of a vacancy in the executive mansion, the lieutenant governorship can be a springboard to the state's top elected office. 53 Fourteen governors in 2012 had previously served as lieutenant

( 193 )

governor. The lieutenant governorship in the majority of states has become a more visible,

demanding, and responsible position. This trend is likely to continue as state governance grows increasingly complex and as additional states adopt the team election of governor and lieutenant governor. Many lieutenant governors hold important powers in the state senate, including serving as presiding officer, making bill assignments to committees, and casting tie-breaking votes in the senate. They are official members of the cabinet or of the governor's top advisory body in twenty-three states. 54 And virtually all lieutenant governors accept special assignments from the chief executive, some of which are quite visible and important. For example, Indiana's lieutenant governor acts as the state's commissioner of agriculture while performing fortyone other statutory duties, and Utah's heads up that state's homeland security efforts. Several lieutenant governors act as agency heads. In general, lieutenant governors' salaries, budget allocations, and staff have grown markedly.

A lingering problem is that eighteen states continue to elect the governor and lieutenant governor independently. This system can result in conflict when, for example, the chief executive is out of state and the two officeholders are political rivals or members of opposing political parties. On several recent occasions, a lieutenant governor, assuming command, has proceeded to make judicial appointments, veto legislation, convene special sessions of the legislature, and take other actions at odds with the governor's wishes.

To avoid partisan bickering and politicking in the top two executive branch offices, twenty-five states now require team election. In addition to avoiding embarrassing factionalism, team election has the advantages of promoting party accountability in the executive branch, making continuity of policy more likely in the event of gubernatorial death or disability and ensuring a measure of compatibility and trust between the two state leaders.

ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG)

The AG is the state's chief legal counsel. The AG renders formal written opinions on legal issues, such as the constitutionality of a statute, administrative rule, or regulation, when requested to do so by the governor, agency heads, legislators, or other public officials. The AG can also question the constitutionality of actions by the governor. In most states, the AG's opinions have the force of law unless they are successfully challenged in the courtroom.

Many high profile AGs have successfully positioned themselves for the governorship, including eight in 2012.

194

The AG represents the state in litigation in which the state government is a legal party, represents the state in federal and state courts, and can initiate civil and criminal proceedings in most states. More active today than ever before, AGs regularly contest national government statutes and administrative rulings in controversial fields such as consumer rights, environmental protection, education reform, and business regulation. AGs today are bringing litigation against the national government that argues against the legality of unfunded mandates such as Real ID (see Chapter 2 ) and portions of “Obamacare,” the national health care law. Activist AGs have initiated actions to protect consumers against mail fraud, mortgage fraud, cybercrime, Medicaid

( 194 )

fraud, misleading advertisements by pharmaceutical companies, mortgage fraud and illegal

foreclosure actions by banks, and other white-collar crimes.

AGs also took on the powerful tobacco industry, winning $206 billion in reimbursements for state funds spent to provide Medicaid-related health care for residents with smoking- related illnesses. Their collective actions have helped to reform corrupt corporate behavior and to push the national government to regulate business more aggressively. Their litigation and arguments often push issues onto the policy agenda of Congress and to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the auspices of the National Association of Attorneys General, they work together as point persons to assert and defend state authority in the U.S. federal system. Predictably, the AGs' activism has spawned a growing corporate backlash that includes intense interest and participation in AG elections.

TREASURER

The treasurer is the official trustee and manager of state funds and the state's chief financial officer. He collects revenues and makes disbursements of state monies. (The treasurer's signature is on the paycheck of all state employees and on citizens' state tax refunds.) Another important duty is the investment of more than $3.2 trillion in state funds, including state employee pension monies and college savings plans. The failure to make profitable investments can cost the treasurer his job. West Virginia treasurer A. James Manchin was impeached for losing $279 million in state funds through bad investments. Other treasurers have been criticized for taking lucrative private-sector jobs in the middle of their terms (Connecticut, New Jersey), accepting gifts from financial firms (Massachusetts), or using their post to raise large sums of money from investment companies for their next election (in nearly all states in which the treasurer is elected rather than appointed).

SECRETARY OF STATE

In the past, the duties of the secretary of state were rather perfunctory, entailing record keeping and election responsibilities. But voting system reforms, e-government, and other changes in how states run elections have substantially elevated the responsibilities of the position. Secretaries of state typically register corporations, securities, and trademarks, and commission people to be notaries public. The typical secretary of state also maintains state archives, files agency rules and regulations, publishes statutes and copies of the state constitution, and registers lobbyists.

195

In their election-related responsibilities, they determine the ballot eligibility of political parties and candidates, receive and verify initiative and referendum petitions, supply election ballots to local officials, file the expense papers and other campaign reports of candidates, maintain voter registration rolls, and deter voter fraud. A function of growing importance in the secretary of state's offices is to protect citizens' Social Security numbers and other private identification data placed in public databases that put citizens at risk of identity theft. 55

( 195 )

196

The Capability of U.S. Governors

The states have reformed their executive branches to enhance the capability of the governor as chief executive and to make the office more efficient, effective, accountable, and responsive. Indeed, the reforms discussed in this chapter not only have extended the formal powers and capacity of the office, but also have improved the contemporary governor's performance in his many demanding roles.

In addition, today's governors are better educated, more experienced in state government, and more competent than their predecessors. Unfortunate exceptions notwithstanding, their strength and policy influence impresses. They are better able to employ the informal powers of their office in meeting multiple and complex responsibilities. In sum, the governorships display both capability and vigor.

CHAPTER RECAP

· The American governorship historically was institutionally weak, with limited formal powers.

· Today's governors are generally well qualified for the office, but some recent governors have disappointed. Winning the office is increasingly expensive.

· Duties of the governors include making policy, marshaling legislative action, a dministering the executive branch, serving as master of ceremonies, coordinating intergovernmental relations, promoting economic development, and leading their political party.

· Formal powers of the office, which have strengthened over time, are tenure, a ppointment, veto, budgeting, reorganizing the executive branch, and staffing.

· To be successful, a governor must master the informal powers of the office and integrate them with the formal powers. Among the informal sources of power are tools of leadership and persuasion, such as public relations skills and negotiating and bargaining skills.

· Governors who violate the law may be removed from office through impeachment, while unpopular governors may be recalled.

· Other key executive branch officials are the attorney general, lieutenant governor, t reasurer, and secretary of state.

KEY TERMS

pork barrel (p. 173) formal powers (p. 178) informal powers (p. 178) plural executive (p. 180) patronage (p. 182) package veto (p. 183) line item veto (p. 183) pocket veto (p. 183)

executive amendment (p. 183)

executive order (p. 185)

INTERNET RESOURCES

Each state's governor has his or her own website, which can be located through the state homepage or from links at www.nga.org , the NGA's website. It features, among other items, governors' biographies, the latest “State of the State” addresses, and a subject index on various state and local issues, including welfare reform.

For information about the attorneys general, see www.naag.org . State treasurers can be audited at www.nast.org , and lieutenant governors at www.nlga.us . Even secretaries of state have a national organization: see www.nass.org/ .