WILL NOT PAY MORE THAN $8 only 350 words DUE ASAP

READ THIS:

Most state legislatures are modeled after the U.S. Congress. They have bicameral legislative bodies consisting of a State House of Representatives and  a State Senate. The numbers in each body varies from state to state. And similarily their leadership is much the same as Congress. They have majority leaders and minority leaders of the respective parties, and the Senates have President Pro Tempore and the state Houses have Speakers. Likewise the committee system has grown up much like the U.S. Congress. So where is the difference. In a nutshell, special interests have a greater influence in the state legislatures than they do in Congress, if you can believe that.

As an example, the oil industry has a much greater influence in a state like Texas because it is one of Texas' leading industries. In the news in recent weeks state legislatures in North Carolina, New York and Massachussets are trying to bar the sale of the Tesla automobile directly to consumers. The automobile dealers association in these states have been lobbying to restrict sales of automobiles to dealerships which would prevent direct sales from the factory to consumers.

Commonly, discussion of the role of politics in public policy controversies really addresses “outside politics.” The public generally understands the roles of interest groups such as the Christian Right, the American Association of Retired Persons, trial lawyers, the American Medical Association, unions, big business, big campaign contributors; and they understand the role of the press. These are the outside forces that apply pressure to legislators. They generally don’t understand how outside politics is separated from, but intertwined with, inside politics; and they really do not understand inside politics. Friendship among legislators is at the core of inside politics. Considerations of the legislative power structure, and how to advance oneself within it, provides the other important component.

Outside politics . First is the outside politics, the impact of potential actions the legislator may take in the world beyond the Legislature. Most particularly, “How will it play in my district?” is a question of overriding concern, for legislators legitimately pay attention to the wishes of the people they represent. Though the idea of representation is not a simple one, certainly any definition must include taking into serious account the interests of those represented, if not their wishes. But as earlier noted, most matters on which I had to vote drew little attention from the people in my district, giving me great leeway for action. Organized groups may be powerful in shaping the opinions of citizens in a legislator’s district. They are also an important source of campaign funds. In some districts, the views of the teachers’ union may be influential; in others, religious leaders, the American Association of Retired Persons, the Farm Bureau, or General Electric. In most districts, various interest groups play important roles. Legislators must keep them all in mind. The power of the media should not be overlooked. The daily and weekly press, radio, and especially television are not only major— and credible— channels through which voters may be reached, but important sources of influence over the behavior of many. A legislator may want to please the editorial pages of local newspapers or of The New York Times , either because those editorial pages influence his or her current constituents, or because they influence a wider constituency that may be important to the legislator’s political ambitions for the future. Loyalty to the political party may dictate a particular policy position. The strength of that loyalty varies. With respect to the political party organization back in the home district, it depends on how much the party helped elect the legislator, and how much support the legislator thinks he or she will need from the party in the future. Inside politics . Then comes the inside politics . The party is not only present in the district, but has a structure within the Legislature. It may be important to please the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or even important committee chairs or other legislative leaders, not only to enhance a legislator’s chances of getting elected or appointed to higher office, but also to improve the legislator’s life within the Legislature. Only with the support of those leaders will a legislator get better committee assignments, appointment to a committee chairmanship or a better committee chairmanship, a bigger staff budget, or even just bills passed.

Friendships count, too. The Legislature is small community; members get to know each other quickly and well. In considering which position to take on a matter of public policy, legislators will be influenced by the views of other members, and may vote “yes” or “no” on a particular matter simply to avoid disappointing their friends. Legislative friendships differ in some measure from ordinary friendships among non-politicians. Tom Wolfe, in his book Bonfire of the Vanities , used the image of the “favor bank” to explain the way a participant in the New York City legal system— a defense attorney, say, or a prosecutor— will call upon another— a police officer, or a clerk— for help in the expectation that the doer of the favor will later call upon the beneficiary of the favor for one in return. A participant who too often announces inability to make favor “deposits” when called upon, will find the bank closed for favor “withdrawals.” Legislators make these kinds of withdrawals and deposits with each other constantly. Because each of them does it, every legislator knows that his or her colleagues must weigh the values in a particular decision for himor herself, and that the resulting judgment, or even just political selfinterest, is likely to trump political debts. More than once I’ve had a colleague who was trying to call in a favor say to me, “But if I were in your shoes I might not give this vote. If you can’t, I will understand.” Legislators, after all, are all politicians. Since politicians have friendships with many politicians, their political judgments, interests, and ambitions are very likely eventually to clash. This makes the requirements of friendship complicated, though it still counts heavily. The law. Then, finally, there is law. The separation of the “values” element from the “law” element requires a complicated explanation. Clearly, legal principles and law derive from values. The Framers protected their prized values of liberty, equality, and property by incorporating them, to the extent they could, into our most basic law, the Constitution’s provisions for the structure of government and the Bill of Rights. As illustrated earlier, the core legal principle of free expression, enshrined in the First Amendment, may conflict with provision by government of physical security for its citizens, a fundamental expectationin an ordered society. So there is free expression, and yet newspapers cannot legally report the deployment plans for American troops in wartime. We could describe the conflict as between the values of liberty and equality on the one hand, and security on the other. But Americans are so accustomed to translating liberty and equality into representative democracy, and regarding free expression as an essential device to makerepresentative democracy effective, that describing the conflict as between the “law” of free press on the one hand and the “value” of security on the other best avoids confusion. When values have evolved into complex legal principles— and policymakers feel sufficiently attached to those principles to adhere to them in the face of conflicting values or despite contrary political pressures— it makes more sense to talk about “law,” rather than attempting to break it back down into values. So we discuss such “law” as the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that legislatures, the people’s own representative branch of government, should not abdicate power unduly to bureaucrats who are not elected; or the Second Amendment, which certainly says something about the right to bear arms, however controversial its meaning; and due process, that guarantees citizens a degree of fairness when facing government action against them. One can easily criticize this distinction as arbitrary and overlapping. Similarly, the lines between values, inside politics, and outside politics may seem narrow and faint at best. Ambition, for example, could be included in the list of values. Or it might manifest itself as “inside politics”—as in a politician’s desire to advance within the legislative structure. Or it could be seen in “outside politics”—the desire for reelection or advancement to higher office. We do think, however, that these distinctions are useful for separating, and thus understanding, the various simultaneous developments in the progress of a controversy over public policy in the lawmakingarena.[1]

Also, in many states, the legislative session is restricted to anywhere from 30 to 60 "session" days. The drafters of the state constitutions wanted the legislature to be a part time job for its members. So many legislators have full time jobs, many of the legislators are full time lawyers. And they have a tendency to vote in the legislature as lawyers. Their salaries as legislators are based on the fact that they are part time, and therefore are very modest for the most part.

For the most part, state legislators "fly under the radar" of the public, and only appear when there is a newsworthy event. This relative anonymity allows state legislators to be influenced by the "politics" mentioned above. Therefore, scrutiny of state legislatures is left up to citizen groups and the local media to insure democratic and open processes.

Reference:

Feldman, Daniel L.; Benjamin, Gerald. Excelsior Editions : Tales from the Sausage Factory : The Social Construction of Failure.

Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press, 2010. pp. 29-32. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/Doc?id=10573973&ppg=51

ANSWER: 350 words Turabian Parenthetical Format

Evaluate the state issue that most concerns you and explain why. Then report what action, if any, Colorado’s state legislature took on the issue and whether or not the governor approved or disapproved it. If the latter, determine if the state legislature overrode the governor's disapproval.

Use these cites

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures.aspx

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cslFrontPages.nsf/HomeSplash?OpenForm