Protecting Local Authority in State Constitutions and Challenging Intrastate Preemption

Emily S. P. Baxter
{"title":"Protecting Local Authority in State Constitutions and Challenging Intrastate Preemption","authors":"Emily S. P. Baxter","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.4.protecting","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, state legislatures have increasingly passed laws that prohibit or preempt local action on a variety of issues, including fracking, LGBTQIA nondiscrimination, and workplace protections, among others. Often, these preemption laws are a direct response to action at the local level. States pass preemption laws either directly before or directly after a locality passes an ordinance on the same subject. Scholars have seen these preemptive moves as the outcome of the urban disadvantage in state and national government due to partisan gerrymandering. Preemption may be a feature of our governing system, but it has also become a problematic political tool state legislatures use to block the will of local governments. This Note discusses the role of cities and localities within the American republican system and proposes new ways to address preemption based on a commitment to local governing autonomy, also known as home rule. State constitutions and the guidelines courts use to interpret state constitutions offer an opportunity to improve and secure the relationship between state and local governments. The first Part of this Note addresses theories of local power, the second Part surveys a broad range of sources and examples to understand the scope of state preemption of local action, and the third Part critiques proposals to address preemption while offering new ideas to further that effort focused on amending state constitutions. Finally, the Appendix contains an original qualitative analysis of states’ constitutional home rule provisions and statutes.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.4.protecting","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In recent years, state legislatures have increasingly passed laws that prohibit or preempt local action on a variety of issues, including fracking, LGBTQIA nondiscrimination, and workplace protections, among others. Often, these preemption laws are a direct response to action at the local level. States pass preemption laws either directly before or directly after a locality passes an ordinance on the same subject. Scholars have seen these preemptive moves as the outcome of the urban disadvantage in state and national government due to partisan gerrymandering. Preemption may be a feature of our governing system, but it has also become a problematic political tool state legislatures use to block the will of local governments. This Note discusses the role of cities and localities within the American republican system and proposes new ways to address preemption based on a commitment to local governing autonomy, also known as home rule. State constitutions and the guidelines courts use to interpret state constitutions offer an opportunity to improve and secure the relationship between state and local governments. The first Part of this Note addresses theories of local power, the second Part surveys a broad range of sources and examples to understand the scope of state preemption of local action, and the third Part critiques proposals to address preemption while offering new ideas to further that effort focused on amending state constitutions. Finally, the Appendix contains an original qualitative analysis of states’ constitutional home rule provisions and statutes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护州宪法中的地方权力和挑战州内优先权
近年来,州立法机构越来越多地通过法律,禁止或先发制人地在各种问题上采取地方行动,包括水力压裂法、LGBTQIA非歧视和工作场所保护等。通常,这些优先购买法是对地方一级行动的直接反应。各州在地方就同一主题通过法令之前或之后直接通过优先购买法。学者们认为,这些先发制人的举措是由于党派不公正的选区划分导致城市在州政府和中央政府中处于劣势的结果。先发制人可能是我们治理体系的一个特点,但它也已成为州立法机构用来阻碍地方政府意愿的一个有问题的政治工具。本文讨论了城市和地方在美国共和制度中的作用,并提出了基于对地方自治(也称为地方自治)的承诺来解决优先事项的新方法。州宪法和法院用来解释州宪法的指导方针为改善和确保州和地方政府之间的关系提供了机会。本文的第一部分论述了地方权力的理论,第二部分调查了广泛的资料来源和例子,以理解国家对地方行动的优先购买权的范围,第三部分批评了解决优先购买权的建议,同时为进一步努力提供了新的思路,重点是修改州宪法。最后,附录包含对各州宪法自治条款和法规的原始定性分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A System Out of Balance: A Critical Analysis of Philosophical Justifications for Copyright Law Through the Lenz of Users' Rights Giving the Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating an Adversarial Warrant Proceeding to Protect From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Private Caregiver Presumption For Elder Caregivers The Short Unhappy Life of the Negotiation Class Former Whistleblowers: Why the False Claims Act's Anti-Retaliation Provision Should Protect Former Employees
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1