An Examination of Structural Change in State Legislature Standing Committees

The 1994 elections saw the Republicans come to power in the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. The 1994 elections also resulted in Republicans gaining control of many state legislatures. Upon coming to power at the national level, the Republicans implemented changes in the committee system. Three committees were eliminated in the House of Representatives. Additionally, the Republicans did not adhere to a strict system of seniority in the selection of committee chairmen. Because of these structural changes to the committee system, many interesting questions have arisen. Using regression analysis, this thesis attempts to determine if the factors that were present at the national level affected the committee system at the state level. Through quantitative analysis this thesis will attempt to explain changes in the number of committees in state legislative bodies. Additionally, regression is used to examine the factors that affect seniority at the state level. Through the results of the analysis, it was determined that a change in the Speaker is the most important factor in explaining the number of committees in the lower houses of state legislatures. The years that a party was out of power were shown the most important factor in explaining the number of committees in upper houses in state legislatures. Changes in leadership and changes in the number of committees was found to be the major determinants in explaining changes in seniority in state legislatures. The major conclusion of this research is that the Speaker in lower houses has more control over committee structure and he or she probably uses committee structure to help advance his or her own personal political agenda. The 1994 elections served to change, in many respects, the way we think about politics. Prior to the 1994 elections, many scholars had written about why the Republicans were entrenched in the White House while the Democrats controlled the Congress. In addition to winning the Senate, for the first time in forty years the Republicans were able to gain control of the House of Representatives, resulting in divided government with Democrats controlling the presidency and the Republicans controlling Congress. This governmental structure served to change many of the traditional thoughts of governmental control. Many interesting questions have arisen as the result of the change in the balance of power. Is this type of governmental structure temporary or have we entered a new era in party control and institutional dominance? There are several goals of this first session. The first goal is to give a brief history of the committee system. It is extremely important that we understand how the committee system has evolved in order to enable us to better understand how reforms, following the 1994 elections, affect the committee systems and what are some possible explanations behind the reforms. The second goal is to review briefly the reforms that the Republicans implemented at the national level that affected the committee structure in Congress. Finally, this session will review what previous researchers have found concerning committees at both the national and state levels. Through this review of the literature, a foundation will be laid to examine two trends at the national level in order to determine if the trends are also present at the state level. There are three objectives for this paper: 1. To explain changes in the number of standing committees in state legislatures from a structural standpoint 2. To explain changes in the use of seniority in state legislatures from a structural standpoint 3. Offer other possible explanations for changes in committee structure The first trend that will be examined is the decrease in the number of standing committees. In recent years the committee system has appeared to become less relevant in the American political system. The first part of this paper will examine if the decrease in committees that is present at the national level is also present at the state level, and what factors may explain changes in the number of committees in a legislative body. The second trend that will be examined is the decreasing use of seniority in the selection process of committee chairs. Historically, most legislative bodies have adhered to a strict seniority system when selecting committee chairs and committee members. However, recent trends have seen a decrease in the use of seniority for selecting committee members and chairs at the national level. This research will seek to explain this trend to ascertain if it is only a national level phenomenon, or if the importance of seniority is also decreasing at the state level. History of the Committee System Congress is an extremely complex organization with many different integral parts. Committees have long been an essential component in the functioning of Congress. The founding fathers gave Congress tremendous latitude in organizing itself (Shepsle 1988). From early in the history of the country, lawmakers have been torn between establishing a system that would lend itself to effective lawmaking and one in which too much power was concentrated in the hands of only a few members. Many members, especially in early Congresses, were not willing to delegate power to the leadership or to small groups of members (Shepsle 1988). The importance of the committee system has changed over time. In the early years of Congress, members were still aware of the way in which the British House of Commons operated and they were careful to implement a system that maintained equality of legislators and would not lead to a system in which an elite few made the decisions (Smith and Deering 1990). The early Congresses did not need an elaborate committee system, although one would become necessary later when the workload of members increased. In the formative years of the nation there was a reliance on the House and Senate chambers and ad hoc or select committees to consider legislative proposals. In many instances the broad outline of a bill was determined in the committee of the whole, which is the full body of the legislature, and then the bill was referred to an ad hoc or select committee to help establish the details. The committee of the whole acted as a committee, in effect, but consisted of all the members of the House or the Senate (Shepsle 1988). The appointment of so many ad hoc committees took up valuable time that could have been spent doing other tasks. As the United States progressed from the early days of a new Republic, more and more issues began to face the country. With an increase in the number of issues, the workload for members of Congress increased dramatically. With so many new issues facing members of Congress, it was nearly impossible for every member to be knowledgeable about every subject. Because of the increased workload, the House created permanent committees. The first Congress created a standing committee on Enrolled Bills in 1789, but it was 1794 before additional committees were created. In 1794 the Committee on Elections and the Committee on Claims were created. This was followed by the creation of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws and the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures in 1794. By 1810, the House of Representatives had created 10 standing committees. During the administration of President James Monroe the committee system expanded considerably. There was an increase in the reliance on standing committees between the War of 1812 and the Civil War (Smith and Deering 1990). These standing committees differed from the select committees in several ways. First, they were permanent structures. Second, they had a defined jurisdiction. Third, their membership was not restricted to just a single bill, and they lasted beyond the consideration of any single bill. Fourth, standing committees were able to originate legislation. Fifth, they were not required to report legislation out of the committee. “In effect, they possessed both agenda and veto power” (Shepsle 1988, 465). The rising numbers of standing committees brought with them a change in the way bills were handled. In the past, bills were referred to a committee after being looked at by the full body of the House or Senate. With the increasing numbers of standing committees, bills were referred to committees first and then referred to the full House after being considered by the committee. Bundling legislation dealing with similar topics is a major advantage of a system in which standing committees are utilized (Hamm and Hedlund, 1994). The advantage of being able to group legislation together is an advantage that is lost in a system in which ad hoc committees are formed to deal with each legislative matter. The existence of a system of permanent standing committees also provides for the establishment of expertise in a particular area (Smith and Deering 1990). Many members stay on the same committee across many sessions and this allows them to build expertise. When members are allowed to build up an expertise in a certain area, they become a resource for information for other members about how to vote on specific issues. A member voting on a piece of legislation may make a more informed vote by gaining information from a colleague who has become an expert about a subject through his experience on a committee for multiple legislative sessions. During the latter part of the 19 century, committees acquired much of their present day authority and power (Smith and Deering 1990). They became major policy making bodies and helped to set the agenda for the Congress. Committees were no longer just used to figure out the technical aspects of legislation, but in many cases, were given authority to legislate exclusively in certain areas. They also began to gain the power of killing legislation before it ever reached the floor of the House of Representatives. By the turn of the century, committees