Course PSCI 6324, Local and State Government and Politics

Professor Robert Lowry

Term Spring 2007
Meetings Monday 7-9.45 pm, Green Hall 3.604

Professor’s Contact Information

Office Phone 972-883-6720
Office Location Green Hall 2.804
Email Address robert.lowry@utdallas.edu
Office Hours Mon. 5.30-7 pm, Tuesday 4-5.30 pm, or by appointment.

General Course Information

Examines public policy institutions and processes at the local and state
levels in the United States, with particular attention to developments in
the Dallas-Forth Worth Metroplex and the State of Texas. Addresses
issues of policy convergence, divergence, and representation.
Course Description
Students are responsible for preparing several memos analyzing the
assigned readings, class participation, making an in-class presentation,
and a term paper project. The paper project has four parts: A short (one
page) topic statement due February 19; a detailed outline including
references due April 2 or 9, an in-class presentation April 16 or 23, and
the final paper due April 27.

On completing this course, students should:

- Be familiar with the political science research literature on local and
state government and politics in the United States.
Learning
Objectives/Outcomes
- Understand the major variations in poli9tical behavior, organizations
and institutions across state and local jurisdictions and their possible
effects.
- Be able to evaluate competing explanations for differences in policy
outputs and government performance across state and local jurisdictions.

Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson, Politics in the American States: A

Comparative Analysis, 8th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press 2003. (Referred
to in the readings assignments as “G&H”)

Required Texts &

John P. Pelissero, Cities, Politics, and Policy: A Comparative Analysis.
Materials Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2002.

Additional readings are listed at the end of the syllabus and indicated in
the assignments by numbers in brackets. The list of readings may be
revised as we proceed.
 2

Academic Calendar
Date Topic(s) & Assignments Readings
Jan. 8 Course introduction
Jan. 15 No Class – MLK, JR. Day
Jan. 22 State and local politics in a federal system. G&H ch,. 1, 2; Pelissero ch. 1, 2
G&H ch. 3; Pelissero ch. 3; [2], [14],
Jan. 29 State and local parties and elections.
[15], [19], [33]
Feb. 5 Interest groups and civil society G&H ch. 4; Pellissero ch. 4, 5; [22], [26]
Feb. 12 Direct democracy and electoral institutions G&H ch. 5; [1], [4], [9], [25]
State Legislatures G&H ch. 6; [11], [18], [23], [24], [29],
Feb. 19
Paper topics due [35]
Feb. 26 Governors; Local elected institutions G&H ch. 7; Pelissero ch. 6, 7; [6]
March 5 No Class – Spring Break
G&H ch. 8, 9; Pelissero ch. 8; [12], [13],
March 12 Bureaucracy and the courts
[30]
March 19 Context and government outcomes; Pelissero ch. 11, 13; [8], [10], [16], [17]
March 26 Fiscal Policy Pelissero ch. 9; [3], [7], [20], [27]
Education and public welfare G&H ch. 11, 12; Pelissero ch. 12; [5],
April 2 Paper outlines for students presenting [21], [34]
4/16
Regulation and economic development G&H ch. 13, 14; Pelissero ch. 10; [28],
April 9 Paper outlines for students presenting [31], [32]
4/23
April 16 Student presentations
April 23 Student presentations
April 27 Papers due, 5 pm

Course Policies

Analytical literature review memos (total) 30 %

Class participation 25
Paper project 45
Grading Criteria
The grade for the paper project will be based on the final paper. Failure to submit a
topic statement or an outline or make a class presentation will result in a penalty of 5
percent of the maximum possible score for the semester.

Review memos will not be accepted after the day they are due; if you miss your
Late Work assigned week for a medical or family reason, you will be allowed to do a different
week later in the semester. If you miss for any other reason you will be penalized 50
%, provided you do a different week later.

Attendance is mandatory at student presentations April 16 and 23. Attendance on

Class Attendance other days is expected, and unexcused absences will affect your class participation
score. Students who prepare review memos are expected to take a lead roll in
discussion for that week.

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and
regulations for the orderly and efficient conduct of their business. It is the
Student Conduct responsibility of each student and each student organization to be knowledgeable
and Discipline about the rules and regulations which govern student conduct and activities. General
information on student conduct and discipline is contained in the UTD publication, A
to Z Guide, which is provided to all registered students each academic year.
 3

The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the

procedures of recognized and established due process. Procedures are defined and
described in the Rules and Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas
System, Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title V, Rules on Student Services and
Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of these
rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students,
where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and
regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).

A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of
citizenship. He or she is expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the
Regents’ Rules, university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject
to discipline for violating the standards of conduct whether such conduct takes place
on or off campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties are also imposed for such
conduct.

The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic
honesty. Because the value of an academic degree depends upon the absolute
integrity of the work done by the student for that degree, it is imperative that a student
demonstrate a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work.

Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements, acts or omissions
related to applications for enrollment or the award of a degree, and/or the submission
Academic as one’s own work or material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic
Integrity dishonesty involves one of the following acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or
falsifying academic records. Students suspected of academic dishonesty are subject to
disciplinary proceedings.

Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and
from any other source is unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s
policy on plagiarism (see general catalog for details). This course will use the
resources of turnitin.com, which searches the web for possible plagiarism and is over
90% effective.

The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of

communication between faculty/staff and students through electronic mail. At the
same time, email raises some issues concerning security and the identity of each
individual in an email exchange. The university encourages all official student email
correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email address and that faculty
Email Use and staff consider email from students official only if it originates from a UTD
student account. This allows the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in
the identity of all individual corresponding and the security of the transmitted
information. UTD furnishes each student with a free email account that is to be used
in all communication with university personnel. The Department of Information
Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T. Dallas
mail forwarded to other accounts.

The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-
level courses. These dates and times are published in that semester's course catalog.
Withdrawal from Administration procedures must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to
Class handle withdrawal requirements from any class. In other words, I cannot drop or
withdraw any student. You must do the proper paperwork to ensure that you will not
receive a final grade of "F" in a course if you choose not to attend the class once you
are enrolled.
Student
Grievance Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and
 4

Procedures Activities, of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.

In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, evaluations, or other

fulfillments of academic responsibility, it is the obligation of the student first to make
a serious effort to resolve the matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or
committee with whom the grievance originates (hereafter called “the respondent”).
Individual faculty members retain primary responsibility for assigning grades and
evaluations. If the matter cannot be resolved at that level, the grievance must be
submitted in writing to the respondent with a copy of the respondent’s School Dean.
If the matter is not resolved by the written response provided by the respondent, the
student may submit a written appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not
resolved by the School Dean’s decision, the student may make a written appeal to the
Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal will appoint and convene
an Academic Appeals Panel. The decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is final.
The results of the academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.

Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the
Dean of Students, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting
the rules and regulations.

As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work
unavoidably missed at the semester’s end and only if 70% of the course work has
Incomplete
been completed. An incomplete grade must be resolved within eight (8) weeks from
Grades
the first day of the subsequent long semester. If the required work to complete the
course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the specified deadline,
the incomplete grade is changed automatically to a grade of F.

The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities educational

opportunities equal to those of their non-disabled peers. Disability Services is located
in room 1.610 in the Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30
a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is:

The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22
PO Box 830688
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
(972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)

Disability Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make those reasonable
Services adjustments necessary to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. For
example, it may be necessary to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders
or animals (in the case of dog guides) for students who are blind. Occasionally an
assignment requirement may be substituted (for example, a research paper versus an
oral presentation for a student who is hearing impaired). Classes enrolled students
with mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible facilities. The
college or university may need to provide special services such as registration, note-
taking, or mobility assistance.

It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an
accommodation. Disability Services provides students with letters to present to
faculty members to verify that the student has a disability and needs accommodations.
Individuals requiring special accommodation should contact the professor after class
or during office hours.
 5

The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other required
activities for the travel to and observance of a religious holy day for a religion whose
places of worship are exempt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code,
Texas Code Annotated.

The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity sponsor as soon as

possible regarding the absence, preferably in advance of the assignment. The student,
so excused, will be allowed to take the exam or complete the assignment within a
reasonable time after the absence: a period equal to the length of the absence, up to a
Religious Holy maximum of one week. A student who notifies the instructor and completes any
Days missed exam or assignment may not be penalized for the absence. A student who fails
to complete the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a
failing grade for that exam or assignment.

If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the absence [i.e., for the
purpose of observing a religious holy day] or if there is similar disagreement about
whether the student has been given a reasonable time to complete any missed
assignments or examinations, either the student or the instructor may request a ruling
from the chief executive officer of the institution, or his or her designee. The chief
executive officer or designee must take into account the legislative intent of TEC
51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief
executive officer or designee.
Off-campus, out-of-state, and foreign instruction and activities are subject to state law
Off-Campus and University policies and procedures regarding travel and risk-related activities.
Instruction and Information regarding these rules and regulations may be found at
Course Activities http://www.utdallas.edu/BusinessAffairs/Travel_Risk_Activities.htm.
Additional information is available from the office of the school dean.

These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor.
 6

Additional Readings

In addition to the texts edited by Gray and Hanson and Pelissero, the following readings are also
required. Unless otherwise indicated, they can be accessed through e-journals on the library’s
website.

[1] Greg Adams, “Legislative Effects of Single-Member vs. Multi-Member Districts.”

American Journal of Political Science 40(February): 129-144.

[2] John H. Aldrich. 2000. “Southern Parties in State and Nation.” The Journal of Politics
62(August): 643-670.

[3] James E. Alt and Robert C. Lowry. 1994. "Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions and
Budget Deficits: Evidence From the States." American Political Science Review 88(December):
811-828.

[4] Stephen Ansolabehere, Alan Gerber, and James Snyder. “Equal Votes, Equal Money:
Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American States.” American Political
Science Review 96(December): 767-777.

[5] Michael A. Bailey and Mark Carl Rom. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition
Across Health and Welfare Programs.” The Journal of Politics 66(May): 326-347.

[6] Charles Barrilleaux and Michael Berkman. 2003. “Do Governors Matter? Budgeting
Rules and the Politics of State Policymaking.” Political Research Quarterly 56:409-17.

[7] Timothy Besley and Anne Case. 1995. “Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax Setting,
and Yardstick Competition.” American Economic Review 85(March): 25-45.

[8] Timothy Besley and Anne Case. 2003. “Political Institutions and Policy Choices:
Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 41(March): 7-73.

[9] Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on
State Policy: Not All Initiatives are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4(Fall):
345-363.

[10] Robert S. Erikson, Gerald C. Wright, Jr., and John P. McIver. “Political Parties, Public
Opinion, and State Policy in the United States.” American Political Science Review
89(September): 729-750.

[11] Morris P. Fiorina. 1994. “Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of
Legislative Professionalism?” American Political Science Review 88(June): 304-316.

[12] Brian J. Gerber, Cherie Maestas, and Nelson C. Dometrius. 2005. “State Legislative
Influence over Agency Rulemaking: The Utility of Ex Ante Review.” State Politics and Policy
Quarterly 5(Spring): 24-46.

[13] Melinda Gann Hall and Chris W. Bonneau. 2006. “Does Quality Matter? Challengers in
State Supreme Court Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 50(January): 20-33.
 7

[14] Jennifer M. Jensen and Thad Beyle. 2003. “Of Footnotes, Missing Data, and Lessons for
50-State Data Collection: The Gubernatorial Campaign Finance Data Project, 1977-2001.” State
Politics and Policy Quarterly 3(Summer): 203-214.

[15] Christine Kelleher and David Lowery. 2004. “Political Participation and Metropolitan
Institutional Contexts.” Urban Affairs Review 39(July): 720-757.

[16] Christine Kelleher and David Lowery. 2002. “Tiebout Sorting and Selective Satisfaction
with Urban Public Services: Testing the Variance Hypothesis.” Urban Affairs Review
37(January): 420-431.

[17] Stephen Knack, “Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence from the
States.” American Journal of Political Science 46(October): 772-785.

[18] Thad Kousser. 2005. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative
Professionalism, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-21, 203-213. To be posted on
electronic reserve.

[19] Raymond J. La Raja. 2006. “State and Local Political Parties.” In Michael J. Malbin
(ed.) The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 57-
75. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. To be posted on electronic
reserve.

[20] Robert C. Lowry, “Fiscal Policy in the American States.” Manuscript. To be posted on
electronic reserve.

[21] Robert C. Lowry. 2007. “The Political Economy of Public Universities: A Review
Essay.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly, forthcoming. To be posted on electronic reserve.

[22] Robert C. Lowry. 2005. “Explaining the Variation in Organized Civil Society Across
States and Time.” The Journal of Politics: 67(May): 574-594.

[23] H.W. Jerome Maddox. 2004. “Working Outside of the State House (and Senate): Outside
Careers as Indicators of Professionalism in American State Legislatures.” State Politics and
Policy Quarterly 4(Summer): 211-226.

[24] Cherie Maestas, Grant W. Neeley, and Lilliard E. Richardson. 2003. “The State of
Surveying Legislators: Dilemmas and Suggestions.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly
3(Spring): 90-108.

[25] Michael P. McDonald. 2004. “A Comparative Analysis of Redistricting Institutions in the

United States, 2001-02.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4(Winter): 371-395.

[26] Adam J. Newmark. 2005. “Measuring State Legislative Lobbying Regulation, 1990-
2003.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5(Summer): 182-191.

[27] Sean Nicholson-Crotty, Nick A. Theobald and B. Dan Wood. 2006. “Fiscal Federalism
and Budgetary Tradeoffs in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 59:313-321.

[28] Matthew Potoski. 2001. “Clean Air Federalism: Do States Race to the Bottom?” Public
Administration Review 61(May/June): 335-342.
 8

[29] Emily Ramshaw. 2006. “Do Campaign Funds Bankroll a Lifestyle?” Dallas Morning
News December 17, p. 1A
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121706dntswcampaignfunds.375f
898.html

[30] Scott E. Robinson. 2002. “Rules, Roles and Minority Representation: The Dynamics of
Budgeting for Bilingual Education in Texas.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2(Spring): 52-
65.

[31] Charles R. Shipan and Craig Volden. 2006. “Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of
Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States.” American Journal of Political Science
50(October): 825-843.

[32] Andrew Skalaban. 1993. “Policy Cooperation Among the States: The Case of Interstate
Banking Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 37(May): 415-428.

[33] Thomas Stratmann and Francisco J. Aparicio-Castillo. 2006. “Competition Policy for
Elections: Do Campaign Contribution Limits Matter?” Public Choice 127(April): 177-206.

[34] Paul Teske, Mark Schneider, Michael Mintrom and Samuel Best. 1993. “Establishing the
Microfoundations of a Macro Theory – Information, Movers and the Competitive Local Market
for Public Goods.” American Political Science Review 87(September): 702-713.

[35] Gerald C. Wright and Brian F. Schaffner. 2002. “The Influence of Party: Evidence from
the State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 96(June): 367-379.

Partial List of Useful Web Sites

The Council of State Governments www.csg.org

Institute on Money in State Politics www.followthemoney.org

National Association of Attorney’s General www.naag.org

National Association of State Budget Officers www.nasbo.org

National Conference of State Legislatures www.ncsl.org

National Governors Association www.nga.org

Texas at your Fingertips: Government

www.government.texasonline.state.tx.us/category.jsp?language=eng&categoryId=6

The Texas Constitution tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/toc.html