Are there state congresses

It necessitates a give-and-take and an exchange of information and ideas. Deliberation provides the possibility that a number of legislators will be influenced by the discussion.

The deliberative process is not restricted to the debate or lack thereof that goes on at the second reading stage on the senate and house floor. It is also a vital element of committee activity and continues in the frequent and unstructured exchanges in members' offices, leadership conferences, at lunch, and in the corridors of the state house or legislative office building.

Deliberation as a standard is central to the very idea of a legislature. Sixth, while deliberation involves the exchange of ideas, building consensus involves a more material exchange. It depends on the willingness of opposing sides to sit down at a table together and negotiate their differences. Generally, that means dealing, trading and compromise, so that as many participants as possible buy into a settlement. The overwhelming majority of laws enacted by a legislature are settled by some process of consensus building.

On relatively few issues are lines so firmly drawn that negotiating is fruitless and battling it out is the only way to arrive at a decision. There is little doubt that one of the most important tasks of the legislature is to build consensus; a legislature that is effective in this regard is likely to be an effective legislature.

Seventh, these processes not only work to make laws, they are also intended to address problems facing the state. If legislative processes are not related to state needs, they cannot entirely fulfill the expected lawmaking function.

Ideally, we expect legislatures to solve problems and improve conditions in the state. At the very least, legislatures have to address problems. Two sets of factors contribute substantially to the ability of a legislature to perform well. One can be called capacity, the other institutionalism.

Capacity in the broadest sense is the resources, the wherewithal for the legislature to do its job. In the parlance of legislative reform, the amount of time in session and in the interim period, the size of the professional staff, the adequacy of facilities and technology add up to legislative capacity.

How much staff is needed? How should it be organized? Is a full-time legislature better than a part-time one? Questions like these deserve attention, although I doubt that the answers are the same in every place. Whether the legislature is more professional or more amateur may not be critical either.

Just what combination of resources or how much of each type is optimum or sufficient probably varies from state to state. A vital part of a legislature's capacity is the quality of the legislators themselves. In considering quality, we have to deal with the issue of professional versus citizen legislators-that is, those who are relatively full-time careerists on the one hand and those who are essentially part- and short-timers on the other.

In just about every legislature, some of each type exist. But in some legislatures for example, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania professionals predominate, while in others for example, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming citizens predominate. It is not possible to say that one type of member is more desirable than another for a legislature, or just what mix works best.

Quality also applies to the personal characteristics of legislators, and especially of legislative leaders. The reputations of legislatures in California during the late s and early s and Florida and Minnesota during the s and s were based in large part on the substantial number of able, intelligent, energetic, dedicated and politically skillful individuals who served at the time.

These members made a marked difference in the performance of the legislature. Legislators with such characteristics clearly contribute to legislative performance everywhere. The integrity, or the ethics, of the legislature is an integral part of capacity.

Although we do not define legislative goodness strictly in terms of the ethical behavior of members, the ethics of the capitol community and the type and enforcement of ethics laws are among the factors that affect how legislators function. Legislatures characterized by integrity are likely to do better than those where the ethical conduct of members is over the line or too near the line. Legislative integrity in deed and in spirit matters not only to the public, but also to the overall ability of the legislature to fulfill its representational responsibilities.

Institutionalism is related to a combination of factors that pertain to a legislator's identification with the senate or the house and with the legislature as a political institution. Three of the most important ones are concern, community and continuity. Concern has to do with a sense of, identification with, or dedication to the legislature, all of which are likely to promote the performance of balancing power and making law.

For a legislature to be good, it needs members who care about its well-being and who engage in institution-building activities or at least do not engage in activities that are institutionally harmful or destructive. Members who are institutionally inclined will defend the legislature against criticism they believe unjust and will discourage colleagues from running against the institution in order to win office.

Community encompasses the culture and norms of the legislature. It requires some level of agreement on the need for civility and some manifestation of collegiality. Informal socializing among legislators helps to build community.

In most places such interaction has been in decline in recent years; nonetheless, it remains an element of institutionalism, and one that seems to facilitate the performance of legislative functions. Continuity is probably as important to institutionalism as anything else. Some continuity of membership and staff not only provides for greater knowledge and skill on the parts of lawmakers, but it promotes institutional values.

It takes a while for most new members to identify with and develop concern for the legislature as an institution that merits their support. Continuity does not require extremely low turnover of membership, but only that some members serve for a decent period of time. By requiring that everyone turn over with relatively brief regularity and by discouraging legislators from identifying with an institution they are passing through, term limits run counter to institutional continuity.

The 18 states that currently limit terms are at a disadvantage when it comes to having a good legislature. This model of the good legislature is based on three principal legislative functions-balancing power, representing constituencies and lawmaking.

The factors that facilitate performance of these functions are capacity and institutionalism. Some might suggest a different model, but on the basis of what I have read and observed of legislatures, I think this is as good as any place to start thinking about what makes a legislature good.

It will not be easy to bring to life the categories discussed here; it is virtually impossible to measure the several dimensions of the good legislature and to rank the legislatures of the 50 states on goodness. What is most measurable is probably least significant and what is probably most significant is least measurable. Uprooting a legislature from the political culture of its state cannot be done. What serves well in Vermont might not serve well in California, and vice versa; and what serves well in Iowa might not serve well in Florida, and vice versa.

Comparing legislatures across states is tricky business; giving legislatures numerical scores is impossible business. But even if measurement is beyond our ability, it is about time that we figure out roughly what a good legislature is and roughly how well our own legislature is measuring up. South Carolina State Senate. South Dakota State Senate. West Virginia State Senate. Alabama House of Representatives. Alaska House of Representatives.

Arizona House of Representatives. Arkansas House of Representatives. California State Assembly. Colorado House of Representatives. Connecticut House of Representatives. Delaware House of Representatives. Florida House of Representatives. Georgia House of Representatives. Hawaii House of Representatives.

Idaho House of Representatives. Illinois House of Representatives. Indiana House of Representatives. Iowa House of Representatives. Kansas House of Representatives. Kentucky House of Representatives. Louisiana House of Representatives. Maine House of Representatives.

Maryland House of Delegates. Massachusetts House of Representatives. Michigan House of Representatives. Minnesota House of Representatives.

Mississippi House of Representatives. Missouri House of Representatives. Montana House of Representatives. New Hampshire House of Representatives. New Jersey General Assembly. New Mexico House of Representatives. North Carolina House of Representatives.

North Dakota House of Representatives. Ohio House of Representatives. Oklahoma House of Representatives. Oregon House of Representatives. How many members of Congress come from each state?

Each state sends two Senators to represent their state in the U. For example, smaller states like Vermont and Delaware have one representative while large states like California have 53 representatives. Currently, the Michigan Congressional Delegation is composed of 14 representatives in the House and two Senators in the U. How many people do congressmen and senators represent?

Members of the U. House of Representatives each represent a portion of their state known as a Congressional District, which averages , people. Senators however, represent the entire state. How do the House and Senate chambers differ? In the House of Representatives, the majority party holds significant power to draft chamber rules and schedule bills to reach the floor for debate and voting.

In most cases, House rules will limit debate so that important legislation can be passed during one legislative business day. In the Senate however, the majority has the power to schedule when various bills come to the floor for voting but a single Senator can slow legislation from coming to the floor for a vote. Since debate in the Senate is not concluded until 60 senators vote for a cloture motion to approve a bill for consideration, the majority must also coordinate with the minority part to set the rules for debate on legislation.

Under this system, legislation can be debated for one or two weeks on the Senate floor alone. Why does Congress use the committee system?