States Get Things Done, Affecting

National Policy
Heather K. Gerken is the J. Skelly Wright professor of law at Yale Law School.

When people debate whether state politics or national politics are more important, they
typically fall into camps. The nationalists argue that we are one people, and that
national politics are all that should matter. The federalist camp argues that state officials
are closer to the people and that state governance gives us the ability to live in a place
where the laws match our own preferences (be it Texas or Portlandia).
The federalist camp has the advantage right now of advocating for the one form of
politics that is actually active. Political polarization has paralyzed the national
government, but it has catalyzed state policy making.

When policy is implemented, rather than just debated, Congress is

forced to take action.
But one segment of government is not more important than the other. National politics
fuels state politics, and state politics helps ensure that national politics function
properly. The question isnt which matters more; the question is when and how each
matters in the first place.
Those offering starry-eyed odes to the value of local participation underestimate how
closely state politics are tied to national politics. As the important work of David
Schleicher and others has shown, elections for state offices are as much referendums
on the national politics as they are about anything else. Most people dont pay much
attention to state politics. When they vote for a state legislator, they are voting based on
something they know about: national politics. Thats why we see a remarkably close
connection between votes in most state races and votes in national ones. The close ties
between state and federal parties can lead to all kinds of problems by keeping poorperforming state and local officials from getting voted out of office. But oddly
enough, the connection can mitigate what ails national politics.
National politics are locked up. Our legislative process has too many obstacles when
politics are highly polarized. As a result, issues that matter quite a bit to the American
people gay rights, abortion, immigration, guns -- dont get any traction in Congress.
Ambitious members of both parties may not be able to get anything passed in
Washington, but they can in the states. That means state officials can challenge
national policy or protest its absence by passing laws at home. By making policy
rather than merely debating it, groups on both sides of the aisle can seize the
national agenda and shift the burden of inertia in Congress. Usually all opponents of a
policy need to do is kill the bill. When a state passes the policy, however, that strategy
doesnt work anymore. Opponents and proponents, then, suddenly agree on one thing

Congress should do something and they will unite in pushing Congress to act. When
national politics are the problem, then, state politics can be the solution.