3.4 Competitive Federalism Today

Competitive federalism allows states to craft diverse policies on contentious issues like gun control and immigration. This system creates a patchwork of regulations across the country, with some states being more lenient and others more stringent than federal standards.

Interest groups engage in venue shopping, seeking the most favorable jurisdiction to advance their goals. This strategy has led to policy shifts, like marijuana legalization at the state level, despite federal prohibition. Meanwhile, federal-state roles continue to evolve in areas like immigration and marriage equality.

Competitive Federalism and Policy Issues

Competitive federalism in policy issues

Top images from around the web for Competitive federalism in policy issues

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Competitive federalism in policy issues

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Competitive Federalism Today – Introduction to American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Competitive federalism enables states to implement varying policies on divisive issues
  • States have the autonomy to be more lenient or stringent compared to federal regulations
  • Results in a diverse mosaic of policies nationwide (gun control, abortion)
• States have divergent approaches to immigration policies
  • Certain states enacted "sanctuary" laws that restrict collaboration with federal immigration authorities (California, New York)
  • Conversely, other states passed legislation mandating heightened enforcement and cooperation with federal agencies (Texas, Arizona)
• Competitive federalism has impacted LGBTQ rights, especially same-sex marriage
  • Prior to the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2015, states had contrasting stances on same-sex marriage
  • Some states legally recognized same-sex marriage through legislative action or judicial decisions (Massachusetts, Iowa)
  • Other states prohibited it via constitutional amendments or statutory provisions (Alabama, Mississippi)
• States' rights play a crucial role in competitive federalism, allowing states to assert their authority in policymaking

Venue shopping by interest groups

• Venue shopping entails interest groups pursuing the most advantageous jurisdiction or governmental level to further their objectives
• Interest groups strategically select to advocate at the federal, state, or local level based on where they perceive the highest likelihood of success
  • If hindered at one level, they can pivot to another (state to federal or vice versa)
• Gun rights organizations have recently prioritized state-level policies due to encountering resistance at the federal level (National Rifle Association)
• Proponents of marijuana legalization have achieved victories at the state level, with numerous states legalizing medical or recreational use despite federal criminalization (Colorado, Washington)
• Policy diffusion often occurs as a result of successful venue shopping, with policies spreading from one state to another

Shifts in federal-state policy roles

• Historically, immigration enforcement has been under federal jurisdiction, but certain states have attempted to assume a more significant role
  • Arizona's SB 1070 law (2010) mandated state and local law enforcement to authenticate immigration status and uphold federal immigration laws
  • The Obama administration initiated legal action against Arizona, contending that the law infringed upon federal authority over immigration matters
  • The Supreme Court invalidated portions of the law but maintained the provision permitting police to verify immigration status during lawful encounters
• In recent years, the federal government's involvement in marriage equality has grown
  • The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 characterized marriage as a union between a man and a woman for federal purposes and permitted states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages from other states
  • In 2013, the Supreme Court partially overturned DOMA in United States v. Windsor, obligating the federal government to acknowledge same-sex marriages
  • The Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, superseding state prohibitions and establishing marriage equality as a federal constitutional right
• Federal preemption can sometimes limit state autonomy in policymaking, affecting the balance of power in federalism

Intergovernmental Relations in Competitive Federalism

• Federalism forms the foundation for intergovernmental relations in the United States
• Competitive federalism influences how different levels of government interact and negotiate policy decisions
• Intergovernmental relations shape the implementation of policies across federal, state, and local levels