A crisis of dysfunction and lethargy appears to have taken hold in American state legislatures. Only 4 percent of US adults say that the American political system is working extremely or very well. Government shutdowns are becoming increasingly common. According to a 2020 study by the Pew Research Center, nationwide trust in government has remained at 20 percent or below for the last decade. In some states, this defectiveness appears particularly dire: As of August, Massachusetts had enacted just 0.2 percent of the bills introduced in its legislature this year—that is 21 out of 10,508 bills. Advocacy groups have identified low legislative productivity as proof of broken state legislative institutions. In the wake of the January 6 Capitol riot, the recent global surge in the boldness of autocrats, and other growing challenges to democracy, citizens need to see government institutions working for them. But resoundingly, the American people are dissatisfied.
A 2021 study from the Center for Effective Lawmaking found that voters value the trait of productivity in lawmakers but have little knowledge of their congressperson’s legislative effectiveness. One might assume that this phenomenon is similarly evident at the state level. While many state legislatures must increase productivity, the public’s understanding of legislative accomplishments through media, academia, and advocacy groups must also shift toward a more accurate, informed understanding of what it means for a legislature to be effective. By grappling with the productivity of their lawmakers, voters can more effectively hold state legislators accountable for dysfunction, identify disparities across states, and build a stronger democracy.
There is no universally accepted measure of legislative effectiveness, and advocacy groups and academics have taken several different approaches to quantifying it. Should we be evaluating the sheer number of bills passed each session by a legislature? The passage of a bill is a tangible event that the media can report on and constituents can easily recognize. However, the number of bills passed by a state legislature is not necessarily an accurate measure of its productivity. State legislatures are in session at different times and for various lengths. Texas, in addition to semi-frequent special sessions, is in session every other year for a few months, while states like California have a full-time legislature. Moreover, bills are not evenly passed over the length of the session. This metric, like many others, contains crucial flaws, which have only complicated debate among advocacy groups surrounding how to address structural problems in state legislatures.
Measuring the proportion of introduced bills that get enacted also holds challenges: Many pieces of legislation might be incorporated into the state budget, which may be passed annually or biannually, and some state legislative cultures may value selectively introducing a few priority bills over a deluge of thousands of bills. Moreover, some legislatures pass larger omnibus bills rather than many smaller bills, so superficially comparing the amount of legislation over time omits essential data. Thus, this metric does not account for the quality of the legislation itself.
For instance, the Massachusetts state legislature initially seems much less effective than Colorado’s. While Massachusetts enacted just 0.2 percent of the bills introduced this year, Colorado’s 484 passed bills represent 78 percent of the legislation introduced in the legislature. This difference is magnified by the fact that the Massachusetts legislature has double the membership of the Colorado General Assembly and is in session year-round on a full-time basis, whereas Colorado is only in session for the first four months of the year. However, the Massachusetts legislature has frontloaded hearings on its calendar this session to enable committees to have more time to consider and revise bills. So, bill passage rates will likely dramatically increase toward the end of session.
It is essential to holistically evaluate what a bill accomplishes—in terms of constituent services, budget items, and the contents of the bill itself. Despite slow movement on many pieces of legislation, the Massachusetts governor and legislature achieved universally free school meals, in-state college tuition and financial aid for undocumented high school graduates, free phone calls for people who are incarcerated, and several other measures through the state budget this year. These initiatives were formerly part of bills championed by advocates and legislators but were ultimately included in the budget rather than directly passed through traditional means. Through this more nuanced, qualitative approach, Massachusetts appears much more productive than at first glance.
Similarly, Minnesota made headlines this year for one of the most ambitious legislative sessions, codifying abortion rights, increasing school and environmental spending, establishing statewide paid sick leave, and taking many other progressive actions. However, they only passed 1.39 percent of bills introduced—94 out of 6,777. Recognizing the qualitative contents of the bills over quantitative metrics reveals an incredibly active state government.
By understanding legislative effectiveness more holistically, one can more accurately assess the extent of the problem in state legislatures and evaluate potential institutional changes. One key institutional factor may be an individual lawmaker’s power in advancing their agenda, which is dependent on the level of professionalization of the legislature, the size of their party’s majority, and committee chairs’ autonomy. To reestablish trust with the American public, the answer lies beyond simply increasing state legislative productivity—media, academia, and advocacy groups must work to build a more accurate public understanding of government. Then, voters may accurately evaluate the effectiveness of their state governing institutions and hold states accountable at the ballot box. Democracy will be stronger because of it.