Who Gets Stuff Done in Oregon?
A wonky review of institutional competence.
When the Framers set out to draft an effective government they thought long and hard about which branch should take on which tasks. The fact that the President should have veto authority over the legislature was not drawn from a hat. Instead, when it came to distributing responsibility throughout the government, the Framers weighed the anticipated levels of accountability, competence, and expertise of each branch. In the same way, the Framers left certain decisions to the state governments, rather than the federal government, based on expectations of which level of government would be best suited for the task.
"Oregon Capitol" by OregonDOT is licensed under CC BY 2.0
If the Framers woke up in Salem tomorrow and had the chance to “redraft” governmental powers in Oregon among the various branches at the state, regional, and municipal levels, how do you think things would turn out? My hunch is that the allocation of power would shift away from state and toward regional and local authorities.
Let’s assume the Framers would start with a branch by branch, level by level analysis of accountability, competence, and expertise. For the sake of the length of this blog post and out of respect for your time, let’s just review the state legislature and local city councilors.
The Institutional Competence of the State Legislature
The state legislature would score low on accountability; regardless of what they do (or don’t do), the vast majority of state legislators are re-elected. In the 2014 cycle, for example, 95 percent of incumbents were re-elected.
On competence, the recent squabbles in Salem have surely and rightfully brought the legislature’s performance into question. During the last emergency legislative session, officials from across the political spectrum bemoaned a lack of due process and public engagement. The result was an unsatisfactory session in which many senators and representatives felt their district got shorted during a time of unprecedented need.
Finally, it’s hard to assess the expertise of any specific branch, but education level is a common estimator (though I think it is far from a perfect one). As of 2015, about 80 percent of Oregon state legislators had their Bachelor's or an Advanced degree. Comparatively, in California that rate was closer to 90 percent. One hypothesis for the difference may be that you get what you pay for -- California, unlike Oregon, has a professional legislature and, therefore, pays their officials more. ($110,459/year versus $31,200). The pay bump in California may lure candidates with more extensive academic and professional credentials.
On the whole, the state legislature is low on accountability and competence, but seemingly adequate on expertise.
An Evaluation of Local Government
Comparatively, accountability at the level of local government seems higher. According to reelection rates, just 85 percent of incumbents best their challengers. Though this is a nationwide statistic (used due to an absence of data on a state-by-state basis), it suggests that voters are more responsive to the performance of local officials. Indeed, I’d venture to guess that the incumbency reelection rate is lower in Oregon. Where voting is easier (i.e. via mail ballots), incumbents in local races tend to have less electoral success. Similarly, where local newspapers are strong, incumbents are less likely to run for re-election in the first place. Finally, the smaller the city, the smaller the incumbency advantage and we all know that Oregon isn't known for its big towns.
On competence, it’s impossible to summarize the quality of officials across Oregon’s hundreds of towns. Nevertheless, some national stats are helpful. Data from Pew would give the Framers a strong suggestion that the public perceives higher quality in more local officials.
After selecting higher quality candidates, the public tends to think these local officials do a good job of getting stuff done.
There’s a difference of nine percentage points between state and local government in terms of favorability. Cumulatively, these stats would tip the “competence” metric toward local government.
On expertise, it’s again a challenge to find any information that’s Oregon-specific. So, on paper, the Framers would have to reach a draw when deciding whether state legislators or city officials demonstrate more expertise. However, despite the dearth of data, the Framers would be able to quickly see that local officials likely have a stronger grasp of the needs of their community as well as what solutions could meet those needs. Regardless of education level, local officials are far more connected to their constituents (which perhaps also explains the high favorability ratings). What’s more, cities tend to take on a much more narrow (albeit still complex) agenda, which may increase the odds of officials developing a uniquely ability to expertly handle whatever issues come their way.
A final tally would come out as follows:
Accountability: LOCAL
Competence: LOCAL
Expertise: DRAW (lean local)
Whether or not this review would lead the Framers to change the allocation of any governing powers is a discussion for another post.
Let me know your accountability, competence, and expertise scores for the different branches. Tell me if you’d change the distribution of power and, if so, how?