Summary
We support:
- The constitutional balance between federal and state authority
- The role of states in addressing most issues of day-to-day governance
- Preserving the benefits of a federal system while recognizing its historical complexities
We oppose:
- Federal mandates that impose significant obligations on states without providing corresponding funding
We believe:
- The Constitution provides meaningful, though limited, protection for states’ rights
- The concept of states’ rights has at times been misused to justify serious injustices, but that history does not negate the value of federalism
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
The Role of Federalism
The United States operates under a federal system in which authority is divided between the national government and the states. This structure allows states to address many aspects of daily life—such as education, public safety, and local infrastructure—while the federal government focuses on national priorities.
This division of authority can promote flexibility, experimentation, and responsiveness to local conditions. It also limits the concentration of power at the national level.
Historical Context
The concept of states’ rights has, at times, been used to justify deeply unjust practices, including slavery and racial segregation. This history has understandably shaped modern skepticism toward appeals to states’ rights.
At the same time, the misuse of a principle does not eliminate its underlying value. A properly functioning federal system can provide important safeguards against overcentralization while allowing for diversity in policy approaches across states.
Unfunded Federal Mandates
We view unfunded federal mandates—federal requirements imposed on states without providing the necessary financial resources—as a significant strain on the federal system.
Such mandates can effectively shift the cost of national policy decisions onto state governments, limiting their ability to set priorities and manage their own budgets.
We believe that federal policies imposing substantial costs on states should be accompanied by corresponding federal funding. This principle is consistent with the broader idea, articulated by McCulloch v. Maryland, that governmental powers must be exercised with care to avoid undermining the institutions on which they depend.
Conclusion
We support a balanced federal system that recognizes both the benefits and the historical limitations of states’ rights. Preserving that balance requires respecting the appropriate roles of state and federal governments and avoiding policies that shift responsibilities without providing the resources necessary to fulfill them.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Next Policy Position
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.