|
It really pisses me off when I read about a local mayor or county supervisor complaining that the state government is limiting their ability tax and micromanage the lives of the serfs they rule over.
Bolick: Local governments get their power from state by Clint Bolick - Oct. 11, 2011 12:00 AM My Turn In its Sept. 28 editorial "State needs to stop meddling in municipal affairs," The Republic accuses the Arizona Legislature of "hypocrisy" for resisting federal edicts while regulating local government affairs. Not only is the charge incorrect, but the prescription that the Legislature stop "meddling" in local government business is disastrous. The limited powers of the federal and local governments derive from the same place: the states. The states, acting as sovereign representatives of the people, created the federal government. It is not only proper but imperative that they hold the federal government to the boundaries of its limited powers. Likewise, cities, counties, school districts and other local governments owe their existence and limited powers to the state. Indeed, they are political subdivisions of the state. And the state needs to keep their powers in check because of the great propensity for abuse. The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood this. They conferred limited and defined powers on the federal government, but also imposed limits on state governments where the states could be expected to abuse their powers. But while the framers believed that government ought to be as close to the people as possible, they understood that local governments were especially susceptible to special-interest control. Look at almost every local election, whether for city council or school boards. Few people vote, allowing special-interest groups like unions to exercise enormous influence. While nearly everyone keeps a watchful eye on our federal government, few people even know who their local elected representatives are, much less actively participate in local government. That is why we have out-of-control pensions and salaries in local government. That is why voters in 2006 curbed the power of local governments to engage in eminent-domain abuse. That is why the Legislature repeatedly has passed transparency legislation, requiring local governments to provide public records and to post their expenditures online. And why groups like the Goldwater Institute - and indeed The Republic - often go to court to force local governments to operate in the open. Of course, the general rule is and should be that local governments have authority to control local affairs. But those powers must be limited so that local governments operate in the public interest rather than for the benefit of special interests. The Legislature is not immune to the same types of special-interest influences, which is why not only the federal Constitution but our state Constitution establishes limits on its power. For the rule of law to effectively protect individual rights, the framers of both constitutions recognized the need for checks and balances at every level of government. No government at any level should operate free from scrutiny or constraint. Instead of criticizing the Legislature for checking local government abuses, we ought to be thankful that someone is paying attention - as indeed, we all should be. Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. |