With a few differences US state governments are similar to the national government. Nebraska being unique with only one house not two at the state level.
But is there any reason why a state couldn’t adopt a parliamentary style system for their state government.
I know the US Constitution guarantees each state a “republican form” of government but that definition is left open.
Anything else to prevent it. I doubt in reality it could ever happen, but I was wondering if there were any specifics against it?
Don’t necessarily have the time at this moment to answer this question fully and I’m sure more learned scholars will be along shortly, but methinks the legal precedent in Luther v. Borden and then Baker v. Carr might be a good place to start to formulate some sort of answer. Interesting question though and one that could develop into a nice legal conversation.
Here in Montana, we just lost beloved perennial candidate Bob Kelleher who’s main position was that the state adopt just such a parliamentary system. Back before his perennial candidacy (notably being featured on the Daily Show running as a Green in 2002 and somehow winning the Republican senate primary in 2008) he was a delegate at the constitutional convention in 1972, and he did manage to get some serious debate about switching to a unicameral parliamentary system. Obviously it didn’t pass (although compared to his later lack of support, the 20% or so he did get to go along seems pretty impressive), but I don’t believe the legality or constitutionality of the proposal was ever an issue.
Furthermore, though it isn’t parliamentary, the Nebraska Legislature is pretty darn weird compared to the other state legislative bodies-- I’d say if that flies I don’t see any reason why a parliamentary one wouldn’t.
Whoever is so designated under the state constitution. If the state insists on having a seperate “Governor” and “Premier” (which isn’t absolutely required in a parliamentary system) there could be cause for confusion, but it’s not that big a problem. Between 1777 and 1790 Pennsylvania did not have a governor; it had a collective “Supreme Executive Council”. It’s President was little more than a presiding officer (though he could act on behalf of the Council in an emergency).
A parliamentary system does have an executive branch. The Canadian provinces have a Premier and a Cabinet, which are drawn from the legislature (elected representatives). The Premier is the leader of the majority party, or coalition (in a multi-party system) and plays the same sort of role as a Governor in the US States.
Not quite: the governor retains a lot of the present powers, but only exercises them on the advice of the premier, except in extraordinary situations (such as no party or coalition having a majority in the lower house legislature).
The political problem is that the governor has to give up a lot of the real power to the premier, and the upper house (senate) has to give up some of its power to the lower house. The body really in power is the lower house of the legislature, and power is exercised on its behalf by the leader of the majority in the lower house. The governor and the upper house are unlikely to want to give up that power.
There’s a constitutional problem, too, in how the U.S. regards separation of powers, since the legislature and the executive become intertwined: the premier and the cabinet members are both the executive and the leaders of the legislature. (Of course, that’s regarded as a chief reason for the system: the executive reports every day to the legislature, and could at any time be dismissed by a vote of the lower house of the legislature, unlike in the U.S. system, where the executive only reports every two years or so to the voters.)
And premiers and prime ministers do get dismissed by the legislature: for example, almost exactly a year ago Keven Rudd was thrown out of office as Prime Minister of Australia by a majority within his own party. Imagine if Barack Obama could be dismissed by a majority vote in the House of Reps, not for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but because members of his party decided that he could not win the next election.
Assuming you’re asking whether there are any legal barriers to do so other than state’s own constitutions, then the short answer is “no.” That’s because the only federal constitutional limit on state government, the Republican Guaranty Clause, is not enforceable by the Courts.
The longer answer is that I can think of three potential legal limitations:
First, the U.S. Congress could conceivably limit the structure of state governments. This is implied by the very doctrine that prevents the Court from enforcing that provision of the federal constitution. But Congress has been pretty comfortable with letting the states do whatever they want. As I understand it, Texas has a Governor that is basically just a figurehead.
Second, state governments must abide by the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has held that state government must involve one person one vote for any legislative body, which has a lot of obvious and not-so-obvious consequences. It isn’t clear to me that this would stop a parliamentary system, but it would have to be designed to be in compliance with the EPC.
Third, as jtgain points out, the federal constitution seems to assume a state executive authority. That clause is almost certainly not enforceable for the same reason as the Republican Guaranty Clause, and in any case a parliamentary system has an executive. But one could conceivably make some kind of originalist argument about what kind of executive is meant by that clause.
As was mentioned by someone else upthread, it’s not necessary to have both a Governor and a Premier in a parliamentary system. Some have both and some don’t, the provincial system in Canada that I was describing only has a Premier.
Correct, it’s a different system. I have no idea if there would be constitutional issues, someone else will have to speak to that.
So? I get that Americans would have to adjust to the idea that they aren’t voting directly for “the grand poobah”, but that’s the way a parliamentary system works. The Australian leader was replaced with a new leader, life went on, no big deal. You are spinning this as a negative, it’s not.
Yes. there is a figurehead, but the role is nothing like that of most US Governors. Sorry for the omission, I didn’t want the term Governor to confuse the issue. Giles is correct that the power rests in the legislature and its leader (the Premier), rather than a Governor.
There are duties appropriate to a head of state and ones appropriate to head of government. Obvious HOS duties would include signing bills into law and IMO issuing disaster proclamations (as well as more ceremonial duties). These are the sorts of things a Canadian Lt. Governor would do, and the State HOS Governor would be the one to handle them. The State’s HOG, call him Premier or Chancellor or whatever, the head of the majority party, would be the equivalent to the Premier in a Canadian province.
If by “main position” you mean “only”. I saw him in a gubernatorial debate in 2004, and his answer to literally every question was to institute a premiership (his term; he never called it a parliamentary system). How would you ensure job growth in Montana? By turning the state government into a premiership. What would you do to protect the environment? Institute a premiership. Nor did he ever explain how any other issue was connected to a premiership: Just the form of government itself would magically solve all problems.
Just a minor quibble, but Her Majesty’s Representatives in Canada don’t sign bills. They come into the chamber, the Clerk reads out the bills waiting for royal assent, and His/Her Excellency/Honour orally gives assent, which the Clerk then notes on each bill.
One way it could happen would be if one or more Canadian provinces joined the US. For example, were Quebec to separate, the maritime provinces would be out in left field and might decide to do that. Or try. I don’t know that the US would be interested, but that is a different matter. If Congress admitted four new states that had parliamentary systems, that would settle the matter.
The provincial Lieutenant Governors are actually the representatives of the federal government to to the provinces. They have the right in principle (never exercised and certainly a dead letter) to veto provincial legislation. I read recently that the writers of the US constitution debated, but rejected, the idea of giving the federal government veto rights over state legislation. (And various southern states tried to exercise vetoes on federal legislation.)
Having the Maritimes join the US has been an idea that has been around for a long time. Lots of Americans go there and the tourist economy is heavily dependent on US visits, and the culture isn’t too much different than New England, so I would think the US would be pretty happy to add them. One problem might be that they are pretty much guaranteed to become Blue States, and I’m not sure if Republicans are going to be too happy with three or four (if you add Newfoundland) new blue states, especially a tiny State of Prince Edward Island with three whole electoral votes.