To anyone on the outside of United States law, governance can seem fairly complex. Ultimately, the US’s laws and governance are split between two main levels – federal and state – as per changes made to the Constitution in 1787.
This system exists so that laws can apply across the country as a whole, and to each state on an individual basis. As you may imagine, laws applied at federal level will often affect how states govern themselves. However, there are some cases where state advocacy in law can also influence outcomes at the federal level.
In this article, we’ll explore the federal vs. state governance puzzle in a little more detail, and consider some ways that state advocacy can have a broader impact on federal oversight.
Federal vs. state: a quick overview
Federal laws are those that apply to all states and citizens across the US. These are critical rules and laws that cover areas such as social security, copyright, money counterfeiting and civil rights.
At the state level, meanwhile, there are several laws that individual representatives and citizens oversee and are responsible for. For example, state laws that vary from area to area include those relating to family matters (such as divorce and abortion), real estate ownership, personal injury claims, and inheritance. Federal laws also concern the deployment of armed forces and declaring war.
Crucially, it is the powers defined within the Constitution as enumerated that the federal government has control over.
What’s more, lobbying and advocacy occur at both the state and federal levels. For example, Ballard Partners locations show us where this particular law firm frequently lobbies – from Illinois to DC. That said, it’s something of a misconception that state lobbying and advocacy can only affect local laws.
However, state lobbying doesn’t always affect federal law outright – it can influence it, if indirectly. Let’s explore what this means.
What are the differences between lobbying at the federal and state levels?
At the state level, lobbying and advocacy frequently require following a set guideline or process that’s unique to a specific area. Therefore, anyone lobbying at the state level must understand the unique systems and ramifications involved from one area to the next. What’s more, the definition of an advocate or lobbyist actually varies from state to state!
Federal lobbying, meanwhile, is considered more straightforward, simply because advocates appeal to the Senate and House of Representatives. However, there are additional regulations to abide by, with disclosure rules also varying at the state level.
Both types of lobbying benefit from a direct approach, where advocates try to persuade officials that certain policies require their attention. This can often involve arranging direct meetings or setting up fundraisers for causes that senators believe in. It’s all about building relationships with people who can make the law!
Advocating at the state level purely to influence federal governance isn’t always recommended because it’s not a straightforward process. However, that’s not to say it isn’t impossible.
How can state-level lobbying influence federal governance?
Raising awareness about certain issues to such an extent that they can affect public opinion, for example, is a key way that state advocates can get the ball rolling on burning issues. Thanks to the ubiquitousness of social media and the potential reach that advocates have with followers all over the country, it’s not unheard of for state legislators to blaze a trail.
For example, California has led the way on a number of pressing social issues that have gone on to influence other states and place pressure on federal oversight. One of the state’s biggest success stories has been the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which strives to safeguard consumer data that is held and processed by companies statewide.
However, the passing of this act has had a snowball effect to the extent that other states are considering implementing similar strategies. The CCPA has, essentially, acted as a pilot scheme, which could help to influence federal oversight.
A huge example of a state law challenge making its way to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, is Roe v. Wade, which started as a challenge to Texas abortion laws. The case would eventually shape a Constitutional law amendment, before federal protection of women’s abortion rights would be released in 2022. This, in turn, led to states taking abortion policies into their own hands.
Crucially, while it is not impossible for state advocacy and legal cases to shape federal governance, it can take considerable time and effort – which, in some cases, may also involve building complex advocacy networks and coalitions to ensure that messages reach the right people in the chain of command.
If a cause or policy is worth fighting for, it is worth following up on – and if state advocates and legislators care deeply enough about them, it could send ripples across the rest of the country to follow suit.