I frame this proposal as merely a thought experiment, because there is obviously no prospect of the states going away any time soon. At present, there is no conceivable path to the extensive constitutional amendments that would be required.
Still, history teaches us that the more distant future is full of surprises. Even massive social and political transformations should not be ruled out, if there are compelling reasons, persistent advocacy, and gradual but deep and enduring changes in public opinion. Let us start that debate today.
My view is that the U.S. would be better off as a unitary republic with just two levels of government — national and local. Under my proposed restructuring, some current state functions would be reassigned to the national government, such as election administration and professional licenses.
The lion’s share would devolve to cities and towns. Their elected leaders are not just geographically closer — and therefore more accessible — to the people they represent. They are also far more likely to share their constituents’ values, and to be motivated to serve their interests, than a state legislature can ever be.
For states’ rights conservatives, I appreciate that the abolition of states is sacrilege. But ask yourselves: Do I really want three separate governments — national, state and local — all taxing me and regulating me? Wouldn’t two do just fine? And which politicians do I trust more — state legislators or my neighbors on the city or town council? Finally, do I really want to keep paying the costs of maintaining 50 separate state legislatures and 50 state bureaucracies? What has that gotten me?
Do States Serve a Purpose?
The hefty democratic price that we pay for having states prompts an obvious question: What, exactly, are we getting in return?
Supporters of states would insist there are many benefits. States are said to diffuse and check government power. They provide a means to tailor laws and policies to the needs and preferences of the varying subnational populations — Vermont is not Texas, for example. States foster competition for citizens and businesses, while serving as laboratories for innovation, as suggested by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis a century ago. Perhaps they encourage citizen participation. They have adopted constitutions that broaden individual rights. They arguably afford a sense of personal or political community. And, as we’ve seen in this year’s debates over Medicaid, they are a major player when it comes to implementing federal programs.
But all those arguments ultimately hit the same roadblock: Without states, every one of these benefits could be achieved at least as well, and often better, by the cities and towns in most cases, the national government in some others, or intergovernmental partnerships in still others.
Better Off Without Them
To my fellow progressives, I confess that the timing of this proposal couldn’t be worse. At a political moment when fearsome, anti-democratic policies are spewing from the Oval Office in rapid succession and so many traditional safeguards are failing, states have been a crucial element of the resistance. That is the present reality.
But there is another reality: Just as blue states today challenge actions of the Trump administration, only yesterday red states were doing so against the Obama and Biden administrations. Over the long haul, that pendulum will always swing.
Moreover, local governments in the unitary republic that I’m proposing would be at least as capable of passing laws and bringing lawsuits, and at least as incentivized, as the states now are. After all, if 50 states can diffuse government power, imagine what 90,000 local governments could do.
Most importantly, the electoral distortions that the states’ roles have produced make it too easy for a radical authoritarian party with only minority support nationwide to seize power. Better to reduce the chances of an authoritarian national takeover of the White House and both houses of Congress in the first place, I would argue, than to let them keep recurring and have to settle for a handful of states nibbling away at just a few of the outrages after the fact.
The States Are an Anachronism
To be clear, I can’t blame all our democratic deficits on the states. There are other familiar culprits: pervasive racial and economic inequality; the staggering influence of money in both political campaigns and lobbying; the Senate filibuster; the two-party duopoly hold on power; and, from time to time, our leaders’ personal ambition and corruption. But as my earlier article hopefully demonstrated, the states’ direct assaults on majority rule have been the core of the problem.
The states are an anachronism. They have outlived any value they ever added. They’ve grievously damaged our democracy and have been a needless source of fiscal waste and regulatory excess.
Without them, the people, not the Electoral College, could elect the president. Senate districts, like those of the House, could be equally populated.
Congressional redistricting could be taken out of the hands of self-interested politicians and entrusted to a nonpartisan commission of experts following broad general criteria enacted by Congress.
Election administration could be provided by the national judiciary, as is done with great success in Brazil.
A national referendum could replace state ratification of constitutional amendments.
And Americans could finally have the more perfect union that we deserve.
Stephen Legomsky, a law professor emeritus at Washington University, is a former member of the Obama administration and the author of Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
