514E RGLE OF THE LEEUTENANT *GQ'VERNGR EN THE LEGlfiLATWE PROCESS 5N THE UNETIED STA‘S‘ES Miskri‘hebmuoi’MA. MECHEGAN HATE UNIVERSIW Francis lemma Ccamu 1956 v THE ROLE OF THE LIEUTENANT COVE HOE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES by Francis Jerome Egomes A THESIS Submitted to the College of Business and Public Service of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Political Science 1956 {THE-L lull If .,r '9 d*‘“ Q“ \. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis, like most research projects, reflects the guidance and advice of a good many people. The writer is especially grateful to Dr. Nathan Hakman, who assisted the preparation and planning of this thesis from start to finish. Grateful acknowledgment is made to Walter DeVries, whose advice was especially helpful during the development of the Research Design. And to Dr. Charles Adrian for his interest and valuable counsel. To Lieutenant Governor Philip A. Hart, I am indebted for the opportunity to observe and participate directly in the operation of the office of lieutenant governor in Michigan. To the many lieutenant governors, governors and legis- lators throughout the United States who cooperated in fill- ing out questionnaires sent to them, I am deeply grateful. Finally, the writer wishes to acknowledge a debt to his wife, Colette, who was entirely responsible for the physical production of this thesis. Without her help, this thesis would have remained in the design stage. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I SCOPE AT‘YD I¥fETF{OD.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Purpose and Relevance of Inquiry.................. Definition of Terms............................... Theoretical Framework............................. Method of Investigation........................... Limitation of the Study........................... \nbwthH O O 0 O O -Q#\A>H+4 H fl II EGAL AUTHORITY OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR............ 11 Legal Authority Of the OffiCSOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... 15 Qualifications.................................... 15 Election, Term and Compensation................... 18 Legislative Authority............................. 19 Executive Authority............................... 25 Why Ten States Failed to Create Office............ 28 Trends Towards AdOption of the Office............. 30 Sumlne-ryo.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...0.0.0.000... 32 OOQOUII—‘KnNH III LEGISLATIVE PARTICIPATION OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR...... 34 Method of Scoring................................. 35 Summary Index Score............................... 35 Factors Affecting Participation................... 52 Explanation for Non-Participation................. 52 Personality and Participation..................... 54 Summary........................................... 56 OunewthH O O O O O 0 IV RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE PARTICIPATION ASD EXECUTIVE PARTICIPiILTIOIJOoooooo00000000000000.0000... 58 1. Party Affiliation and Executive Participation..... 61 2. Relationship between Lieutenant Governor's Legislative and Executive Participation........... 63 3 . Summarrjr . O C O C O . C O O . O . . C O C . C C O O . 0 O C O O O . O C O O O O O O O 0 O O O 70 V SUEJLTIIIILRY. . O C O C O C . C O O O O O O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O I O C O O O C O 72 l. PrOposals for Further Research.................... 76 BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOO0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..0... 77 APPErJDIXOCOOOO0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO00.0.00... 78 “MU LIST OF TABLTS AYD CHARTS PAGE Qualifications for the Office of Lieutenant Governor In the UnitEd StateSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 17 Annual Salary and Length of Term of the Lieutenant Governor in the United States........................ 20 Legislative Authority of the Lieutenant Governor in the United States.................OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO 24 Board and Commission Memberships....................... 26 Summary Index Score Sheet.............................. 38 The Relationship Between Participation and Age......... 40 The Relationship Between Participation and Occupation.. 41 The Relationship Between Participation and Education... 43 The Relationship Between Participation and Years in Public Officeo.0.0.0...0...00.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 45 The Relationship Between Participation and Political Party Composition in the Legislature................. 43 The Relationship Between Participation and Dominant Group Support...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00......49 The Relationship Between Participation and Public Office ExperienceOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO...00.....0. 51 Extra-Legal Executive Participation Score.............. 60 The Relationship Between Party Affiliation and Executive Part1Cipationoooooooo00000000000000.0000000062 The Relationship Between Legislative and Executive PartiCipatj-on.0.0.0.0....00.00.000.000...O0.0.0.0.... 64 Appendix Information, Advice and Influence Breakdown............ H Response Brea1{dok,n0000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.00.... I CHAPTER I SCOPE AND METHOD 1. Purpose and Relevance of Inquiry The office of the lieutenant governor in most states might be perceived as a governmental limbo. This is due in large part to the lack of legal authority in the office itself. That the office of the lieutenant governor genebally con- tains very little constitutional or statutory powers is an un- contested fact. It is possible, however, that because of his position as a party leader or as a close associate of the gov- ernor, the lieutenant governor would be in a position to exert influence on the legislative process. Admittedly, this in- fluence would be extra-legal —- but this does not in any way make the influence exerted less real. The principal objectives of this study will be to deter- mine to what extent, by whatever means, the lieutenant gover- nor does participate in the legislative process, and to deter- mine to what degree extra-legal factors contribute to his in- fluence. 2. Definition of Terms The Role 9; the Lieutenant Governor in the Legislative Process refers to the degree to which he is an active or in- active participant in the legislative process. The Legislatiye nggess refers to all possible actions that might influence lawmaking in state legislatures in the United States. Infgrmal executive_participation refers to those extra- legal activities and assistance that a lieutenant governor can perform to aid the governor with respect to the latter's executive functions. 3. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study is based on the work of sociological theorists. As a basis for measuring the lieutenant governor's legislative influence, the authority and influence concept developed by Paul Miller was used. Al- though primarily utilized to investigate the decision-making process, it is well adapted to this inquiry. Miller contends that decision-making depends upon two components -- authority and influence. Authority consists of the rights and privileges given certain roles and positions within the community. For example, in every formally constituted group there are offices which give the incumbents special priv- ileges in making of decisions. Miller defines influences as the "possession of attri- butes by decision-makers which are valued as relevant by the community at large."2 These attributes consist of such social resources as wealth, respect, morality, professional compe- tence, organizational and idealogical skill_and personality L lPaul A. Miller, A Comparatjye Analysis a: the pggjfijgn- Liking 22.9.9115 in W W _9_T wa_r.__sd .143 19;: .Iiealth .Qgélfi. (Unpublished PhD.Thesis, Michigan State College 1953, p.21. ZMO, P030. features. According to Miller, the degree to which the decision- maker is a possessor of these attributes will determine the ex- tent of his influence in the community in which he operates. Most of the existing literature relating to the lieutenant governor is confined to treatment of the constitutional and statutory powers of the office.1 A review of this literature indicates that none of these studies dealt with his extra-legal influence on the legislative process. Generalizations in this area of extra-legal influence can add considerably to our under- standing of the role of the lieutenant governor in the politi- cal process. When asked about the lieutenant governor's influence on legislation, a Speaker of the House in a mid-eastern state re- plied: The only function of the lieutenant governor is to rise up early, read the morning papers and if he finds that the governor hasn't died during the night -- to go back to bed! As to the usefulness of an inquiry into the role played by the lieutenant governor in the legislative process, the same official opined: In one of the lands he visited Dean Swift's Gulliver encountered a group of scientists who were busy at the task of extracting sunlight from cucum- bers. Perhaps it would be possible to extract sun- light from cucumbers, but what in thunder would you do with the sunlight after you had extracted it? ¥ lSee Qfiflige Qj the Lieutenant Goliig rein 322.2313Qi giéiii, R.F. Patterson. Governmental Research Bureau, South Dakota, 1944. A study of the legislative influence of the lieuten- ant governor would be even more futile than the sunlight extracting experiment which Dean Swift accounts. For, you see, there might, as we have pointed out, be some sunlight in cucumbers, but as for the legislative influ- ence of a lieutenant governor -- there just isn't any such thing.1 This observation no doubt overstates the View that the office of lieutenant governor is relatively insignificant. Nevertheless, the existence of this office in thirty-eight states requires an empirical investigation to support or re- ject such a finding. 4. Method of Investigation As a method of investigating the legislative role of the lieutenant governor, an instrument was devised to mess re the information, advice and influence of the lieutenant governor m C‘- in relation to other elements in the legisl ive process. the lieutenant 71 J— O O H H. (0 (D AA The following list of questions .v governor's legislative participation scale. The categories of information, advice and influence used in this instrument are in large measure based upon the eXperience of the writer, who has served, since January, 1955, as the secretary to Michigan's lieutenant governor, Philip A. Hart. This questionnaire, de- signed to assess the extent of the lieutenant governor's parti- cipation in the legislative process was sent to majority and IExcerpts of letter to author from a speaker of the House in a mid-eastern state. minority party leaders in both houses of thirty-six state legisla- tures.l An average of seven questionnaires was sent to each state and a response of 77 per cent was secured.2 In those states that have no minority party leaders, chairmen of major commit- tees were selected to participate in the study.3 Informatign, as herein defined, measures the frequency with which the lieutenant governor's office is contacted by key leg— islators in order to secure the following kinfs of data: 1. Operations of an executive agency. 2. Parliamentary procedure and legislative rules. 3. The governor's position on a particular legislative measure. 4. Background and qualifications of proposed executive appointees. 5. The legislative position of a pressure group. As the term is used here, gdzice refers to the frequency with which the lieutenant governor's recommendations are sought by key legislators on the following actions: 6. Desirability of sustaining or overriding executive veto. 7. How to vote on a bill. 8. How to handle a bill considered by the legislator's committee. 9. The text of a press release. 10. The political effects of legislative measures. 1The names of the legislative party leaders were secured by sending a questionnaire to the Legislative Reference Bureau of each state that maintains the office of lieutenant governor. See appendix A for copy of questionnaire. 2See appendix B and appendix C for copies of questionnaire and letter that accompanied it. 3Chairmen of important committees were selected primarily because generally, he is a legislative leader and a person possessing legislative authority in a particular area. The term ipflpgnte is based on the frequency with which the following specific actions, by the lieutenant governor, are sought by key legislators: 11. To pass or defeat a bill in committee, or on the floor, that the legislator was interested in. 12. To secure an assignment on or affect the mekbership of a legislative committee. 13. To secure or weaken the support of a pressure group's position in relation to a legislative measure. 14. To make a parliamentary ruling favorable to the legisla- tor's interest. 15. To confirm, disapprove, or alter the selection of an executive appointee. As a second stage in investigation procedure, the extent of the lieutenant governor‘s extra-legal participation was re- lated to the following variables: 1. Political composition of legislature. 2. Party status and public office experience of lieutenant governor. 3. Informal participation by lieutenant governor in executive process and certain biographical factors of lieutenant governor such as age, education, occupation and group support. Most of the above information relating to the lieutenant governor was secured by sending a questionnaire to the thirty- six lieutenant governors included in the study. The data in these questionnaires will be compared to the lieutenant governor's 1Method of scoring the questionnaire will be discussed in Chapmer III. participation score to determine if there is a significant re- lationship between participation and any of the variables listed in the questionnaire. The material in this study is based on the assumption that the lieutenant governor's legislative participation will vary in each legislature due to certain social, political and biographical factors. This basic proposition in turn suggests the following hypotheses which can be tested by the data se- cured from this investigation: 5. Limitation of the Study This study appears to be the first attempt to assess the degree of the lieutenant governor's extra-legal influence in state legislative processes. The findings rest in large mea- sure on the validity of the tools of the investigation that have been employed. It is assumed that the legislative parti- cipation instrument used here presents a reasonable measure of the lieutenant governor's legislative influence. However, it would be useful to know whether the findings support the no- tion that the degree of legislative influence can be attri— buted to social and biographical factors set forth in the theoretical framework used in this study. Studies, wherein findings are devised from questionnaire data, possess inherent limitations. The inves igator has no way of knowing whether the questionnaires are answered by the preper parties, and there is also the fact that some inquiries do not elicit a response. Also, the findings are derived from legislative perceptions and not from direct observations. Thus, no check on inaccurate responses is being made. In addition to the inherent limitation of the questionnaire technique, there is a more serious limitation in the present inquiry. The questionnaires used in the present investigation were sent to the formal leaders of both houses. It is impossible to determine whether or not such legal legislative leadership is nominal or real. A more comprehensive investigation would re- quire that questionnaires be sent to all legislators. Limita- tion of time and money, however, precluded such an undertaking. For this reason the findings rest on the assumption that legal legislative leadership corresponds to a sierificant extent to r of suca a proposi- ‘e ~iiferent from the d’ H. O :3 S O C {—1 CL '1 (D 5.: I J. '1 D .93 :3 [—1. :3 <: (D (’1 (1 P. C”? 93 do H. O :3 n S H. CF one presently being undertaken. Other shortcomings of the study relate to the technical inadequacy of the measurement instrument itself. There is no way of knowing that the components within the advice, infor- l mation or influence category are of equal importance. Thus, the total score ascribed to a given legislator's role may not be an accurate basis for comparison with the role as— cribed to another legislator. For example, the information supplied by a lieutenant governor on a given piece of legis— lation may be more important than any specific action he may take. However, the knowledge and eXperience of the writer, nor the available literature on the subject, does not reveal 'J 4. acuOI‘S. }_ any valid basis for discriminating between these ' It i assumed, however, that notwithstanding evaluative C0 (‘J H. F) M erences within the categories analyzed, the total sum will to U) P o :1 C ) cf- ; <.)J O H ‘0 H. m ’4 m I give a reasonably accurate basis for asse tor's role. Thus, it is assumed that information is less important than advice and influence more important than either advice or information. The validity or invalic a pro osition cannot be determined within the range 01 present ’0' knowledge. lSee March, James G., "Introduction to Theory and heasure- ment of Influence", Amerjgag Pglitical Science Leyigw, vol. XLIX, pp. 431-451, June 1955. 10 As a background to this investigation, the office of lieutenant governor will be placed in historical perSpective. Such an introduction has the purpose of discussing the origin of the office, its basis for existence, and trends for its adoption and abolition. Following this introduction, an effort will be made to measure the extra-legal legislative participation of the lieutenant governor. It is hoped that the present study opens the door to further inquiry into studies which may improve our knowledge and understanding of particular phases of the legislative process. 11 CHAPTER II LEGAL AUTHORITY CF THE LIEUTZEAHT GOVEhNOR There are two views one can take about the office of lieutenant governor. One view holds that the office should be a device for relieving the administration and public re- lations burdens of the governor. In this connection, the lieutenant governor would serve as a liaison between the legislative and executive branches. Also, the office is viewed as a focal point in orderly succession of state govern- mental leadership.1 The other view calls for the abolition of the office as an unnecessary governmental appendage, an anachronism, or as a direct evidence of political featherbedding.2 The holding of either viewpoint stirs little contro— versy, but the persistence of the office in thirty-eight states invites inquiry into the origins of the office and the way it functions in the governmental process. An investigation of the origin and develOpment of the office supports the view that the office was created for the sole purpose of providing orderly succession to the office of governor in the event of the governor's death or disability. Other possible functions that the office could provide were ’ given little or no consideration by constitution framers. lSee a. F. Patterson, ”The Office of Lieut-nant Governor in the United States". University of South Dakota, Governmental Reggargh nevjew, Report No. 13, June 1944. 28ee a. B. Crosby, "Why I want to Get Rid of My Job". State quernment, July 1947. The office of lieutenant governor in the United States is first found in the governments of the colonial period. A typical colonial government consisted of a governor, deputy governor, council and general assembly. The earliest refer- ence to a similar office is found in the Hassachusetts char- ter of 1629 where mention is made of a "deputy governor" chosen by the freemen of the colony.1 The title lieutenant governor was first mentioned in the Massachusetts charter of 1691 where provision was made for his succession to the governorship upon the death or removal of the chief executive. Provisions for deputy governor were also written into the charters of several states including Connecticut and Rhode Island, but the Connecticut constitution of 1813 changed the title to Lieutenant Governor. Thus a provision for order- ly succession to the office of governor was prescribed by charter in only a few states. In other states an officer having this function was designated on an ad hgg basis. An example of succession in the colonial period is illus- trated by an incident when Lieutenant Governor Pownwall was sent to Vew Jersey in order to have a competent person on the spot to act whenever the infirmities of the governor made it impossible for him to attend the affairs of the governor. lSee Isom, W. R., "The Office of the Lieutenant Governor in the States", American P ti al figienge ngjew, October 1933, p. 921. 13 Our federal system allows each state to write its own constitution. This has led to different approaches to the establishment of the office of lieutenant governor by the various states since the federal constitution was adopted in 1739. The institution and maintenance of the office of lieuten- ant governor in thirty-eight states tends to justify the assumption that the office has some sort of institutional role. Warren Isom lists three major reasons for the existence of the office in these thirty-eight states.1 The apparent popular desire for elected officials: 1. To replace the governor should an emergency arise. 2. To provide the senate with a presidi ficer with- .L be U s. out depriving any district of i s 3. To follow precedent which favors the office from early colonial times. A study of the origin of the office of lieutenant gover- nor would indicate that the succession factor, serving the solitary function of replacing the governor in the event of the latter's absence, death or disability, was the primary justification for the establishment of the office. It would seem then that the lieutenant governor's role as president of the senate, following the United States' consti- tution assi nment of the vice-president to that responsibility, ( \4 1Ibid., p. 925 . 14 was motivated by a desire to find something with which to keep the lieutenant governor busy. Before turning to a discussion of the lieutenant governor's legal authority, attention should be directed to an authorita- tive evaluation of the office found in a survey of the lieuten- ant governor's office in 1944.1 R. F. Patterson points to the fact that while the Model State Constitution omits the lieutenant governor, no state has taken steps by constitutional amendment to abolish the office. Patterson found that twenty of the thirty-six lieuten- ant governors had no other official duties beyond presiding over the senate.2 In the same study an investigation was made of the various proposals dealing with an eXpansion of the lieutenant governor's powers. Until 1933 no state had taken definite steps to transform the lieutenant governor from a figurehead to an assistant governor. In 1933, Governor McNutt of Indiana sponsored a reorgani- zation plan which created eight administrative divisions to be controlled hy the governor. Under this plan, the lieutenant snated a member of the governing board of C; governor was desi four of these departments. The goverror also was empowered to name a chief administrative officer. As a result of the lPatterson, pp. Q;t., 2There were only thirty-six lieutenant governors in 1944. 15 reorganization plan, the lieutenant governor was appointed chief administrative officer of the Department of Commerce and Indus- try. In 1941 the legislature of Indiana changed from a Demo- cratic to a Republican majority. The reorganization plan was repealed and while the lieutenant governor was given the post of Commissioner of Agriculture, the office of lieutenant gover- nor in Indiana was virtually back where it was before 1933. This marked the end of the first modern attempt to trans- form the lieutenant governor from a figurehead to an active administrative officer. Table D on page 26,dealin3 with the lieutenant governor's executive authority,indicates that considerably more states have assigned the lieutenant governor to positions on various boards and commissions than was the case in 1944. 1. Legal Authority of the Office A thorough examination of the constitutions and statutes of the thirty-eight states was made in order to gather the following information on the lieutenant governor's legal authority. The information speaks for itself and comment is limited to generalizations or trends revealed in the data. 2. Qualifications The southern states are among those with the most restric- tive qualifications for the office of lieutenant governor. On 16 the other hand, the western states seem to be the most lenient on these same qualifications. As is the case with other elected offices, the qualifications for the lieutenant governor are generally those concerning age, citizenship and residence. Washington and Wisconsin require only that their lieutenant governor be a citizen. In viewing the qualifications table below (Table A), there seems to be a similarity of qualifications between states in geographic contiguous areas. For example, Nevada and Califor- nia have exactly the same qualifications for the office. Mon- tana, Idaho, South Dakota and Colorado have identical qualifi- cations, as do Indiana, Illinois and Nebraska. In addition, there seems to be a pattern of lesser restrictions in a state which borders a state where the office does not exist. While Ohio, Kansas and Massachusetts have no limitation on qualifi- cations, South Carolina requires that elected officials not deny the existence of a Supreme Being. QUALIFICATIONS FOR IN TABLE A #1.] THE OF TIE UKITED STATES 'l ‘T".“ n4-.in \Jl. ICE OF LIEUTZKAKT GO e~ The first column represents age requirement. The second column represents required years U. 8. Citizenship. The third column represents required years resident of state. CODE: STATE Alabama 30 Arkansas 30 California 25 Colorado 30 Connecticut 30 Delaware1 30 Georgia 30 Idaho 30 Illinoi52 30 Indiana 30 Iowa 30 Kansas6 Kentucky 30 Louisiana 30 Massachusetts6 Michigan 30 Minnesota 25 Missouri BO 10 7 10 7 5 2 12 6 l5 7 2 5 5 5 5 2 6 10 4 5 2 1 15 10 STATE Montana Nebraska Nevada2 New Mex1003 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio6 Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia5 7 . . I" Miscons1n) 30 30 30 30 10 IO 10 lHot elegible for office after second term. 2After second consecutive term, may not hold office for two years. 3Need not reside at place of capitol. 4Must not deny Supreme Being. 5Citize 6None. no 17 H O)- 3. Election, Term and Compensation Approximately half of the states (1?) have a two—year term, while the remaining 19 states have a four-year term for the office of lieutenant governor. States having two- year terms are noticeably clustered in the geographic center of the country. LI] very state with the exception of Connecticut provides that a lieutenant governor be selected hr prinarv election. Of those state officers elected at—lar the lieutenant governor receives the smallest comesnsation. Seven states pay the lieutenant governor on a per fien basis while thirty-one sfates pay him an annual salarv which aver- U aces $3,900 in the tOp ten states. 09 Louisianr pays its lieutenant governor more than the neighboring states of Oklahoma and Arkansas combined. Ne- braska and Iowa pay the lieutenant governor twice the salary of their state senators, while Montana, Idaho, Alabama and Virginia desi'nate their lieutenant governor's salary the same ’0 as the Speaker of the House. It appears, a in other cases, that states fashion their statutes and develop an office on the basis of what a neighboring state is doing. A case might s of the lieutenant governors in H. (D be built for the low salar hontana, Idaho and Nevada on the fact that these states border on four states that do not have the office. However, the most 1...] M) obvious reason for the lieutenant governor's low salary ~ppears to be explained by the fact that in most states it is still a J. part-time job. In these states, w’en t. the lieutenant governor closes 4. Legislative Authority The office of lieutenant governor, corresponding as it does to the office of vice-president of the United States, follows the duties of that office. And in thirty-three of the thirty-eight statés that have a lieutenant governor, he is the presioing officer of the senate, but has little actual power over legislation. The lieutenant governor is not considered a member of the legislature and as a consequence, operates on the legislative sidelines similar to a referee who is respon- sible that the game is played according to rules but refrmns from entering the contest.1 And even here the comparison is inadequate because the umpire’s decision is binding,but a lieutenant governor can generally be reversed in a parliamen- tary ruling by a majority of the senate. Thus, it is apparent that the legal and parliamentary authority and influence of the lieutenant governor as president of the senate is contingent upon whether or not his party is a majority or a minority in the senate. lGovernment-ally, the lieutenant governor's role as president of the senate parallels that of England's Lord Chamberlin in the House of Lords. ‘ AHTUAL ELLA Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri TABLE LY AID LEGKTH OT TERM 3 '1 0: TC? LIEUT 7h: IN THE UNITED STATES Szo/day 4 32,500 2 314,000 2 $3,600 2 $5,000 2 $12/day 4 $2,000 2 CZO/day 4 512,500 4 $11,500 4 $4,000 2 $2,400 2 $3,000 4 $7,500 4 3,,000 2 500 2 ,3 000 2 3 000 4 Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin C2 C) (A L—’ Fl $2,100 £1,000 $8,000 $3,600 $15,000 $5,000 $1,000 $2,100 $25/day 2,530 Q1,260 $12,000 57,500 NbNbbbN-fib N 20 21 Twenty-six states give the lieutenrnt governor the power to cast a vote in case of tie. Michi an's lieutenant governor once had the power to debate all questions while the senate was in committee of the whale and the power to cast the tying vote. However, a Michigan Supreme Court decision ruled that the Michigan constitution requires a majority of the members of both houses to pass a law. The court said the lieutenant governor was not a member of the legislature and therefore his vote could not be counted as valid.1 Thus, according to the court, the lieutenant governor's vote could only be valid when the pr0posal to be voted on was an internal affair such as a House, Senate or concurrent re- solution.2 Michigan rewrote its constitution a few years later and the casting vote provision was omitted. The lieutenant governor as president of the senate is re- gulated in this role by the senate rules. Generally, these rules are not continuous or binding upon future legislatures, but are adopted or revised by majority vote at the beginning of each biennial session. This enables the senate majority party to keep complete control and allows this majority to change the rules should a majority lieutenant governor be re- placed by a lieutenant governor from the minority party. Follow- ing the 1954 election@ of a Democratic lieutenant governor in lKelley vs. Secretary of State, 149, Michigan, p. 345 (1907). 2For a similar case in Kansas, see Coleman vs. Miller, Pagifig hgpgrter, vol. 71 2d, p. 518-523, affirmed, U,S, Supreme Court 307 U. 3., pp. 433-474. 22 Michigan, the Senate Republican majority effected three major rule changes to safeguard against any possible embarrassment. The most important of these removed the lieut nant governor from the chairmanship of a five-man committee on committees which makes all senate appointments to standing, select and conference committees.l Six states give the lieutenant governor the authority to refer bills to the various committees. A few of the states give this perogative to committees. In Wisconsin, South Caro- lina, Pennsylvania and Delaware the term "presiding officer of the senate" is used. Massachusetts allows the clerk of the senate to assign the bills to committees, with the approval of the president. Kentucky uses a Committee on Committees; Illinois a Bills Committee, California a Rules Committee, Ne- braska, a Reference Committee. Nevada requires that the mem- bers of the senate assign the bills and in Ohio it is the majority leader. The assignment of bills to the various committees may at times prove to be a strategic power. But similar to the other legislative powers of the lieutenant governor, a simple majority of the senate may overrule the president and reassign a particular bill. As presiding officer of the senate, the lieutenant gover- nor is also responsible for making parliamentary decisions when a conflict over the senate rules develops. But here again, 1Rule No. 5, Michigan State Senate Rules, tive Handbook, 0. 132, 1956. L Id ‘4) a majority of the members of the senate may override his rulint. Perhaps the most significant legislative power that the lieutenant governor possesses is the right to participate in the assignment of senate members to the various standing com- mittees at the start of each biennial session. In one-party states it is not infrequent for the lieuten- ant governor to have complete power to make committee assign- ments. However, generally he cooperates with the majority leadership within a committee framework. At one time, Michi- gan's lieutenant governor had complete authority to maxe all committee assignments. In 1939, he began to share this power with the majority leadership as chairman of a five-man com- mittee on committees. The present lieutenant governor of Michi- gan represents one of seven votes in the committee on committees but does have influence in assigning minority members to com- mittees. Cislative author- Q In summary, the lieutenant governor's le ity, for the most part, is derived from senate rules written by the majority party. Most of the lieutenant governor's legis- lative powers are non-constitutional and based upon the senate rules which may be amended by a majority of the senate members at any time)/ The lieutenant governor, as presiding officer of the senate, is a captive of his legislative environment and by necessity reflects and uses only those powers which the major- ity sees fit to grant him. LEGISLnTIVE CODE: 1 - Pre 2 - Vot 3.- 4 5 Alabama Arkansas Califosnia Colorado Connecticut Delaware Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri 81088 0V8 f) V TABLE C VT'i' T‘T «LL-E Al .L 1 in case 0 1,2,4 1,2,4 1—: \O \) none AUT7OZITY C? THE L m7“. on 14'.) L.) J. J‘. r senate. f tie. Right to debate in committee of whole. - Refer bills to committees. - Appoints senators to Boards and Councils. Montana Nebrask New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin 7. Y Li H u IO H U A) 24 25 5. Executive Authority Twenty lieutenant governors have statutory assignments on various executive boards and commissions. In a number of {‘0 cases, their executive responsibilities re restricted to V ex-officio membersnio. A g 1 The following chart indicates that H) or the most part, the larger states assign the lieutenant governor to more posi- tions on boards and commissions than in smaller states. The lieut nant governors in the East and Midwest have more executive responsibilities than their counterparts in the South and Far West. Two types of executive responsi- bilities are evident. Four lieutenant governors serve as members of the Parole Board or Parole Advisory Boards, while three lieutenant governors serve on Emergency Appropriations Commissions. The lieutenant governor of Indiana is the only one that serves as the director of an executive state depart- , ment. The role of the lieutenant governor in informal executive participation will be discussed in Chapter IV. The following section of this chapter will present reasons why ten states failed to create the office of lieutenant governor. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Michigan 26 TABLE D :D AID COLLIS;ICH MLHEE rifilPS None State Boa rd of Electors Member of Board of Iegents; Land Corw mission and Toll Bridge Authority State Board of Pardons and Governor’s Council ’11:, inance Advisory Commission State Board of Pardons Committee to study prOposed letislative council. K V Appoints members to Veterans Interim Legislative Committee. Serv:s on joint Reference Bureau for governor; Illinois Budgetary Commission; Senate Chamber Haintenance Commission. Stream Pollution Control Commission; Indiana Common School Building Fund; Director of Depart- ment of Commerce, Industry, Agriculture and Public Relations. Appoints two members to Committee on Letrench- ment and Reform; fills vacancies. State Emergency Fund Board; Soldier's Compen- sation Board; Legislative Council Chairman; Investigation Commission for State Institutions. Disabled Ex-Ser viceme lative Research Com mi absence. n‘ s ; g s.io n, chairlm n in gover-or's Voting Machine Board; Budget Appeal Commirsion; State Building Authority. H) ()1 State Bo Par rd 0 3".) ODS. Transportation and Conservation Committee; Efficiency and Economy Committee; Interstate COOperation Commission; Emergency Appropria- tions Commission. 27 Minnesota 811301 [—10 ( Miss \ nlSSOUFl Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina‘ South Dakota Texas Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin None Secretary Board of Public Buildin Review Board. None None Public Service Board. None Board of Trustees, Cornell University and Forestry College. Chairman State Board of Education. None None None Toll Bridge Authority; Secretary Board of Public Buildings. ' Parole Board in absence of governor; Board of Regents. W 0 Secretary Board of Public BuilanVS. None None Board of Trustees of State School for Blind; Appoints third member of managers of State Iron Industry; Committee for control of Cen- tennial. Board of Canvas for Senatorial Election; Forest Board. Board of Trustees, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. None None 23 6. Why Ten States Failed to Create Office Information available to explain why ten sta es failed to establish an office of lieutenant governor is exceedingly lim- ited. The Library of Congress lent invaluable assistance to the author by conducting an extensive examination of the con- stitutional conventions of the ten states that do not have an office of lieutenant governor. The legislative reference sec- tion of the library reported that complete accounts of the constitutional conventions of the ten states could be obtained only through research in unpublished material. However, the congressional library was able to provide a sufficient summary of the constitutional debates for our purposes. Utah and New Jersey constitution debates provide tie only satisfactory discussion. In Arizona, Florida, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, Nest Virginia and hyoming, in- formation is either non-existent, extremely limited or consists of one or two brief references in the debates of the constitu- tional proceedings. Several states went on record as opposing the creation of the office because of the additional expense involved. Some of the delegates reasoned that their state had operated success- fully without the office in the past and could do so in the fu- ture. In 1930, the West Virginia electorate had the opportunity to vote on the establishment of the office of lieutenant gover- nor. The measure was defeated 172,703 to 48,781.1 lLambert, Oscar Doane, rqu erdfqu gnd Its Government, Boston, D.C. Heath & 00., 1951, p, 149. New The following summary of the discussion of the Utah and Jersey constitutional conventions provide an interesting insight into the problem. The reasons resented here show a i P the types of rationale used to support or deny the need for an office of lieutenant governor in Utah and New Jersey. Pro Arguments: Need impartial man presiding over the senate. People should elect a man to serve in the event of the disability of the governor. Other offices, Secretary of State, etc., have full-time position for which they are responsible. Provide assistance to the governor. President of the senate should represent all the people. Arguments: Neans creating an extra office. Other wealthier and more inhabited states operate without it. Economizing of government consistent with public good. Would mean unwarranted additional expense. Lieutenant governor not experienced to preside over senate. A disrupting office if a party member in opposition to senate majority or governor's party. Rival to the governor, endangering his executive position and leadership. Only a social accessory to the governor's office. The debates of these two states were used because they in- clude the arguments for and against the establishment of a lieutenant governor's office also found in t3: candtitutional proceedings of other states.1 7. Trends Toward AFOption of the Office have created the OffiCo Ho {3.) m :5 C *5 O :3 CD 3 CD G) Since 1945, Georg of lieutenant governor. The writer, after reviewing periodi- cals and journals in addition to writing the Georgia Library and Legislative Service Bureau, was unable to secure reasons why Georgia adopted the office. In Tennessee, the office of lieutenant governor, although considered in previous constitutional conventions, was not incorporated into the constitution until 1951. The principal reason for the adoption of the office of lieutenant governor in Tennessee is traced to the confusing situation with regard to succession to the governorship. The previous Tenressee constitutions had made the Speakers of the senate, and then the House the line of succession to the gover- norship. However, if tLe governor were to die before Janu ry of the new rear for which he had been elected, the legislative mecnanisn for arrivin* at a speaker of the U U) (D 5 C’- (D Si O 53‘ }_a Q. {‘3 O C’- have been resolved. Consequently, if the death of the should ak place under these circumstances, there would be no r summary constitutional debates related nant governor in New Jersey, Oregon, u st Virs?nia and tyoming. 31 executive working in the capacity of governor until at least January of the new year. In 1941, an attempt to remedy this provided that the secretary of state would become governor if the governor should die and the speaker's office he vacant at that time. 0 ci- e e t 5... However, there was serious cancern over this, d= fact that the office of secretary of state, being appointed by the concurrent action of the legislature for four years, was not an elected position or subject to election by the voters of the state. The impact of the possibility of succession to the governor- ship by a non-elected office plus the confusion concern‘ng succession no doubt made the office of lieutenant governor a much more favorable means of facilitating and solving the problem of succession. This apparently was the underlying force which gave supporters of the office the margin of victory. A parently the desire to create an agent capable of order- ly and quick succession in the event of gubernatorial incapacity was the principal reason why Tennessee created the office of lieutenant governor in 1951.1 lSee appendix F for letter g 3 full details of Tenness'e's establishment of the office of liertenan t governor. 32 8. Summary Included in this chapter was a discussion of the origin and establishment of the office of lieutenant governor, and a review of the lieutenant governor's legal authority. Also presented were reasons why ten states failed to establish the office and trends toward adoption of the office. A brief analysis of the establishment of the office in the Colonial era led to the conclusion that the office was created primarily to provide the governor with a replacement in an emergency. A review of the lieutenant governor's legal authority produced the following conclusions: a. There is a similarity of constitutional provisions for the office of lieutenant governor between states in geographic contiguous areas. b. The lieutenant governor's legislative authority is regu- lated by senate rules which can be amended at any time by a majority vote. c. Eighteen lieutenant governors have no executive authority in terms of positions on boards or commissions. An examination of the proceedings of the constitutional debates of the ten states which failed to create the office was made. 33 The principal reasons against adopting the office in these states were: a. Unwarranted eXpense. b. Other states Operate without it. c. A rival to the governor. Georgia and Tennessee have adopted the office of lieuten- ant governor since 1945. Tennessee established the office in 1951 due to a confused situation with respect to gubernatorial succession in the event of the governor's death. Chapter III will bring into focus the legislators' asses- ment of the extent of the lieutenant governor's legislative participation. 34 CHAPTER III LEGISLATIVE PARTICIPATION OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR As noted in Chapter I, this study was initiated for the purposes of assessing the extent of the lieutenant governor's extra—legal participation within the legislative process. The lack of the lieutenant governor's legal authority has caused some political scientists to dismiss the office as useless. However true this may be, it is possible that some lieutenant governors may exert considerable extra-legal influence in the legislative process, and it is the writer's assumption that neither theory can be proved or disproved with- out some attempt to investigate the facts empirically. The Participation Scale used in this study is based on the author's knowledge of the lieutenant governor's role in the Michigan legislature. The participation scale is divided into three categories: that of information, advice and in- fluence. While influence theorists1 warn that it is difficult “to assign different values to different units, it was thought that by dividing the questions into the above categories, some provision would be made to separate contacts made to se- cure simple information from contacts made to secure help on policy decisions of importance. 1J. G. March, fig. 315., p. 448. 35 1. Method of Scoring Legislators were asked to circle their choice within the advice, information and influence categories. Each question was scored in accordance with the extent of participation as determined by the alternatives selected by the responses. Each questionnaire was scored as follows: never_Q_ seldom_fi_ occasionally_lfl often_15 very often_gQ The score for each question thus ranges from 0 to 20. The high- est possible score would be 300 points (fifteen questions times 20 points); and the lowest possible score would be 0. A score was nub-totaled for each section of the question- naire (i.e., information, advice and influence) and the grand total or index score represents the sum derived from the res- ponses within each of the categories. A summary index score sheet presents the rank order of participation for each lieuten- ant governor.1 2. Summary Index Score The index score represents the total average score for the three categories: information, advice and influence.2 States having less than two respondents in each house were not in- cluded in the chart. The summary score sheet presents the states in rank order. Thus, Colorado's lieutenant governor, as viewed 1See appendix C for score sheet designed to compute each lieutenant governor's score in relation to the three categories. 2See appendix H for breakdown of information, advice and influence score. 36 by party leaders in the Colorado legislature, rated him high- er than any other lieutenant governor in terms of legislative participation. Only two lieutenant governors had the same score, More- over, there was no marked drOp in the participation score of the lieutenant governors. The chart shows that the rate of participation of the lieutenant governors ranged from 103.8 to 10.5 indicating a wide disparity in the legislative parti- cipation of the lieutenant governors. The data below reveals that 59 per cent of the total responses for all questions fell into the gaze; category, while only 1 per cent of the responses indicate that the leg- islature sought information, advice and influence from the lieutenant governor yery often. A review of the questionnaires also showed that the lieutenant governor was contacted by leg- islators most frequently on matters dealing with parliamentary procedure and least frequently on affairs dealing with execu- tive vetos and appointments.1 Response Category -- 12am swam Walla Quinn mutter: Total Responses -- 1,583 487 414 153 28 Percentage -- 59% 18.4% 15.5% 5.7% 1% This data indicates that the lieutenant governor's extra-legal role in the legislative process, as viewed by legislators, is one of virtual non-participation. lsee appendix I for total response breakdown on legislative participation scale. 37 However, it would be useful to discover the factors, if any, which would appear to explain the wide disparity in the legislative participation of the lieutenant governors. The index of participation was examined in relation to the following variables: age, occupation, education, dominant group support, office holding eXperience, political party com- position of legislature and party positions held. This in- formation was obtained by sending a questionnaire to each lieutenant governor. All but seven lieutenant governors aesponded.1 1See appendix J and appendix K for copy of letter and questionnaire sent to lieutenant governors. TABLE E SUMMARY INDEX SCORE SHEET* RANK ORDER OF QUEST. NO. OF PAR PA ON SENT RESPONSES** STATE SCORE 1 10 7 Colorado 103.8 2 8 5 Texas 87.3 3 9 6 Nevada 84.9 4 9 6 Virginia 83.7 5 8 5 North Dakota 83.1 6 8 4 Idaho 70.5 7 8 8 Connecticut 68.7 8 9 7 Iowa ' 67.8 9 8 7 Rhode Island 67.5 10 10 9 Indiana 66.9 11 125 8 New Mexico 66.6 12 10 7 South Dakota 66.0 13 9 8 Kansas 64.8 14 8 7 South Carolina 63.9 15 8 6 Alabama 60.0 16 8 7 Minnesota 60.0 17 7 6 Vermont 56.2 18 8 6 Wisconsin 49.8 19 7 7 Georgia 46.0 20 8 7 California 41.1 21 13 8 Nashington 40.6 22 8 6 Delaware 37.5 23 12 10 Montana 34.5 24 8 5 Pennsylvania 32.7 25 8 6 Arkansas 28.5 26 9 9 Oklahoma 28.2 27 8 7 Missouri 27.0 28 11 11 Illinois 25.5 29 9 8 Ohio 24.9 30 ll 6 Michigan 13.3 31 10 10 Massachusetts 10.5 gInsufficient data from seven states necessitated their exclusion from the participation scale in this chapter. **There was 77 per cent response. 39 A21 The age of the lieutenant governor ranged from 34 to 66 years. Five of the lieutenant governors were in the 30-40 classification, six were 60 or over. Eight lieutenant governors were in the 50-60 age classification, while twelve were in the 40-50 age group. Table F is designed to show the relationship between age and participation. However, as the rank order column will show. ihnra_is_nn_ralaiinnshin_hnixnsn_aaa_and Miriam. 9.9mm Table G is designed to determine the relationship between participation and occupation. As the chart will show, sixteen lieutenant governors were attorneys, ten were businessmen and five were farmers. Although the lieutenant governors of Colo- rado and Texas have the highest score and are attorneys, five out of the seven lieutenant governors that ranked lowest in parti- cipation are also attorneys. ThaiahlLfsflsdJLJndiaManx WWW TABLE F THE RELATIONSHIP BETWE N P SIAIE Colorado Texas Nevada Virginia North Dakota Idaho Connecticut Iowa Rhode Indiana New Mexico South Dakota Kansas South Carolina Alabama Minnesota Vermont Wisconsin Georgia California Washington Delaware Montana Pennsylvania Arkansas Oklahoma Missouri2 Illinois Ohio Michigan Massachusetts RANK 9.112.311 \DWQO‘U’Il-‘UJNH HHHH \nrosao HFJ vnh NMNNNI—‘l—‘I—‘H FWNHOOWQO‘ NNNNN \OCDQOUI WU) HO RTICIPATION RANK ORDER AND AGE DEVIATION |-‘ H H 10~Juahfl»#~<%0\nsaurqCDAM»\9U:O¢~MJ N 40 41 TABLE G THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION AND OCCUPATION RANK STATE ORDER OCCUPATION Colorado 1 Attorney Texas 2 Attorney Nevada 3 Merchant Virginia 4 Attorney North Dakota 5 Farmer Idaho 6 Farmer Connecticut 7 Attorney Iowa 8 Businessman Rhode Island 9 Attorney Indiana 10 Businessman New Mexico 11 Attorney South Dakota 12 Farmer Kansas 13 Publisher South Carolina 14 Attorney Alabama 15 Attorney Minnesota 16 Insurance Vermont 17 Attorney Wisconsin 18 Attorney Georgia 19 Attorney California 20 Rancher Washington 21 Businessman Delaware 22 Businessman Montana 23 Druggist Pennsylvania 24 Contractor Arkansas 25 Attorney Oklahoma 26 Farmer Missouri 27 Attorney Illinois 28 Attorney Ohio 29 Businessman Michigan 30 Attorney Massachusetts 31 Attorney 42 Malian Table H is designed to determine what relationship, if any, exists between education and the extent of the lieutenant gover- nor's participation in the legislative process. The chart discloses that over half of the lieutenant governors had law degrees. The educational attainment of the other fifteen lieutenant governors ranked from one undergraduate college degree (Indiana) to five high school diplomas. Eight lieuten- ant governors had some college while one was a graduate of business school. The chart indicates that each degree of educational achievement is represented within the top ten legislative participants. Of the tap ten participants, three lieutenant governors had law degrees, three had some college, one was a college graduate, one was a graduate of business school and one was a high school graduate. However, the chart also indi- cates that five out of the six lowest ranked participants also had law degrees. Oné the basis of this chart, there_i§_ng_ze- W‘WW gnt ggzgrngr'a Jggislatiye partigipation. TABLE H 43 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION §IATE Colorado Texas Nevada Virginia North Dakota Idaho Connecticut Iowa Rhode Island Indiana New Mexico South Dakota Kansas South Carolina Alabama Minnesota Vermont Wisconsin Georgia California Washington Delaware Montana Pennsylvania Arkansas Oklahoma Missouri Illinois Ohio Michigan Massachusetts RANK QRDER \OWQO‘U’IJSWNH EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT Law degree Some college High school Some college Business school Some college Law degree Some college Law Degree College degree Law degree Some college Some college Law degree Law degree Advanced degree Law degree Law degree Law degree Some college High school High school Pharmacy degree High school Law degree High school Law degree Law degree Some college Law degree Law degree 44 193:: in ngljg Qflfligg The number of years in public office for the lieutenant governors ranked all the way from 26 years to none. Two lieutenant governors had no public office experience and three others had only two years experience. Table I reveals that there is no aighiiisnhi_I2lfliiflflfihifi_h£&E§£D—Ififilfi—in WWWa , However, the chart does indicate that-eighteen of the lieutenant governors had previous legislative experience. It shows also that seven of the top ten ranked lieutenant governors in participation had previous legislative eXperi- ence. These findings indicate, while there is no relationship between participation and years in public office, there does seem to be a relationship between previous legislative ex— perience and participation. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE Colorado Texas Nevada Virginia North Dakota Idaho Connecticut Iowa Rhode Island Indiana New Mexico South Dakota Kansas South Carolina Alabama Minnesota Vermont Wisconsin Georgia California Washington Delaware Montana Pennsylvania Arkansas Oklahoma Missouri Illinois Ohio Michigan Massachusetts RANK ORDER YEAR 1 10 2 14 3 2 4 25 5 8 6 2 7 13 8 24 9 23 10 9 11 13 12 6 13 4 14 ll 15 13 16 2 17 10 18 22 19 19 20 26 21 4 22 1 23 17 24 11 25 9 26 l 27 21 28 17 29 8 30 7 31 19 TABLE I 45 PARTICIPATION AND YEARS IN PUBLIC OFFICE RANK ORDER 18 11 29 2 22 28 14 3 4 20 13 24 26 16 12 27 17 POSITIONS‘ V H O b N . \J’l V \0 ‘ H H on» HM) Pduoanmhflc>OFHP4C>0W4¢~PHH~JFJFHJtdhdhuaPJFJHHHFJCJHHA a: \oooqost-‘wND-‘O HFJ F40 F‘H u3~ Legislator Judge Alderman Mayor City employee State elected official State department employee Member school board County board of supervisors Lieutenant Governor Government attorney Executive department head Member state board or commission District supervisor of federal agency 46 The second hypothesis set forth in Chapter I assumed that: The lieutenagt gegernog'e extre-leoel 1efleence g a g; :0 ;_ v: e e -_ e; 0 ‘:_ -_ 7e; ,, - W. A review of Table J reveals that in twenty-one states both houses of the legislature are controlled by the same political party as that of the lieutenant governor. In three of the remaining ten state legislatures, both houses are controlled by the opposite party from that of the lieuten- ant governor, while in five states, one house of the legis- lature is dominated by the opposite party. Minnesota has a non-partisan legislature. An examination of the table shows that among the top ten ranked states in participation there is included six states in which the lieutenant governor's party controls both houses and three states where one of the houses is controlled by the opposite party. In Rhode Island (9th), the house is controlled by the lieutenant governor's party, but membership in the senate is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. In the ten lowest ranked states, five state legislatures are controlled by the lieutenant governor's party; two were controlled by the opposite party. In the reminaing three states, one house was dominated by the opposite party. 47 ea‘; 0 ff go“ .1 ‘ e., “r; ‘ go ._0.1;‘ 3.. WWW- WWW- W. T r h h oth 8 Win. ihmidansLsaanred . Deminent Ggggp Sgppert Data to determine the nature of group support was derived from the questionnaire sent to each lieutenant governor. There- fore, it reflects only the lieutenant governor's assessment of his group support. Nine lieutenant governors responded that they beejzgi supportd%£ :11 groups equally. Eight lieutenant governors answered that their support was predominantly urban, while seven others visualized their support as primarily rural. The lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania and Minnesota claimed labor as their dominant supporting group, while the lieutenant governor of Montana indicated that the small businessmen con- stituted his chief support. Here again, there seems 39 he 39 WWW" a o 411W W. TABLE J THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION AND POLITICAL PARTY COMPOSITION IN THE LEGISLATURE RANK ORDER OF PARTIES IN SEAT; PARTICIPATION LEGISLATURE* Colorado 1 4 Texas 2 1 Nevada 3 2 Virginia 4 1 North Dakota 5 1 Idaho 6 1 Connecticut 7 3 Iowa 8 1 Rhode Island 9 3** Indiana 10 1 New Mexico 11 1 South Dakota 12 1 Kansas 13 1 South Carolina 14 1 Alabama 15 1 Minnesota 16 5 Vermont 17 1 Wisconsin 18 1 Georgia 19 1 California 20 1 Washington ' 21 1 Delaware 22 4 Montana 23 2 Pennsylvania 24 3 Arkansas 25 1 Oklahoma 26 1 Missouri 27 1 Illinois 28 1 Ohio 29 1 Michigan 30 4 Massachusetts 31 2 *1 - Senate and House same as lieutenant governor. 2 - Senate same and House different from lieutenant governor. 3 - House same and Senate different from lieutenant governor. 4 - Both houses different from lieutenant governor. 5 - Non-partisan. **Membership in senate divided equally between Democrats and Republicans. TABLE K THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION AND DOMINANT GROUP SUPPORT RANK DOMINANT GROUP STATE ORDER SUPPORT* Colorado 1 2 Texas 2 1 Nevada 3 2 Virginia 4 1 North Dakota 5 4 Idaho 6 no reply Connecticut 7 no reply Iowa 8 1 Rhode Island 9 2 Indiana 10 3 New Mexico 11 3 South Dakota 12 3 Kansas 13 2 South Carolina 14 1 Alabama 15 2 Minnesota 16 5 Vermont 17 3 Wisconsin 18 1 Georgia 19 1 California 20 3 Washington 21 1 Delaware 22 2 Montana 23 6 Pennsylvania 24 5 Arkansas ' 25 1 Oklahoma 26 1 Missouri 27 2 Illinois 28 3 Ohio 29 3 Michigan 30 2 Massachusetts 31 no reply *1 - All groups equally 2 - Urban 3 - Rural 4 - Urban and Rural 5 - Labor 6 - Small Business 50 Wigwam .. The third hypothesis listed in Chapter I assumed that: Wiwwum IQJELIQD fig his pgnlx gtgtna gniajdg 3h; Jgoj§]g§n;g. It was also assumed that the number and nature of the political posi- tions held by the lieutenant governor would serve as a rea- sonable criterion for assessing his status in the party. The following list of party positions represents the scale by which the lieutenant governor's party status was evaluated: 1. State chairman. ~ 6 points 2. National committee member. 5 points 3. State central committee member. 4 points 4. Delegate to national convention. 4 points 5. County chairman. 3 points 6. Member of county committee. 2 points 7. Officer or member of any political organization below county level. 1 point 8. All other delegates. 1 point 9. No political office experience. 0 points Points were assigned according to the degree of support required to attain the position. The state chairman received the highest amount of points (6), while the lowest amount of points represents no political office experience. An investigation of the table below will disclose that the total score for political office experience of the tOp ten ranked legislative participants is 29 points, while the total TABLE L THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC OFFICE EXPERIENCE RANK §IAIE QRDER POINTS POSITIONS* Colorado 1 3 6,7 Texas 2 5 2 Nevada 3 6 6,4 Virginia 4 4 3 North Dakota 5 6 6 Idaho 6 0 0 Connecticut 7 5 3,7 Iowa 8 O 0 Rhode Island 9 0 0 Indiana 10 0 0 New Mexico 11 2 -** South Dakota 12 O 0 Kansas 13 7 3,5 South Carolina 14 2 -*** Alabama 15 8 3,4 Minnesota 16 6 1 Vermont 17 9 2,3 Wisconsin 18 5 5,6 Georgia 19 5 2 California 20 4 4 Washington 21 1 7 Delaware 22 4 3 Montana 23 6 1 Pennsylvania 24 7 5,3 Arkansas 25 1 7 Oklahoma 26 O 0 Missouri 27 3 5 Illinois 28 0 0 Ohio 29 O 0 Michigan 30 l 7 Massachusetts 31 0 0 *1 - State chairman. 6 points 2 - National committee member. 5 points 3 - State central committee member. 4 points 4 - Delegate to national convention. 4 points 5 - County chairman. 3 points 6 - Member of county committee. 2 points 7 - Officer or member of any political organization below county level. 1 point 8 - All other delegates. 1 point 9 - No political office experience. 0 points **Nationa1 committeeman, Young Democrats. ***Presiding officer state convention. 52 score for the next ten is 48 points. Included in the tOp ten ranked legislative participants were four lieutenant governors with a score of O which represents no political office ex- perience. The data reveals that W 0- on. TV on ; o: ' ; -' ‘ 440. g‘ on" ‘. '9 WI- 3 3. Factors affecting Participation Since few of the variables discussed in this chapter help to explain the extent of the lieutenant governor's participa- tion in the state legislative process, the question naturally arises: What factors, if any, explain why some lieutenant governors have more influence in the legislature than others? The legislators were asked in the questionnaire sent them to make additional remarks about the lieutenant governor's participation in the legislature. These remarks are useful in helping to explain why the legislators credited the lieutenant governor with varying degrees of influence in the legislature. 4. Explanation for Non-Participation Most generally, legislators assigning the lieutenant governor little influence in the legislature did so because they were members of the House of Representatives or members 53 of the Opposite party; and as a consequence, had little contact with the lieutenant governor. Others explained that they gave the lieutenant governor a low score because their contacts with him were largely "personal only and never in an official capacity.” There was a tendency among legislators with con- siderable legislative eXperience to assign the lieutenant governor a low score because as one senator from South Dakota said: You must understand that by the time a man has been in the legislature as long as I have, he knows as much or more than most of our candi- dates for lieutenant governor. Therefore, I need much less advice and assistance than a new man coming up. The following remarks are excerpts of letters from legis- lators in various states giving their views as to why the lieutenant governor does not participate in the legislative process in their state: Representative: I'm afraid my answers won't be much help to you, you see the lieutenant governor was a Democrat all the time I was in the New Mexico legislature so naturally we didn't have much use for one another on political issues. I feel the lieutenant governor has probably the least influence over a legislature than any of the floor leaders or speaker of the house. It seems to me his main strength is in his ability or inability with parliamentary procedure as President of the Senate to be his main source of strength. Senator - Minnesota: In my opinion the lieutenant governor's influence is felt mostly only with members of his own political party. Members of the opposite party have little to do with him as far as matters of government are con- cerned. In other words he is merely the presiding officer as far as they are concerned. 54 Senator - Ohio: I have served three terms in the Ohio senate, and my answers no doubt show how seldom the lieuten- ant governor is consulted by members of the senate. During all three terms our lieutenant governor has been of the same political party (Republican) as I am. ...the office carries no power and consequently no reason for consulting with him. As he votes only in case of tie and serves on no committees, the only real influence he has is in regards to recognizing members on the floor. Even this is of small impor- tance since due to the small size of our body every- one can be recognized to speak on a measure, who de- sires to do so. Representative - Massachusetts: In Massachusetts the lieutenant governor has no duties or influence in the legislature except on a personal basis with his friends. Speaker of the House: In the absence of the governor, he becomes acting governor, but under no circumstances does he command any influence regarding the decisions of the legislature. 5. Personality and Participation Legislators who went on record as believing that the lieutenant governor was influential in the legislative pro- cess were in the minority. Generally, those who thought the lieutenant governor possessed considerable influence in the legislature were from one party states in the south. Some ranked the lieutenant governor high because of his legal author- ity to appoint committees, refer bills, etc. 55 The following eXplanations of the lieutenant governor's influence suggests the extent to which the personality variable explains the legislative influence of the lieutenant governor: Senator - South Dakota: The lieutenant governor's influence or lack of it depends a great deal on his individual personality and qualifications. For instance if he is well liked, highly reSpected and well informed his influence is felt accordingly. Senator - Virginia: The frequency, or lack offrequency, that the lieutenant governor is consulted depends frequently on how strong the personal friendship is between you and him. Unless the Governor should be of different political party, he would usually be consulted on the matters referred to. Senator - Delaware: Lieutenant governor position can be very impor- tant depending solely on attitude or ambition of the particular person - He can make himself useful or just ornamental as he sees fit. It is a good spot for an ambitious person due to the fact that he is not required to vote on any issue and therefore avoids the possibility of making enemies within his own party. Senator - Idaho: The influence of the lieutenant governor is far more pereenel than political, and varies in effect with the individual. The position and power extended to the lieuten- ant governor gives him an avenue of tremendous in- fluence if he is capable of holding the respect, con- fidence and admiration of the members of the senate. His influence will rise and fall on those three things. 56 It may be concluded from the above remarks that the lieutenant governor's legislative influence depends to a degree on personal qualities. While this study makes no attempt to analyze the lieutenant govennor's personality, this would be an interesting subject for future research. 6. Summary Chapter III has been an inclusive chapter. Within it the lieutenant governor's legislative participation score was presented and compared to seven variables. It was found that nearly 60 per cent of the legislator's responses to the fifteen questions dealing with the extent to which the legislators contacted the lieutenant governor for infor- mation, advice and influence fell in the neyeg category. Only 1 per cent of the total responses fell in the xeny gfiten category. This indicates that the lieutenant governors on the whole were viewed as non-participants or having little influence in the legislative process. However, a review of the questions did reveal that the lieutenant governor is consulted most frequently on matters pertaining to parlia- mentary procedure and less frequently on affairs dealing with executive vetos and appointments. The legislative participation scores were compared to seven social, biographical and political variables to deter- mine what relationship, if any, existed between participation 57 and the seven variables. Of these variables subjected to analysis, it was found that no relationship existed between six of the seven and participation. However, there was found to be a relationship between the lieutenant governor's public office experience and participation. Eight of the top ten ranked lieutenant governors in participation had previous legislative experience while only four of the ten lowest ranked lieutenant governors had previous legislative eXperi- ence. Excerpts of legislator's views on the lieutenant governor's role in the legislative process suggests that personality is the most important variable used by legislators to explain the lieutenant governor's influence in the legislature. Two of the focal hypotheses of this study have been tested and on the basis of the findings negated. The third hypothesis will be tested in the next chapter. The next chapter deals with the lieutenant governor's in- formal executive participation. An effort will be made to compare the lieutenant governor's informal executive partici- pation to determine what relationship, if any, exists between it and the lieutenant governor's legislative participation. 58 CHAPTER IV THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE PARTICIPATION AND EXECUTIVE PARTICIPATION The variables used in Chapter III, for the most part, failed to disclose any significant relationship which would tend to explain the extent of the lieutenant governor's parti- cipation in the legislative process. This chapter will focus on the third hypothesis listed in Chapter I which stated that: The_11eutenant_gg1ernerle_legie- .; .. .. _ ... . .i . . . ; .. . .. .-s .- . .. . .. ..-, -- .-.,...-_ . ._ h .7., ., . . The term infegmel participation in the executive process, as used here, refers to extra-legal activity and assistance that a lieutenant governor can perform to aid the governor with respect to the latter's executive functions. In order to analyze the above problem, an executive parti- cipation scale was constructed and sent to the governor of each state that maintains an office of lieutenant governor. Out of thirty-six questionnaires sent, thirty-four were returned.1 The method of scoring the questionnaires is similar to that used in the legislative participation questionnaire. The highest possible score is 140 points and the lowest possible score is O.2 1Kentucky, Louisiana and New York were not included in the executive participation chart due to insufficient political and biographical data on the lieutenant governors of those states. 2See appendix L for cOpy of questionnaire. 59 The following seven questions are based on the writer's knowledge of the various actions a lieutenant governor may perform to lend assistance to the governor: 1. How often has the lieutenant governor been present at executive policy or staff meetings? How frequently has the lieutenant governor been con- sulted on important executive appointments? To what degree has the lieutenant governor been asked for advice relative to anexecutive veto? How often has the lieutenant governor represented the governor at official functions? To what extent has the lieutenant governor been asked by the governor to line up support for his program in the legislature? How often has the lieutenant governor been asked by the executive office to win the support of key individuals or interest groups outside of government for one of the governor's legislative measures? How often has the lieutenant governor received assign- ments from the governor to develop a legislative program? The lieutenant governor's extra-legal executive parti- cipation score sheet below lists in rank order the scores that thirty governors assigned to their lieutenant governors in relation to the latter's degree of informal executive participation. Minnesota, with 115 points out of 140 points, ranked first, while Connecticut ranked thirtieth with an absolute O. TABLE M EXTRA-LEGAL EXECUTIVE PARTICIPATION SCORE STATE Minnesota Illinois Delaware Nevada Michigan Alabama Kansas Wisconsin South Dakota Vermont Montana Washington Arkansas Iowa Georgia New Mexico Rhode Island Massachusetts Pennsylvania Missouri North Dakota Texas Colorado South Carolina Idaho Oklahoma California Indiana Ohio Connecticut Virginia RANK ORDER \OWQO‘U‘#\WNH SCORE 60 61 1. Party Affiliation and Executive Participation Before turning to a comparison of executive participa- tion and legislative participation, it would be useful to compare the party affiliations of the governor and the lieutenant governor. As the chart indicates, there are only two lieutenant governors that are of a different party than the governor. The lieutenant governors of these states ranked last and second from last in legislative participa- tion. It is interesting to note that while the governor and the lieutenant governor within the first five ranked states are of the same party, both houses of two state legislatures within the same group are controlled by a different party than that of the governor and lieutenant governor. Perhaps the point could be made that in those states where the gover- nor and lieutenant governor of the same party are allied against a legislature controlled by a different party, there tends to be a greater degree of cooperation between the governor and lieutenant governor than there would normally be if both branches were controlled by the same party. TABLE N PARTY AFFILIATION AND EXECUTIVE PARTICIPATION Minnesota Illinois Delaware Nevada Michigan Alabama Kansas Wisconsin South Dakota Vermont Montana Washington Arkansas Iowa Georgia New Mexico Rhode Island Massachusetts Pennsylvania Missouri North Dakota Texas Colorado South Carolina Idaho Oklahoma California Indiana Ohio Connecticut Virginia(no reply RANK ORDER \OCXJNIO‘U’I-I-‘WNH GOVERNOR DFL UUUmemuuuwt-Jumcuumuwwwmmmucmmw LT. ammwwbmcvduwmeuwumcwwwwmwucwwwm GOV. [7' SENATE HOUSE Non-partisan cummwuwumwmwmecumbwmwwmwbwwum CUT—UWPDUWUPUU’RIUUUUUUWUUwawaf—‘Uwuw 62 63 2. memmg rnorlalnaiLiLaln v Pertieipetigg end Executiye Pantieipetien The chart below was constructed to determine what rela- tionship existed, if any, between executive participation and legislative participation. A glance at the executive parti- cipation rank order column will show that only one of the first ten ranked states in legislative participation are in- cluded in the top ten ranked states in the executive parti- cipation column. Moreover, seven out of the too ten ranked states in the legislative participation are among the low ten ranked states in executive participation. Finally, three oufi of the lowest ten ranked states in legislative participa- tion ranked among the first five in executive participation. Colorado, the first ranked state in legislative participation, ranked sixteenth in executive participation. Nevada was the only state that maintained a high degree of participation on both levels, ranking third in legislative participation and fourth in executive participation. It would appear then, on ~ the basis of these findings, that there exists an inverse ratio between legislative participation and executive partici- pation. The lieutenant governor that ranks high in legislative participation tends to rank low in executive participation and to a lesser degree, vice versa. The chart reveals that informal executive participation, on the part of the lieutenant governor, TABLE 0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGISL TIVE AND Colorado Texas Nevada Virginia North Dakota Idaho Connecticut Iowa Rhode Island Indiana New Mexico South Dakota Kansas South Carolina Alabama Minnesota Vermont Wisconsin Georgia California Washington Delaware Montana Pennsylvania Arkansas Oklahoma Missouri Illinois Ohio Michigan Massachusetts LEG. PART. LEG.PART. RANK ORDER SCORE 1 103.8 2 87.3 3 84.9 4 83.7 5 83.1 6 70.5 7 68.7 8 67.8 9 67.5 10 66.9 11 66.6 12 66.0 13 64.8 14 63.9 15 60.0 16 60.0 17 56.2 18 49.8 19 46.0 20 41.1 21 40.6 22 37.5 23 34.5 24 32.7 25 28.5 26 28.2 27 27.0 28 25.5 29 24.9 30 13.3 31 10.5 EXEC.PART. RA NK RD E R EXECUTIVE PARTICIPATION EXEC.PART. SCORE 40 45 80 no reply 25 55 15 55 65 70 30 75 115 65 55 15 55 95 60 50 55 20 45 100 10 75 50 65 does not tend to increase the degree of the lieutenant gover- nor's legislative influence. A review of the findings thus far indicates that the lieutenant governor has little influence on the legislative process. However, legislative influence encompasses a broader area than the confines of the legislature. While the study shows that the lieutenant governor's influence, as per- ceived by legislators, within the legislative process is rela- tively slight - this does not mean the lieutenant governor does not have influence in formulating legislation and devel- Oping support for a legislative program. For this reason, it is necessary to go outside of the legislative process to examine ways that a lieutenant governor can exert influence on the legislative process from without. Included in the governor's questionnaire were three questions dealing with the lieutenant governor's role in lending legislative assistance to the governor. While oues- tion five deals with the extent to which the lieutenant gov- ernor has been asked by the governor to enlist support for the governor's program within the legislature, questions 6 and 7 relate to legislative participation outside of the legis- lature. The chart below presents the total number of responses for each question: 66 QUESTION NO.* N_ ER SELOOM OCCASIONALLY OFTEN ALWAYS 5 7 5 12 4 2 6 10 7 8 4 l 7 12 12 3 3 0 Total 29 24 23 11 3 *Question 5 - To what extent has the lieutenant governor been asked by the governor to line up support fed his program in the legislature? *Question 6 - How often has the lieutenant governor been asked by the executive office to win the support of key indi- viduals or interest groups outside of government for one of the governor's legislative measures? *Question 7 - How often has the lieutenant governor re- ceived assignments from the governor to develop a legislative program? The chart discloses that a total of 23 governors had occasionally asked their lieutenant governor to lend assis- tance to the governor's legislative program. In reaponse to questions 6 and 7, which deal with legislative assistance outside the legislature, the chart reveals that seven governors asked their lieutenant governors for assistance. To illustrate the various ways a lieutenant governor can exert influence on the legislative process outside of the legislative arena, an examination of the eXperience of Michi- gan's lieutenant governor in this respect will serve as a case in point. 67 In June, 1955, Michigan's Governor Williams delegated to the members of his party on the Administrative Board, the responsibility of developing the administration's legisla- tive program for 1956.1 The lieutenant governor was assigned the task of developing policy and programs in the areas of highways, labor, civil defense, aeronautics, military and veterans affairs. The lieutenant governor held a series of meetings with the various executive department heads within the assigned areas and representatives of related interest groups. These meetings produced ideas that were later to be drafted into bill form. Following these meetings the governor would then invite the lieutenant governor and the department heads of the agencies assigned to him into his office for a progress report. At this time, the lieutenant governor submitted to the governor a written report out— lining a tentative legislative program for each department. Included in the report were recommendations relative to apprOpriation requests by the department heads. The governor and his legislative assistant exercised the final authority to accept or reject legislative sugges- tions from members of the Administrative Board. 13.. the mm ___naalMa , 1955-56, p. 242. Members of the Administrative Board include the Governor (chairman), Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor General, Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Highway Commissioner. All but the last two are of the same party affiliation as the Governor. 68 During the legislative session, representatives of interest groups and department heads would consult with the lieutenant governor concerning the progress of various legis- lative measures. The lieutenant governor served as a liaison between these groups and the governor's office. And he kept the governor's office informed of important developments relating to legislation in the areas assigned him. The legislative participation score sheet in Chapter III shows that twenty-nine lieutenant governors out of thirty-one ranked higher in legislative participation than did the lieutenant governor of Michigan. However, the above descrip? tion of the legislative assistance given to the governor by the lieutenant governor indicates that a lieutenant governor can possess legislative influence of a great degree outside the confines of the legislature. In addition to formulating legislation and gaining the support of interest groups for a particular legislative pro- gram, there are a variety of other means by which a lieuten- ant governor can participate to influence legislation. Coleman Ransone, in his study of the southern governors, states that: In situations where the governor's control of the legislature has been seriously challenged, the chief executive may resort to eppeele 12 the pegple to build support for his proposals or to defeat measures which he deems unwise.l 1Coleman Bo Ransone, Jro. The Affine nf 3212111521: in the fignth. Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama, 1951, p. 96. 69 While anneals in the hassle are not an ade- quate substitute for a well-organized bloc in the legislature, they can be used effectively by a governor who is a gifted stump speaker to influ- ence the passage or defeat of individual measures. Governor Williams, facing a Republican majority in both houses of the Michigan legislature during his fourth term in office, has relied heavily on "appeals to the people" to influence the legislature in relation to his 9‘ legislative program. However, this technique is also \ employed by the lieutenant governor as well as other mem- bers of the administrative team. For example, when the Michigan legislature recessed in April, 1956 prior to final adjournment in May, there were thirteen legislative measures tied up in conference committees. During the latter part of May, Lieutenant Governor Hart embarked on a 1500 mile, one-week tour of MiChigan's upper peninsula. In a release to the press before departing, Mr. Hart said: My purpose will be to describe the performance of the legislature as I see it. This includes fail- ure of the Republican leadership to enact or even permit debate on many major proposals made by Cover- nor Williams and the Democratic party.2 During the trip, Hart visited every major city in the upper peninsula and met with workers, farmers and business- men. In addition, he appeared on television and made eight broadcasts. Excerpts of his major talks were distributed 1112151., p. 98. 2Excerpt from press release issued April 27, 1956. 70 to every daily paper in the upper peninsula and to the various weekly papers in the area in which he was speaking. A review of the lieutenant governor's remarks in the press during the trip will indicate that the dominant theme was criticism of the legislature for not enacting into law a major portion of the governor's legislative program. In addition to political stumping, the lieutenant gover- nor utilizes the press release to influence the passage of“ a particular legislative measure that the governor has recommended. During the special session of 1955 called by Governor Williams to eliminate the waiting list for mentally retarded children, Hart used a monthly column written for a trade Journal to put across the Governor's position on mental health. Copies of this column were distributed to every major labor weekly in Michigan for publication. 3. Summary A comparison of the lieutenant governor's legislative participation with that of his executive participation was made in Chapter IV. The findings indicate that there is an inverse ratio between the degree of the lieutenant governor's executive participation and the extent of his legislative participation. Lieutenant governors which were ranked high by the governor were ranked low by the legislators and vice 71 versa. This data does not support the third hypothesis set forth in this study. It is also pointed out that the findings in Chapter III indicated that the lieutenant governor according to the per- ceptions of legislators, exerts but little influence within the legislative process. It is possible, however, that the lieutenant governor, working in close cooperation with the governor, can influence the formulation and the degree of support for the governor's legislative program from outside the legislature. Indirect legislative participation falls into two categories: formulation of legislation and gaining the support of public and private interest groups for a parti- cular legislative program. Quite naturally, the latter type of legislative activity could conceivably bf’perceived by legislators as political activity instead of indirect legislative participation. Nevertheless, it is possible that a lieutenant governor could be assigned a relatively low score in legislative participation by party leaders in the legislature and still exert considerable influence on the legislative process from without. 72 CHAPTER V SUMMARY This thesis has been concerned with the role of the lieutenant governor in the legislative process. It re- presents, to the writer's knowledge, the first attempt to measure the legislative influence of the lieutenant governor. This research project centered on two problems. The first problem was to determine to what extent the lieutenant governor participates informally in the legislative process. The second problem was to discover what factors,if any, could help eXplain the extent to which the lieutenant gov- ernor informally participates in the legislature. Chapter III pointed out that nearly 60 per cent of the total responses recorded for the legislative participation scale fell in the flexes category which indicates that the legislators viewed the lieutenant governor as a non-parti- cipant in the legislative process. Chapter III also disclosed that there are considerable differences between the lieutenant governors and the degree to which they participate. The next step was to consider the eight social, political and biographical variables which might help explain the varying degrees of participation. Chapter IV centered on determining the relationship between the lieutenant governor's informal executive partici- pation and his legislative participation. Brief mention was 73 made in Chapter IV of the various ways a lieutenant governor could conceivably exert influence on the legislative process outside the confines of the leeislature. This thesis focused on three major hypotheses: (l) The lieutenant governor's extra-legal influence within the legislative process will be greater if the legislature is controlled by his political party. (2) The lieutenant governor's extra-legal legisla- tive influence will vary in relation to his party status outside the legislature. (3) The lieutenant governor's extra-legal legisla- tive influence will vary in relation to the degr e he participates in informal executive functions. Underlying these hypotheses is the major assumption, as stated in Chapter I, that the lieutenant governor's legis- lative influence will vary in relation to certain social, bio- graphical and political variables. The following eight varia- bles were subjected to a comparative analysis with the lieuten- ant governor's legislative participation score: age, occupa- tion, education, dominant group support, public office ex- perience, party status and political composition of the legis- lature. Out of these eight variables, it was discovered that only one variable was related to legislative participation. 74 When comparing the public office eXperience of the lieutenant governor to legislative participation, it was discovered that eight of the top ten ranked lieutenant governors in legisla- tive participation had previous legislative experience, while only four of the lowest ten ranked lieutenant governors had previous legislative experience. The negative findings on the social and biographical variables that were anticipated to be important, are almost as important as the positive findings. No relationship was found between participation and age, occupation, education or dominant group support. The above hypotheses assumed that political affiliation and the party status of the lieutenant governor would be im- portant factors connected with the lieutenant governor's participation in the legislature. Another hypothesis, that participation would be greater if the legislature was controlled by the same political party as the lieutenant governor, was tested and found lacking in support by the evidence collected. The second hypothesis, that participation would vary in relation to the lieutenant governor's party status outside the legislature, was tested and found not to be supported by available evidence. 75 The third hypothesis, that participation would be re- lated to the degree that the lieutenant governor participates informally in the executive process, was tested by a question- naire sent to thirty-six governors and, on the basis of the findings, not supported. However, it was discovered that in seven states the governors requested the lieutenant governor's assistance to influence the legislature. Chapter IV pointed out, in relation to the third hypothesis, that there was an inverse ratio between legislative participation and execu- tive participation. The lieutenant governors that were ranked high by the governors in terms of informal executive partici- pation, were ranked low by the legislators on legislative participation. Various methods that the lieutenant governors could use to influence the legislative process outside of the legislature were discussed in Chapter IV and it was pointed out that it was possible for a lieutenant governor to be ranked.1ow in legislative influence by legislators and still possess considerable legislative influence as is the case with Michigan's lieutenant governor. Examination of the variables tested and their relation- ship to participation shows that only one stands out as a crucial variable affecting the legislative decision-making process. Of all the eight tested, previous legislative ex- perience seems to be the most important. One variable not 76 tested was personality which the legislators indicated was an important factor affecting the degree of the lieutenant gov- ernor's legislative participation. 1. Proposals for Further Research The instrument used in this investigation was developed with the assistance of Dr. Hakman and Walter DeVries, who constructed a similar device to measure the participation of city clerks in municipal decision-making. With proner adjustments, similar scales could be devised to measure the legislative influence of the governor or the influence of individual legislators. As mentioned previously, this study represents, to the writer's knowledge, the first attempt to measure the extra- legal legislative influence of the lieutenant governor. While the findings reveal little of significance, it is hoped that this project will add something to the scant body of existing knowledge about the role of lieutenant governor in the United States. 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ihg fipgk 91 the fitgtgs, Council of State Governments, Chicago: 1956-1957. Coleman vs. Miller. 146 Kan. 39o, 71p. 2d, 518 (1937). D0”. Harold 14. Wan Wane]. WC n. 1835-1836, University of Michigan Press, 1940. Isom, Warren R. "The Office of Lieutenant Governor in the States", Amariaan Baliiiaal Seisnaa Belles, October, 1938. Kelley vs. Secretary of State. 149 Michigan. 345, 112 N.W. 938 (1907). Kettleborough, Charles. "Powers of the Lieutenant Governor", figlijiggl Sgigggg Rggjgw, XI, February, 1917. Lambert, 0-D. .1531“ We and In W. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1951. March, James G. ”Introduction to Theory and Measurement of Influence", .Amsriasn Baliiiaal fiaianaa Belles, Vol. xLIX, June, 1955. flighigan Manual, Official Directory and Legislative Manual, State of Michigan, 1955-56. Miller. Paul A. AWWQILM Design-Making WMWWMMWM (Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State College, 1953). Patterson, R.F. "The Office of Lieutenant Governor in the United States", University of South Dakota, nggrnmental fiasaarah Belles, Report No. 13, 1944. Ransone. Coleman B. The Effie: 21.9axarnar in the fiahih, Bureau Of Public Administration, University of Alabama, 1951. APPENDIX APPENDIX A 79 StatOOf -------.“ ....--——--—— Lieutenant Governor __ _ _ _ _, _ __, ________ Lt. Governor's home address _ __ __ ... ... ... .. ... .. .. .. POSITION ‘IIHAIR NAME Speaker Pro Tempe .. ... _______ .. .. .. .. _. .. Majority Leader ... ... .. .. .. .... ________ .. Majority Floor Leader _,_ _ _________ .H. _ Minority Leader _ ... ... .... _____ .. .. .. .. .. .. Minority Floor Leader ..----..................._ Please fill in positions and names of additional Senate leaders below: POSITION NAME SpeakeroftheHouse ___.._.........._.._-_.. SpeakerProTcmpe ------_-.._--_.... Majority Leader Minority Leader Please fill in positions and names of additions house leaders below: If you have any lists or booklets which contain the names of com- mittees chairmen in both houses, it would be extremely helpful to our study. APPENDIX B Iears spent in Legislature ___~.. 80 Party Affiliation D __‘ R ___ PARTICIPATION—EVALUATION SCALE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS A. Circle that choice which most clearly indicates the extent to which you have sought informatign from the Lieutenant Governor relative to: 1. Operations of an executive agency? often never seldom occasionally xe‘t. very often 2. Parlimentary procedure and legislative rules? nGVer seldom occasionally often very often 3. The Governor’s position on a particular legislative measure? never seldom occasionally often very often 4. Background and qualifications of proposed executive appointee? neVer seldom occasionally often very often 5. The legislative position of a pressure group? never seldom occasionally often very often 5 Circle that choice which most clearly indicates the extent to Which you have sought édyigg from tho Lieutenant Governor rela~ tive to? 6. Dcsirability of sustaining or overriding executive veto? Never seldom occasionally often very often 7. How to vote on a bill? never seldom occasionally often very often 8. How to handle a bill considered by your committee? nevor seldom occasionally often very often 9- The text of a press release? never seldom occasionally often very often $0. The political effects of legislative measures? never seldom occasionally often very often‘ C. Circle that choice which most clearly indicatas the extent to whiCh you have sought the Lieutenant Governor's influence to. 11° Pass or defeat a bill in committee, or on the floor, that you were interested in? never seldom occasionally often very often 12. To secure an assignment on or afoot the membership of a legislative committee? L a never seldom occasionally often vgry oftzn 13.. To secure or weaken the support of a pressure group 3 p031 ion in relation toa legislative measure? never seldom occasionally often cry often 14. 'To make a parliamentary ruling favorable to your legislative interest? never seldom occasionally often very often 15. Confirm, disapprove, or alter the Selection of an executive appointee? never seldom occasionally often very often APPENDIX C M I 0 H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T I of Agriculture and Applied Science - East Lansing Department of Political Science November 4,1955 The writer, with the cooperation of the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University, is conducting a study to determine the legislative influence of the Lieute- nant Governor. This entire project is based upon the enclosed question- naire which will be sent to a few party leaders in several states. The main purpose is to record the perceptions of leg- islative leaders on the Lieutenant Governor's participation in the legislative process. Conscious of the many demands upon your time, we would appreciate it very much if you would take the five minutes necessary to fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it at your earliest convenience. The results will be written up as statistics and no indi- vidual names or responses will be quoted. Respectfully, Jerry Ccomes Political Science Department Michigan State University 1002-A Birch Road East Lansing, Michigan 81 P.S. After completing questionnaire, would you please list, on the back, other factors which help to describe the Lieute- nant Governor's influence, or lack of it, in the Legisla- ture. 82 APPENDIX D (Follow-up letter to Appendix C) M I C H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y of Agriculture and Applied Science - East Lansing December 9, 1955. This letter serves a double purpose. First, may I thank you again for participating in the Lt. Governor's Legisla— tive influence project. Secondly I would like to give you a brief report on its progress. More than 200 of the 300 Governors, Lt. Governors and Legis- lators involved in the study have returned their Questionnaires. However, their efforts and mine will have been in vain unless the others come in before the Holidays. Therefore, if you could possibly find several free minutes today or tomorrow would you please fill out the enclosed Questionnaire. May I again remind you that no individual names or responses will be used in the study and all information will be written up statistically. Again, many thanks for your kindness and may you enjoy a pleasant Holiday Season. Sincerely, Jerry Coomes, Department of Political Science, 1002A Birch, East Lansing, Michigan APPENDIX E 83 THE LIBRARY or censuses wasnznswon 25, D. C. Legislative Reference Service THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENAKT GOVERNOR: MOTIVES UNDERLYING ITS REJECTIOK BY ELEVEN STATES J A . A convention was held at Phoenix, Arizona, for the purpose of draw- ing up a state constitution for the Arizona Territory from October 10 - December 9, 1910. The Arizona constitution was ratified by an election: held February 9, 1911. No account of the debates has yet been published, and no informa- tion of a substantive nature concerning the office of lieutenant gover- nor appears in the Minutes of the Convention.l/ 2. Florida The present Florida constitution as amended, was adopted in 1885, and went into effect in 1887.2/ The office of lieutenant governor was first created in Florida under the constitution of 1865. No provision had been made for this office by the constitution of 1861. The office of lieutenant governor was retained by the constitution of 1868. 3/ 1/ Minutes of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona, Phoeniz Printing Company, 1911. 2/ Doyle, Wilson K., Angus M. Laird, and S. Sherman Weiss. The Govern- ment and Administration of Florida. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell . Company, 1954. p.p.20—21. 3/ laid” pp.13_19. 84 The Constitutional Convention of 1885 abolished the office of lieutenant governor, vesting the executive powers in "...a Chief magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of Florida..."A/ There is no record in the published proceedings of the Conven- tion concerning the motives underlying the decision to abolish the office of lieutenant governor.fi/ It is of record, however, that the Committee on the Executive and Administrative Department ad- vised the Convention against acceptance of a proposal making provi- sion for the office of lieutenant governor.é/ This recommendation was adopted by the Convention.l/ 3 M o The Maine constitution was adopted by the State convention which met at Portland on October 29, 1819, and was ratified on December 6, 1819. The Constitutional Convention was a whole did not debate the question of establishing the office of lieutenant governor, and Sec- tion 1, Article V, of the prOposed constitution which provides that: "The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a gov- ernor"§/ passed without debate.2/ 4/ Article IV, Executive Department, Section 1, State Constitution of Florida. ‘ ‘ j/ Journal of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Florida. Tallahassee, Florida, N.M. Bowen, State Printer, - 1885. .6/ 111.141., p. 114. 1/ mm” p. 121. .8/ Constitution of the State of Maine. Augusta, Maine, Kennebec Journal, 1902. p. 470 ‘2/ The Debates, Resolutions, and other Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Assembled at Portland on the 11th, and Continued until the 20th day of October, 1819, for the purpose of forming a consti- tution for the State of Maine" Jeremiah Perley. Portland, Maine, A. Shirley, 1820. p. 168. 85 - 3 - There was apparently no real sentiment in favor of the office of lieutenant governor as a part of the executive, as opposed to support evidenced for a governor's council, which was adopted. It was stated in debate: "The Lieutenant Governor is given up on all hands, but I hope we shall preserve the council..."lQ/ The Proceedings give no indication as to the reasons underlying the lack of support for the creation of a lieutenant governor. A. Marylgnd The Maryland constitutional convention met at Annapolis from May 8 - August 17, 1867. The constitution was ratified September 18, 1867. On a motion the convention directed the Committee on the Execu- tive Department to "inquire into the report upon the eXpediency of abolishing the office of Lieutenant Governor..." 11/ In its report to the Convention, however, this Committee made no recommendation providing for the office of lieutenant governor. 12/ No debates upon this question are of record in the Debates. 13/ Under the Maryland constitution, the executive power is vested in the governor, as follows: "Article II. Excutive Department. Section 1: The executive power of the state will be vested in a Governor..." 14/ 5. New Hampshire The New Hampshire constitution, later amended, was adopted in 1783. .LQ/ 112151., p. 170. .ll/ Debates of the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1867. Baltimore, Twentieth Century Press, 1923. pp.75—76. 12/ 32111., pp.136-141. 1.3/ m0, ppol76-1790 .14/ Constitution of the State of Maryland. Annapolis, Maryland, The Advertiser-Republican, 1915. p.14. 86 - 4 - Owing to fear of a strong executive, derived in part from ex- periences during the Colonial period, public opinion in New Hampshire has favored a state administration supervised by a governor and council. There has been no lieutenant governor of New Hampshire since the Revo- lution. lj/ There is no record that the question of the office of lieutenant governor became a subject of debate during the Constitutional Conven— tion of 1941. 1y 6. Ngw Jersey The present constitution of New Jersey was drawn up by the state Convention of 1947. There was considerable debate regarding the eXpediency of create ing the office of Lieutenant-Governor. The following excerpts illus- trate the consensus of Opinion expressed before the Committee on the Executive, Militia, and Civil Officers. The Chaigmgn Qfi th C . ' S t . Da ° V n A s wag; ...I would like to make a few observations about this sub- ject of a Lieutenant Governor. The only argument I have heard in favor of it is that if the Governor uses the Lieutenant Gov- ernor it might save him some time. But I think it is a very bad set-up that in the United States Government, and in some states, the people elect a Vice-President or a lieutenant Gov- ernor who becomes the presiding officer of the Senate. I cannot be convinced that the office of presiding officer can— not better be filled with a man elected from their own member- ‘ship than with one elected for them by the people. Nor can I be convinced that that same Senate cannot appoint more intelli- gent committees which will function better than those appointed by a man who comes from outside and who may never have served in the Senate or in the Legislature at all. I think that is a very grave weakness in our Federal Constitution. If the feel- ing is that we should have a Lieutenant-Governor as an assis- tant to the Governor, I would certainly hope that he would not be made the President of the Senate... 11/ 'lj/ Kalijarvi, Thorsten V., and hilliam C. Chamberlin. The Government of New Hampshire. Durham, N.H., The University of N.H.,1939,p.36. .16/ Jouranl of the Convention to Revise the Constitution. Manchester,N.H., Granite State Press, 1942. .11/ State of New Jersey Constitutional Convention of 1947. Bayonne, New Jersey, Jersey Printing Company, 1953. v.V. pp.14-15. 87 _ 5 _ Former Governor Morten FL Larson: Your arguments are well taken, Senator. You might have a lieutenant governor not at all in harmony with the majority of the Senate, and he would get in there and appoint all the committees. That is one of the objections to having the Lieutenant-Governor in the Senate, and it has been objected to strenuously in other states...l§/ Governor Alfred E. Driscollz ...I have given some consideration to the possibility of our incorporating in the Constitution provision for a Lieute- nant Governor. There are arguments in favor of our having a Lieutenant-Governor. The duties that fall upon the Governor, even today under our peculiar Constitution, are complex and burdensome. A Lieutenant Governor devoting full time to the task would be extremely helpful. On the other hand the pre— sent arrangement has worked out reasonably satis‘actorily, and I personally would be content if this convention chose to follow precedent in that respect...13/ A ...,Dhr, FgrLey; Governor, if this Commit ee determined that a Lieutenant Governor would be practical, what would be the duties, in your vieWpoint, of a Lieutenant-Governor? vaerngr Drjscgll; First and Foremost, to serve in the place and stead of the Governor upon his death, or resignation, or inability to serve as Governor; and to assist the Governor in the management of the most important business in the State of New Jersey today...gQ/ ...There has been quite a little discussion, and it has re- volved more or less around this thought: If we do have a Lieute- nant-Governor, what would his duties be. If he doesn't preside in the Senate, as he does in most states, and if he should happen to be of the party opposite to the governor, would the Governor want to delegate any duties to him? If he were in the same party as the Governor, and they were in fellowship together, they might get along very well. Then, following that line of reasoning, in order that there might not be any question of rivalry, -that is, the Lieutenant— Governor getting this assignment and then becoming a candidate against the Governor, if he had the power of succession, do you think that would be overcome in the Constitution, if we do agree .13 12 7 LEE.- m. m.) 13.32. 22/ Mo: p034. 88 _ 6 - to set up a Lieutenant-Governor, were we to provide that a Lieutenant Governor could not become Governor except after having served as Lieutenant Governor for, say, eight years, or something of that sort? You would eliminate the human equation, and the Governor could then feel free to assign him any duties he wanted to because at the end of his term he would be through. Former Governor Harold C, Hoffman: I don't know that the restriction should be made a con- stitutional mandate. Personally I have never been able to get myself very worked up about the importance of a Lieute- nant Governor. Unless the Lieutenant Governor should also become the President of the Senate - and then, of course, he would have some powers - I think you would find that if you provided for a Lieutenant Governor, he would wind up as almost solely a social accessory to the Executive Office...2l/ Farmer Governor A. Harry Moore: Well, of course, there is much to be said for and against a Lieutenant-Governor. Some may say it is only an extra posi- tion. 'On the other hand, he could be of value to the Gover- nor in many ways. He could be the presiding officer of the Senate. The Lieutenant Governor, of course, would be elected at the same time as the Governor. He would represent all the people, whereas the President of the Senate only represents one county and moves along usual‘y by seniority, without re- gard, perhaps, to his ability. As the representative of one county he probably would not be in the same position as a man who had been elected by all of the people of the state. I don't think it is a too important question...gg/ The Committee on the Executive, Militia, and Civil Officers voted on June 26, 1947, against the creation of the office of lieutenant governor. The debate as recorded was as follows: "2311;; moved for a Lieutenant Governor, elected by the people, but not to preside over the Senate. Motion seconded. "Farley opposed the motion; he prefers present method. "Faller: 36 states now have lieutenant governors. New Jersey is the most populous of the remaining 12. "M11132: Read section on the lieutenant governor from the New York Constitution. In New York the lieutenant-governor has succeeded six times, so one seems to be needed. 21/ m0, p0 540 22/ 121.11., ppm-71. 89 "Smith: Opposed to lieutenant-governor; feels people would disregard him in voting, and he would be picked for political reasons only. "finders: Cannot see that the lieutenant governor would have any useful function. "Motion lost, 6 to 3..." 23/ 2. Oreggn The Oregon Constitutional Convention met at Salem, August 17, 1357, and its deliberations were concluded September 18, 1857. The Constitu— tion was ratified by a special election held November 9, 1857. 24/ There is no record in the debates pertaining to consideration of the office of lieutenant governor. It is likely, however, as in the case of most states which have dispensed with this office, that it was considered an unwa*ranted eXpense. A proposal to combine the offices of governor and state treasurer was put forward on grounds of economy, which, however,was defeated largly on the basis of arguments that there should be no combinations of offices differing from those in other states. 25/ Article V, Executive Department, Section No. 1 provides: "The chief executive power of the state, shall be vested in a Governor..." Zé/ W The state constitution was adopted by the Convention held at Nash- ville on February 23, 1870. At that time a resolution was offered providing for the estab- lishment of the office of lieutenant governor, as follows: "Resolved, That there be an election for Lt. Governor on the same day (Governor's election) who shall possess the same qualifications as the Governor: The Lt. Governor shall be ex 2/ MC, PO 1390 .24/ The Oregon Constitution and Proceedings and Debates of the Constitu- tiopal Convention of 1857. Salem, Oregon,State Printing Department, 102‘). O 27. ' Z51 Elfi'; Pg. 227-229. 9O officio President of the Senate, but shall have no vote except in a tie vote of Senators. In event of death, resignation, re- moval from office, or absence from the state, the Lt. Governor shall discharge the duties of the Governor." 22/ This resolution, however, was not adopt d by the Convention. The Journal does not include any account of the arguments presented during the consideration of the proposed amendment. In Tennessee the executive power continued to be exercised by the governor as provided in Sention l of Article III which was re- commended by the convention committee and adopted without amendment: 0 "Section I. The supr—me executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor." g;/ 9. Utah The Utah Constitutional Convention met on March 4, 1895. The proposed state Constitution was ratified by the electorate on Novem- ber 5, 1895. 23/ The question of including the Lieutenant governor among the state executive officers was raised at the Utah constitutional convention on April 3, 1895, when an amendment to this effect was offered for consid- eration by the Committee of the Whole as an amendment to Section 1. The following are excerpts taken from the ensuing debate upon the question of establishing the office of lieutenant governor: "Mr. Kearns: Mr. President, I hOpe that the motion will not prevail. It is unnecessary to create any extra offices. We find thirteen states in the Union that are all of more consequence and with more inhabitants and wealthier states than this that get along without a lieutenant governor. 21/ Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates. Nash- ville, Tennessee, Jones, Purvis, and Company, 1370. p. 34. 2.3/ Md.) p0 423. ‘23/ State and Local Government in Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah, Utah Foundation, 1954. p. 19. 91 _ 9 _ Again I find that the secretary of state is an office that contains a good deal more responsibility. he are apt to get a better reprusentative in the office for secretary of state than us are for lieutenant governor, and I do not see why at this e I ' time we should create th at offic . think 1t is unnecessary. I hope this motion will not prevail. : (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that my friend' s argument is not good, that because thirteen stat 8 do not have a good thing, that we, the last sta e, should not hs.ve it. I certainly think that a lieutenant governor is a necessary party in the executi"e department, and I think that for several reasons, The fir st reason is that under all of the constitutions of all the stat s a lieutenant go overnor is the presiding officer of the senate...He is an indifferent officer, he is a me n there without a vote. He presides over that senate impartially. I say that is a good reason for having a lieute- nant governor. Another reason for it is that when the people come to vote for governor or lieutenant governor or secre ary of state they know who they are choosing to be their governors and they express their choice, that the man that is named as lieutenant governor in the absence of the governor or in the case of his death or disability. You take the secretary of state. He is elected to perform other duties entirely, and I sa.y should not chan e the form of government so as to diverge from the constitutions of almost all of the states... I Mr, Vgrian: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to explain the matter as it appear=d to the committee. he felt that which- ever way this was reported it would not meet with the approba- tion of the entire convention. That is, if it reportid a lieutenant goverror, perhaps we would find a feeling or diSposi- tion to strike it out; but these were the reasons that moved the committee to eliminate from the government the lieutenant governor: First, the object, f course, was to economize as much as could be done consistently with public good, and then it wrs considered that the office was hardly worth the keeping. We could not afford to pay the State officer. Le cannot afford to pay a lieutenant gover r. At least the committee so con- side; ed it. It is a high office, and, as suggested, might perhaps assume a still higher function in case of the death or dis- ability of the governor. I have noticed in the experience that I have had in this matter that the result was about in this wise: The State provides for the office of lieutenant governor. When he is elected he knows that he will receive no salary. He knows that the e is mo e or les dignity attached to it. Some bright man runs for the office and the moment he gets there he looks about him and sees that all the other officers are getting pretty good salaries and well t.:ken care of by the state. Every meeting of the le islatu'e I have to go there and 92 - 10 _ give my time for the state at a small per diem. I do not think it is right. His friends begin to think so too. The result is they commence to hatch up some legislative scheme to provide emoluments for him... "Mr. Ivins: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Weber (Kr. Kimball), who moves as an amendment to this article that this additional office be created, gives as his reasons, first, that the lieutenant governor is president of the senate, and second, that when the peOple elect a lieutenant governor, they know that the man they choose will, in case of the disability of the governor, act in his stead, and he advanced no other reasons. Now, gentlemen, isn't it a fact that there will be among the twenty-five men or more who may be chosen to the senate of this state some one man that will be just as amply capable of acting as president of the senate as the lieutenant governor might be? Is it not also a fact that the people, understanding when they choose a secretary of state that he will be governor of this territory in case of the disability of the chief executive, would be just as likely to choose an efficient governor direct? In the first place, this section as it stands, has in view economy. The committee did not think that a multiplicity of offices should be created where they could be consistently dis- pensed with. In looking over the constitutions of other states, we find that the lieutenant governor as a rule, is a salaried officer. If the plan that as been suggested shall be carried out the officers of this State will be salaried officers, and in that event a lieutenant governor would receive a salary, which in many of the state constitutions I have examined is made about half that of the chief executive. Under those conditions it does not seem to me that it is unnecessary. While it is true that in a majority of the states the office of lieutenant gov- ernor is created, it is also true that in some of the states which have been more recently admitted to the Union the secre- tary of state performs the duties of governor during his dis- ability, and it was with this in view that the section was passed in the committee as it is... The amendment providing for the creation of the office of lieutenant governor was rejected. 39/ ’ fiQ/ Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Conven— tion. Salt Lake City, Utah, Star Printing Company, 1393. pp. 653-656. Vol. I. 93 - 11 _ The present West Virginia constitution was adOpted by the state Convention which met at Charleston in 1372. Among the changes in the Constitutional system made by this Con- vention was the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-Governor, which had existed under the first West Virginia Constitution of 1863. At this time it was provided that, in the event of a vacancy the presi- dent of the senate and the speaker of the House should, in turn, succeed to the governorship. "...Although amendments to the Consti- tution calling for the reinstatement of the office of lieutenant governor have since been submitted to the people on each occasion they have been emphatically turned down..." 31/ "...From time to time amendments to the Constitution have been prOposed calling for the creation of this office, but always it has been rejected by the voters..." When such an amendment was submitted in 1930, the vote was 43,731 in favor, 172,703 against." 33/ "...The chief purpose of the office (of lieutenant governor) is to provide a successor to the governor in times of emergency, and the West Virginia electorate considers that such an emergency had been satisfactorily provided for without the creation of an additional office..." 33/ A resolution was offered to the Constitutional Convention of 1872 providing for the office of lieutenant governor: "Resolved, That the Committee on the Executive Department inquire into the expediency of 3L/ Lambert, Oscar Doane, West Virginia and its Government. Boston, D.C. Heath and Company, 1951. p. 149. 22/ ism” p. 244. 3—3/ me: p' 245. 94 _ 12 _ providing in the Constitution for the election of a Lieutenant Gover- nor who shall preside over the Senate..." 34/ 1 he report of the Committee of the Whole on the report However, in t of the Committee on the Executive Department, the provisions in the Constitution of 1863 relating to the office of Lieutenant Governor were deleted. These comprised articles 13, 9, and part of article 20. jj/ The JQurral does not include the substance of the Constitutional debates. The U omin Constitutional Convention met at Cheienne September .17 3 . 0Q 2-90, 1899. The Constitution was ratified by the electorate on Nov? J ember 5, 1399. 36/ The question of establishing the office of lieutenant governor did not arise during the debate by t11e Convention as a whole upon the executive branch of government, and there is no record that any pro- posal recommending a lieutenant governor was ever put forward for its consideration. Section 1, Article IV, of the proposed draft providing that "The executive power shall be vested in a governor..." was adOpted as re commended by the committee on the executive. 32/ ‘14/ Journal of the Constitutional Convention. Charleston, Henrv S. Walker, 1372. p. 34. .15/ Report of the Committee of the Whole, Ib c., p. 7, also pp.1.4_136. 96/ Herman H. Trachsel and FWal i. Hade, The Government and Admi tration of Kyoming. Elem York, Thomas Y. Crowell Compan‘. 19 :p- 14-15. .12/ For the debates upon the executive department, see: Journal and Debates of the Constitutic 1m a1 Convention of the State of Lyoming. Cheyenne, Wyoming, The Dai 1y Sun, Book and Job Printing, 1393. pp. 460-475. . Jones Governmer 1t Division Februa ary 3, 1956) 95 APPENDIX F January 17, 1956 Mr. Jerry Coomes 1002A. Birch East Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Coomes: Reference is made to your January 10 inquiry regarding your MSU study on the Lieutenant Governor's office. The position of Lieutenant Governor of the State of Tennessee was specifically created by Chapter 49 of the Public Acts of 1951. Prior to that time there was cause for some confusion or legal question regarding the succession to the governorship under particular circumstances. The Constitution provides that in event of a vacancy the succession to the governorship would be first the Speaker of the Senate and then the Speaker of the House. The timing of elections to the Tennessee Legislature are first, the primary, in August of the even-numbered years, and then the regular election in November. The Senate and the House, upon convening in January of the odd-numbered years, selects from among their number a Speaker. As an outgrowth of litigation dealing with matters not specifically oriented to the speakership, it had been held in the courts that a legislator who, by preference or circumstance, has not survived a race in the primary and was not elected in the November election was not a member of the Legislature during that interval between November and the convening of the new legislature in January. Therefore, should a vacancy occur between November and January there would be quite a vacuum if the respective Speakers had not sought and secured re-election, and even if they had, it probably would mean a quick special session of the Senate in order to organize itself to provide a Speaker. In view of this situation Chapter 99 of the Public Acts of 1941 had provided the Secretary of State should succeed to the governorship if the office of Speaker of the Senate should be vacant. It so happens that the Secretary of State in Tennessee is elected for a four-year term by the concurrent action of both Houses of the Legislature. Thus, as it has often been pointed out, the Secretary of State does not stand for election before the entire peOple of this state. Over the years there has been some skepticism of the probability of a non-elective person succeeding to the governorship. 96 Mr. Jerry Coomes - 2 - January 17, 1956 This, then, is the background of the conscious action taken as Chapter 49 of the Public Acts of 1951 to create the office of Lieutenant Governor and the presumption is (and it is certainly not spelled out in that Act) that under Section 5, Article 7 of the Constitution, "Every officer shall hold his office until his successor is elected or appointed, and qualified". I hope that this relatively non-legal resume will be helpful in your studies. Yours very truly (signed) Harold V. Miller Executive Director HVM:bjm 97 oucom Hence omsuok< «Haves coawpsoo l _ A 3&8 noueoA.hauuca«: A . i endow 833 £33.... _ enacm .msna cum “excomm A umxsemw endow J ‘1 acumen accuh . .328“: 35% 89.3 nausea: meadow APPENDIX G P . ¢1L 7‘ nausea uoonh A stews: 338 1 1 EOQQOH hvdhcfiflz oaddmm .maoa chm anoduoohm .5: .3 .3: Ass. .3: .3. .2: d3. .3: met .3: .mcl: . meson . unseen aspen museum meson. meadow E \. VL Nevada Colorado Texas Idaho Virginia South Dakota Minnesota North Dakota New Mexico Rhode Island South Carolina California Pennsylvania Wisconsin Iowa Connecticut Indiana Kansas Vermont Montana Alabama Missouri Delaware Georgia Illinois Washington Arkansas Bhio Oklahoma Michigan Massachusetts NFORMATION 40.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 33.7 31.0 31.0 28.3 28.3 27.5 26.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.0 24.0 23.5 23.3 21.2 20.0 20.0 17.0 16.6 16.0 14.4 13.6 12.5 12.5 11.2 8.3 5.0 APPENDIX H STATE Colorado North Dakota Connecticut Virginia Texas Nevada New Mexico Indiana Kansas Minnesota Delaware Wisconsin Alabama ermont South Dakota Rhode Island Idaho South Carolina Iowa Montana Georgia Washington California Ohio Pennsylvania Arkansas Illinois Missouri Oklahoma Massachusetts Michigan ADVICE STATE 24.0 Colorado 131.7 Texas 31.5 Virginia 23.7 Rhode Island 23.6 Iowa 22.5 Indiana 21.6 Alabama 19.2 Kansas 18.3 South Carolina 18.0 Nevada 16.6 Idaho 16.2 Vermont 16.2 South Dakota 15.0 North Dakota 15.0 Georgia 13.9 Delaware 13.2 New Mexico 13.0 Washington 12.0 Connecticut 11.2 Minnesota 11.0 Oklahoma 10.6 Arkansas 10.0 Wisconsin 8.3 California 705 IllinOiB 7.5 Massachusetts 6.6 Ohio 6.0 Missouri 5.5 Montana 1.4 Michigan 1.3 Pennsylvania 98 INFLUENCE 33.0 28.7 26.2 26.2 26.0 24.2 24.0 23.3 23.0 22.5 21.7 20.0 20.0 20.0 17.0 16.6 16.6 Ouwbbbboxoooo O\.oO\OH‘.u#\N\I\I APPENDIX I .QUESTICN NO. EEXEE SELDCM OCCA919TAILY OFTEN VLFY OFT?N 1 98 35 37 8 O 2 64 34 47 25 6 3 81 47 34 11 5 4 96 34 33 13 1 5 85 47 26 15 l 6 148 22 9 O 1 7 129 30 17 3 0 8 102 34 35 3 3 9 120 33 18 6 O 10 79 40 39 21 2 11 94 37 32 10 3 12 104 22 26 19 4 13 113 30 23 1o__ 0 14 125 25 23 6‘ 2 15 145 17 15 3 0 Total 1,583 487 414 153 28 % of Total Response 59.4% 18.4% 15.5% 5.7% 1% 99 ,100 APPENDIX J MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The writer, with the cooperation of the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University, is conducting a study to deter- mine the extent of the Lieutenant Governor's participation in the legislative process. Your office, like that of its national counterpart, the Vice- Presidency, is drawing increased attention from political scientists. But actually, there is very little existing data concerned with your office; and, to my knowledge, this study is the first of its kind. Questionnaires will be sent to party leaders in both houses to determine the extent of your legislative participation. But to make this data meaningful, we need your cooperation to supply a few biographical facts. Conscious of the many demands upon your time, it would be very much appreciated if you could take the four minutes it requires to fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it at your earliest convenience. The results of this study will be written up as statistics and no individual names or responses will be quoted. If, upon its completion you desire to learn the results of the study, please check the box below. Respectfully, Jerry Coomes, 10029A Birch Road Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan. API‘EI‘IDIX K POLITICAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONAIRE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR How long have you been a member of your political party? Please list positions held in your party organization. ...—~— II e that 18 the extent of your public office experience? Please 1ndlgate in third column whether the osition was an elected (E), aPPOlnted (A), or a Civil Service (CS? one. ' 1 Egéitien Time TZQQ , 2. 3. _ A. .~__.___ .~______ rty do you receive the most From which element of your pa elements which gave most support? Answer by listing those support down to the least. Labor G. Lg. Commercial A. Urban 0. Suburban E. H. Sm. Business B. Rural D. Religinus F. Agricultural 0 your position tion was due mainly t tside of politics? Would you say your nomina tion or actions on in the party or to your posi ..-—......— Did the present Governor support your nomination? yes___ no ___ D0 you represent the minariix or aaieriti group of your party? Remarks? “...-mp...— enant Governor in t functions of the Lieut and presiding officer r the Governor List some importan addition to substituting f0 0f the Senate. 1. ___~____”_- 2. 3. Are you figrgailx or informally included in the Governor's Advisory Council? Circle. Eaaiiian Eunaiien aek of this page, which would t Governor's influence, or lack Please list other reaSons on b further describe the Lieutenan of it, in the legislature. 'eanszSIfiet an: at ‘4; JO asst JO ‘eouentgur s,;ouaenog queueqnetq oqq eqtaosep aeqqan; ptnon qorqn ‘efied srqq JO 11qu no suoseea .19qu 49151; 999914 '01; actress: HUTIIEUE 'oteato gnounoo Aaostnpv s .JOUJSAOD eqq u; pepntou‘; W .10 W no.4: say '6 e C '4 12 EI_C' S_ _9 E13: __J_9._ AFFECTIX K 102 BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONAIRE 0F EEUTENANT GOVERNOR 1 e A g e 2. Occupation 3. Formal Education: Grade School only Completed High School ___ Some College Completed College Graduated, or Professional Degree 4‘ Legal residence Size of residence HOW many years lived there ________r_____g_w_w_ 5. Predominant economic make-up of home community. 6 agricultural mm“ industrial commercial ' For what reasons would your residence be an asset or liability in an election? 1. 2. 3. 7' Organization affiliations: List various organizations you be— long to in each category and indicate those in which you are an Officer. .Qraaniaatinn Elisa Fraternal “an.mm~unflm _” Veterans k” ::: m_” __ Business a“- ___ Farm 4 ~_ PrOfessional W‘f:: _~_mm- Religious ”WM .mflfl a» _.. __ __w__.1_nuw___nw_~_m__ Social .11“ 11111.“- __w"_«w‘“-fln "flim_il__n.n____.__~——— La b o r .-...r~;. ... ~—'|‘”vI--up—‘ «.... mmu-mwmm u—u—vm- ...-