Several decades ago, the title of this article more likely would have read "United States of Divided Governments." But today the number of states with divided government at the state level has steadily decreased over time, while the number of states with single-party control and supermajorities is on the rise. The impacts are playing out in several legislative sessions right now, but the influence will likely be more restrained than expected.
As a result of the 2012 elections, in 35 states, control of the state legislature and governorship is held by one party. It bears repeating that this election was not status quo. The number is technically 37 if you include Washington and New York (D's have majorities in both chambers and control the governors' mansions, but their state Senates are officially run by R and D coalitions). If you look at the number of states that have sole party control of just the legislature, the number bumps up to 43.
There are only three states that have truly divided party control between both chambers: Iowa, New Hampshire and Kentucky. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the last time there were so few divided chambers was 69 years ago in 1944. The other exceptions not included in the 43 states with single party control are New York and Washington which were mentioned above, Nebraska which has a unicameral legislature and Virginia whose state Senate is tied, but their Republican Lt. Governor has the tie-breaking vote.
Additionally, only 12 states have divided government between the legislature and the governor: Iowa, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. NCSL reports the last time there were so few states divided among governor's mansions and state legislative bodies was 1952.
Also on the rise, is the number of states that hold legislative supermajorities and/or have veto-proof majorities. Seven states gained supermajorities as a result of the 2012 elections: CA, GA, IL, MO, NC, OH and OK, bringing the total number of states that have veto-proof majorities to 25, up four from 21 in 2012. Not every state requires a supermajority to be veto-proof. NCSL lists seven states as having simple majority vote requirements needed to overturn a gubernatorial veto: Arkansas, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia. Georgia and Vermont are included in the 25 states, but require an Independent to vote with the party in control. Regardless, the fact remains that half of all state legislatures have the power to override vetoes issued by their state's governors. Of those, 16 are controlled by Republicans, 9 by Democrats.
The question remains what does this mean for governing in 2013? The high number of states with single party dominance would seemingly indicate more partisan politics and a year of state legislative sessions in which one party openly runs the table with their agenda. But by looking at the realities in the two states below, both at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of party control, you'll see that outcomes will be much more nuanced.
Single Party Control: California
The Democratic Party of California has achieved ultimate supremacy at the level of state government. Jerry Brown (D) controls the governor's mansion and Democrats recently gained supermajorities in both the state Assembly and state Senate. Immediately following the 2012 election outcomes, spectators were expecting an aggressive, liberal policy agenda to be hammered through the legislature immediately when session convened. However, vacancies in the upper chamber will impact the supermajority in the lower chamber. Former state Senators Juan Vargas and Gloria Negrete-McLeod, members of the freshman class of 113th Congress, were able to hold their senate seats until officially being sworn into Congress Jan. 3. As a result, their seats have become vacant, meaning members of the lower chamber will likely run to replace them, thereby creating vacancies in the Assembly. These vacancies are enough for Democrats to lose the supermajority in the Assembly. Additionally, one or two lawmakers could leave in the spring for seats on city councils. The constant political shifting and sensitive timing makes the supermajorities very soft and creates difficulty for any hardline policy making by one party. And ultimately, liberal lawmakers would have to face off with Governor Jerry Brown who has maintained a centrist-Democratic approach to governing.
Divided Party Control: Iowa
Iowa Democrats have a narrow two seat majority in the state Senate, while Republicans hold the House by only six seats. Terry Branstad (R) is the current Governor and is possibly running for reelection in 2014 (this would be his sixth four-year term). Iowa's state government is the perfect example of divided government. There are very narrow majorities in both chambers which are controlled by different parties, and they are governed by a Republican governor in a state that President Barack Obama won by 5.6 percent in 2012 and 9 percent in 2008. Historically Iowans have preferred divided government. In only six of the past 30 years has one party controlled both the legislature and governor's office at the same time. Both Gov. Branstad and state lawmakers will have to work together and strike deals to determine the most effective use of the state's budget surplus and implement needed reforms. Split control at the state level promises to be contentious and heated, but the extra government cash Iowa is sitting on is a nice contrast to the U.S. deficit hanging over federal lawmakers' heads.
Although the decline of divided state government raises concerns that states will be shifting bluer and redder at the local level as well as at the federal level, the nuances at the state level show that outcomes will be more modest than expected when it comes to policy making.