How would America appear if there were no state governments? Stephen Legomsky, the John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, Washington University in St. Louis, explores this inquiry in his latest publication, “Reimagining the American Union: The Case for Abolishing State Government,” released by Cambridge University Press.
Framed as a thought experiment, this book promotes the elimination of state government within the United States. Its core assertion is that state government has been the predominant source of the numerous contemporary threats to American democracy.
In this discussion, Legomsky elaborates on several concepts presented in his book.
The notion of abolishing state governments might be shocking to many Americans. How did this thought experiment originate?
Similar to many other citizens, I often complain and lament the relentless attacks on our democracy. One day in 2023, I found myself creating an extensive mental inventory of my grievances. This list comprised the Electoral College, the allocation of two U.S. senators to both large and small states, the methods for appointing federal judges, the constitutional amendment process, gerrymandering, increasingly brutal voter suppression legislation, and much more.
All these elements appeared to me as fundamentally opposed to any valid definition of democracy. It dawned on me that none of these issues could exist without the states — with a few essential modifications that I suggest. This led me to contemplate whether we truly require three tiers of government — national, state, and local — or if we would fare better with just two — national and local.
What would be achieved by abolishing state governments?
Currently, your influence in national elections is contingent upon your location within the U.S. A select few voters in swing states hold the power to determine the presidency. In the Senate, a resident of Wyoming enjoys approximately 69 times more per capita representation compared to a resident of California. Moreover, a small number of states can obstruct a constitutional amendment that has received ratification from states representing the vast majority of the population — as was the case with the Equal Rights Amendment. I contend in the book that by removing the states, these issues would largely vanish.
Additionally, it’s not solely about democracy. I aim to illustrate that having three levels of government, all taxing and regulating us, funding 50 state legislatures and 50 state bureaucracies, while subjecting everyone to a bewildering array of 50 different laws, is an unnecessary use of taxpayer resources and a senseless burden on citizens. In my opinion, it would be more advantageous to delegate certain state responsibilities to the national government while assigning the rest to local authorities, which tend to be more accessible and in tune with the communities they serve.
Why are states considered the greatest danger to democracy rather than the federal government?
That’s a valid question. My book was penned in 2023 and revised up until October 2024, but it was published in January of this year. Given the outcome of the 2024 elections, I must acknowledge that my timing has been unfortunate. At present, the federal government presents a significantly greater threat to our democracy, prompting many to justifiably look at states — or more precisely, certain states — for a partial remedy.
However, I would like to make two observations. Without the counter-majoritarian distortions created by the states in our federal election framework, the chances of a radical authoritarian political party achieving a national trifecta — meaning dominion over the White House and both Congressional houses — would be substantially reduced from the outset. I would prefer to avert the problem altogether rather than merely addressing a few specific excesses in retrospect. Secondly, under the system I propose, the tens of thousands of local governments would be at least as well positioned to resist central government overreach as a handful of states have been historically.
It seems unlikely that we are on a trajectory toward the abolition of states. How might your book be beneficial to our society as it currently stands?
I cannot argue against that; states are not disappearing anytime soon. Their immediate existence is assured. However, history shows us that the more distant future can be filled with unexpected developments. Today’s notions often evolve into tomorrow’s realities. These new realities, however, rarely emerge spontaneously. Gradual shifts in public perception typically precede more significant transformations. Thus, I am taking a long-term perspective, planting a seed to prepare for a shift in public sentiment regarding state governments.
Moreover, I aim to counteract the rhetorical weight of “states’ rights” as a political phrase. All too frequently, these words have served merely as a euphemism for the denial of individual rights — a distortion of the core democratic tenet that states exist to serve the populace, not the opposite. The Civil War stands as the most notable example, among many others. I also aspire to promote a heightened skepticism about the value of state government, encouraging more rigorous public examination of state legislators and governors’ actions.
As an academic, I would like to expand the existing discourse surrounding the threats to our democracy by highlighting state government as the primary source of most of these risks. Furthermore, I want to broaden the debates on federalism by positing that it’s not solely about readjusting current boundaries between federal and state authority. This is the first book advocating for the complete eradication of state government as the most effective solution.
The post The United States of no states? appeared first on The Source.