Dillon's Rule Research Articles

Regulatory Harmonization and Collaborative Governance: Exploring the Shared Micromobility Policy Practices for Post-pandemic Deployment

Local governments across the United States took vastly different approaches to the regulation of dockless e-scooter sharing, resulting in a patchwork of regulatory policies. While recent literature suggested, there is evidence of convergence amongst cities with similar characteristics, the extent of harmonized jurisdictional e-scooter policies had not yet been investigated. With the future of public and shared transportation already tenuous due to COVID-19, this paper investigates the different rules and regulations threatening the resurgence of fleet operations in neighboring jurisdictions. The research team first explored precedent and mechanisms for transportation harmonization at different levels of government, and second, studied the degree of harmonization of neighboring jurisdictions. The paper uses a comparative multi-case study approach of six neighbor pairs to uncover patterns of harmonization between neighboring jurisdictions. Findings indicate a convergence of harmonization between equal-sized cities appears more frequently than disparate cities, supporting previous research. Also, pairs in states which follow Dillon's Rule show alignment in the device, safety, insurance, and right-of-way policies, whereas home rule neighbors more frequently diverge from each other. These findings highlight the need to understand regional policy harmonization better. Submitted for presentation at the 100th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board and for publication at the Transportation Research Record journal

The Legal Status of Election Officials in the State of Montana

Introduction: the election law of the US states to date remains insufficiently studied not only in Russia but also abroad. This is due to the fact that the legal regulation of the electoral process in America is attributed to the powers of the states or municipalities, depending on the legal doctrine applied by the state – Cooley Doctrine or Dillon Rule, which objectively imposes a limit on its study and generalization. The purpose of the study is to acquaint a wide range of scientific community with the latest research in the field of the US election law in regard to the first in the domestic law full description of the organizers of elections and referendums at the state and municipal levels in the United States. The author reviews a wide range of regional and local legislation with references to the constitutional, legal and regulatory acts of the US States. The paper is part of a series that explores all fifty subjects of the American Federation and the District of Columbia. Procedure and methods of research: the author analyzes the constitutional and electoral legislation of the United States at the level of Montana at the beginning of 2019. The methodology of the study was the comparative law, formal-legal, formal-dogmatic, specific-sociological, empirical, dialectical, analytical methods, the systematic approach. Results: the information about the organizers of elections and referendums in Montana, which was not previously covered in the Russian scientific literature, is introduced into scientific circulation. The interpretations of certain provisions of the law and legal consciousness of the U.S election law and law enforcement practice are given. The gaps of the legislation requiring additional research are surfaced. The theoretical and practical significance lies in the generalization of both the established and the latest legal sources (constitutions, organic laws, federal laws, charters, by-laws and regulations) of the United States and the subject of the American Federation and the development of proposals for the enrichment of the Russian science and the formation of objective understanding of the processes taking place in the United States in the field of constitutional, electoral law and the state-building. Conclusions: for a systematic and comparative legal analysis the author proposed the review of the legislation on the organizers of elections and referendums of Montana, revealing the existing contradictions, from the point of view of the Russian researcher, which allows considering the full range of elements of the electoral legislation of Montana from a new angle, seeing new legal structures, previously unknown to the domestic statesmen and law enforcers.

Fragmentation, Fiscal Federalism, and the Ghost of Dillon's Rule: Municipal Incorporation in Southern California, 1950-2010

THE CALIFORNIA Journal of Politics & Policy Volume 3, Issue 1 Fragmentation, Fiscal Federalism, and the Ghost of Dillon’s Rule: Municipal Incorporation in Southern California, 1950–2010 Tom Hogen-Esch Cal State Northridge Abstract This article seeks to better understand patterns of municipal incorporation in south- ern California between 1950 and 2010. Existing literature explains municipal frag- mentation as a debate about efficiency versus social justice or the result of local conflicts over land use and race. This article explores the dynamics of local-state relations relevant to municipal incorporation in California. The state’s role in creat- ing southern California as a ‘fragmented metropolis’ from 1953–1992 is contrasted with an era of fiscal federalism from 1992–2010, when far fewer cities were cre- ated. Recent case studies of incorporation attempts in San Fernando Valley and East Los Angeles are examined. It is argued that state policies—especially in the area of municipal finance—have been critical in shaping patterns of municipal incorpora- tion in southern California. Keywords: urban fragmentation, fiscal federalism, Dillon’s Rule, home rule, south- ern California, municipal incorporation www.bepress.com/cjpp

The public and its possibilities: triumphs and tragedies in the American city

The public and its possibilities: triumphs and tragedies in the American city

Fragmentation, Fiscal Federalism, and the Ghost of Dillon's Rule: Municipal Incorporation in Southern California, 1950-2010

Fragmentation, Fiscal Federalism, and the Ghost of Dillon's Rule: Municipal Incorporation in Southern California, 1950-2010

Intergovernmental Relations in State Constitutional Law: A Historical Overview

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the relationship between local governments and their states could have been conceptualized in terms of four competing models of legitimacy: (1) custom and practice, (2) community autonomy, (3) corporate status, and (4) subordination to the sovereign. The implications for local autonomy and state-local relations of accepting each of these models is discussed in this article. Historically, the triumph of the theory of state hegemony over local government was reflected in judicial adoption of Dillon's Rule, the doctrine of implied preemption, and the idea that local governments have no rights under a state constitution. Recent state-court cases recognizing the capacity of local governments to assert procedural, dignitary, and substantive claims against the state, however, may signal the demise of the theory that local governments are merely creatures of their states and may herald a reconceptualization of the meaning of local autonomy.

Dillon's Rule under the Burger Court: The Municipal Liability Cases

Dillon's Rule under the Burger Court: The Municipal Liability Cases

Dillon's Rule Under the Burger Court: The Municipal Liability Cases

Under the Burger Court, the constitutional relationship between states and their municipalities has been examined primarily in cases involving private suits initiated against municipalities under federal antitrust and civil rights statutes. Since the Court's 1943 Parker v. Brown decision, it had been presumed that municipalities as political subdivisions of states were as immune as their states from tort liability under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Burger Court, however, ruled that municipalities are not automatically immunized from tort liability simply because of their status as political subdivisions unless they can demonstrate that their actions were undertaken pursuant to an expressed state policy. After 1980, the Court continued to uphold the vulnerability of municipalities to private suits authorized by federal statutes, but moved to narrow the types of remedy appropriate under common law. The Burger Court did not, therefore, address the more fundamental question of whether municipalities as public actors should be liable to private damages in the course of their public functions.

The Burger Court's View of the Relationship Between the States and Their Municipalities

This article examines selected Burger Court cases concerning municipal antitrust immunity in order to determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court has a theoretical perspective on the relationship between the states and their municipalities. After delineating the constitutional position of municipalities through an examination of key Court cases and Dillon's rule, the study explores the derivative status of state-action immunity to municipalities in antitrust suits. In two significant cases, including one involving a home rule city, the Burger Court has refused to grant municipalities the state-action exemption granted states under the Sherman Act. But, in reinforcing the unitary relationship between the states and their municipalities, the Court has not addressed Dillon's rule or the ambiguities inherent in denying municipalities the residual powers of local self-government.

Dillon's rule in the 1980s: Who's in charge of local affairs?

Dillon's rule in the 1980s: Who's in charge of local affairs?

Dillon's Rule and the Cooley Doctrine

Dillon's Rule and the Cooley Doctrine

Dillon's Rule: The Case for Reform

Dillon's Rule: The Case for Reform

Elite Choices and Constitutional Guarantees of Local Autonomy in the Third World: The Case of the Philippines, 1971–1973

AbstractThe second generation of constitutional elites who adopted the fundamental law of the Philippine Republic had hoped that through legislative discretion local governments would develop into strong and effective agents of the national government. This hope was dashed by the unwillingness of the legislative branch to make the local units less dependent on the central government and the meticulous way in which the President of the nation tried to control local officials instead of merely supervising them as the constitution provided. Against this background, the third generation of constitutional elites in the seventies felt that the constitutional compromise in the thirties between the historical view of localism and the legal theory of centralism in the form os presidential supervision over local governments was counter-productive. Accordingly, they considered a number of choices by which local autonomy could be clothed with constitutional protection. And so they wrote in the new Philippine constitution a mandate to the legislative branch to institutionalize the concept of local autonomy not only in form but in substance as well. They also modified Dillon's Rule, which used to govern national—local relations, by subjecting the legislative power to create or abolish local units to popular approval by placing a shotgun behind the door—the referendum. Elite decision to opt for this type of mandatory autonomy was not in response to mass demands, since the masses were uninformed about the local autonomy issue. Rather, it was due to elite perception of what they considered to be the public good which motivated them to take this bold and forward step towards local political development during the nation's crucial period of its existence.

The State Legislator and Intergovernmental Relations: The Job of Local Governance

Local officials and students of city government have long complained of the dependence of municipalities upon state legislators for local policy. Municipalities continue to be creatures of the state despite the fact that the Dillon rule is no longer uniformly applied in favor of state prerogatives over those of local government' and despite the inclusion of home rule clauses in the constitutions of a majority of the states.2 Students of intergovernmental relations have given little attention to this fact of life for local officials. Their primary emphasis has been the administration of federal programs. Elected officials and the relationships between state and local planes have been all but ignored.

State-local relations: The state mandate irritant

The so-called Dillon's Rule is the source of conflicts in state-local relations in New York and other states. From the point of view of local officials one of the chief irritants of the control system is the “state mandate” which in many cases may more properly be called a “state restraint.” It may be statutory, constitutional or administrative. Not all mandates mean additional costs.

Dillon's Rule Reconsidered

Dillon's Rule has been a guiding doctrine in the constitutional relations between state and local government for more than a century. Simply stated, it declares that local jurisdictions are the creatures of the state and may exercise only those powers expressly granted them by the state. His torically, this doctrine represented a response to the revolu tionary changes of the latter half of the nineteenth century and was part of the struggle to control and reconcile the often con flicting demands of the old and the new. Though not always at a steady pace, state centralization mounted during this period. Eventually a countermovement emerged, identified with the proponents of home rule. The latter, however, had only a minor impact in arresting the erosion of local autonomy. In the face of the overwhelming political, economic and social forces of the twentieth century fostering centralization, the constitutional controversy originating with Dillon's Rule became less relevant as a determinant of state-local relations. The kind of centralization that eventually emerged was one in which power was concentrated in functionally-defined bureaucracies which essentially transcended geographically- defined levels of government. The recognition of this de velopment fostered new home rule movements aimed at weakening the grip of professional bureaucracies and return ing greater discretionary authority to the political officials at the local level. Such programs as the war on poverty, model cities and revenue sharing represent the attempts to diminish the influence of bureaucracies on local policy.