Community discussions

Home Rule is Undemocratic

by Henry S Kramer

February 19, 2012

“Home Rule.” Sound good and close to the people? But, local
governments, the beneficiaries of “home rule,” do not conform to basic
American constitutional principles.

At all levels of a representative republic, representatives are elected,
represent an appropriate majority, and are equally “legitimate.” But majorities
vary at different levels and a local majority may be a state minority. Local
majorities often seek “home rule” simply because they cannot prevail otherwise.

Local governments lack the separation of powers and checks and
balances that our founders wrote into our constitution to prevent abuse of
power. Local governments enjoy both executive and legislative power. Once
a local activist majority forms, there is no separation of powers to check and
balance it, no diffusion of power from a two house legislature or executive veto.
Certainly not the minority protection provided by U.S. Senate rules, including the
super majority to limit debate.

Without checks and balances, activists who capture local governments,
can create a tyrannical power, including claiming a right to override state and
federal law. Faced with activist local governments that exceeds their powers,
our only recourses are litigation or relocation. Neither pulling up roots nor justice
comes free. Without the resources to litigate, rights end up trampled with
impunity.

Activist local governments often lack expertise regarding subject matter
on which they legislate. Ignorance in complex and highly technical areas is no
sound basis for legislation. Traditionally, local governments concerned
themselves with purely local concerns and accepted their role as sub-divisions
of state government, entirely subject to state supervision. Reasonable zoning
was acceptable but local action on state, national, and international matters,
and rejection of state preemption, was not acceptable.

Imagine trying to control the nation’s air traffic or airwaves at local level.
The U.S. constitutes a single national market. Although states are sometimes
granted concurrent jurisdiction to act on their concerns, the Supreme Court has
protected national markets from local regulation. “Home rule” simply does not
work in economic matters.Local interests are, by definition, local. We elect state and federal officials
to deal with matters whose scope exceeds traditional local issues such as roads
and local public safety.

Today, local “progressives,” shun progress and try to “preserve and
protect” against growth and change. Local governments with “home rule,”
can be very undemocratic, allowing a group possessing a mere local majority
to impose extreme values, rendering minorities powerless as they are stripped of
rights and freedoms.

Americans are mobile and our country is wide and varied. As Americans,
we must remember to keep a national perspective. Local “home rule” can
undercut state, national, and international policies. Should local governments
be able to use “home rule” to undermine goals important to the country as a
whole? That way leads to patchwork quilt regulation and chaos.

Lord Acton wrote, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.” Local governments that ignore self restraint on the limits of power
are corrupt, undemocratic, and outside U.S. constitutional principles.

Henry S. Kramer
Town of Dryden