When Cities Clash With States: Ideological Distance Predicts More Preemption

A growing number of municipal officials across the United States report that state legislatures are curbing local policymaking through preemption. Measuring how widespread this problem is proves difficult using official records alone, so direct reports from local officials were used to assess the scope and drivers of preemption.

🔍 National Survey of Municipal Officials

A large, nation-wide survey of municipal officials was conducted to capture whether local governments experienced state preemption. The survey asked officials whether their municipality had been preempted by the state government, allowing comparison across diverse jurisdictions and political contexts.

🔑 Major Findings

• Municipalities that are more ideologically distant from their state are more likely to report being preempted by the state government.
• This relationship is driven primarily by more liberal municipalities: liberal localities report higher rates of preemption in both Republican-led and Democratic-led states.
• Municipalities located in states with unified government control report higher rates of preemption overall, with the strongest effect occurring under unified Republican control.
• These patterns indicate that reported preemption is not solely a Republican-state vs. liberal-city phenomenon; ideological incongruence between city and state matters across party contexts.

⚖️ Why It Matters

These findings have important implications for representation and federalism. When ideological distance between localities and their states corresponds with increased state intervention, the ability of municipal governments to enact policies reflecting local preferences may be diminished—raising questions about the quality of representation within the federal system.