Political-Mi litary Affairs The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs provides guidance and coordinates policy formulation on national security issues, including nonproliferation of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and missile tech- nology, nuclear and conventional arms control, defense relations and security assistance, and export controls. It acts as the department’s primary liaison with the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. The bureau also participates in all major arms control, nonproliferation, and other security- related negotiations. The bureau’s major activities are designed to further U.S. national security objectives by stabilizing regional military balances through negotiations and security assistance, negotiating reductions in global inventories of weapons of mass destruction and curbing their prolifera- tion, maintaining global access for U.S. military forces, inhibiting adversaries’ access to militarily significant technologies, and promoting respon- sible U.S. defense trade. Protocol The Chief of Protocol is the principal adviser to the U.S. government, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state on matters of diplomatic procedure governed by law or international custom and practice. The office is responsible for visits of foreign chiefs of state, heads of government, and other high officials to the United States; operation of the president’s guest house, Blair House; and conduct of official ceremonial functions and public events. It is charged with the accreditation of more than 103,000 embassy, consular, international organi- zation, and other foreign government personnel and members of their families throughout the United States. In addition, the office determines entitlement to diplomatic or consular IMMUNITY. Office of International Information Programs In 1999 Congress dissolved the U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY and transferred its functions to the Office of International Information Programs. This office designs for and distributes Internet and print publications to media, government officials, and the general public in 140 countries. It em- phasizes the electronic distribution of informa- tion through various Web sites and CD-ROMs. Foreign Service Foreign relations are conducted principally by the U.S. Foreign Service. In 2009, 11,000 representatives at 175 foreign missions through- out the world reported to the Department of State on foreign developments that had a bearing on the welfare and security of the United States. These trained representatives provided the presi- dent and the secretary of state with much of the raw material from which foreign policy is made and with the recommendations that help shape it. Ambassadors are the personal representa- tives of the president and report to the president through the secretary of state. Ambassadors have full responsibility for implementation of U.S. foreign policy by any and all U.S. govern- ment personnel within their country of assign- ment, except those under military commands. Their responsibilities include negotiating agree- ments between the United States and the host country, explaining and disseminating official U.S. policy, and maintaining cordial relations with that country’s government and people. FURTHER READINGS Plischke, Elmer. 1999. U.S. Department of State: A Reference History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. State Department. Available online at http://www.state.gov (accessed June 13, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed June 13, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Ambassadors and Consuls; Arms Control and Disarma- ment; International Law; Treaty. STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Every state has a department or division that administers laws related to motor vehicles. Each of these departments or divisions handles registration of motor vehicles, and many hand le a number of other services, such as licensing of drivers and collection of fees and taxes. Each state in the United States along with the District of Columbia has a department or division that is responsible for administering laws related to motor vehicles. In every state, this agency is responsible for registration of motor vehicle titles and maintaining motor vehicle registrations. Other specific duties vary from state to state. A state ’s motor vehicle department plays an important role not only from the perspective of regulating motor vehicles but also from the perspective of revenue production. States collect hundreds of millions of dollars and sometimes more each year in various fees and taxes, repre- senting a significant portion of each state’sannual GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 348 STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES revenue. A smaller state such as Delaware moni- tors and processes more than 850,000 registered vehicles and collects about $256 million annually. By contrast, a larger state such as Texas oversees registration of more than 21 million vehicles, and the state generates more than $4 billion annually through its motor vehicle business. Organization The names of motor vehicle departments vary widely from state to state. In some states, such as California, New York, and Texas, the entity is a distinct department with the title of depart- ment of motor vehicles. In a number of other states, agencies are divisions of larger depart- ments and have such titles as division of motor vehicles, motorist services, driver and vehicle services, or bureau of motor vehicles. The various state departments that oversee motor vehicles likewise vary from state to state. These various departments include, for instance, a department of revenue (Alabama); depart- ment of administration (Alaska); department of finance and administration (Arkansas); DEPART- MENT OF STATE (several); and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (several). In a number of states, different depart- ments and divisions handle various services. For example, the Oklahoma Driver’s License Ser- vices of the Department of Public Services handles licensing of drivers, while the state’s Motor Vehicle Division of the Oklahoma Tax Commission handles registration of vehicles. Likewise, in South Dakota, the state’s Driver Licensing Program of the South Dakota Department of Public Safety handles issuance of driver licenses, whereas the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles in the South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation handles licensing and registration of vehicles . In the first decade of the 2000s, a few states substantially reorganized their motor vehicle de- partments. These reorganizations reflect needs in those states to streamline operations to reduce costs, along with other concerns. In 2009 Mas- sachusetts approved a statute designed to mod- ernize its transportation system by integrating several services into the new Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Under this new system of organization, the state’sRegistryof Motor Vehicles became one division of the department, along with Highway, Mass Transit, and Aeronautics. The State of Texas in 2009 likewise made a substantial change by creating its new Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and moving several divisions from the state’sDepart- ment of Transportation into the new DMV. Functions of Motor Vehicle Departments Motor Vehicle Titles and Registration Every state has an agency designated to handle issuance of vehicle titles and registration. In most instances, county offices, such as tax offices, handle these registrations. The local offices also handle issuance of license plates, tags, and similar requirements. Enforcement of Mandatory Liability Insur- ance In many states, the motor vehicles depart- ment coordinates efforts with the state’spublic safety department to ensure that applicants for motor vehicles licenses have obtained manda- tory liability insurance. The methods used to verify insurance varies from state to state. In Alabama, for example, t he state’s Department of Revenue conducts a random survey of vehicle owners to determine whet her these own ers are maintaining liability insurance. Driver Licenses In some states, services related to licensing of drivers are handled by the state’s motor vehicle department. For instance, in Delaware, the Driver Services Division of the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles handles education, testing, licensing, monitoring, and improvement of the state’s licensed drivers. In other states, driver licenses are handled by the state’s department of public services. The departments that handle driver licenses also typically handle issuance of identification cards. Other Licensing and Collection of Fees and Taxes In some states, the department of motor vehicles handles the licensing of dealers and manufacturers of motor vehicles. In Texas, for instance, the state agency is responsible not only for licensing of dealers and manufacturers, but also for arbitrating disputes between deal ers and manufacturers as well as for enforcing the state’s LEMON LAWS. In additional registration fees, the motor vehicle departments in some states are also responsible for overseeing collection of the state’s motor vehicle tax. This tax is collected by fuel dealers and is typically used to fund a state’s highway projects. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 349 Online Services In the 1990s and early 2000s, most state motor vehicle departments started offering more ser- vices online. In Pennsylvania, for example, Internet users can use the state’sDriverand Vehicle Services site to renew their driver’s license, photo ID, and vehicle registration. Other states have established websites to provide information for the public on a variety of topics. For instance, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles established the website Takethewheel.net to provide information for parents and teens about safe driving. FURTHER READING Findlaw.com. DMV Offices and Forms. Available online at http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/ state-dmv/ (accessed January 26, 2010). STATE INTEREST A broad term for any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy. State legislatures pass laws to address matters of PUBLIC INTEREST and concern. A law that sets speed limits on public highways expresses an interest in protecting public safety. A statute that requires high-school students to pass com- petency examinations before being allowed to graduate advances the state’s interest in having an educated citizenry. Although the state may have a legitimate interest in public safety, public health, or an array of other issues, a l aw that advances a state interest may also intrude on important consti- tutional rights. The U.S. SUPREME COURT has devised standards of review that govern how a state interest will be constitutionally evaluated. When a law affects a constitutionally pro- tected interest, the law must meet the RATIONAL BASIS TEST . This test requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. For example, a state law that prohibits a person from selling insurance without a license deprives people of their right to make contracts freely. Yet, the law will be upheld because it is a rational means of advancing the state interest in protect- ing persons from fraudulent or unscrupulous insurance agents. Most laws that are challenged on this basis are upheld, as there is usually some type of reasonable relation between the state interest and the way the law seeks to advance that interest. When a law or policy affects a fundamental constitutional right, such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, the STRICT SCRUTINY test will be applied. This test requires the state to advance a compelling state interest to justify the law or policy. Strict scrutiny places a heavy burden on the state. For example, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), the state interest in protecting unborn children was held not to be compelling enough to overcome awoman’s right to privacy. When the state interest is not sufficiently compelling, the law is struck down as unconstitutional. With the growth of the women’s movement, the Supreme Court became more sensitive to the problems of gender DISCRIMINATION and, in the process, began to change the law concerning the level of scrutiny for cases involving SEX DISCRIMINATION. Gender-based laws and regulations are subjected to a HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY under what has been called an “intermediate standard of review.” The inter- mediate standard of review falls between the rational basis test and the strict scrutiny test. Under this level of review, a state policy that distinguishes between men and women will not be upheld unless it can be shown that the distinction serves an “important state interest” and that the means chosen are substantially related to the achievement of that interest. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court has stressed that when a classification is based on gender alone, there must be an exceedingly persuasive justification by the state to sustain it. STATE LOTTERY State lottery is a game of chance operated by a state governmen t. Generally a lottery offers a person the chance to win a prize in exchange for something of lesser value. Most lotteries offer a large cash prize, and the chance to win the cash prize is typically available for one dollar. Because the number of people playing the game usually exceeds the number of dollars paid out, the lottery ensures a profit for the sponsoring state. Lotteries can come in a variety of forms, but there are three basic versions: instant lotteries, general lotteries, and lotto. Instant lotteries offer immediate prizes and consist of such games as scratch-off tickets and pull tabs. A general lottery is a drawing with a payout based on a percentage of the amount in the aggregate GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 350 STATE INTEREST wagering pot; because all numbers bet for the particular game are included in the drawing, a winner is guaranteed. Lotto is similar to a general lottery in that the winning number is chosen in a drawing. However, the winning number in a lotto game is chosen by a computer, and the computer may not pick a number or sequence of numbers that is held by a player. If no player has a number that matches the number chosen by the computer, the cash prize rolls over into the next game’s drawing. Lotto usually generates more money than other lotteries. A player must match a long sequence of numbers, and doing so raises the odds against the players, which in turn makes it more likely that the cash prize will increase. Most of the other forms of lotteries are spin-offs of these three basic forms. More than 40 states have state-run lotteries. These lotteri es are administered by state agents and agencies, such as a director of the state lottery and a state lottery board. State legislatures create lotteries and lottery agencies in statutes. These statutes specify details of the game, such as the length of time a winner has to claim a prize after the relevant drawing, the documen- tation a winner must present to claim a prize, the manner of payment of the prize, and pro- cedures in case a prize is won by a corporation or other legal entity. State statutes also specify just how the money generated by the lotteries will be used. Many states direct that the profits should go into the state’s general revenue fund, whereas other states earmark the profits for a particular endeavor, such as public school education, care of SENIOR CITIZENS , or economic development. States must be careful to observe the dictates of the statute that creates the lottery or lotteries. Other kinds of GAMING that are not strictly limited to chance are not allowed under state lottery statutes. Indeed, most states make gambling a criminal offense and provide exceptions only for Go West, Young Lottery Player L B otteries are ancient games, long predating the founding of the United States. Their popularity in Europe, and especially in England, helps explain why the first lotteries were held in the American colonies in 1612. The colonies were under the command of the British Crown, which did not permit them to levy taxes. But the British did authorize the Virginia Company of London to hold games for its benefit—at least until the scheme backfired. The lotteries drained the Crown's pockets and helped the upstart colonies, and within a decade, the colonists' own domestic lotteries had replaced them. A century later, the colonists held lotteries to raise funds for the War of Independence. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, lotteries played an important role in building the new nation. Its banking and taxation systems w ere still in their infancy, necessitating ways to raise capital quickly for public projects. Lotteries helped build everything from roads to jails, hospitals, and industries and provided needed funds for hundreds of schools and colleges. Famous American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin saw great usefulness in them: Jefferson wanted to hold a lottery to retire his debts, and Franklin to buy cannons for Philadelphi a. Lotteries expanded in th e 1800s, prompting Congress in 1812 to authorize them in the District of Columbia. By midcentury, eastern states alone raised over $66 million annually, and lotteries were starting up in the West. Despite their significance to early U.S. history, lotteries fell out of favor in the late 1800s. Corruption, moral uneasiness, and the rise of bond sales and standardized taxation proved their downfall. Only Louisiana, with a notorious lottery known as The Serpent, still held a state-run game at the end of the century. Congress put a stop to it with the Anti- Lottery Act of 1890 (Act of September 19, 1890, ch. 908, 26 Stat. 465), a federal ban on the use of the mails for conducting lotteries that effectively ended the games for the next 70 years. New Hampshire swept in the modern era of state-sponsored lotteries in 1964. In 1974 Congress relaxed regulations for the benefit of the growing number of states holding the games (Pub. L. No. 93- 583, 88 Stat. 1916 [1975];H.R.Rep.No.1517,93d Cong., 2d Sess. [1974]). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE LOTTERY 351 state lotteries and gaming by Native American tribes. A state may not, for example, sponsor a game that involves wagering against a house, such as a dice game, blackjack, or shell games. In Western Telcon, Inc. v. California State Lottery (13 Cal. 4th 475, 917 P.2d 651, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 812 [1996]), the Supreme Court of California ruled that a keno game offered by the California State Lottery (CSL) was not authorized under Proposition 37, the 1984 initiative measure that created the state lottery. In keno, players try to match between 1 and 10 numbers to a set of 20 numbers that are selected at random. Players pay a nominal fee for the opportunity to receive a large payoff. Keno, according to the court, did not meet the statutory definition of lottery because it was a game that persons played against the CSL, which, as banker, bet against each participant that the participant would not cor- rectly guess the numbers to be drawn. This kind of game did not offer a prize by chance. Instead, the CSL could win all the bets and never have to pay a prize, or it could lose all the bets and pay a prize to each participant. This kind of gaming was too similar to a banking game, and the court noted that “the voters, in Proposition 37, did not establish a state gambling house, but a state lottery.” State lotteries often are planned to augment or even supplant other sources of state revenues, such as taxes. Whether they can actually achieve this objective depends on the lotteries’ ability to attract players. States Gamble on Gambling A s the ultimate high-odds game, a lottery produces very few winners. Since the rush to legalize government lotteries began in the 1970s, states have capitalized tremendously on the game’s drastic odds. As of 2009, 43 states and the District of Columbia permit lotteries, with annual revenue of almost $53 billion. Supporters tout the game as an easy revenue-raiser and a painless alter- native to higher taxes. Opponents attack it as dishonest, unseemly, and undepend- able. They argue that the social and administrative costs do not actually skirt taxation but instead put the state in the role of con artist. It is also criticized as a REGRESSIVE TAX on the poor. The case for lotteries is largely about funding state government. Lotteries are frequently publicized as an alternative to raising taxes. Seldom is there much enthusiasm for cutting back on cherished state programs and services, even as federal subsidies to states shrink. Better, say lottery supporters, to offer citizens a choice: play or pay. Unlike paying man- datory income, property, or sales tax, buying lottery tickets is a personal deci- sion. Funding government by lottery is quite different from funding it by taxa- tion: Under taxation, states can depend on a set amount of revenue each year from a captive base of taxpayers; under a lottery, revenue projections assume that enough tickets will be sold so that those who choose not to play are free to do so. Besides casting lotteries as an alter- native to taxes, supporters put forth other arguments in favor of lotteries, from the public’s love to gamble to the desire to siphon money away from illegal gambling to simply keeping up with other states that draw residents and dollars across state boundaries. The public demand for gambling is so great, say supporters, that states that do not offer lotteries lose potential revenues to neighboring states that do. When New Hampshire instituted its state lottery in 1964, it was the only legal lottery in the country. It sold more tickets outside the state than in New Hampshire. The pattern has been re- peated ever since. States without lotteries see gambling money disappear into neighboring states, which fund their programs with it, necessitating a local lottery as a defensive mechanism. Critics of lotteries attack the notion of lotteries substituting for taxation. Operating the games can require rela- tively high administrative overhead. In the early 1990s, the national average was 6 percent of revenues, and the highest rate was 29 percent in Montana. Costs result chiefly from the need to advertise constantly. Fickle players can always stray into competing states for tickets, satisfy gambling urges at casinos, or lose inter- est. For this reason, lottery revenues are far less dependable than tax revenues, and states can easily find themselves spending more and earning less than projected. Such a case was illustrated with the U.S. economic downturn in 2008, which led to a decline of 2 percent in lottery ticket sales nationwide. Some states have learned this lesson the hard way. Maryland, for example, faced a budget crisis in the early 1990s after heavily promoting a lottery game called El Gordo, anticipating $8 million to $10 million in revenues. When players failed to buy enough tickets, the state’s profit after expenses was only $73,626. California experienced another kind of problem in fiscal year 1991–1992, as GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 352 STATE LOTTERY FURTHER READINGS Crigler, John, John Wells King, and Amelia L. Brown. 1994. “Why Sparky Can’t Bark—A Study of the Ban on Broadcast Advertisement for Lotteries.” CommLaw Conspectus 2. Dolan, Patrick D. 1998. “Lender’s Guide to the Securitization of State Lottery Winnings and Litigation Settlement Payments.” Banking Law Journal 115 (July-August). Eberle, Todd. 1994. “Education: California State Lottery— Revenue Allocations.” Pacific Law Journal 26 (January). Erekson, O. Homer, et al. 2002. “Fungibility of Lottery Revenues and Support of Public Education.” Journal of Education Finance 28 (fall): 301–11. Griffin, Linda S., and Richard V. Harrison. 1996. “Florida State Lottery Tax and Estate Planning Issues.” Florida Bar Journal 70 (January). Nibert, David. 2000. Hitting the Lottery Jackpot: State Govern- ments and the Taxing of Dreams. New York: Monthly Review Press. Rychlack, Ronald J. 1992. “Lotteries, Revenues, and Social Costs: A Historical Examination of State-Sponsored Gambling.” Boston College Law Review 34. Wyett, Todd A. 1991. “State Lotteries: Regressive Taxes in Disguise.” Tax Lawyer 44 (spring). STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS A document that must be filed in BANKRUPTCY, which sets forth answers to questions concerning the debtor’s past and present financial situation. The term statement of affairs is al so used to describe a type of balance sheet that shows immediate liquidation amounts, as opposed to acquisition or original costs, and is generally prepared when insolvency or bankruptcy is about to take effect. decreasing lottery sales forced it to exceed the 16 percent limit on adminis- trative expenses specified by law. The shortfall led to a dispute over what to do with the interest earned on the state lottery fund, and reformers had to act to ensure that it would be used as intended. They passed Chapter 1236, which requires that all interest be used to benefit public education. Such problems lead critics to another complaint: States exaggerate the benefits of lotteries. In education, lottery proceeds may provide little help. The Educational Research Service (ERS), a think tank, has argued that lotteries are actually insignifi- cant. Because lottery revenues are occa- sionally substituted for regular funding, ERS maintains, this unstable source of revenue yields no more for schools than they would have received otherwise, with an additional drawback: Taxpayers, reas- sured that ticket sales are footing the bill, balk at the idea of raising taxes when shortfalls occur. Critics also scoff at claims that lotteries hurt illegal gambling. Most studies have found only inconclusive evidence that they have any effect at all on crime syndicates, and law enforcement agencies report that illegal gambling remains as active as it was before states reenacted lotteries. Two popular moral arguments are advanced against lotteries. The first attacks the notion of voluntary taxation. Far from being the boon that the word voluntary suggests, critics say, the lottery is a form of regressive taxation that hurts those least able to afford it. (Taxes are considered regressive when they put a disproportionate burden on different taxpayers; a sales tax, which everyone pays at the same rate regardless of their personal wealth, is one example.) The evidence shows that the poor and working classes play lotteries the most. Some people say that preying on the illusory hopes of the poor is an unseemly way to avoid taxing the more affluent. The second moral objection is to the hidden social costs. Opponents of gam- bling have long held that players run the proven risk of addiction. In general, governments legislate against and spend money in the process of warning citizens about high-risk behaviors. But in the case of lotteries, they do the reverse: Lottery advertising encourages playing often, and games are frequently redesigned to bring players back for more. No state blatantly tells its citizens to spend more than they should; yet no state stops anyone from going overboard, and it is doubtful that any could do so. The scope of the problem of compulsive lottery playing is difficult to measure, but commonly cited estimates in the 1990s indicated lottery players accounted for 9 percent of all compulsive gamblers nationwide. A few states, such as New Jersey, have run hotlines for addicts. Others have consid- ered doing so. Crimes associated with compulsive lottery playing—from embez- zlement to bank holdups—are staples of the news media. Although the debate goes on, state lotteries are in no danger of disappearing. Their sheer profitability is alluring to legislators who would rather not propose higher taxes, and the chance of winning big keeps players hooked. In all likeli- hood, the success of most states ensures that the rest will eventually join in the practice. Critics continue to fault law- makers for relying on high-risk gambling, conning hapless players, putting huge sums back into the games, and ignoring the resulting social costs. Yet, unlike argu- ments against lotteries in the early years of the twentieth century, these complaints have mostly gone unheard, and lotteries have been skillfully transformed in the public eye from a vice into a form of entertainment. Jackpots, as every lottery player knows, speak louder than words. FURTHER READINGS Gurnett, Kate. 2003. “Place Your Bets—Any- where.” Albany Times-Union (January 15). Weinart, Joe. 1999. “Panel Requests More Gaming Research.” Las Vegas Review- Journal (June 3). CROSS REFERENCES Gaming; Taxation. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS 353 STATE’S EVIDENCE State’s evidence is a colloquial term for testimony given by an accomplice or joint participant in the commission of a crime, subject to an agreement that the person will be granted immunity from prosecution if the person voluntarily, completely, and fairly discloses his or her own guilt as well as that of the other participants. State’sevidenceis slang for testimony given by criminal defendants to prosecutors about other alleged criminals. A criminal DEFENDANT may agree to provide assistance to prosecutors in exchange for an agreement from the PROSECUTOR that he will not be prosecuted. This agreement is commonly called turning state’sevidence. A crim inal defendant who turns state’s evidence may be offered a plea bargain or may have all criminal charges against him dismissed, depending on the nature of the case against the testifying defendant and the largesse of the prosecutor. A prosecutor may give a testifying defendant full IMMUNITY, which means the defen- dant cannot be charged with any crime related to the testimony he provides. A lesser form of immunity is called use immun ity. Use immunity means that the prosecutor agrees only that she will not use any of the testimony given by the testifying defendant in any subsequent pro- secution of that defendant. Turning state’s evidence plays an important role in the criminal justice system, in large part because the system is overwhelmed by criminal prosecutions. To ease the caseload, prosecutors regularly exercise their power to offer to drop or decrease charges in exchange for a plea of guilty. Another by-product of the backlog of cases is that prosecutors are mos t concerned with successfully prosecuting the most dangerous criminals. For these reasons, prosecutors com- monly ask petty criminal defendants who have access to other alleged criminals to obtain evidence from the criminals. For instance, assume that a person who has been arrested for possession of ma rijuana is willing to work with law enforcement to obtain inculpatory evidence from the dealer of the marijuana. To do so, the defendant would return to the dealer after the arrest, purchase marijuana in a trans action monitored by law enforcement, and then give the marijuana to the authorities as evidence. A prosecutor may drop charges against a petty criminal in exchange fo r substan tial assistance to law enforcement authorities in the prosecution of more dangerous criminals. Alternatively, a prosecutor may offer a plea bargain and ask the court to impose a sentence that is less severe than the sentence normally imposed for the crime. However, a person who turns state’s evi- dence will face intense CROSS-EXAMINATION from the defense lawyer if the case goes to trial. Because the person has been offered a deal or the prospect of a deal, the defense can seek to IMPEACH the testimony by arguing that the person is lying to improve his situation. Moreover, the person usually has a criminal record that can be paraded before the jury to discredit the direct testimony. State and federal sentencing statutes govern the effect of providing substantial assistance. Courts usually follow the recommendations A billboard advertises the South Carolina Education Lottery. State statutes specify how the money generated by lotteries will be used. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 354 STATE’ S EVIDENCE of the prosecutor, but they are not obliged to do so. On the federal level, for example, section 5K1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines states that a court may evaluate the significance and usefulness of the assistance rendered by the defendant, the truthfulness and reliability of the defendant, the nature of the defendant’s assistance, and other factors in determining whether to impose a relatively light sentence. FURTHER READING Bloom, Robert M. 2002. Ratting: The Use and Abuse of Informants in the American Justice System. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. CROSS REFERENCES Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Plea Bargaining. STATES’ RIGHTS A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitu- tion from interference by the federal government. The history of the United States has been marked by conflict over the proper allocation of power between the states and the federal government. The federal system of government established by the U.S. Constitution recognized the sovereignty of both the state gover nments and the federal government by giving them mutually exclusive powers as well as concurrent powers. States’ rights and the concept of FEDERALISM are intertwined in discussion and debates over the proper allocation of governing powers between the federal government and state governments. Federalism posits that state governments are preeminent under the Consti- tution and that a dominant national govern- ment is anathema to democracy. The concept of states’ rights and federalism share many, if not most positions on political philosophy, with states’ rights a more direct assertion of the supremacy of the states. In the first half of the nineteenth century, arguments over states’ rights arose in the context of SLAVERY. From the 1870s to the 1930s, eco- nomic issues shaped the debate. In the 1950s racial SEGREGATION and the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT renewed the issue of state power. By the 1970s economic and political conservatives had begun to call for a reduction in the power and control of the federal government and for the redistribu- tion of responsibilities to the states. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates represented state governments that had become autonomous centers of power. The Constitution avoided a precise definition of the LOCUS of sovereignty, leaving people to infer that the new charter created a divided structure in which powers were allocated between the central government and the states in such a way that each would be supreme in certain areas. Nevertheless, defenders of states’ rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated na- tional government would run roughshod over the states. With RATIFICATION of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protec- tion for the states. Accordingly, the TENTH AMENDMENT was added to the Constitution as part of the BILL OF RIGHTS. The amendment stipulates that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohib- ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government. In the early years of the Republic, states’ rights were vigorously protected. An early argu- ment involved whether or not states were subject to the jurisdiction of the SUPREME COURT and the federal government. In Chisholm v. Georgia,2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793), a South Carolina businessman sued the state of Georgia in order to collect for payment of supplies. The state of Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign body, and so could not be sued because it was not subject to the authority of federal courts. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument and ruled that the conduct of the states was subject to JUDICIAL REVIEW. In response, states’ rights advocates pushed for passage of the ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, which limits the rights of persons to sue a state in federal court. In 1798 THOMAS JEFFERSON and JAMES MADISON proposed the VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLVES to clarify the role of states in checking the powers of the federal government. The resolu- tions were in response to passage of the Alien Enemies and SEDITION Acts of 1798 (1 Stat. 570, 1 Stat. 596), which restricted a number of personal liberties. In proposing the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, Jefferson argued that the “sovereign and indepen dent states” had the right to “interpose” themselves between their citizens and improper national legislative GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATES’ RIGHTS 355 actions and to “nullify” acts of Congress the y deemed unconstitutional. The resolutions started the seed of the doctrines of nullification and interposition, later employed by New England states during the WAR OF 1812, and by South Carolina in opposing federal tariff legislation in 1832. John C. Calhoun and the Southern States From the early 1800s until the end of the Civil War in 1865, states’ rights played a major role in the U.S. political process. The doctrine was most fully articulated in the writings of South Carolina statesman and political theorist JOHN C. CALHOUN. Calhoun contended that if acts of the federal government ran contrary to state or local interests, then states had the right to nullify said acts. Calhoun further proposed that states had the right to dissolve their contractual relation- ship with the federal government rather than submit to policies they saw as destructive to their local self-interests. Followers of Calhoun linked states’ rights to slavery, and thus, protect- ing slavery became the equivalent of protecting regional Southern interests. In 1860 seven Southern states seceded from the Union to form the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.Theconstitu- tion of the CONFEDERACY began, “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its own sovereign and independent character ” Northern leaders were also prepared to manipulate the concept of states’ rights. As early as the 1820s, Northern legislatures enacted personal liberty laws as devices to block the enforcement of the federal fugitive slave law. Such laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 10 L. Ed. 1060 (1842). When Congress enacted the more stringent FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1850, Northerners responded by again creating personal liberty laws in general defiance of federal fugitive slave policy. The defeat of the South in the Civil War ended the dispute, and Congress enacted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in part, to prevent states from denying certain basic rights to U.S. citizens. Although the Supreme Court substantially restricted the power of these amendments during the late nineteenth century, it did so indirectly, relying on states’ rights arguments to justify its actions. The judicial philosophy of the times was also marked by laissez-faire capitalism. The court would invoke the Tenth Amendment to strike down federal laws that were characterized as hostile to state interests and then use the FOURTEENTH AMEND- MENT to strike down state legislation that sought to regulate business, labor, and the economy. Impact of the New Deal Policies This trend continued into the twentieth cen- tury. Until the 1930s, the court frequently used the Tenth Amendment as a device for striking down federal measures, from CHILD LABOR LAWS to major pieces of President Franklin D. Roose- velt’s NEW DEAL legislation. Hundreds of state regulatory statutes were also overturned. Only when the states sought to restrict unions or control dissenters did the court sustain thes e efforts. By the late 1930s, New Deal policies had dramatically increased the size and power of the federal government. Proponents of states’ rights argued against extensive use of the COMMERCE CLAUSE , which gave the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce and the federal government’s power to tax for the GENERAL WELFARE. Given the desperate economic situation, such arguments fell on deaf ears. By the end of WORLD WAR II, centralized authority rested with the federal government. States’ rights were revived in the la te 1940s over the matter of race. In the 1948 election, Democrat HARRY S. TRUMAN pushed for a more aggressive CIVIL RIGHTS policy. Southern oppo- nents, known as the “Dixiecrats,” bolted the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and ran their own candidate, J. Strom Thurmond. Their “states’ rights” plat- form called for continued racial segregation and denounced proposals for national action on behalf of civil rights. Desegregation efforts of the 1950s and 1960s, including the Supreme Court’s decision in BROWN V . BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), which ruled that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional, also met with Southern resis- tance. Segregationists again argued for state sovereignty and developed programs of massive resistance to racial INTEGRATION in public educa- tion, public facilities, housing, and access to jobs. Beginning in the 1960s, other states’ rights proponents started stressing the need for local control of government. One reason was the introduction of federal WELFARE and subsidy GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 356 STATES’ RIGHTS programs. The concern w as that along with federal money would come federal control. By the end of the twentieth century, a number of efforts were being made to curtail the broad power of the federal government. For example, in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it extended federal MINIMUM WAGE and overtime standards to state and local governments. Determination of state gov- ernment employees’ wages and hours is one of the “attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government,” attributes that “may not be impaired by Congress.” Less than ten years later, however, the court overruled National League in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1016 (1985). Nevertheless, the 5-4 majority in Garcia and the court’s difficulty in articulating acoherentTenthAmendment JURISPRUDENCE have left this area of states’ rights muddled. The 1980s saw a major shift in government policy. President RONALD REAGAN agreed with the public that the federal government was becom- ing too involved in state government affairs. A major focus of his administration was to reduce the size and power of the federal government. States were given more authority to experiment with policy initiatives, especially social pro- grams, which had previously been direc ted from Washington. Subsequent administrations have followed suit. A more conservative Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST showed a renewed interest in states’ rights. In 1995 the court in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, ruled unconstitutional the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal crime to possess a firearm near a school. Congress had used the Commerce Clause to justify its action but the court held that there was no plausible connection between the possession of a gun and interstate commerce. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that if the court were to endorse the government’s position “it would convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general POLICE POWER of the sort retained by the States.” This was unacceptable and an encroachment on state police powers. States sought to flex their regulatory muscles in the early 2000s, enacting laws and regulations that conflicted with federal law. For example, the state of California enacted rigorous regula- tions that imposed stricter auto em ission standards than those of the federal government. The Bush Administ ration and the state became embroiled in a dispute over these regulations that led the state to file a lawsuit seeking approval of its standards. However, the Obama Adminis- tration in 2009 announced that it would rethink the issue and later announced new emission standards that would render the argument moot. FURTHER READINGS Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2007. Federal Jurisdiction. 5th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers. Drake, Frederick D., and Lynn R. Nelson. 1999. States’ Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History. West- port, CT: Greenwood Press. McDonald, Forrest. 2000. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas. Sample, James J. 2003. “The Sentences that Bind.” Columbia Law Review 103 (May). CROSS REFERENCES Federalism; Fifteenth Amendment; Fourteenth Amend- ment; Kentucky Resoluti ons. STATES’ RIGHTS PARTY The States’ Rights Party, also known as the Dixiecrat Party, was a short-lived political entity founded by Democrats in the South as an alternative to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and its 1948 presidential platform. In 2003, remarks expres- sing a nostalgic view of the States’ Rights Party ignited a firestorm of controversy that led to the resignation of Republican TRENT LOTT as Senate majority leader. The issue of STATES’ RIGHTS has been para- mount in southern politics and culture since the former British colonies evolved into the United States of America. Advocates of states’ rights held that the states retained all the rights that had not been specifically delegated to the federal government. Any attempt by the federal government to exercise powers not specifically enunciated in the Constitution, was seen as an illegal usurpation of powers that rightfully belonged to the individual states. This view was one of the motivating factors of the Civil War and did not diminish with the defeat of the Confederate Army in 1865. In the period immediately after that war, the REPUBLICAN PARTY was seen as the party of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and the abolitionist forces that had not only GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATES’ RIGHTS PARTY 357 . tickets, the state’s profit after expenses was only $73,626. California experienced another kind of problem in fiscal year 199 1– 199 2, as GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 352 STATE. projects. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 3 49 Online Services In the 199 0s and early 2000s, most state motor vehicle departments started offering. 15). Weinart, Joe. 199 9. “Panel Requests More Gaming Research.” Las Vegas Review- Journal (June 3). CROSS REFERENCES Gaming; Taxation. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS