Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 9 P37 pptx

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
(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 />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