This document summarizes a research study that analyzed the 2009 State of the State speeches given by U.S. governors during the Great Recession. The study used qualitative coding to examine themes of accountability, leadership, and learning in the speeches. It also analyzed potential correlations between rhetorical themes and governor characteristics like party affiliation and budgetary powers. The study found that governors employed rhetoric around accountability, both owning responsibility and attributing blame elsewhere. Leadership themes involved defining their role and calling for bipartisan solutions. Learning themes acknowledged past mistakes and focused on educating the public.

1. System Election Regulations Essay
System Election Regulations EssayORDER HERE FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE
PAPERS ON System Election Regulations EssayChoose your state along with two adjoining
states and describe how they regulate voting, elections, and campaign finance. Similarly?
Differently? How so? Look at a variety of elected positions – federal and state legislative
positions, judicial and local. Have they been redistricted in the last 10 years? How did that
affect the elections?Respond to the questions in essay format. A standard short essay
includes an Introductory Paragraph, the Main topic paragraph(s), and a Concluding
Paragraph. This assignment should run about 6 pages using APA citation. Run the spell and
grammar checker before submitting the assignment. Apply page numbering to the
assignment. Only use scholastic work as a reference or cite in this essay. You can use the
attached as a reference and your own references you find. Do not talk about drugs or
alcohol.System Election Regulations
Essayattachment_1attachment_2attachment_3attachment_4attachment_5Unformatted
Attachment Preview532270 research-article2014
AASXXX10.1177/0095399714532270Administration & SocietyJoaquin and Myers Article
Accountability, Learning, and Response Amid Fiscal Crisis Administration & Society 2015,
Vol. 47(8) 1015-–1037 © The Author(s) 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0095399714532270
aas.sagepub.com M. Ernita Joaquin1 and Nathan G. Myers2 Abstract A national financial
collapse can engender a heightened gubernatorial sense of accountability, leadership, and
learning. An attempt at theory building on this theme uses governors’ 2009 speeches as an
historical artifact and policy document recording the kind of rhetoric they employed during
the “Great Recession.” A quantitative analysis reveals correlations between gubernatorial
characteristics and rhetoric. A qualitative approach yields gubernatorial constructs of
accountability, leadership, and learning at a time of crisis. The results offer a foundation for
further theory building using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Keywords fiscal stress,
gubernatorial rhetoric, accountability, learning, leadership, reform Introduction As the year
2009 began, 29 Democrats and 21 Republicans stood at the helm of state governments
throughout the United States. Most had served more than one term; a higher percentage on
their first term was Democrats. Most possessed prior experience in elective office or private
management. Some 1San Francisco State University, CA, USA State University, Terre Haute,
USA 2Indiana Corresponding Author: M. Ernita Joaquin, San Francisco State University,
1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA. Email: ejoaquin@sfsu.edu 1016
Administration & Society 47(8) were presiding over unified state assemblies; some had

2. preceded governors of the opposing party. In the White House, the first African American
President, a Democrat, had just been inaugurated. All of them were confronted with the
longest, worst recession since the Great Depression (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
[CBPP], 2013). This is an exploratory study of gubernatorial accountability at a time of
crisis, in particular, the extent to which accountability, learning, and policy response themes
dominated their State of the State (SOS) addresses in 2009, and if these themes correlated
with certain gubernatorial characteristics. The 2009 speeches were chosen because they
were given in the year when governors had acquired a full sense of the recession’s
magnitude and had to publicly address it in a formal venue. System Election Regulations
EssayWithout aiming to generalize beyond this critical period, we assumed that 2009 could
suggest some potential relationships between gubernatorial attributes and leadership
pronouncements as well as allow us to speculate how rhetoric might adapt in the face of
extraordinary crisis. More a theory-building effort, this study does not examine
gubernatorial rhetoric in a historical context, but we intend to carry this forward. The
current study is limited in that it takes a snapshot rather than longterm analysis of state
leadership, serving as our exploratory platform to refine future research. The governors
delivered SOS addresses to their legislative assemblies around January of that year. These
annual speeches combine broad policy priorities and specific legislative goals and reflect a
governor’s leadership style, strategy, or philosophy of governing, ideological stance, and
approach to communicating with the public (see Coffey, 2005; Dileo, 1997; Ferguson, 2003;
Jackson & Kingdon, 1992; Segal & Cover, 1989; Van Assendelft, 1997). For this article, the
2009 speeches are treated as artifacts that captured portraits of accountability and learning
at a pivotal moment of fiscal leadership. “Words matter” (Crew & Lewis, 2011) and
understanding political leadership also calls for looking at the way solutions are sought for
the state’s problems (Crew, 1998). In this article we ask, how were accountability and
learning expressed during fiscal stress? Were budget lessons imbibed, framed,
communicated to the public, and/or applied as policy response? Were personal, political,
and institutional variables associated with these pronouncements? Accountability During a
Fiscal Crisis Our research framework inquires about gubernatorial claims of control over
solutions for local budget or economic challenges. Accountability, however, presupposes
powers or control over the factors that would allow one to Joaquin and Myers 1017 account
for performance. Scholars have noted the weak control that governors wield over the
economic conditions of their state (Forsythe, 2004; Rosenthal, 2013), which the Great
Recession put on display. The National Council of State Legislatures found that the
recession’s impact on revenue collections contributed to state deficits totaling $62.4 billion
(Conant, 2010b). States are often seen as surfing good or bad national (and increasingly
global) economic waves (Forsythe, 2004). Phil Bredesen, Tennessee’s governor, invoked
this in his 2009 speech with the sailor’s adage, “You can’t control the wind, but you can
adjust your sails. We can’t control the national economy, but we can make the adjustments
that let us ride it out.” Globalization has also weakened fiscal policies and reduced
governmental actors’ control within their geographical boundaries (Brand, 1992). Past
miscalculations by officials also do not help: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
notes that economic problems tend to be magnified by structural weaknesses caused by

3. poor decision making in the past (as cited in Conant, 2010b). Accountability for righting the
deep imbalances in the states’ budget positions calls into review gubernatorial powers as
described in the literature. Some argue that the institutional, organizational, and popular
advantages of the governorship may exceed those of the U.S. System Election Regulations
EssayPresident and that governors have amassed more power over time, due to devolution
(Heidbreder, 2012). The work of Ferguson enjoins us to view gubernatorial action and
efficacy within a larger framework of powers that the institution confers upon state leaders.
Ferguson (2013) defines institutional power as those powers given to the governor by the
state constitution, state statutes, and the voters when they vote on constitutions and
referenda . . . these powers are the structure into which the governor moves after being
elected to office. (p. 220) To Ferguson (2013), institutional power may be indexed by
combining the tenure potential of the governor in office, appointment power, budget power,
veto power, party control, and whether officials of the state government are separately
elected. This framing later on helps in the design of our research. Each variable is important,
and with the context of the Great Recession, we here focus on the fiscal or budgetary
powers of the governor, and the role that rhetoric may play in this repertoire of powers,
when times become more turbulent. Traditionally, governors are viewed as “chief
legislator” in political science literature (Bernick & Wiggins, 1991, as cited in Heidbreder,
2012). Governors are seen as having more authority in state fiscal policy than state
legislators (Anton, 1966; Howard, 1973; Schick, 1971, as cited by Hale, 2013), in large part
because they tend to be more visible and seen as being out 1018 Administration & Society
47(8) front in the development of the legislative agenda (Bernick & Wiggins, 1991, as cited
by Taylor, 2012). Power can come from having the sole authority to produce revenue and
expenditure estimates in the state (Lauth, 2010) compared to other places where governors
must collaborate with legislatures (Wallin & Snow, 2010) to trim allotments to agencies in
response to lower revenues or higher expenditures (Dautrich, Robbins, & Simonsen, 2010)
and to make “course corrections” to the budget in the midst of the budget biennium
(Conant, 2010a). The line-item veto power as well as gubernatorial potential to remain in
office for longer periods of time were previously associated with a governor’s ability to
accomplish outcomes (Sharkansky, 1968, as cited in Crew & Lewis, 2011). While
gubernatorial leadership is important, fiscal responsibility can only be achieved in a
bipartisan environment (Hale, 2013). Lacking such an environment, governors may turn to
tactics to dodge fiscal accountability (Krause & Melusky, 2012). Rhetoric in the Repertoire
of Gubernatorial Powers In trying to improve the fiscal health of the state, governors can
turn to another medium: the bully pulpit (Heidbreder, 2012), under which we can place the
“SOS” speeches. For many citizens in a state, the governor is the face of the government
(Gross, 1991; Herzik & Brown, 1991; Rosenthal, 1990, as cited in Carpenter & Hughes,
2011). Governors hold a number of advantages when it comes to using the pulpit: They can
put issues on the agenda, mobilize media access, and create a shift in public awareness
(Kunin, 1990; Mazzoni, 1995, as cited in Carpenter & Hughes, 2011). SOS speeches, our
focus on this article, often contain a combination of broad policy goals and specific
legislative goals, and also reflect the governor’s style of leadership, strategy or philosophy of
governing, ideological position, and approach to communicating with the public (see Coffey,

4. 2005; Ferguson, 2003; Jackson & Kingdon, 1992; Segal & Cover, 1989; Van Assendelft,
1997). They tend to be valid indicators of gubernatorial ideology on economic and social
issues, within and across parties (Coffey, 2005). Gubernatorial addresses have been found
to forecast validly the type of policy later pursued (Carpenter & Hughes, 2011; Ferguson,
2003). Placement of agenda items on the speech also indicates what governors considered
more important (Crew & Lewis, 2011). In addition, rhetoric that emphasizes enthusiasm
and activity increase gubernatorial potential for legislative support and overcoming
political and institutional barriers (Crew & Lewis, 2011). Joaquin and Myers 1019 One
author who believes that SOS speeches are inadequate proxies for studying the real agenda
of governors is Rosenthal (2013): In his view, some agenda items may not have been
formulated by the time of the governor’s address, some items are included for strategic
purposes, and, the long address lends itself to very general enunciation of policy initiatives.
System Election Regulations EssaySome of those items serve as “political or symbolic
weight” (Rosenthal, 2013, p. 91). Nonetheless, symbolism can be powerful in a time of crisis.
While governors continue to possess a number of advantages, a trend of erosion in
gubernatorial powers over the last few decades has been observed (Abney & Lauth, 1998;
Dometrius & Wright, 2010; Goodman, 2007; as cited in Krause & Melusky, 2012). Political
and economic conditions constrain a governor’s ability to get something on the agenda or
keep attention on it (Heidbreder, 2012). This can lead governors to increasingly rely upon
political rhetoric to bolster the perception of their power, or avert blame during dire
economic situations. The allure of demonstrating relevance is observed to be often behind
actions engaging in symbolic politics, credit claiming, and position taking (Hansen, 1999).
Governors routinely use SOS speeches to claim credit for positive developments or to
distance themselves from mistakes (Heidbreder, 2012). Reforms may be floated to provide
political cover. These prompt us to explore if symbolic or rhetorical accountability
compensates for a perception of weak control during a time of recession and political
polarization, if accountability leans outward, and if lessons learned are effectively
expressed. Rosenthal (2013) seems to argue that budget addresses in and of themselves are
an exercise in symbolism over substance. Our study is an attempt to determine to what
degree the governor attempts to utilize the speeches to account for and/or propose actual
goals. The theme of learning is pursued here as well due to the dearth of empirical studies
that tell us how governors conceive of their jobs as they perform them and how they learn
as they lead. In Rosenthal’s (2013) book, we see glimpses of formers governors recalling, in
memoirs, that nothing really prepared them for the job; that they all “learned on the go.”
Ideally, leaders learn, over time, what fiscal measures work or do not work for the states,
and their personal ways of finding solutions. That is in turn assumed to be communicated to
the public to show that leaders cultivate wisdom in “laboratories” of innovation and
democracy. Governors must educate, especially when creating public understanding of the
gubernatorial agenda could give them some political advantage over the legislature in
negotiations over budget directions (Rosenthal, 2013, p. 156). With this basis in literature,
this study examines the rhetoric of U.S. governors in the year 2009 for references to
accountability, leadership, and learning, as they respond to an enormous crisis. If governors
were ever in need of 1020 Administration & Society 47(8) rhetorical strategies to bolster

5. the perception of their power, it was during the Great Recession. Research Data and
Methodology The analysis was conducted in two stages. The first involved the qualitative
coding of the speeches (Stateline.org, 2009) based on themes and unique subject areas, to
make sure we had a full understanding of our data and how it might be used for the purpose
of content analysis. Once it was established whether and to what degree such themes were
present, we were able to engage in a more quantitative analysis of rhetoric and
gubernatorial characteristics. Establishing the presence of the coded themes and how we
conceptualized them will allow the reader to better evaluate the statistical findings once
they are presented. We loaded the 2009 SOS speeches from all 50 governors into the
Provalis Research QDA Miner program and coded for the themes. Table 1 shows how the
themes were defined, based not only on the literature but also how they emerged, in
context, from the data, as qualitative research method requires (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
These were then elaborated into categories or subthemes to code the sentences in the
speech. As an exploratory study, we incorporate our assumption, based on the literature
that some independent variables may be associated with the governor’s speeches, but
rather than testing causation and directions of influence, we are merely interested, within
certain parameters, in finding what relationships would emerge. Considering the
environment in which governors must exhibit leadership qualities, it is possible that some
political variables are associated with their responses to the crisis. These variables are
enumerated in Table 2. This research utilized two qualitative analysis software programs—
QDA Miner and Sim Stat. The QDA Miner program allows researchers to more easily explore
texts to code the texts for particular themes. Variables can be computed based on the
frequency with which a code appears in a document, the number of words used to discuss a
particular code in the document, and the percentage of the total words in the document
used to discuss a particular code. We focused on computing the frequencies with which the
code segments appeared in the document, and used them to further draw some insights on
gubernatorial accountability and learning. Statistical analysis on coded data was made
possible through the Sim Stat program. While correlation is not indicative of causation and
this study only measures the messages of U.S. governors at one particular moment, the
twopronged approach of qualitative analysis of the speeches and correlation 1021 Joaquin
and Myers Table 1. System Election Regulations EssayCode Segments Used in Content
Analyzing the Speeches. Variables Accountability Accountability is owning up to
responsibility and/or attributing the blame to someone or something else for the state’s
fiscal troubles Leadership Leadership involves defining the job of leaders at a crucial
moment, calling for bold initiatives, rising up to the challenge, and overcoming partisanship
Policy learning Learning involves acknowledging mistakes, understanding historical
differences, searching for workable solutions, educating constituents, understanding and
communicating cultural change and fiscal reform Response Policy response includes
identifying specific solutions to address state government deficits and debts, and defining
the role of government at a time of uncertainty Code segments Blame avoidance; blaming
Washington, the private sector, the market cycle, the public, bureaucracy/unions, previous
governors, legislature, special interests, the media, the courts, partisanship, or the state
revenue structure Defining leadership in crisis situations; calling for non-partisanship/

6. compromise; calling for private sector responsibility and citizen initiatives; framing
proposals as bold Acknowledging mistakes or failures; understanding gravity of the
challenge; comparing previous challenges met; comparing solutions with other states;
policy learning and education of constituents; reforming budgeting philosophy or culture
Defining the role of government; intergovernmental partnerships; better revenue collection
and use; progressive tax reform; diversifying revenues; greater spending scrutiny; capping
spending; various spending cuts; tapping rainy day funds; delaying projects; borrowing;
reforming pension; reorganization; economic development incentives; stimulus
grants/loans; passing responsibility to other governments; cutting local aids; privatization;
loosening regulations; tax freeze/cuts/ credits analysis of coded segments with
gubernatorial characteristics provides, in our view, a meaningful assessment of state
leadership at a time of national crisis. The results of the quantitative analyses are provided
in Tables 3 and 4. Throughout the findings sections that follow, we will highlight the
statistical results that have significance after discussing the broader context of the different
themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis. 1022 Administration & Society 47(8)
Table 2. Descriptions of Gubernatorial and State Variables. Variable Party Previous Term
Institutional Power Index Tax Progressivity Legislative Experience Annual vs. Biennial
Budgeting Government Executive Experience Description, coding, and source of data Is
the governor a Republican or a Democrat? 0 = Republican, 1 = Democrat National
Governor’s Association, http://www.nga.org/cms/ governors Has the governor served a
previous term in office? 0 = no, 1 = yes National Governor’s Association,
http://www.nga.org/cms/ governors Measure of a governor’s official power in comparison
to the legislature (1 = lower level; 5 = higher level) Ferguson (2013) Does the state have a
progressive income tax system? 0 = no, 1 = yes Ferguson (2013) Did the governor have
previous experience in the state legislature or Congress? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) National
Governor’s Association, http://www.nga.org/cms/ governors Does the state have an annual
or biennial budgeting process? (0 = Annual, 1 = Biennial) Snell (2011) Did the governor
have previous executive experience in state government? (i.e., Attorney General) National
Governor’s Association, http://www.nga.org/cms/ governors The Anatomy of Blame and
Accountability Budgeting is conflict ridden; in this context, we attempt to find how
worldviews, leadership, and learning processes were expressed; what kind of control and
responsibility governors perceived they had; and whether they blamed forces outside
themselves. Blaming Other Governments, Sectors, and Actors According to Rosenthal (2013,
p. 73), “One reason that governors assume responsibility is that they cannot escape it,” and
that “when it comes to fiscal policy, in particular, the governor will be blamed (not the
legislators).” Yet in 2009, the White Ho …System Election Regulations Essay