Executive control of agencies: A 50-state survey (2020)

This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state |
Administrative State |
---|
![]() |
Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
•Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Disclaimer: The research presented on this page was completed in 2020. It has not been regularly updated since its completion. This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.
This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
This page compares results from a series of Ballotpedia surveys about executive control of agencies, one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Ballotpedia reviewed all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to see how each state approached executive control of agencies as of 2020.
This article shows how state approaches to executive control of agencies compared with one another based on the following questions:
- Does the state APA or constitution grant state executive removal power over administrative agency officials?
- Does the state APA or constitution establish elected cabinet members?
- Does the state APA or constitution establish with clarity how administrative law judges are chosen?
- Does the state APA or constitution indicate whether administrative law judges are accountable to a chief ALJ?
For each survey question, Ballotpedia labeled a state as yes or no based on whether the state gave more or less power to its administrative state.
You can find the results of other Ballotpedia surveys here.
This page features the following sections:
- #Methodology
- #Summary of key findings
- #Table showing how states approached executive control of agencies
Methodology
Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see how states approached executive control of agencies in their foundational laws as of 2020. Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes. The particular procedures outlined in each APA vary among the 50 states.
For each survey question, Ballotpedia labeled a state as yes or no based on whether the state gave more or less power to its administrative state.
Other state laws that might have addressed how a state approached executive control of agencies are beyond the scope of this survey.
To see the specific legal provisions Ballotpedia used to categorize each state, click here.
Summary of key findings
Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of November 2020):
- Five states had yeses for every executive control question. That means that executives seemed to have more control of administrative agencies in those states than in others.
- Those states are: Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, and South Carolina
- All 50 states had at least one yes for executive control questions.
Table showing how states approached executive control of agencies
The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates how specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs addressed executive control of agencies. Ballotpedia evaluated each state according to the following questions:
- Does the state APA or constitution grant state executive removal power over administrative agency officials?
- Does the state APA or constitution establish elected cabinet members?
- Does the state APA or constitution establish with clarity how administrative law judges are chosen?
- Does the state APA or constitution indicate whether administrative law judges are accountable to a chief ALJ?
For the answers:
- Yes means that the state's APA or constitution limited the power of the administrative state
- No means that the state APA or constitution expanded or did not limit the power of the administrative state
- The numbers at the right side of the table indicate how many yeses and nos each state had
Other state laws that might have addressed how a state approached executive control of agencies are beyond the scope of this survey.
State | Removal power | Elected cabinet | ALJ selection | ALJ hierarchy | Yeses | Nos |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Alaska | Yes | No | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Arizona | No | Yes | No | Yes | 2 | 2 |
Arkansas | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
California | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3 | 1 |
Colorado | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Connecticut | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Delaware | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Florida | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | 0 |
Georgia | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | 0 |
Hawaii | Yes | No | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Idaho | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Illinois | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Indiana | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Iowa | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Kansas | No | Yes | Yes | No | 2 | 2 |
Kentucky | No | Yes | Yes | No | 2 | 2 |
Louisiana | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
Maine | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
Maryland | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Massachusetts | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Michigan | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Minnesota | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | 0 |
Mississippi | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Missouri | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Montana | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
Nebraska | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Nevada | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
New Hampshire | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
New Jersey | Yes | No | No | Yes | 2 | 2 |
New Mexico | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
New York | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
North Carolina | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3 | 1 |
North Dakota | No | Yes | Yes | No | 2 | 2 |
Ohio | No | Yes | Yes | No | 2 | 2 |
Oklahoma | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
Oregon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | 0 |
Pennsylvania | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
Rhode Island | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
South Carolina | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | 0 |
South Dakota | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Tennessee | No | No | Yes | No | 1 | 3 |
Texas | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Utah | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Vermont | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
Virginia | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Washington | No | Yes | No | No | 1 | 3 |
West Virginia | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Wisconsin | No | Yes | Yes | No | 2 | 2 |
Wyoming | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 3 | 1 |
See also
Footnotes