Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
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 This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png 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:

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:

In 2025, Ballotpedia updated the pillar system used to understand the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Click here to learn more about this updated structure and to see Ballotpedia's current content related to the administrative state.



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

v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Executive_control_of_agencies:_A_50-state_survey&oldid=10425357"