|
|
Plugged In, Tuning Up (March 2001)
LEGISLATOR INFORMATION
Background
Citizens have an expectation that they can connect with their legislature, and know who
represents them on issues of importance to them. Those citizens who are familiar with the workings of
their legislative body, may have direct access to, and regular contact with, individual members.
Others may only have indirect or infrequent member contact during a particular period of time, such as
the period just before legislation is voted upon. In any event, the degree to which state
legislative resources provide information to the public about who represents their interests, their roles in
the legislature, and the means through which citizens can communicate with them is a measure of
both usefulness and value of a state legislative website.
Items Examined
Websites were evaluated in terms of:
- Directory of legislators
- Background information on legislators, including biographical information, details on
their role in the legislature, and data on the district they serve
- Contact information for legislators, within the state legislature and any district offices
- Member contact service or system to direct targeted constituent and citizen
communications while visitor is on a site
Summary Findings by State
| State |
Directory |
Profile |
Member Contact Information |
Member Contact Service |
| Alabama |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
| Alaska |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Arizona |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Arkansas |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| California |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Colorado |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Connecticut |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
| Delaware |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Florida |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Georgia |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Hawaii |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Idaho |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Illinois |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Indiana |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Iowa |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Kansas |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Kentucky |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Louisiana |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Maine |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Maryland |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
| Massachusetts |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Michigan |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Minnesota |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Mississippi |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Missouri |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Montana |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Nebraska |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Nevada |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| New Hampshire |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
| New Jersey |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| New Mexico |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| New York (Senate) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| New York (Assembly) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| North Carolina |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| North Dakota |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Ohio |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Oklahoma |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Oregon |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Pennsylvania |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Rhode Island |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| South Carolina |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| South Dakota |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Tennessee |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Texas | Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Utah | Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Vermont |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Virginia |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Washington |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| West Virginia |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Wisconsin |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Wyoming |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
- 80% of state legislative websites provide listings of members, either in alphabetical order,
by district, by committee, by city or town, or particular classification
- 78% provide member profile pages containing legislative roles, biographical
information, photos, and other information
- 92% of the sites provide contact information, including e-mail addresses, for members
- Only 12%, however, provide the means for the public and constituent to directly
contact members through an online member contact service
Considerations
- Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, and
Virginia5 were the only states that offered directory listings, profile pages, and contact information for legislators, as well as
the means to contact members through the site itself. Other states, for the most part, follow a
few basic approaches to provide information on legislators to the public. The first is to
provide listings of members, sorted by last name and/or another criterion, such as district,
primary committee assignment, or party affiliation. The second is to provide an interactive map of
the state, which allows users to click on a portion of the map to locate the member(s) for
that area. The third is to use a system that locates members by zip-code. There are some
states that use more than one method, and some that only use one. Mississippi, for example,
only provides an alphabetical listing of members. Louisiana and Missouri use a zip code
locator. Indiana, New York (Senate), New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and South
Carolina provide district listings. States such as Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, and
New Hampshire use a district map as a primary locator.
- Each approach raises its own sets of issues. A listing by last name, committee, or
party affiliation will be of little use to citizens who do not know their member at all. An
interactive map, without descriptive text, will be of little use to citizens who do not know that is what
the map is for. While zip code searches are more intuitive for users, this information can
be combined with IP address tracking and cookies. Given the lack of information about
data collection practices and policies among state legislative websites, there is substantive
potential for privacy concerns.
- Member directories often provide direct links to the contact information and/or profile pages
for individual legislators. Member profile pages generally provide brief biographical information
on members along with a photograph, a listing of the committees and subcommittees on
which they serve, their profession and any affiliations. Most of the profile pages contain
contact information for the main legislative office, and, where appropriate, district office information.
- A large number of states provide contact information for members, including e-mail
addresses and both state and district office information. Equally noteworthy, is the extent to which
states provide both profile information on member and contact information, yet do not provide
the means for site visitors to directly contact members through a specific
constituent communications system. The vast majority of states simply allow users to search
for members, copy and past their contact information, and contact the members themselves.
Recommendations
- States should make every attempt to provide a comprehensive a set of
communications mechanisms for the public to connect to the elected officials who represent their interests.
This means taking into account a wide range of user information levels, and applying
multiple listings/methods of locating legislators.
- Websites should minimize the layers of information through which citizens must wade in
order to locate information on members.
- Member contact services can help state legislatures organize and direct communications
from citizens to the right members based on residence, topic, etc. In utilizing these
services, however, the public should be given a reasonable guarantee that their privacy and security
will be maintained online. Use of such systems should not send a message that member
offices will accept only individual constituent communications.
NOTES
(5) Virginia connects its member contact service to a member locator service.
|