CORRECTIONAL LEGISLATIVE TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES

Correctional Legislative Trends in the United States

Ronald Edwards, Deputy Director Ohio Dept. of Rehab and Correction (retired), and former Corrections Adviser US Dept of State, US Embassy- Republic of Haiti


Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.


Introduction

During the past century, the American corrections profession has evolved into a complex industry. In 2004 there were nearly seven million people in the United States under some form of supervision i.e. prison, jail, probation, or parole. Nearly all-correctional jurisdictions in the United States have undergone enormous new prison construction projects to counter the rising prison population increases of the past thirty years. Correctional trends have been important to the field of corrections, because trends are responsible for transforming and developing entire system wide cultures, and enable correctional administrators to develop vital inmate programming, staff training, and other ideology planning.

Many correctional trends have been driven by legislative and political agendas. In all state and federal systems, corrections administrators have been required to respond to sensitive social issues, when elected officials, political parties, and the general public feel a need to set public policy by developing legislation. Many of these political, litigated and legislative responses are “knee jerk reactions” to specific insalubrious criminal acts perpetrated on vulnerable victims. Many of these contemporary programs are necessary to address the ever evolving state wide system, and offender needs i.e. re-entry, determinant sentencing, prison based therapeutic communities, mental health and sex offender management (1, 4, 17). The prevailing public sentiment (constituency) is responsible for directing public policy too, to which legislative representatives are beholden to respond. Constituencies should never be underestimated for the tremendous political influence and ability for initiating and changing public policy.

By examining trends in crime and legislation, criminal justice and correctional researchers and administrators have been able to incisively design correctional programs and policies that address the prevailing issues and conflicts (5) of contemporary public policy and legislation. Policy and program design, from prison industry, parole and probation, and sexual offender programming are prime examples of the broad diversity of such public perspectives that shape the legislative agenda of the profession of corrections (10).

It is interesting to research data from the diverse legislatures from state to state. The contrast of policymaking has its basic similarities, however, the “politics of the people” is a perplexing and admirable process. It is note worthy; few single legislator profiles now characterize the political socialization of American legislators. Considering a majority of elected officials across this country today have law degrees and legal backgrounds, they do not mirror the legislative profiles envisioned by the founding drafters of the Constitution of early. Seldom are legislators today representative of the “common working class” constituency. Legislation, more often now, conceptualizes law, and adopts the most legally persuasive positions (3). The social and occupational backgrounds of American legislators is now drawn from a very narrow social base, those with a correctional background are vastly underrepresented or atypical.

This research study will primarily focus on a method in which corrections practitioners may come to determine the current pertinent correctional legislative trends of the United States and its impact on the profession. There is no theoretical formula that can instantly determine the correctional trends of the United States. This research study will reveal the current pertinent correctional legislation being introduced across the United States. As a retired State corrections administrator and practitioner for over thirty years, I was interested in researching this issue. I continue to be concerned about the future of corrections and the political calls for crime control legislation, that form trends, that shape the profession, that impact the thousands of offenders and correctional employees across this country. Correctional administrators continue to be responsible for devising, administrating and facilitating policy and program agendas, devised through innovative, and proficient visionaries. There is certainly no lack of serious criminal justice or social issues confronting communities across this country or abroad (7). Criminal victimization is a serious issue in the criminal justice system; it is a social priority to address this offense. There was a bipartisan movement through the 1990’s to expand the rights of crime victims in the criminal justice system. The current Bush administrations’ Department of Justice included an objective to address victims of crime with a “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights” Act” (19). This statutory reform enhanced the rights of crime victims in criminal trial proceedings.

Restorative justice is yet another contemporary approach to recognizing victims’ rights in the justice system, an innovative method that should be considered throughout the criminal justice field. The “Bill of Rights” was established in October 2004 and is applicable to crime victims involved with civil litigation, arising from perpetrated crimes. There are specific crimes to which the “Bill of Rights” target to include domestic violence, such violence perpetrated against “intimate partners” (male, same sex, and children) has been a mainstream issue for the feminist movement for over thirty years. The “Bill of Rights” is the culmination of the criminal justice system to recognize the social stigma of this categorized violence (22).

Juvenile (persons under 18 years of age) justice will continue to take center stage, in light of the tremendous social impact of juvenile criminal violence perpetrated in recent school violence. In the past thirty years, there has been a shift in the focus of the juvenile justice system from the “best interest of the child, to the best interest of society”. For years the criminal justice system has relied heavily on deterrence, and because of the serious escalation of juvenile crime, especially in schools, we now must begin to concentrate our efforts on prevention measures. The Columbine High School incident is a classic case in political and criminal justice study where public policy was dramatically shaped in response to a specific situation. Society was clearly repulsed at the revolting events at Columbine High School. The media coverage bolstered the detailing of practically every aspect of the episode, promoting outrage, and setting the stage for school boards across America in forming school policies that strengthened school security. School security across the United States was dramatically changed in response to the publics’ outrage of the events of Columbine. Many researchers agreed when analyzing the appalling events at Columbine, and by identifying specific social risk factors to include negative peer pressures, substance abuse, chaotic family backgrounds, that these social ills contribute to juvenile instability. The primary focus must then shift to prevention; deterrence can no longer remain as the primary focus for restoring a safe, secure school environment (18). Currently, the United States criminal justice issues and crime patterns mirrors such issues throughout the civilized world (2). I remain concerned about the similarities that confront our correctional systems both here and abroad, it is imperative to be involved as a contributor who represents the interest of the practitioners, advancing the interest of criminal justice and corrections studies.

For many years, the primary goal of rehabilitation and corrections was to reduce recidivism; we have struggled with how we can effectively reduce recidivism, or to ultimately eliminate recidivism. Technological advancements in information and data processing, allows us to better analyze the issues of recidivism (11), we now realize that drug abuse violations have had an enormous impact on practically every aspect of crime, incarceration, and re-entry. Offender substance abuse programming is evolving with new and innovative treatment strategies and programs that more effectively identify and treat specific symptoms for addicts; both inside prison (with therapeutic community programs) (21), and treatment programs that address aftercare issues for offenders, but ultimately should address re-entry and recidivism (8,9).
This study is a perspective into the commonality of crimes that impact and confront the current corrections system across the United States. This study will identify the current trends and reveal, in essence, what the American general public believes to be the prevailing criminal offenses, and the most serious criminal concerns.


This study will incorporate various professional research studies (from published journals) as referenced in the bibliography. It was essential to research the numerous published articles to put together this comprehensive, and analytical conclusion. The conclusions of this study will be supported by the accompanying survey, tables, and charts located in the “study of design” section. The “conclusion” of the study will provide a brief summary of what has been learned in this study, and what is still unknown, perhaps, it will spark additional interest to generate additional studies in this area.


Review of Literature

There have been many essays and studies written on correctional trends. The American Correctional Associations publishes The “Corrections Today” magazine that is recognized as the premier correctional publication of the field. The “Corrections Today” routinely publishes comprehensive articles that examine crime and incarceration, reports on the professions “best practices”, and promotes positive change in the field of corrections. It is important to understand the historical perspective of correctional programs. Correctional programs have been driven, at times, exclusively by political necessity to design and implement effective performance based-programs that work well (1). It is a normal expectation to expect accountability and success for public funded programs, however such programs that impact inmates, incarceration, and recidivism are often held to a higher public expectation to work well, more so than other government funded programs, in part, because these programs threaten social order and community well being.

Advancements in technology can now provide instantaneous query searches via the Internet (11), which can produce precise information and data. Complete articles and publications, research studies or other sources of virtual information are now available to practically anyone at anytime. When researching pertinent State correctional legislation, we can easily find programs that are very controversial, require significant expensive funding, and have legislative support.

The incarceration of the mentally ill inmate was an issue that troubled the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction until the system was required to provide a costly approach, to conclude the huge legal dilemma. The result to provide treatment for the mentally ill inmates eventually proved to be a productive tool for the entire prison system. Inmates are screened and identified in the initial reception process, and remain under the care of mental health staff (more than 25% of a prison population may be on prescribed psychotropic medications at any one time) until released, an expensive program, but is arguably less expensive than hospitalization. The program is an admirable correctional “model”, and demonstrates that inmates can effectively and productively coexist in a typical prison environment, without the usual accompanying issues associated with inappropriate or lack of proper mental health interventional care associated with mental deterioration (effects of incarceration), as being prey to i.e. extortion, sexual favors or assault (15).

Innovative concepts, “best practices” are still being examined to understand what works and what doesn’t work well. Administrators have a vested interest to now show that innovative programs are performance based, with outcome measures that can be easily evaluated. The demand for these innovative programs from society and legislators will continue to be a tangible expectation (16). State funded programs i.e. sex offenders, drug abuse, mental health; legal issues of juvenile delinquency, prison rape prevention, and re-entry will continue to top the list (6, 20).

Methodology

The data collection covered the period of February 20, 2006 through March 20, 2006, and was conducted at the Ross County Library in Chillicothe, Ohio. The data collection methodology was study survey. All queries was performed through Yahoo search engine. Each State Legislature website was queried i.e. (see State Legislature Site List) i.e.

California http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/,
Ohio http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/ .

All data collected from the Legislature websites was logged onto the Survey Form Current Corrections Legislative February 20, through March 20, 2006 (see Survey Form). The queried results, and legislation data varied in format from state to state. Some states had fewer than three legislative correctional Bills introduced during the sample survey period, and some had more legislative correctional Bills introduced at the time of the review. There were over three thousand total Bills (not applicable to study) examined for this project. The spreadsheet data was then recorded and charted on the State Data Chart (see State Data chart).

The data were then analyzed, only predominate correctional legislation was recorded on the (on Excel) State Legislation Spread Sheet, per all fifty states (see State Legislation Spread Sheet).
All related correctional legislation was then categorized by Sexual Abuse – Drug Offenses – Medical and Mental Health and DNA categories for all fifty states. The data was summarized at the bottom of the, thus, identifying the correctional legislation trends in the United States.
All queries for State legislative information were extracted in alphabetical order from the Internet, additional queries were checked against each respective State Department of Corrections websites for correctional related legislation postings. Only correctional related legislative Bills were used as data in this study, data that impacts correctional programming. It should be recognized that most legislative correctional Bills introduced would follow the normal legislative political process.

Analysis

The analysis of the collected data began with an examination of the various legislative processes. The political process involves the regular debate in the appropriate committee; many legislative correctional Bills introduced would be changed in the “amendment process”, which alters the original legislative Bill, as originally introduced. Not withstanding, it is important that some legislative Bills will suffer a “death” in hearings, and therefore may have been eliminated after this research period (February 20 through March 20,2006), failed to be enacted, or signed by a governor, as applicable in the political legislative process. It is interesting that nearly all States have varying Legislative periods (sessions that Legislators assemble or are in legislative session).

It should be taken into account that many times legislators review results of correctional and criminal justice forecasting studies at face value, without any thorough understanding or interpretation of the assumptions and issues of such studies. Forecasting is an informational tool that should not be misrepresented as an excuse to drive decisions and legislation. This study takes into account the broad range of legislative variables, and their complex relationships, as well as the social realities. It should be recognize that there may be a short-term accuracy for the forecast period of this study.

Discussion

The research study has several variables that contribute to determining the outcome of the results of the data collection. It is difficult to accurately predict all of the variables that will impact the legislative process. Legislators many times enact legislation and create policy changes that can cause decisions to dramatically counter forecast and alter historical data on which projections are based. Correctional legislation as intended in this study, is the legislation that directly refers to prison management and the incarceration of convicted criminal offenders, which collectively impact prison programming and operational issues. The field of corrections is a viable component of the criminal justice system. Therefore, correctional legislation takes into account the historical background, the causes and reactions of crime perpetrated on society. The attitude of society is an important variable in the data processing of this study. Criminal history, attitudes, public opinion, and perception are paramount in the interpretation of the data collected in this study. Correctional trends in the United States represents the relevant problems that society appears to prioritize. Prioritizing criminal misconduct as per this study represents a variable that characterizes societies tolerance or lack of, for criminal misconduct. The crimes that are represented in this study are the reputed offenses that indicate a resentment felt by the general public, offenses that now are at the pinnacle of public and political opinion. These offenses are what American society currently feels are the crimes that require quick and accomplished address, to eliminate such appalling criminal activities from American society.

As the survey indicates, sexual abuse is perceived and categorized as a crime that tears at the center of moral decency in our society today. There were 26 States that had introduced multiple sexual abuse related Bills, introduced into their respective state legislatures. The fact that sex related legislation is prioritized, as the number one legislative trend is not a social revelation. Sexual abuse cases saturate media news reports on a daily bases. It is the fuel that fires the social movements in this county to address this social menace. There is currently political pressure in some states to deter such criminal misconduct (sex abuse crimes) with chemical and surgical castration, and even the death penalty for repeat offenders. Such political and social response to sexual abuse crimes (capital punishment) represents societies anger and outrage. In recent years there has been momentum behind a powerful and dedicated mainstream movement against sexual predators. Its efforts are to raise public awareness, initiate political pressure to demand legislative actions, which will demand hard-line mandatory prison programs, which inadvertently keep offenders incarcerated longer. Longer incarceration periods ultimately increase prison cost, which will financially impact taxpayers. Criminal penalties of sex crimes now mandate that sex offenders upon reentry, back to their respective communities, (or reentry to unsuspecting communities) are required to have extensive tracking and monitoring programs, dictate their residency, mandate their identities be made available via internet sex offender tracking sites, available to the public on request.

Each of the States in this study that currently have sex related crime legislation is yet a prime indication of the national revolting sentiment against this predatory offense.
Drug abuse had the second most legislation introduced during the study period (February 20 through March 20, 2006). The survey indicates that 34 states had 22-drug abuse Bills introduced. It is significant that the majority of the Bills were Bills had a propensity to strengthen existing drug abuse laws. Historically, nearly all states had had strict drug abuse laws in place, however it can be understood that in response to newly committed high profile cases in many states, legislators again were driven by social movements, and community antipathy, to respond by introducing new and rigid legislation to appease public sentiment for drug abuse crimes. Drug abuse is responsible for a significant rise in incarceration cost in this country for the past 25 years. There are thousands of drug abuse correctional programs in prisons across the United States today, each represent a costly and questionable outcome (i.e. therapeutic communities), in their objective to reduce recidivism in this country. Data about people is rarely cut and dried, which heightens the rate of error. There are many assumptions about drug abuse offenders, however we have the practical skills to interpret this data and understand the important factors that are influencing the results of this study, and see its impact on recidivism.

Additionally, the study results indicate several other correctional legislative trends on the rise, which may prove to be another interesting study. Correctional medical and mental health, and DNA extraction legislation appear to be a mounting concern, respectively.

Conclusion

This research project examined the correctional legislative issues of all fifty states of the United States. By no means are the results definitive. I recognize that by using my selected method of data collection, I collected a “snap shot” of the current trends of the legislative agendas currently introduced, and available, during the collection period of February 20, through March 20, 2006. Although these conclusions should be approached with prudence, the results are certainly an accurate depiction of the current social attitudes that so importantly shape public opinion, thus guiding elected officials to devise, write and introduce legislative Bills in the interest of public concern, and in the interest of protecting social order.

The research data indicates that social tolerance is “wearing thin” for sexual abuse crimes, and the sexual predicators who perpetrate these acts. The media has become well versed in covering the details of such high profile offenses. More often are the sadistic details of abused, raped, sodomized, tortured, cannibalized, crimes perpetrated on women or the elderly are regularly revealed in on going, exhaustive media accounts, in most cases entire trials are broadcast entirely on such programs as “Court TV”. From arrest through adjudication, many cases are tried in the media. Vivid accounts continue to disgust and outrage public attitudes, even more disgusting than perhaps, other heinous or capital offenses. Corrections officials are required to provide challenging and expensive rehabilitative programs to curb such disgraceful behaviors. Law enforcement officials are mandated by law to ensure that sex offenders reside outside of school districts, register with police for years, and in some cases wear electric monitors. Despite these serious sanctions, ultimately intended to reduce recidivism, sexual offenders still have a high rate of re-offending. In some jurisdictions, public reaction is less tolerant for repeat sex offenders. There is unprecedented social movements throughout this country to legislative both surgical and chemical castration, life in prison without the possibility of parole, and in some legislatures, there are calls for the death penalty for repeat offenders. This research project has revealed legislative trends in corrections that will certainly emphasize the importance of what can be interpreted as, that social attitudes are prominent, and what specific reactions by legislators are needed to maintain, and sustain the rules of law, that make such sanctions a strong social statement for deterrence.

Drug abuse has been a serious social ill for over twenty-five years. Many states have strict drug laws that are focused on deterrence, but through contemporary programs, practitioners have shifted that focus to the cause of addiction. Currently correctional drug treatment programs are designed with a “clinical approach”. Programs are specifically targeted to address psychological issues, rather than the initial punishment models of years past. Taxpayers pay billions of dollars on drug abuse issues each year. Not immune to politic, Presidential campaigns have produced the arguable “war on drugs” programs, which receive millions of tax dollars for interdiction priorities, both in the United States and abroad with complex Drug Enforcement Administration operations throughout the world.

This study is helpful for field of corrections, it will forecast the need to continue to create more performance based programs, programs that will have a desired impact to address the original objectives of nearly all correctional programming, to reduce recidivism in the criminal justice system.

Public fears and perceptions of sex abuse and drug abuse crimes are real. We need more work to educate the public, educate them about empowering their communities to create their own public destiny. The public can reduce community crime and predatory violence from criminals, thus creating their own destiny. Prisons provide a very good security to keep offenders off the streets and from re-offending, but the reality exist; most offenders will one day be released from prison, therefore it is in the public interest to support prison sex abuse and drug abuse programs. Criminal justice research is an exceptional forecasting tool for evaluating criminal justice crime patterns, prison populations, incarceration issues, evaluating performance-based programs. Society should have a vested interest in understanding the enormous task to re-program offenders, so that they have an opportunity to change and prepare for reentry back into our communities as productive citizens.



Bibliography

1. Gondles, James, Jr., (1996) A Frontline View of the Future of Prisons, The Prison Journal, Vol: 76, p.484-488.

2. alley Engle (2006) Race, Inequality, and Colonialism in the new World Order. Law and Society Review Vol: 40, Issue: 1, p.235-247

3. Lindquist, Stefanie A., Klein, David E., (2006) The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decision making: A Study of Conflict Cases. Law and Society Review Vol: 40, Issue: 1, p.135-162

4. Edwards, William; Hensley, Christopher (2001). Contextualizing Sex Offender Management Legislation and Policy: Evaluating the Problem of Latent Consequences in Community Notification Laws, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Vol: 45, Issue: 1, p.83-101.

5. Wood, Peter B.; Dunaway, R. Gregory (2003) Consequences of Truth-in-Sentencing: The Mississippi Case, Journal of Punishment and Society, Vol: 5, Issue: 2, p.139-154.

6. Katsiyannis, Antonis; Murry, Francie, (2000) Young Offenders with Disabilities: Legal Requirements and Reform Considerations, Journal Of Child and family Studies, Vol: 9 Issue 1, p.75-85

7. Weisstub, David N.; Carney, Terry, (2006) and Forensic Mental Health Law Reform In Japan: From criminal warehousing to broad-spectrum specialist services? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume: 29, Issue: 2, p.86-100

8. Martin, Steven S.; Butzin, Clifford A.; Saum, Christine A.; Inciardi, James A., (1999) Three-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware: From Prison to Work Release to Aftercare, The Prison Journal, Vol: 79, Issue: 3, p.294- 320

9. Gillespie, Wayne, (2005) A Multilevel Model of Drug Abuse Inside Prison, The Prison Journal, Vol: 85, Issue: 2, p.223-246

10. Chang, Tracy F. H., Thompkins, Douglas E., (2002) Corporations Go to Prisons: The Expansion of Corporate Power in the Correctional Industry, Labor Studies Journal, Vol: 27: Issue: 1. P. 45-69

11. Rowley, Jenni, (1998) Towards a Framework for Information Management, International Journal of Information Management, Vol: 18, Issue: 5, p. 359-369.


12. Baird, S. Christopher; Wagner, Dennis, (1990) Measuring Diversion: The Florida
Community Control Program, Crime & Delinquency, Vol: 36, Issue: 1 p.112-125

13. Clark, Judith (1995) The Impact of the Prison Environment on Mothers. The Prison Journal, Vol: 75, Issue: 3. p.306-329

14. McCollum, Sylvia G., (1994) Prison College Programs. The Prison Journal. Vol: 74, Issue: 1. p. 51-61.

15, Kolstad, Arnull. (1996) Imprisonment As Rehabilitation: Offenders’ Assessment of Why It Does Not Work. Journal Of Criminal Justice. Vol: 24. Issue: 4. p. 323-335.

16. Weedon, Joey R, (2005) Budget Proposal Places State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs In Jeopardy, Corrections Today (Legislation Issues) V 67 i3 p18 (1)

17. St. Gerard, Vanessa (2003) Ohio Bill To Help mentally Ill Offenders. Corrections Compendium, V28 i8 p22 (1)

18. Fairchild, Mary; Davis Bell, Julie (Feb. 2000) School Violence Lessons Learned. State Legislatures. V26 i2 p12

19. Morgenstein, Peter D.; Fisher, Eric B. (July 20, 2005) Outside Counsel. New York Law Journal.

20. Samia Mair, Julie; Frattaroli, Shannon; Teret, Stephen P. (Winter 2003) New Hope For Victims Of Prison Sexual Assault. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics. V31 i4 p602 (8)

21. Mel nick, Gerald; DeLeon, George; Thomas, George; Kressel, David; Wexler, Harry K. (Nov. 2001) Treatment Process In Prison Therapeutic Communities: Motivation, Participation, and Outcome. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. V27 ni4 p 633 (18)


22. Grauwiler, Peggy; Mills, Linda G. (Mar. 2004) Moving Beyond the Criminal Justice Paradigm: A Radical restorative Justice Approach To Intimate Abuse. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, V31 i1 p49 (21)


State Legislature Site List

1. Alabama http://www.legislature.state.al.us/AlisHome.html
2. Alaska http://www.state.ak.us/
3. Arizona http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FinalDisposition.asp
4. Arkansas http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/
5. California http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
6. Colorado http://www.leg.state.co.us/
7. Connecticut http://www.cga.ct.gov/
8. Delaware http://www.legis.state.de.us/Legislature.nsf?Open
9. Florida http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cfm
10. Georgia http://www.legis.state.ga.us/
11. Hawaii www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/doc
12. Idaho http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/
13. Illinois http://www.ilga.gov/
14. Indiana http://www.in.gov/legislative/
15. Iowa http://www.legis.state.ia.us/
16. Kansas http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/index.do
17. Kentucky http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/home.htm
18. Louisiana http://www.legis.state.la.us/
19. Maine http://janus.state.me.us/legis/
20. Maryland http://mlis.state.md.us/
21. Massachusetts http://www.mass.gov/legis/legis.htm
22. Michigan http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
23. Minnesota http://www.leg.state.mn.us/
24. Mississippi http://www.ls.state.ms.us/
25. Missouri http://www.moga.state.mo.us/
26. Montana http://leg.state.mt.us/css/
27. Nebraska http://leg.state.mt.us/css/
28. Nevada http://www.leg.state.nv.us/
29. New Hampshire http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/
30. New Jersey http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/
31. New Mexico http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/
32. New York http://assembly.state.ny.us/
33. North Carolina http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/
34. North Dakota http://www.legis.nd.gov/
35. Ohio http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/
36. Oklahoma http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/
37. Oregon http://www.leg.state.or.us/
38. Pennsylvania http://www.legis.state.pa.us/
39. Rhode Island http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/
40. South Carolina www.scstatehouse.net/
41. South Dakota http://legis.state.sd.us/index.aspx
42. Tennessee http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/
43. Texas http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/
44. Utah http://le.utah.gov/
45. Vermont http://www.leg.state.vt.us/
46. Virginia http://legis.state.va.us/
47. Washington http://www1.leg.wa.gov/legislature/
48. West Virginia http://www.legis.state.wv.us/
49. Wisconsin http://www.legis.state.wi.us/
50. Wyoming http://legisweb.state.wy.us/