State, local and tribal government

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Card A on the local governments of two states (data). Card A, "Local governments, 2022 Census of Governments". Who made it: the US Census Bureau. When: counted in 2022. For whom: the public. Why: to count the units of local government. Data and note: Units counted, not powers or budgets. United States: 90,837 local governments in all, of which 3,031 are counties, 19,491 municipalities, 16,214 townships, 39,555 special districts and 12,546 independent school districts (general-purpose governments 38,736; special-purpose 52,101). Arizona: 674 in all; 15 counties, 91 municipalities, 326 special districts, 242 school districts. West Virginia: 639 in all; 55 counties, 231 municipalities, 298 special districts, 55 school districts. Neither state has townships. Apportionment population, 2020: Arizona 7,158,923; West Virginia 1,795,045.

2. 1.

   Kira claims West Virginia has more local governments than Arizona because it has more counties and cities. Using card A, which verdict is best?

   • Unsupported: card A counts units, not powers or budgets, so no comparison of the two states' local governments is possible at all
   • Not supported: Arizona has 674 to 639, since across all four types its extra districts outweigh West Virginia's counties and cities
   • Supported per person: West Virginia has about 36 units per 100,000 residents to Arizona's 9, so it has more local governments
   • Supported: West Virginia has 55 counties and 231 municipalities against Arizona's 15 and 91, so it has more local government overall

3. Use this

   Cards A to C on where a city's powers come from (the excerpts are exact). Card A, "The Tenth Amendment (1791)". Who made it: Congress proposed it and the states ratified it. When: ratified December 15, 1791. For whom: the people of the United States. Why: to say where unlisted powers sit. Excerpt: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Card B, "Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907)". Who made it: Justice William Moody, for the Court. When: 1907. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Pennsylvania could merge a city into another without the city's consent. Excerpt 1: "Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be intrusted to them." Excerpt 2: "The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state." Card C, "Arizona Constitution, Article 13, Section 2". Who made it: the people of Arizona. When: 1912. For whom: Arizona cities and the state. Why: to let larger cities write charters. Excerpt: "Any city containing, now or hereafter, a population of more than three thousand five hundred may frame a charter for its own government consistent with, and subject to, the Constitution and the laws of the state"

4. 2.

   A student says the Tenth Amendment gives cities powers of their own against their state. Milo uses cards A to C. What is the best verdict?

   • Not supported: the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to states or the people, and Hunter says a state entrusts cities with theirs
   • Refuted: Hunter says a state has absolute discretion over cities, so a city's charter is worthless against any state law
   • Supported: Arizona's clause lets a city frame a charter for its own government, so cities hold powers of their own against the state
   • Supported: the Amendment reserves powers to the people, and a city council is the people acting locally, so cities hold reserved powers

5. Use this

   Cards A and B on Arizona signature counts (A is exact; B is data). Card A, "Arizona's petition rules". Who made it: Arizona voters and the Constitution (1912), as set out by Ballotpedia. When: in force today. For whom: Arizona voters and officials. Why: to set how many signatures a petition needs. Excerpt 1: "initiated constitutional amendment (ICA): 15 percent of the votes cast for governor" Excerpt 2: "initiated state statute (ISS): 10 percent of the votes cast for governor" Excerpt 3: "veto referendum (VR): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor" Card B, "Signatures required for an amendment". Who made it: Ballotpedia, from the Arizona Secretary of State. When: 2012 to 2026. For whom: students of government. Why: to show how the count has moved. Data and note: Required signatures for an initiated constitutional amendment: 259,213 in 2012 and 2014; 225,963 in 2016 and 2018; 356,467 in 2020 and 2022; 383,923 in 2024 and 2026. Each count comes from the votes cast for governor at the election before.

6. 3.

   Required signatures for an Arizona amendment went from 259,213 in 2014 to 383,923 in 2024. Noah says lawmakers made the rule stricter. Which verdict is best?

   • Refuted: the count fell in 2016, so the process has become easier since 2014 and the claim is wrong on its face
   • Shown: the 15 percent rule applies to registered voters, which grew faster than turnout and so raised the count each year
   • Shown: the count rose from 259,213 to 383,923, so lawmakers made the rule stricter over those years of rising counts
   • Not shown: the rule is still 15 percent of votes cast for governor, so the count follows turnout, and it fell in 2016

7. Use this

   Cards A to C on petition tools (cards A and B are exact; card C is made up). Card A, "Arizona's petition rules". Who made it: Arizona voters and the Constitution (1912), as set out by Ballotpedia. When: in force today. For whom: Arizona voters and officials. Why: to set how many signatures a petition needs. Excerpt 1: "initiated constitutional amendment (ICA): 15 percent of the votes cast for governor" Excerpt 2: "initiated state statute (ISS): 10 percent of the votes cast for governor" Excerpt 3: "veto referendum (VR): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor" Card B, "Arizona's recall rule". Who made it: Arizona voters and the Constitution, as set out by Ballotpedia. When: in force today. For whom: Arizona voters and officials. Why: to set how many signatures a recall needs. Excerpt: "The number of signatures required to qualify for a recall attempt for the ballot is 25% of the number of votes cast in the last election for that office." Card C, "Park and Law L". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: In a made-up Arizona-style state, 2,400,000 votes were cast for governor at the last election. State Senator Park won the seat with 50,000 votes. The legislature passed Law L, which Park backed.

8. 4.

   Law L passed and Senator Park backed it. Pia compares a referendum on Law L with a recall of Park, using cards A to C. Which needs fewer signatures?

   • They need the same number, because both rules count signatures against votes cast in the last election for the office
   • The referendum: a recall of Park needs 25 percent of 2,400,000, or 600,000, which is far more than the 120,000 needed
   • The recall of Park: 25 percent of 50,000 is 12,500, far below the 120,000 (5 percent of 2,400,000) a referendum needs
   • The referendum: 5 percent is a smaller share than 25 percent, so it needs fewer signatures than a recall of Park would

9. Use this

   Cards A to C on changing two state constitutions (the excerpts are exact). Card A, "West Virginia Constitution, Article XIV, Section 2". Who made it: the people of West Virginia. When: 1872. For whom: the Legislature and voters. Why: to say how the constitution is amended. Excerpt 1: "Any amendment to the constitution of the state may be proposed in either house of the Legislature at any regular or extraordinary session thereof; and if the same, being read on three several days in each house, be agreed to on its third reading, by two thirds of the members elected thereto" Excerpt 2: "it shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide by law for submitting the same to the voters of the state for ratification or rejection" Excerpt 3: "If a majority of the qualified voters, voting on the question at the polls held pursuant to such law, ratify the proposed amendment, it shall be in force from the time of such ratification, as part of the constitution of the state." Card B, "What West Virginia lacks". Who made it: Ballotpedia. When: read in 2026. For whom: students of government. Why: to name the ways a constitution can be changed. Excerpt: "West Virginia does not feature the power of initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes." Card C, "Arizona's petition rules". Who made it: Arizona voters and the Constitution (1912), as set out by Ballotpedia. When: in force today. For whom: Arizona voters and officials. Why: to set how many signatures a petition needs. Excerpt 1: "initiated constitutional amendment (ICA): 15 percent of the votes cast for governor" Excerpt 2: "initiated state statute (ISS): 10 percent of the votes cast for governor" Excerpt 3: "veto referendum (VR): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor"

10. 5.

    Ren claims West Virginia voters have no part in changing their constitution. Using cards A to C, which verdict is best?

    • Supported: the Legislature proposes amendments by a two-thirds vote and voters only watch, so they have no part in change
    • Not supported: West Virginia voters can start an amendment by petition, as Arizona voters can with 15 percent of the vote for governor
    • Not supported: voters must ratify every amendment by a majority, though unlike Arizona's they cannot start one by petition
    • Not supported: a majority of the Legislature alone can put an amendment into force, with voters consulted later if at all

11. Use this

    Cards A to C on tribes and cities (the excerpts are exact). Card A, "Worcester v. Georgia (1832)". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, for the Court. When: 1832. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Georgia could convict a man for living in Cherokee territory without a state license. Excerpt: "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force" Card B, "Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)". Who made it: Justice Thurgood Marshall, for the Court. When: 1978. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a tribe's membership rule could be challenged in federal court. Excerpt 1: "Indian tribes are 'distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights' in matters of local self-government." Excerpt 2: "Although no longer 'possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty,' they remain a 'separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations.'" Card C, "Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907)". Who made it: Justice William Moody, for the Court. When: 1907. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Pennsylvania could merge a city into another without the city's consent. Excerpt 1: "Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be intrusted to them." Excerpt 2: "The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state."

12. 6.

    Tala claims tribal governments are just another kind of local government, like a city. Using cards A to C, which verdict is best?

    • Supported: card B says tribes lost the full attributes of sovereignty, so they now hold only what the nation entrusts to them
    • Supported: all three cards describe a government inside a state's borders, so a tribe and a city differ only in size
    • Not supported: cards A and B call a tribe a distinct political community; card C makes a city only an agent of the state
    • Refuted: tribes are sovereign, so state law can never reach anything done on tribal land by anyone, whoever they are

13. Use this

    Cards A and B on a tribe and nonmembers (card A is exact; card B is made up). Card A, "Montana v. United States (1981)". Who made it: Justice Potter Stewart, for the Court. When: 1981. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a tribe could regulate what nonmembers do on land within its reservation that nonmembers owned. Excerpt 1: "the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe." Excerpt 2: "A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements." Excerpt 3: "A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe." Card B, "Two cases on made-up Tallgrass Nation land". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: The Tallgrass Nation requires a license from a nonmember who leases a shop from the Nation to sell goods on tribal land. Case 2: The Nation fines a nonmember family for the color of the house on land the family owns inside the reservation; the family has no dealings with the Nation, and the color harms no one.

14. 7.

    Zee applies card A to the two cases on card B. Which pair of verdicts is strongest?

    • Case 2 stands, since the house is inside the reservation, and Case 1 fails, since a lease is only a private deal
    • Both fail, since card A says a tribe's powers do not extend to nonmembers in any case at all, whatever the facts
    • Case 1 stands, since a lease is a consensual relationship; Case 2 likely fails, with no dealings at all and no harm done
    • Both stand, since a tribe holds inherent sovereign power over everyone who is on its reservation, members or not

15. Use this

    Cards A and B on two cases about tribes and states (the excerpts are exact; the dates are in our words). Card A, "Worcester v. Georgia (1832)". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, for the Court. When: 1832. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Georgia could convict a man for living in Cherokee territory without a state license. Excerpt: "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force" Card B, "Montana v. United States (1981)". Who made it: Justice Potter Stewart, for the Court. When: 1981. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a tribe could regulate what nonmembers do on land within its reservation that nonmembers owned. Excerpt 1: "the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe." Excerpt 2: "Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands."

16. 8.

    Ari says Worcester proves a state can never govern anything inside a reservation today. Using cards A and B, which verdict is best?

    • Refuted: Worcester concerned only Georgia, so it has no bearing on any other state, any nation or any later case
    • Refuted: Montana (1981) is newer than Worcester (1832), so Worcester no longer counts for anything in courts today
    • Shown: Worcester says Georgia's laws can have no force in Cherokee territory, so the same holds for every state today
    • Not shown: card A concerns only Georgia's laws and one nation in 1832, and card B shows later cases turn on who is involved

17. Use this

    Cards A to C on a city and a state (card A is exact; cards B and C are made up). Card A, "Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907)". Who made it: Justice William Moody, for the Court. When: 1907. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Pennsylvania could merge a city into another without the city's consent. Excerpt 1: "Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be intrusted to them." Excerpt 2: "The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state." Card B, "State Q's home-rule clause". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: A made-up clause in State Q's constitution reads: "A city of more than 5,000 residents may frame a charter for its own government, consistent with the laws of the state. If a charter and a state law conflict on a matter of purely local concern, the charter governs." Card C, "Atlas City". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Atlas City in State Q has a charter that sets council pay at $60,000 a year. A later state law caps council pay in every city at $40,000, to protect taxpayers across the state.

18. 9.

    Bo weighs Atlas City's charter pay against the state cap on card C. Using cards A and B, which reasoning is strongest?

    • The charter wins only if pay is a purely local concern; otherwise the clause's "consistent with the laws of the state" lets the cap win
    • Neither, because card B says nothing about pay and so the clause cannot reach this conflict at all, in either direction
    • The cap governs, because card A says a state holds absolute discretion over its cities and a charter is only the city's own rule, subject to it
    • The charter governs, because card B lets a city frame its own government and its council's pay is part of its own government

19. Use this

    Cards A to C on a county's powers (card A is exact; cards B and C are made up). Card A, "Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907)". Who made it: Justice William Moody, for the Court. When: 1907. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Pennsylvania could merge a city into another without the city's consent. Excerpt 1: "Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be intrusted to them." Excerpt 2: "The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state." Card B, "State S's county law". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: A made-up State S statute reads: "A county may exercise only the powers this law grants it in express words, and those powers necessarily implied by them." The law grants counties power to build and keep roads and bridges. Card C, "Pike County". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Pike County wants to run a ferry across a wide river, where a bridge would cost far more than the county can raise.

20. 10.

    Jun asks whether Pike County on card C may run a ferry under State S's law on card B. Using card A, which reasoning is strongest?

    • Yes: card A says the state gives counties absolute discretion, so the county's own judgment decides what is implied
    • Only if a ferry is necessarily implied by the power over roads and bridges; the law reads a county's powers narrowly
    • Yes: a ferry serves the same public purpose as a bridge, and a county may do anything that serves the public
    • No: a county is a state agent, so it may do nothing the statute does not name, and ferries are not named in the law