Who Decides?

The idea that communities by right may govern themselves is central to the notion of democracy. Layers of bureaucracy, regulatory agencies, state and federal statutes and judicial decisions have created a sediment of law that smothers and snuffs out self-governance by the people who, all state constitutions acknowledge, are the source of governing authority.

For over one hundred years, a simmering home rule movement has haltingly created the framework for communities to take charge of their future, by drafting into law local constitutions, or home rule charters. It is time for this movement to take center stage in American politics and governance, in order to fulfill the barren promises of real democracy.

Find Out More:

Why Home Rule?
Does My State Allow Municipal Home Rule?
Pennsylvania and Home Rule
Cooley Doctrine
J Allen Smith on Municipal Government 
Rodney L. Mott - Home Rule For America's Cities - 1949
Municipal Charters - A Brief History by Jon C. Teaford
A (Very) Brief History of Dillon's Rule

“It is easily seen that the removal of property qualifications for voting and office-holding has had the effect of retarding the movement toward universal municipal home rule.  Before universal suffrage was established the property-owning class was in control of both state and city government. This made state interference in local affairs unnecessary for the protection of property. But with the introduction of universal suffrage the conservative element which dominated the state government naturally favored a policy of state interference as the only means of protecting the property-owning class in the cities. In this they were actively supported by the corrupt politicians and selfish business interests that sought to exploit the cities for private ends. Our municipal conditions are thus the natural result of this alliance between conservatism and corruption.”

--- J. Allen Smith, 1907. The Spirit of American Government, Chapter X "Municipal Government" pp 286-287

"The pulling down process, the democrat adds, must cover what passes for private power as well. Large corporations sustain hierarchy and centralization, enter into myriad public activities, and affect the prospects for democracy at every turn. A guerrilla politics of everyday life would certainly insist upon corporate responsibility in at least two areas. First, corporate officers would become responsible to the citizens whom their actions affect. They would require endorsement from these constituents just as their political counterparts require validation from theirs. Second, corporations would be held responsible to the geographical communities with which they interact. For the valuable privilege of selling goods and services in the rich American market, the democrat might advocate a social tax for all companies, domestic or foreign, to be applied to the community's special stake un these transactions -- educational, environmental, generational, recreational, and the like -- with rebates for appropriate corporate initiatives. Finally, the democrat might turn the Jeffersonian principle of periodic renewal to corporate charters. Every fifteen years, say, a corporation would have to justify its existence, to demonstrate that it serves a desirable function in a socially responsible way. Te more serious the public purpose behind this plan, the democrat predicts, the more routine its procedures would become." 

--- Robert H. Wiebe, 1995, Self Rule: A Cultural History of American Democracy, p 260