How the Federalism Scorecard Measures State Vulnerability to Federal Influence
The Federalism Scorecard is a 50-state analysis measuring state vulnerability to federal pressure. States score higher when elected officials have greater visibility into and authority over agency regulations, federal grants, federal guidance and other sources of federal influence.
Methodology
50 states
19 measures
Updated annually
Internal and external safeguards
The Scorecard looks at two sets of safeguards: internal and external. All concern themselves with the balance of power between a citizenry’s elected representatives and unelected agency officials. The internal rules are those that govern a state’s executive branch agencies, while the external rules affect the ability of federal agencies to influence state decision-making.
What does the Federalism Scorecard measure?
A higher score indicates a state’s greater strength against federal pressure and influence. It means elected officials hold more of the legal and institutional tools needed to see and check that influence, whether it arrives through grant conditions and their unreimbursed costs, through the state's fiscal dependence on federal dollars, through informal federal guidance, or through the state's own bureaucracy. While leaders from states at the top of the Federalism Scorecard should be relieved that they have more tools with which to resist federal manipulation, a full toolshed doesn’t mean work is actually getting done. A leader who uses one tool diligently can protect a state better than one who holds every tool and leaves them on the wall.
What does the Scorecard not measure?
Whether officials use the authority they have. The Scorecard measures tools available, not vigilance in using them.
Best-to-worst state quality. It is an index of vulnerability, not an assessment of cost of living, economic freedom, safety, or desirability.
Precise magnitude. The Scorecard aims for directional reliability rather than pinpoint accuracy. We can say with confidence that a state with fewer legal and institutional protections faces greater risk of unseen federal pressure, but not exactly how much more vulnerable one state is than another.
Oversight outside formal proceedings. Much oversight happens outside hearing rooms. Scoring reflects only what appears in the formal record.
Whether federal dollars are well spent. The Scorecard measures a state's exposure to federal leverage, not the merits of any particular program or grant.
What does a high score mean?
Each state earns points across nineteen variables in two categories. Three of those variables operate as deductions rather than awards, which is why some states finish below zero. There is no normalization to a fixed scale; a state's score is the sum of what it earned and what it lost.
Point values differ by variable, reflecting how much protection each one actually provides. Several variables award partial credit where a protection exists but is narrow, exception-ridden, or unused.
How are scores calculated?
Scoring rests on primary legal sources: state constitutions, statutes, administrative procedure acts, agency rules, and court decisions. Committee and hearing data come from the legislative websites of each state. Two variables use external quantitative data: federal lobbying expenditures from opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying and the U.S. Census Bureau, and state revenue from federal funds from the U.S. Census Bureau.
What sources are used?
How often is the Scorecard updated?
The Federalism Scorecard is published annually. The first edition appeared in 2023; 2026 is the fourth. The 2026 edition reflects state law in effect as of April 30, 2026.
Can scores change after publication?
Each published edition is the Center's record of state law for that year. Scores are not revised as new laws pass or conditions change; those are reflected in the following edition. Across four editions, one published score has been corrected. Readers who believe a score misstates their state's law should write to federalism@spn.org with a citation to the relevant statute, rule, or decision.
Suggested citation:
Tony Woodlief and Tenille Martin, 2026 Federalism Scorecard, Center for Practical Federalism, 2026.
For articles and other general references:
Center for Practical Federalism's 2026 Federalism Scorecard
How should I cite the Federalism Scorecard
The 2026 edition changed in two ways that affect scores independently of any change in state law.
The Null and Void Statutes variable was removed, because there was not enough evidence that states build nullification clauses into statutes as a way of protecting federal funds. It had operated as a deduction, so removing it raises California, Colorado, Georgia, and Texas by 5 points and leaves all other scores unchanged.
Standards were also raised on several variables where the presence of a statute proved insufficient without evidence of use, including oversight committees, contingency planning, and federal grant cost accounting. Fewer states received full credit on those variables in 2026. In those cases the underlying state laws did not change; the standard did. Most of this year's declines come from this, not from any state retreating from protections it had in place.