Inside the 50th Anniversary of NCSL: Lessons From the States
POPVOX Foundation’s Anne Meeker and Sirena Harrop reflect on AI, capacity gaps, and takeaways from Boston’s record-setting summit
This August, Boston hosted the 50th anniversary summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), bringing together thousands of lawmakers and staff from across the United States – and beyond – for three days of debate, training, and networking. Founded in 1975, NCSL is the bipartisan organization that serves every state legislature, the District of Columbia, and US territories, providing policy research, training, and technical assistance. Its annual Legislative Summit is the premier gathering for state-level policymakers to share ideas, explore innovations, and build connections.
This year’s milestone edition was the largest yet, drawing over 9,000 participants. Among them were POPVOX Foundation’s Deputy Director Anne Meeker and intern Sirena Harrop who joined the crowd to explore how state legislatures are grappling with emerging issues. In our conversation, they described what it was like to be immersed in the “business of legislating” at such a scale, from the celebratory mood (complete with tote bags and historical reenactors) to sobering discussions about security and legislative capacity.
POPVOX Foundation Deputy Director Anne Meeker and intern Sirena Harrop attend the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Anne and Sirena were especially struck by the stark variation in resources and staffing across state legislatures – a gap that shapes everything from policymaking speed to constituent service. They also saw how artificial intelligence could play a role in easing those capacity constraints, if adopted carefully and with the right institutional support.
They came away impressed by the chance to connect with legislators as “people, not just officeholders.” Still, they noted some absences, like fewer conversations on democratic innovation and casework, and the missing delegations from some of the largest states.
In the edited conversation below, they walk us through what they learned, what they liked, and what they hope to see next time NCSL convenes.
Beatriz: I thought maybe we could just start with you telling me the highlights of this event, because it was the 50th anniversary of NCSL. It was a big deal.
Sirena: When you said “50th anniversary,” it immediately brought me to the fact that they had a bunch of historical re-enactment people hanging around. You could tell they were in a celebratory mood, very focused on the conference and on what they’ve been doing. They did a bunch of what I want to almost call “party favors”. They gave away books, playing cards. The energy was good. It felt like a conference, and there were a lot of people there. Because we spent most of the time in the exhibition hall, it’s hard to really say what was going on more broadly, but in the exhibition hall you could tell people were there and ready to talk.
Anne: One thing that really stuck with me was the scale. We’re used to congressional events where, if we get 30 people in a room to talk about legislative modernization, that’s a huge win. There were 9,000 people at this conference – the biggest they’ve ever had. Nine thousand state legislators, state staffers, institutional folks from all 50 state legislatures, all of the territories as well. There was also an international presence. There were delegations from South Africa, Australia, Canada, Germany, India. For us legislative nerds, it was an incredible opportunity to be at one of the world’s only trade shows for the business of legislating. We were surrounded by 9,000 of our closest nerd friends.
Beatriz: Could you walk me through what the conference looked like? You mentioned an exhibition hall with booths. Were there conversations happening outside that space?
Anne: I arrived a day early to attend some sessions, so I saw more of the event. It was a classic conference: a couple of main general sessions where everyone was together in one room, overflow rooms for big-picture topics.
One thing I want to highlight: although it was celebratory, the opening general session was also quite somber because of the recent murders of state legislators and their family members in Minnesota. The opening session was largely a memorial to the former speaker of the Minnesota House, Melissa Hortman, with many of her colleagues speaking.
There were also sessions that focused on security and safety, which are concerns shared among many legislators at the state, federal, and international levels.
For the most part, there were multiple tracks on different topics of interest. We tried to cover a lot of ground. Serena and I split up so we could attend many sessions on AI as well as issue-specific topics like cryptocurrency, HR1, and infrastructure. And, of course, a lot of socializing and figuring out what was going on in the massive exhibit hall.
Beatriz: I’m curious about the international crowd. Why were they there? And what do you think they got out of it?
Anne: We think of legislatures in the context of democracy – the social contract in action – but legislating is also a huge business. It takes a lot of resources to keep legislatures running, and that professionalization was on display at this conference.
In the exhibit hall, where Serena and I were talking to legislators about our work at the POPVOX Foundation, we were surrounded by tech vendors selling solutions to campaigns and to legislators (CRM platforms for constituent services, outreach, etc).
I can’t speak directly for the international folks, but I think they come to see how technology and the business of legislation are handled in other countries, to find tools that might be useful, and to have this unusual experience for legislators just being “normal people” for a few days.
Beatriz: What do you mean?
Anne: Usually legislators are surrounded by staff and constituents. They’re overscheduled. Here they had three or four days to hang out with other legislators and talk about what the experience is like. Most people who serve in legislatures are isolated in their personal lives – you’re the only representative from your district. Watching them just be people, make friends, talk about the hard and good parts, was special.
Beatriz: Serena, do you have anything to add?
Sirena: Just one small thing – it was fun to see how much merchandise was being given out. You’d still see it scattered across Boston at the end of the day. If you saw someone carrying a bunch of tote bags, you knew they were from the conference. It showed the magnitude of the event, even outside the venue.
Beatriz: I wanted to talk a little bit about the sessions.
Anne: There’s no way we could have gone to all of them!
Beatriz: What were the ones you attended on AI? What did you learn about AI that you didn’t know before the conference?
Anne: Two sessions really stood out. One was on how different states are approaching AI regulation. This is contested territory: the negotiation over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act included debate over whether it would impose a moratorium on state-level AI regulation. Despite that, a huge number of states have already introduced AI bills – well over a thousand this year.
The panel featured lawmakers from three states, each taking a different approach. Some were focused on the impact of AI on children, especially deep fakes and explicit images. Others took a hands-off approach. Utah, for example, said they didn’t yet know the right questions to ask or where the potential harms were. They wanted to work with the state Department of Commerce to create mitigation agreements with companies, gather information on issues, and feed that back to the legislature to eventually inform policy. It was an interesting, measured approach.
Beatriz: That reminds me of my last ModParl post about New Zealand. In my experience working with AI so far, I’ve noticed two types of approaches: one where people want to move as fast as possible, and another where they say, “We don’t even know what to ask yet, so let’s take it slow.” Utah would be in that second category, right?
Anne: Totally. That aligns with how we’ve been approaching AI at POPVOX Foundation: legislators need to understand the technology to regulate it smartly. We like policies that allow for responsible experimentation. You can’t know where the problems are until you start working with it.
What also stood out to me was how much variation there is in AI expertise among legislators. Some are fluent in the terminology; others are encountering it for the first time. There’s a huge opportunity for smart, neutral, nonpartisan education on AI for lawmakers.
Beatriz: Is it a lack of information problem for some of them?
Anne: My initial thought is there’s actually an overload of information. At NCSL, there were many AI-focused sessions and exhibitor booths. AI was everywhere, which can be overwhelming. People may not even realize what they do and don’t know.
Sirena: I agree. Some people were very tapped in and had a strong understanding of AI. Maine, for example, already has multiple committees. Others said they weren’t interested or didn’t think AI was a good thing. There’s both an overload and a wide spectrum of knowledge, from very well-informed to having no idea what it is.
Beatriz: So more information doesn’t necessarily mean more knowledge.
Anne: Exactly. One session did address that. It was about internal AI use for legislatures, with IT staff from different states. One legislature’s IT shop had only three people responsible for everything from deploying AI responsibly to basic tech support, so they relied heavily on AI for capacity.
In contrast, Washington’s legislature had a 60-person IT team, giving them more flexibility to do proactive AI work. They were among the first to have an internal responsible AI policy, which they’ve updated multiple times. They said investing in infrastructure pays off: you have in-house experts to educate members and answer questions like, “What’s the difference between machine learning and AI?”
Beatriz: So you’re building institutional knowledge, not just personal knowledge.
Anne: Yes. And it’s technical institutional knowledge, distinct from policy knowledge.
Beatriz: Were you able to pick up on any innovations outside the tech realm? Anne, you went to a session on public ballot measures as a kind of barometer for how constituents feel about legislatures. What was that about?
Anne: That session was actually on direct ballot measures. Most states allow you to gather a certain number of signatures to put an issue directly on the ballot. A legal scholar had analyzed ballot measures in the U.S. from 1792 to 2020 – an incredible dataset – and drew some insights about public attitudes toward state legislatures.
One example was ballot measures to increase or decrease legislators’ pay. His takeaway was that Americans are skeptical of lawmakers’ motives but interested in legislative function. That runs counter to the cliché that Americans love their legislators but hate legislative institutions. He found that people do care about how legislatures function and will engage when those questions are on the ballot.
Beatriz: The opposite of what’s usually assumed. That’s good to know.
Anne: Yes, and it’s actually positive for our work. It shows the public is interested in the nuts and bolts of how democracy happens.
Beatriz: How about casework? Was that covered?
Anne: Not much. We might have missed it in sessions for first-term lawmakers or new staff, but it wasn’t a big part of the overall conversation. I was surprised, especially walking around the exhibit hall and seeing so many advocacy groups and tech vendors.
One notable absence was groups focused on democratic innovation: citizens’ assemblies, new town hall formats. If they were there, I didn’t see them.
Beatriz: That is surprising, especially with the new tech tools to support that.
Anne: In fairness, there is a significant cost barrier. Setting up a booth like we did isn’t cheap, and that would put it out of reach for many smaller organizations.
Beatriz: What other absences did you notice?
Sirena: A couple of states were missing: almost no California, no Texas. Those are large delegations that play a big role at the state level.
Anne: To be fair, Texas was in the middle of a redistricting fight during NCSL.
Sirena: True. California might have had a similar reason, but it was still surprising. Another thing that stood out to me was the number of tech companies present. It felt like an opportunity for them to lobby. TikTok, for example, was showing legislators how to make government accounts and post from them. Their booth highlighted stats like how many Americans earn a livelihood through the platform. It wasn’t subtle, and people flocked to it.
Other tech companies did similar things. Google showcased AI tools for identifying potholes using camera data. It felt like advertising.
I also attended a session on AI and the energy grid. It made me realize legislators are concerned not just about how AI is used, but also about its impact on infrastructure. The panel – mainly energy providers and Microsoft – spent the first half touting the benefits of AI, then switched to acknowledging that data centers could put a huge strain on the grid. They cited Colorado’s energy production targets as potentially unattainable.
Anne: Same in a session I attended on AI and robotics in manufacturing. An Amazon representative described all the ways AI and robots would benefit warehouses and the economy.
Beatriz: Anything else you’d like to highlight – good, missing, domestic, or international?
Anne: For me, coming from a congressional background, it was important to learn from state legislators rather than walk in as if Congress has all the answers. We wanted to hear about their work and challenges, which are often similar: too much to do, not enough time, staff, or money.
Some of the stories were sobering. One legislator lost significant law firm clients because of his political work. Another said staff turnover was so high that it didn’t make sense to keep investing so much time into training them, so she just did the work herself – at the cost of time with her family. These capacity issues have real personal impacts.
Beatriz: That’s similar to what I see in other countries. The national legislature has one reality, but at subnational levels, the diversity of capacity and resources is shocking.
Anne: Exactly. And as we discussed earlier, AI tools can help, but only if legislators have the institutional infrastructure to use them responsibly. Everything is connected: the legislature’s setup, office capacity, member expertise, ability to regulate effectively, and the flood of information from private companies and lobbyists.
Beatriz: Yes, it all fits in the same picture. And the more I talk to legislators who use AI carefully, the more I see it can help address some of these challenges.
Anne: One legislator told us she uses ChatGPT to figure things out so she can spend more time with her family. State legislators with severe capacity constraints may have more incentive to adopt capacity-building tools like AI than Congress does. It’s valuable to build relationships and learn from them.
Beatriz: It also makes me appreciate our work even more.
Anne: Yes. And we often had to emphasize that the POPVOX Foundation is not a tech company, although we do develop proof-of-concept, open-source tools and frameworks. We’re nonprofit, run by former congressional staff who love legislative institutions and want to make them work better. When we explained that, skeptical state legislators would say, “Oh, you’re my people. Let’s talk.”
Sirena: I also stressed that we’re not trying to replace staffers, but to help them do their jobs more easily. Once people realized we weren’t selling a product, they were curious about how we operate. It was fun to break the ice and see the dynamic change. People really appreciated the work once they understood.
Beatriz: That’s awesome. Thank you both.
