The author explores central issues in sentencing reform -- disparity, severity, and the distribution of authority -- and then addresses the legislative maneuvering and statutes that created the two States' sentencing guidelines commissions. This discussion emphasizes that Minnesota's commission had a mandate that was more specific and more limited than did Pennsylvania, making its task more feasible. The paper contrasts the internal dynamics of each commission in interpreting its mandate, defining tasks, and organizing the work. For example, the Minnesota commission included private citizens and correctional officials but excluded legislators, while Pennsylvania followed the opposite policy. While Minnesota had a strong, consultative-type leader and harmonious staff-member relations, Pennsylvania experienced weak leadership and internal dissension. Both commissions adopted a single guideline, grid-type format, but approached content areas differently. Minnesota's guidelines were accepted because the changes they introduced were principled and limited in scope, they left important areas of discretion untouched, and they gave more than they took to affected interest groups. Pennsylvania's guidelines were responsive to the legislative mandate, but politically unpalatable in a State characterized by regional disparity and extensive judicial discretion. The Pennsylvania commission revised its guidelines, with the legislature finally adopting ones with broad ranges and a commitment in increased severity. The paper includes 16 footnotes and 8 references.