SALT LAKE
CITY—The growing trend of federal preemption of state law threatens to
limit the traditional role of states as the laboratories of innovative public
policy, according to a new report by the National Association of State Public
Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). The state PIRGs are presenting the report
this week at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures
in Salt Lake City.
"By tying the hands
of state governments, the federal government is hurting more than the residents
of any one state," said PIRG Research Director Alison Cassady, author of
the report. "Federal preemption suppresses the creativity of state problem-solvers
and shrinks the marketplace of ideas-leaving us with 'lowest common denominator'
solutions across the board."
Over the last three decades,
states have become increasingly active in passing strong laws to protect the
health, safety, and well-being of their residents. The federal government has
increasingly responded to state-level problem-solving with its own powerful
political tool-preempting the right of state governments to legislate on a given
issue and establishing federal law as the "ceiling," or maximum level
of protection.
The state PIRGs' report,
"Tying the Hands
of States: The Impact of Federal Preemption on State Problem-Solvers,"
examines this recent trend and profiles five issue areas where preemption has
affected states' ability to enact protections that are more stringent than federal
law: consumer privacy, banking regulation, health care, global warming, and
nuclear power. The state PIRGs interviewed several state legislators and regulators
to relate their personal experiences and frustrations with federal preemption.
This report comes as Congress
is considering new preemptive legislation on insurance and toxic chemical regulation.
Congress has proposed preempting state insurance regulation and replacing it
with a "one-size-fits-all" federal approach that would override insurance
protection laws in states across the country, such as California's Proposition
103, a 1988 measure that requires insurers to justify proposed auto insurance
rate increases to the state insurance commissioner. Just last week, a House
subcommittee discussed proposed legislation that would prohibit states from
regulating any chemicals included as part of an international treaty on persistent
pollutants or chemicals that may be added to the treaty in the future. This
could nullify bans on toxic flame retardants enacted in California, Maine, and
Hawaii, and proposed in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
and Washington.
"Without the states
acting as incubators of new ideas, Congress and other federal decision-makers
are not likely to enact any proactive legislation to protect consumers, the
environment, or the health and well-being of Americans," stated Cassady.
"Active state governments compel a federal response."
