Talk:Interstate compact

Completeness of lists

My feeling is that these lists are incomplete, but I don't have specific evidence to that effect. Could someone knowledgeable provide some a yay or nay as to the completeness of the lists? If incomplete, I'd suggest adding the template {{listdev}} to either each individually or to the article as a whole. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct -- these lists are incomplete. The best online source for additional information about interstate compacts is the National Center for Interstate Compacts, which is affiliated with The Council of State Governments and can be found at [[1]]. Mmccabe@csg 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's not NPOV?

I am having trouble seeing how this article has a POV problem. Jaysbro 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider the following from the article:

Unlike federal actions that impose unilateral, rigid mandates, compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self regulatory systems over which the party states can maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process.

* * *

Interstate compacts are the most powerful, durable, and adaptive tools for ensuring cooperative action among the states. Unlike federally imposed mandates that often dictate unfunded and rigid requirements, interstate compacts provide a state-developed structure for collaborative and dynamic action, while building consensus among the states and evolving to meet new and increased demands over time.

These are not pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute. Instead, they are statements of a position. Doctor Whom 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It does sound a little overly idealistic. Presumably there are advantages and disadvantages like any other legislative instrument. Peter Grey 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The text below from the current article, except for some headings, is identical to language at http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactEducation/Understanding_Interstate_Compacts--CSGNCIC.pdf , which may explain the NPOV issue.

Introduction

Interstate compacts represent an opportunity for multistate cooperation, reinforcing state sovereignty and avoiding federal intervention. The emergence of broad public policy issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries present new governing challenges to state authorities. Compacts enable the states – in their sovereign capacity – to act jointly and collectively, generally outside the confines of the federal legislative or regulatory process while respecting the view of Congress on the appropriateness of joint action.

Unlike federal actions that impose unilateral, rigid mandates, compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self regulatory systems over which the party states can maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process. Compacts enable the states to develop adaptive structures that can evolve to meet new and increased challenges that naturally arise over time.

Political and legislative framework

Characteristics General purposes for creating an interstate compact include: [NOTE: the source uses bullets instead of numbers]

1. Establish a formal, legal relationship among states to address common problems or promote a common agenda.
2. Create independent, multistate governmental authorities (e.g., commissions) that can address issues more effectively than a state agency acting independently, or when no state has the authority to act unilaterally.
3. Establish uniform guidelines, standards, or procedures for agencies in the compact’s member states.
4. Create economies of scale to reduce administrative and other costs.
5. Respond to national priorities in consultation or in partnership with the federal government.
6. Retain state sovereignty in matters traditionally reserved for the states.
7. Settle interstate disputes.

It should be noted that an interstate compact is not a uniform state law. In fact, an interstate compact differs from a uniform state law in several ways, most notably that a uniform law does not depend on contractual obligations and a state can therefore change any portion of the law, thus losing any degree of uniformity initially intended. Second, courts of different states may interpret the provisions of a uniform state law differently and since the highest court in a state is the final arbiter on legal issues within that state, there is no satisfactory way to achieve a reconciliation of divergent interpretations.

Compacts are created when an offer is made by one state, usually by statute that adopts the terms of a compact requiring approval by one or more other states to become effective. Other states accept the offer by adopting identical compact language. Once the required number of states has adopted the pact, the "contract" among them is valid and becomes effective as provided.

Congressional consent

Article I, Section 10, Clause III of the U.S. Constitution provides in part that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state." Historically, this clause generally meant all compacts must receive congressional consent. However, it has been found in a number of instances, notably the US Supreme Court case Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), that not all compacts require congressional consent. It is well established today that only those compacts that affect a power delegated to the federal government or alter the political balance within the federal system, require the consent of Congress.

Fortunately, even though congressional consent may be needed, it is not particularly burdensome to acquire. Though usually satisfied by means of a congressional resolution granting the states the authority to create a compact, the Constitution specifies neither the means nor the timing of the required consent. Over the years, the Supreme Court has held that congressional consent may be expressed or implied and may be obtained either before or after a compact is enacted.

Historical Development

Prevalence Compacts were seldom used until the 20th century. Between 1783 and 1920, states approved just 36 compacts, most of which were used to settle boundary disputes. But in the last 75 years, more than 150 compacts have been created, most since the end of World War II. On average, a state today belongs to 25 interstate compacts.

Although there are many types of interstate compacts, they can generally be divided into three camps:

1. Border Compacts: agreements between two or more states that establish or alter the boundaries of a state.
2. Advisory Compacts: agreements between two or more states that create study commissions. The purpose of the commission is to examine a problem and report to the respective states on their findings.
3. Regulatory Compacts: broadest and largest category of interstate compacts may be called "regulatory' or "administrative" compacts. Regulatory compacts create ongoing administrative agencies whose rules and regulations may be binding on the states to the extent authorized by the compact.

Compacts Today

The purpose of interstate compacts ranges from implementing common laws to exchanging information about similar problems. They apply to everything from conservation and resource management to civil defense, emergency management, law enforcement, transportation, and taxes. Other compact subjects include education, energy, mental health, workers compensation and low-level radioactive waste.

Some compacts authorize the establishment of multistate regulatory bodies. The first and most famous of these is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which arose from a 1921 compact between the two states. But other agreements are simply intended to establish uniform regulations without creating new agencies.

In recent years, compacts have grown in scope and number. Today, many are designed for regional or national participation, whereas the compacts of old were usually bi-state agreements. Recent efforts include the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact, National Crime Prevention & Privacy Compact, and the Wildlife Violator Compact.

Other examples of compact activity include the revision of existing interstate agreements; updating agreements that maintain relevance, but which require a modernization of their structures. Recent examples include the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and the Interstate Compact for Juveniles.

This seems like a subject worthy of an aricle, something needs to get dome with it or it will probably be gutted.--Hjal (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

There was some debate at the Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact#Interstate Compact? about whether the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is actually an interstate compact or not (and whether the term "interstate compact" has a strict or informal meaning). In the introduction to the article, it mentions that it is an interstate compact. However, if it is an interstate compact (or "any agreement or compact with another state"), then, as noted in Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact#Is Congressional consent required?, it would require Congressional approval, which according to National Popular Vote Interstate Compact#History of the compact, is not necessary. Perhaps someone more familiar with interstate compacts here could clarify these issues, and perhaps note it in this article too, if relevant. --Spoon! (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interstate Compact?

It is not clear to me that the Northwest Power and Conservation Council is the result of an interstate compact, but rather just federal laws. Please remove this organization from this article if this is a correct statement of the facts.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Tennessee vs Virginia

The content about Tennessee vs Virginia not needing the Consent of Congress is wrong even though the source is congress.gov. The actual ruling states that because congress used the boundary between the two states in election, appointment and revenue regulation, they indirectly consented to the agreement on the boundary between the two states. It was not a blank check to not need consent from congress for compacts as is literally required by the constitution. Here’s the source: [2]. As this is Wikipedia, I am well aware this may never get corrected. Rstrug (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Y Rstrug, I have replaced the specific reference to Virginia v. Tennessee, which as you noted, misstated the Court's ruling. Cheers, and thanks for your input. Drdpw (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)