In the Oct. 12 forum between Rep. Barb Wasinger and challenger Ed Hammond, Rep. Wasinger advocated for a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would give the Legislature the authority to revoke or suspend regulations adopted by state agencies. She said this amendment is meant to keep unelected bureaucrats from creating unnecessary or overreaching regulations. However, this amendment is an unnecessary power grab by the Legislature.
Remember, the executive branch agencies develop regulations based on laws passed by the Legislature. There is already a well-established process for developing regulations, which requires approvals from the Director of the Budget, Secretary of Administration, and the Attorney General, followed by public comment at a hearing. Rep. Wasinger’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations can also provide comments on proposed regulations, which have equal weight to those provided at the public hearing. This regulatory process is much more transparent than the Legislature’s and doesn’t involve the sneaky tactics of “Gut and Go” and votes after midnight, commonly used by the Legislature.
Rep. Wasinger’s example of regulations that went too far were new Workers Compensation regulations proposed by the Department of Labor. She asked the Attorney General to review them a second time, but didn’t say whether the regulations eventually were adopted. If they weren’t, that would show the current regulatory process worked and that the constitutional amendment is unnecessary. If they were, then shame on Attorney General Derek Schmidt for doing a poor job of reviewing them during the formal regulatory process.
The Legislature can already revoke regulations by passing laws, but this Constitutional amendment would just make it easier for them – no need to come up with the votes for a veto-proof majority if the Governor disagrees with them.
Giving the Legislature the power to revoke regulations by a simple majority would create regulatory uncertainty. What would happen if the Legislature revoked a regulation? The constitutional amendment on the ballot doesn’t address this. Would the previous regulation be in effect? Or, would there be no regulations in that area? If the latter, that could be dangerous and chaotic.
So, please vote no on this constitutional amendment.
Helen Hands, Hays