Now 7 state attorneys general and at least 1 lieutenant governor are looking into the constitutionality of the Nebraska Compromise. Below is a recap of some of the news coverage:
From Colorado’s AG John Suthers via the Denver Post:
The top lawyers say exempting Nebraska alone from millions of dollars in higher Medicaid costs in exchange for Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s support of the bill would violate Constitutional provisions requiring equal treatment among states.
“We think this is an absolutely unprecedented example of favoring one state over other states,” said Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. “Constitutional experts are looking at it. It wouldn’t be ripe for litigation unless signed by the President. But if it is, a bunch of states will challenge it.”
From Texas AG Greg Abbott:
In light of this unprecedented and highly questionable backroom deal, Texas will join South Carolina and other states in an effort to thoroughly review the constitutionality and legality of the Nebraska Compromise. Because it disadvantages Texas taxpayers, the Texas Attorney General’s Office will explore all available avenues to challenge and overturn this legally problematic provision. Our democratic system of government depends upon transparency and openness–this backroom deal goes too far and must be challenged because Texas deserves better.”
From Michigan AG Mike Cox via the Detroit News:
“I am astounded by the sweetheart deal handed to Nebraska, which will be paid for with money taken directly from the pockets of Michigan taxpayers,” Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said in a statement Tuesday night. “People are outraged, and they have every right to be.”
From Washington AG Rob McKenna:
“The arrangement that requires Washington state taxpayers, and those around the country, to permanently pay Nebraska’s additional Medicaid costs carries a price tag of untold millions,” McKenna said. “It raises key constitutional questions about whether residents of certain states should receive special privileges, based on the deal-making skills of their senators.
From North Dakota AG Wayne Stenehjem from the AP:
Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster.
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn’t sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
From South Carolina AG Henry McMaster:
The language of the Nelson provision appears to give the State of Nebraska a permanent exemption from paying the Medicaid expenses all other states in the nation will be required to pay.
In other words, if this amendment stands, taxpayers from South Carolina and other states will be paying the bills for the increase in Nebraska’s Medicaid population. The Nelson provision is unusual in that there is not cut off date or phase out. Many provisions in federal law have a sunset date — say 2, 5, 10, or even 20 years– but this provision will continue in perpetuity.
From Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey via the AP:
Ramsey said Tuesday that the concessions won by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in return for his vote are unconstitutional. Among other things, Nelson won an agreement that the federal government will pay to expand Medicaid services in his state.
“There are lots of issues with the health- care bill in general, but the way it was finally put together almost makes you sick to your stomach,” said Ramsey, of Blountville. “We want to find some way we can opt out of this legislation.”
Giving Nebraska a pass on the growing Medicaid costs for political reasons is a departure from basing states’ reimbursement rates on “objective criteria,” Ramsey said.
