A commission of law officials from all fifty states is in the process of creating a legal framework to give wide powers to governors and state authorities during emergencies
I believe analysis, as was done by NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research), into the success of Covid-19 response is instructive. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf
7 states did not impose stay-at-home rules. Those states and their NBER rank out of 51 are: Arkansas (#9/R), Iowa (#11/R), Nebraska (#2/R), North Dakota (#14/R), South Dakota (#5/R), Utah (#1/R), and Wyoming (#21/R). The bottom 6 jurisdictions, all given a grade of F or F-, are: Illinois (#46/D), California (#47/D), New Mexico (#48/D), New York (#49/D), District of Columbia (#50/D) and New Jersey (#51/D). I hate the idea of a standardized response, either through UCL or WHO.
I fail to see how the ULC finds this in their bailiwick. Unlike technical matters of commercial codes there is no obvious benefit to "uniformity" here. There might be some ostensible interstate-efficiency benefit if it resulted in more uniform emergency declarations and more consistent actions taken with respect to those emergencies. But it won't; it is merely proposing a meta framework for how such decisions are made. Different governors will still make wildly different decisions under this framework. To achieve any real predictability and rationality to emergency measures, what is needed is exactly what you say it doesn't do: dive into the merits of what really constitutes a emergency, and what constitutes a proportionate response to such. Very little of what we have been subject to for the last 3 years could ever pass such a test.
Thank you for addressing this critical issue. As you said, you have not seen this covered elsewhere. And it is with trepidation I express this next thing - which is better, for American states to have these draconian powers or the World Health Organization which thoroughly undermines our very sovereignty? We are thrown upon hot coals either way but a less poison pill seems to be the option the WHO has no control over.
God I hate all of this. Truly hate it!
Thank you for your faithful reporting.
This is so shady.
“ And a memo indicates that the ULC expects the adoption of the Act will result in people suing only if the Act itself wasn’t followed, rather than suing based on a claim that the governor’s actions were unconstitutional. This may limit the scope of legal recourse.” So DeSantis could be sued but not Newsome?
Yet, this only a framework that state legislators, in each individual state, would have to adopt. And also subject to constitutional challenges. I find it extremely hard to believe that citizens, having been burned by their own state governments, would be not be angry at an attempt to legalize another power grab.
Aren't most states moving in the opposite direction?
"At least 30 states, nearly all led by Republican legislatures, have passed laws since 2020 that limit public health authority [...]
Health officials and governors in more than half the country are now restricted from issuing mask mandates, ordering school closures and imposing other protective measures or must seek permission from their state legislatures before renewing emergency orders, the analysis showed."
Good article, I appreciate the information. There's also the issue of enforcement of the rules. Here in Seattle, I was told that sitting at a park bench alone was not allowed, and a park employee had me leave. We had a 'moving parks' policy, where parks were open for people to commute but not to for sitting. Meanwhile thousands of protesters gathered at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest for several weeks. On Juneteenth there was a party at Judkins Park with dj's tons of people in attendance dancing, and Seattle Parks and Rec helped set up the show.