Throughout this week, the Washington Examiner’s Restoring America project will feature its latest series titled “Reforming the Deep State: Reining in the Federal Bureaucracy.” We invited some of the best policy minds in the conservative movement to speak to the issues of what waste, fraud, abuse, and unaccountability exist throughout the federal government and what still needs to be done. To read more from this series, click here.
The old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows could prove true once again. On the surface, Republicans and Democrats seem as divided as ever, locked in battles that dominate headlines. But if you look past the slogans to places such as Raleigh, Baton Rouge, and Oklahoma City, you’ll find something different: a trend quietly taking shape in state capitals. And more importantly, you’ll see a solution that both sides of the aisle could agree on — or at the very least — one they should.
Consider two major concerns driving today’s political fights in Washington. On the one hand, you have Republicans clamoring against the administrative state, highlighting how entrenched bureaucrats are shaping public policy free from any direct accountability from voters. Democrats, meanwhile, are raising alarms about authoritarianism, hosting ‘No Kings’ protests to demand democracy and accountability. Both sides are, in their own way, sounding the alarm about unchecked power.
What if there were a way to decrease centralized power and place major decision-making power back in the hands of democratically elected officials that are directly accountable to the American people?
Several states have done just that by passing the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. The premise is quite simple: before a government agency can issue a regulation that has a significant economic impact, it must first win approval from the legislature. To put it more simply, unelected bureaucrats don’t get to make the laws; elected representatives do. By ensuring that costly and expansive regulations are vetted through a public, democratic process, REINS restores accountability to where it belongs — in the hands of the American people through their representatives.
RICHARD NIXON ENABLED THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE
What counts as “significant” varies by state, often depending on the size of the economy. For instance, Utah’s law encompasses all regulations with an economic impact of $2 million over five years, whereas Oklahoma’s threshold is $1 million over five years.
And it’s not just the states — Congress has also considered a federal version of REINS, with the trigger for requiring legislative approval at $100 million in economic impact within a single year. The aim of REINS isn’t to micromanage everything that agencies do, but to draw a line: at some point, the impact of a regulation is too great to proceed without approval from lawmakers chosen by the people. That safeguard ensures regulations with vast economic consequences don’t slip through without democratic oversight.
Fortunately, this isn’t some untested experiment. Florida passed the REINS Act in 2010, followed by Wisconsin in 2017. The Institute for Reforming found that the Wisconsin REINS Act likely slowed the creation of new regulations in the state. The trend has accelerated since, with at least five states enacting the REINS Act in the past year alone.
While most of these states lean Republican, purple states such as North Carolina have joined in as well. In addition, in both Utah and Louisiana, REINS passed unanimously with bipartisan support.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE ‘REFORMING THE DEEP STATE’ SERIES
Both parties in Washington should follow the lead of the states and embrace REINS. For Republicans, it’s another check against the administrative state, ensuring unelected bureaucrats can’t thwart the will of the people. For Democrats, what greater guard against authoritarianism than requiring legislative approval before the executive branch takes sweeping action? Their motivations may differ, but both sides stand to gain.
More importantly, Americans would be better off knowing that costly, consequential regulations can’t take effect without the consent of those they elect. That’s a policy everyone should support, regardless of party.
Steve Johnson is the Center for Practical Federalism Fellow at State Policy Network.
