Interstate compact

This article does not receive scheduled updates. Please contact us with any updates.

An interstate compact is a contractual arrangement made between two or more states in which the assigned parties agree on a specific policy issue and either adopt a set of standards or cooperate with one another on a particular regional or national matter.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS

* Interstate compacts are agreements between states to ensure some cooperative action. Agreements may be in regard to a variety of topics, such as environmental protection or civil defense.

* Compacts require the consent of the United States Congress, which may be granted case-by-case for specific compacts or given automatically for model compacts.

* According to the Council of State Governments, each state was involved in an average of 25 compacts as of 2016.[2]

## Contents

* 1 Purpose and functions
* 1.1 Congressional consent
* 2 History
* 2.1 Legal context
* 3 Support and opposition
* 3.1 Support
* 3.2 Opposition
* 4 Intrastate compacts
* 5 List of compacts
* 6 External links
* 7 Footnotes

## Purpose and functions[edit]

On the Ballot discusses interstate compacts.

According to the Council of State Governments, interstate compacts are adopted by states to ensure cooperative action between the states with regards to specific policy issues. Policy issues may include the promotion of common agendas such as environmental policies (e.g. Big Blue River Compact), the creation of multi-state authorities to address issues such as transportation (e.g. Railroad Passenger Transportation Compact), the establishment of shared guidelines and regulations (e.g. Driver License Compact), and settling of interstate disputes.[1]

The council divides interstate compacts into three broad categories:[1]

1. Border compacts, agreements between states regarding the establishment of boundaries of the states
2. Advisory compacts, agreements to create commissions to study a problem or issue relevant to both states
3. Regulatory compacts, agreements to create agencies to create rules and regulations binding to the states

### Congressional consent[edit]

See also: Congressional consent

Agreements between the states require the consent of the United States Congress. There are three main ways for a compact to gain consent:[3]

1. Explicit consent: A compact or agreement is drafted and adopted by a given number of states, and then submitted to Congress for approval.
2. Implicit consent: This type of consent is given when Congress takes action that generally agrees with the terms of a compact.
3. Preemptive consent: This form of consent is similar to implicit consent, but Congress is the group that begins the process.

## History[edit]

Agreements between the states date back to before the ratification of the United States Constitution as a way to settle disputes between states. Between 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, agreements between states were enacted as treaties. The United States Constitution provides for agreements between states in Article I:[4]

“  | No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.[5] | ”

|
|

According to the Council of State Governments, a total of 36 compacts were approved between 1783 and 1920. Compacts became more prevalent after 1920, with a total of 191 formed between 1921 and 2014.[1][2]

### Legal context[edit]

In 1893, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Virginia v. Tennessee, determined that the "application of the Interstate Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are ... directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." This case was cited in the Supreme Court decision New Hampshire v. Maine (1976). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that a consent decree between the states was permissible to determine the states' boundaries. Virginia v. Tennessee was also cited in Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1985), in which the Supreme Court ruled that state statutes enacted by Connecticut and Massachusetts lifting a ban on intestate acquisitions were constitutional and did not require approval from the U.S. Federal Reserve System. A ruling from United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Seattle Master Builders Association v. Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council (1986) stipulated further that congressional consent is not required for joint state activity not affecting federal authority.[6][7]

According to the Office of Legislative Research of the Connecticut General Assembly, the Political Consent Compact Clause Theory is the standard by which the Supreme Court bases its decisions regarding interstate compacts on. The crux of this argument is that determining "whether the compact contains a political subject affecting federal interests or the interests of non-compacting sister states, in which case congressional consent is required," is the sole basis on which the constitutionality of such agreements lies. The 1978 Supreme Court case United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission deemed that the number of participating states into an agreement is "irrelevant if it does not impermissibly enhance state power at the expense of federal supremacy, and the powers delegated to the administrative body must also be judged in terms of such enhancement."[8][9]

## Support and opposition[edit]

### Support[edit]

The Council of State Governments describes interstate compacts as "the most powerful, durable, and adaptive tools for ensuring cooperative action among the states." The council says interstate compacts afford states the ability to act jointly outside the constraints of the federal government while at the same time respecting the concept of appropriate joint action imposed by Congress.[10]

### Opposition[edit]

According to the Council of State Governments and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, compacts can require a long time to develop. The council has described some compacts as requiring decades to completely develop. In addition, both organizations say that the ceding of state sovereignty required in forming a compact may be a disadvantage to participating states.[11][12]

## Intrastate compacts[edit]

Intrastate compacts, as opposed to interstate compacts, are compacts that only affect a single state. In this case, different counties or regions can agree to join a compact that can then be ratified by the state legislature.[13][14]

## List of compacts[edit]

* Chart of interstate compacts
* Interstate compacts by state
* Interstate compacts by topic

## External links[edit]

* The Council of State Governments - National Center for Interstate Compacts
* Uniform Law Commission

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Council of State Governments, "Understanding Interstate Compacts," accessed July 27, 2017
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Council of State Governments, "Top 5 Issues for 2016: Interstate Compacts," January 4, 2016
3. ↑ Council of State Governments Knowledge Center, "Congressional consent and the permission for states to enter into interstate compacts," accessed February 15, 2016
4. ↑ Council of State Governments, "Background and History," accessed July 27, 2017
5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ Justia, "Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)"
7. ↑ Justia, "Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Governors, FRS, 472 U.S. 159 (1985)"
8. ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Constitutionality of Interstate Compacts" 9 April, 2008
9. ↑ Justia, "United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978)"
10. ↑ Council of State Governments - Understanding Interstate Compacts
11. ↑ Council of State Governments, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed July 30, 2017
12. ↑ American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, "Interstate Compact: Frequently Asked Questions," accessed July 30, 2017
13. ↑ Mutual Aid in the United States, "Intrastate compacts," accessed February 23, 2016
14. ↑ Council of State Governments, "Intrastate Mutual Aid Compact," accessed February 23, 2016

v • e

Interstate compacts

Topics|

Agriculture • Boundaries • Children • Corrections • Culture • Defense • Economic development • Education • Emergency management • Fire protection • Flood control • Health • Historic preservation • Infrastructure • Licensure • Lottery • Natural resources • Planning • Taxation • Transportation • Waste • Water apportionment • Water pollution control • Water resources and flood control

States|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • District of Columbia

Other|

What is an interstate compact? • Chart of interstate compacts

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates