Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center believes we didn’t need a national study to tell us that Washington’s emergency powers statute is badly lacking checks and balances and meaningful legislative oversight

Jason Mercier
Washington Policy Center

The results of a new national study comparing state emergency powers will not be a surprise for Washingtonians. Our state tied for 45th worst when evaluating the level of legislative oversight built into the grant of emergency powers provided to the executive branch.

According to the new study (Scoring Emergency Executive Power in All 50 States):

“As described in the first edition of this 50-State Emergency Powers Scorecard, states were not graded on how their governor exercised emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, this scorecard judges the legal environment under which a governor may exercise executive power during a state of emergency. While some governors’ actions (and resulting legislative or judicial action) during the pandemic helped determine a more exact interpretation of various state laws, the purpose of this scorecard was, and continues to be, to provide context and a point of comparison related to the extent of legislative oversight of the executive branch in times of emergency.

To develop each state’s score, Maine Policy examined each state’s emergency powers statutes to determine the extent of legislative oversight, powers delegated to the chief executive, and the process for initiating or terminating a state of emergency declaration.”

Here are the details for Washington’s ranking.

South Carolina scored the top spot providing the most legislative oversight.

Idaho came in 14th place while California ranked 38th.

There was hope in Washington this year that with the Governor’s nearly 1,000-day governance by emergency orders finally expired, the legislature would give a fresh look at the statutory imbalance concerning checks and balances present in our emergency powers statute. Unfortunately, efforts to reform the state’s emergency powers died yet again this year without even the courtesy of public hearings.

No one disputes that in an emergency, governors need broad powers to act fast. Legislative bodies inevitably take longer to assemble and act than a single executive, so they temporarily delegate their power to the executive in emergencies. But these powers are supposed to be transferred for a limited period of time.

The Governor should not fear being required to make the case to lawmakers why a particular emergency restriction is appropriate to continue, and the legislature should not hide from its constitutional responsibility to debate and adopt policy. At some point, the executive branch should be required to receive permission from the legislative branch to continue making far-reaching policies under an emergency order.

We didn’t need a national study to tell us that Washington’s emergency powers statute is badly lacking checks and balances and meaningful legislative oversight. That said, this new report provides a good comparison of how each state treats emergency powers authority and how little accountability is built into our state’s current statute.

Jason Mercier is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center.

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: IBR promotes ‘giving away’ historic interstate bridges while withholding cost estimate for replacement
  Neighbors for a Better Crossing argues the IBR program is promoting demolition of the historic Interstate Bridges without releasing updated cost estimates or current seismic data to justify replacement.
• 
  Opinion: Solving Washington’s deficit without tax increases
  Ryan Frost argues Washington’s budget shortfall is driven by rapid spending growth rather than insufficient tax revenue, calling for slower spending and program reductions instead of new taxes.
• 
  Opinion: Bikes in crosswalks
  Doug Dahl explains how Washington law treats bicycles as both vehicles and pedestrians, depending on where and how they are being ridden.
• 
  Opinion: The unpreferred and unaffordable Interstate Bridge replacement proposal
  Rep. John Ley argues that the Interstate Bridge Replacement proposal is unpreferred, unaffordable, and failing to address congestion, cost transparency, and community concerns.
• 
  POLL: If project costs continue to rise, what should lawmakers do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan?
  This poll asks readers what lawmakers should do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan as costs rise and key decisions remain unresolved.