Bill Overview
Title: STATES Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides that an action of a state agency taken pursuant to state law shall have effect within the state notwithstanding federal law to the contrary, if the federal law purports to apply under authority to create such law that is not explicitly delegated to the federal government within the stated words of the U.S. Constitution.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the United States
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The STATES Act of 2022 affects state autonomy concerning actions taken under state law.
- A significant portion of the U.S. population will be impacted, as state laws affect residents within those states, especially in cases where state law diverges from federal regulation.
- Globally, only individuals or entities interested in U.S. law and state versus federal authority dynamics might be indirectly interested, but are not impacted in the same manner as residents within the U.S.
Reasoning
- The STATES Act of 2022 primarily affects state autonomy and the relationship between state and federal laws; its impact is contingent on specific state laws that may diverge from current federal laws.
- For the interviews, a diverse demographic representation is selected, with various age groups, occupations, and geographic locations.
- The policy potentially influences areas such as healthcare, education, marijuana legalization, or gun control where state vs. federal law tensions currently exist.
- A modest impact on wellbeing is expected as the federal law rarely supersedes state law in day-to-day activities for the average individual unless involved directly in sectors heavily regulated by federal mandates.
- Budget constraints are considered to simulate realistic perspectives without overextending resources into extreme or rare impact scenarios, focusing on probable rather than possible cases.
- The widespread nature of potential influence justifies involving individuals who may face indirect consequences, even if not the primary target of state law changes.
Simulated Interviews
Healthcare Administrator (California)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the state can act more independently from federal law, healthcare coverage policies might become more flexible, which could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Contruction Worker (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State authority may protect gun rights better, which is important to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential state vs. federal funding conflicts for education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State decisions on healthcare might complicate my benefits; I am uncertain about this change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Student (Colorado)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State autonomy could solidify protections for state-level legalized activities like marijuana, which aligns with my career interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More local governance could mean less red tape, potentially boosting my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unclear how state autonomy would affect tech regulations, if at all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Farmer (Alabama)
Age: 71 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried state decisions might decrease my subsidies if not aligned with federal priorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Corporate Manager (Massachusetts)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Curious if state autonomy influences regulatory compliance costs for my company.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Non-profit Director (Illinois)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worries about states enacting stricter immigration laws diverging from federal protection measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $23000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $38000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $100000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal conflicts between state and federal laws.
- Impact on federal and state agency operations costs.
- Changes in economic activities depending on state autonomy in regulatory matters.