“Democracy by Decree”
Wall Street Journal Editorial
Miracles do
happen. In
Other
locales aren’t so lucky. Consent decrees
are judicial decrees that enforce agreements between state and local
governments and the parties suing them.
But such decrees have proliferated to the extent that judges are micromanaging
many public institutions in the name of protecting “rights.” And they’re costing taxpayers
money and infringing on the right to self-government.
In
New York Law
professors David Schoenbrod and Ross Sandler call this “democracy by decree,” or the process by
which public-policy decisions are taken out of the hands of elected legislators
and left to an unelected judiciary.
Their 2002 book of that name is the inspiration for legislation
introduced in the Senate last month that would limit the use of federal consent
decrees.
The
legislation’s sponsors are Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander and Arkansas
Democrat Mark Pryor. It’s no coincidence
that both Senators were once state officials.
“I’m looking at this as a former Governor,” says Mr. Alexander. “The idea is to try to let those who are
elected make policy unencumbered by courts.”
Mr. Pryor is a former Arkansas Attorney General. Similar legislation is pending in the House.
Consent
decrees can be a huge burden on state and local officials. They sometimes last for decades, long after
the officials who agreed to them have left office. Newly elected officials often find themselves
locked in by the decrees, unable to put in place policies they were elected to
implement. Outgoing officials have been
known to sign their names to such decrees in effort to force their successors
to go along with policies they oppose.
One part of
the Alexander-Pryor solution is term limits—either four years for a decree, or
the expiration of the term of the highest elected official who signed his name
to it. Their legislation also sensibly
shifts the burden of proof for modifying or ending the decree to plaintiffs
from state and local governments.
The
legislation endorses the view of a unanimous Supreme Court, which in 2004
called for limiting decrees. It warned
in Frew v. Hawkins that federal consent decrees
could encroach on state and local power.
They may “improperly deprive future officials of their designated and
executive powers,” the Court said. They
may also lead “to federal court oversight of state programs for long periods of
time even absent an ongoing violation of the law.”
There are
federal consent decrees in force in al 50 states, with judges running prisons,
schools, welfare agencies, health-care systems and more—based on the advice of
the advocates who brought the original lawsuits. It’s time to turn those jobs back to the elected
lawmakers, and it’s good to see at least someone in this ostensibly
conservative Congress show some modesty about federal
authority.