As state makes cuts, lawsuits are flying
Washington is getting hit with so many lawsuits over budget cuts that it's not clear at times who controls the state's purse strings: lawmakers or the court system.
Seattle Times Olympia bureau
ERIKA SCHULTZ / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Top comments Hide / Show comments
Benefits for illegals????? Guess crime pays. 
This month, a Thurston County judge overruled state plans to limit Medicaid clients' nonemergency visits to emergency rooms, a decision that could cost the state $32 million between now and June 2013.
In October, a federal judge said the state could not kick 11,000 people off a subsidized insurance program because of their immigration status. That allows thousands to re-enroll at a projected cost of $17 million.
And in March, a federal judge ruled the state also could not reduce food assistance to people because of their immigration status. Potential cost: $16.5 million.
Overall, the state has been sued more than a dozen times because of cuts lawmakers made in recent years to curtail state spending and balance the budget.
"Everyone who gets cut off benefits is going to sue," said House Ways and Means Chairman Ross Hunter, D-Medina. "What we're doing in the budget now is like full employment for lawyers."
The cases range from people opposing cuts to social services to public employees demanding the state restore cost-of-living increases to certain pension plans. The pension cut alone is worth $399 million in the current two-year budget.
At issue: fairness, taxes
The folks suing contend lawmakers aren't following the law and are being unfair, even discriminatory, in their budget decisions. Many say the Legislature should raise taxes to avoid the reductions.
Washington is not alone. States across the country are being sued as lawmakers cut programs in the wake of the Great Recession.
More suits in Washington may be coming: The Legislature convenes a special session Nov. 28 to help close another hole in the state budget. This one is estimated at $2 billion.
Hunter argues the court decisions constrain the Legislature's ability to set priorities and spend tax dollars accordingly.
"They are saying you can't cut that item, you have to cut something that's a higher priority," he said. "It's largely dysfunctional."
It's hard to judge what the overall cost of the lawsuits could be. Marty Brown, the governor's budget director, said that if all the cases were decided today — and the state lost — it could increase the budget shortfall by at least $800 million.
The reality is the cases are working their way through state and federal courts, and many could take years to resolve.
Still, lawsuits often cost the state money even while they're being litigated because courts issue injunctions preventing the budget cuts until the cases are resolved.
"It really is very frustrating because if we had the money, of course we would fund these things," Gov. Chris Gregoire said. "But we're without. So we try to address the issues in as a thoughtful and constructive way as we can, and then we're met with a lawsuit, then we're met with injunctions so we can't cut."
Lawsuits have become such a problem, the governor said, her staff attorney now sits in on the budget meetings.
In the past, "she would come in once in a while and advise when we were down to the most important stuff. She's in here all the time now," Gregoire said. "We'll sit here and say, let's look at this program and then we say, legally is there going to be a challenge to this? Yes? OK, what are our chances of success ... ?"
Given the number of lawsuits, lawmakers may be better off legally in some cases if they eliminate programs rather than reduce them, Gregoire said.
"No matter what criteria you use (to cut a program), the court somehow says that looks like discrimination," she said.
"So to avoid any claim of discrimination, you don't have a program at all."
Take the state Basic Health Plan, for example, a program that provides state-subsidized health insurance for the working poor.
The Legislature last session eliminated health coverage for legal immigrants who have lived in the country for less than five years. Lawmakers said the change was made to align with federal rules that allow the state to receive federal matching dollars to help pay for the program.
A lawsuit was filed and the court issued an injunction, ruling in part that kicking legal immigrants off the plan violates their equal-protection rights. In other words, it discriminates.
"There is a basic fairness issue involved in the case about how people were treated unequally compared to other people. That's important for the people involved," said Janet Varon, an attorney with Northwest Health Law Advocates, which represented plaintiffs in the case.
The governor has recommended ending the program, both because of the state budget crisis and the legal challenge. Gregoire said it's not something she wants to do, but feels there's no choice.
She also has recommended ending the state food-assistance program, although in that case the move might not afford the state any legal protection.
Legal adult immigrants who have lived in the country for less than five years are not eligible for federal food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, so the state started its own program in 1997 to provide help.
The Legislature earlier this year cut the state program in half, but the reduction was blocked by the courts when a mother of three whose family receives state and federal food assistance sued.
The federal court ruled that once the Legislature opted to provide legal immigrants with food assistance, the state is stuck. The rationale is that reducing or eliminating benefits below the federal program level would discriminate against legal immigrants.
The case is working its way through the system.
Not so clean a solution?
Edward Dee, a state assistant attorney general, said it's not clear that eliminating a program, rather than simply reducing it, would provide a better defense in court.
"California has had a hard time terminating programs. They've tried to do that. They've been sued," Dee said.
Varon, the Northwest Health Law Advocates attorney, said Washington should be looking for ways to increase revenue to pay for programs such as the Basic Health Plan, instead of suggesting they need to be eliminated to avoid lawsuits.
"There have been so many cuts, and this (Basic Health) program is really so much smaller than it used to be," she said.
"We've hit a pretty critical point here. It's important to find funding so that we don't let it go further."
Adam Glickman, with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), agreed.
The SEIU sued the state after the Legislature cut nonmedical assistance to disabled and elderly people on Medicaid by 10 percent, a move to save $98 million in the current two-year budget.
"The courts have been used throughout history to advocate for the rights of vulnerable populations, whether it's civil rights or the rights of people with disabilities. Government can't take away people's rights just because they don't want to raise revenue," said Glickman, a spokesman for the union.
"So if states don't want to be sued for violating people's rights, then they should stop violating people's rights and instead raise revenue so that they don't have to do that."
No comments:
Post a Comment