State lawmakers may not like it, but the federal government continues to make demands that sometimes are hard to meet. Orders from Washington, D.C., call for Illinois officials to take steps ranging from registering voters at driver's license facilities to using Medicaid funds to pay for poor women's abortions.

To some people, these requirements make perfect sense: They believe that registering to vote should be as easy as possible, and that states should comply no matter what the cost. But others have become so frustrated they've advocated ignoring the federal mandates.

That's the reaction of Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin) to the Clinton administration's directive authorizing states to use Medicaid money for abortions for low-income women in cases of rape and/or incest.

"In my opinion, we certainly do have a choice" of whether or not to comply, he said. "If we don't someday call the federal government's bluff on all these mandates, they'll keep running right over us. Let them send the troops in. Let them arrest the General Assembly."

His attitude represents that of many public officials, at both local and state levels, who dislike being told by a higher authority what they must do and where they must spend money. Not that mandates are anything new. Technically, the 1955 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education II — which effectively told school districts how to construct attendance zones, where to build schools, where to bus pupils and how to assign their teachers — can be considered a mandate.

A 1992 article in the Brookings Review notes that once courts discovered what could be done or tried in schools, other state institutions such as prisons and hospitals for the mentally ill became targets.

Later, in the 1970s, Congress began threatening to withhold money, such as Medicaid and transportation funds, as another way to enforce mandates. When Congress set a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour in 1974 and a minimum drinking age of 21 in 1984, the Brookings Review article points out, it did so by threatening to withhold highway grants from states that failed to comply.

New or not, mandates have become a source of aggravation for more local and state officials. Politicians have been making more noise about the evils of mandates. But while it may seem as though the number of mandates imposed on governments has risen dramatically in recent years, that may not be the case.

"My gut feeling, without studying data, is I don't think it's gotten worse," says David Griffith, associate director of the Illinois Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation. "It could be that, as with crime, awareness grows as reporting grows, and it can seem like it's increased. I suspect that's what happened here. But definitely there's a very strong, growing concern in the public on mandates, and growing concern among members of Congress, too. People are aware and talking about it."

But even as people become more aware — and frustrated — with mandates, Griffith says the orders still must be taken seriously. "I don't think you can ignore them, although with some of them I guess the constitutionality may be questionable," he says. "The federal government will indeed follow through on some funding cuts if they threaten to do so. It's not a bluff, I don't think, so I guess I'm siding with those people who say that we better pay attention to these mandates."

He may be right.

The first federal district court case on whether states provide Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest was decided against Colorado in early May. According to State Policy Research Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, Colorado has a constitutional provision prohibiting the use of state funds for abortions other than to save the mother's life. The federal district judge in the case said the federal rule must prevail over state law. State officials there will appeal and seek a stay of the order pending appeal.

Similar cases are under way in Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and Pennsylvania, and other states still are taking steps to avoid using the Medicaid funds as directed.

States that try to ignore federal "motor-voter" requirements may not have much luck, either. "Motor-voter is a true mandate on states," says Griffith. "It's the kind of thing that seems like 'mom-and-apple-pie,' the right thing to do, without perhaps the realization that someone will have to pick up the tab for hiring new people and buying the new computers needed."

But U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno has made it clear she intends to use her department's authority to enforce the law. And Chris Robling, commissioner for the Chicago Board of Elections, wrote in a recent issue of Illinois Politics that the U.S. Department of Justice's voting rights section is being spurred to hire new attorneys, conduct more investigations and bring more lawsuits in this area.

A unified approach against mandates is being tried by groups such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors' Association, and especially the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties.

"It seems like people with these groups have really made an effort in the last two years to be on the lookout for mandates and try to mobilize opposition to them," says Griffith. "It's just speculation, but maybe because of that awareness they've been able to hold the line on mandates to some extent."

Sen. Rauschenberger may want to take heed: Joining an effort to fight against future requirements may be a more productive tack than after-the-fact grumbling. 

November 1994 / Illinois Issues / 25