Certainty and enforcement are better under a compact

When facing common problems or pursuing similar agendas, states often reach out to other states. States cooperate with one another in many ways, including joint administrative agreements, uniform state laws, multistate legal actions, and interstate compacts. For example, simple administrative agreements between two or more states can be created fairly easily and adjusted or rescinded as needed. Uniform state laws adopted by legislatures offer another mechanism for cooperation, as do multistate legal actions pur- sued by state attorneys general. Interstate compacts, the focus of this article, are an increasingly important form of cooperation. Table A summarizes the notable characteristics of these four cooperative options. The Evolution of Interstate Compacts Interstate compacts are authorized in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Historically, compacts were used primarily to settle boundary disputes between a pair of neighboring states, such as the 1949 Kansas-Missouri Boundary Compact. The focus of compacts was fairly narrow and there were not many of them. One estimate of the num- ber of compacts at the turn of the 20th century found fewer than 40 of them in use, the vast major- ity of them dealing with state borders.1 Since that time, the substance of compacts has expanded far beyond the resolution of territorial disputes. One of the most prominent early compacts is the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, established in 1921. By the 1970s, compacts were increasingly being used to address a diverse array of contem- porary problems and policies on topics including child welfare, criminal justice, education, health, natural resources, taxation and transportation. Not only has the substantive focus of compacts expanded, so too have administrative, financial and technical aspects of compacts. By 2017, the number of compacts has increased to more than 200, with several more in developmental stages.2 Benefits of Compacts The growing use of compacts is largely a function of their potential for states to address shared prob- lems, promote a common agenda, or produce col- lective goods. Further, by joining a compact, a state can reduce the costs associated with policy design and experimentation. Table B provides examples of these conditions. As noted by Michael Buenger and his colleagues in their book, The Evolving Law and Use of Inter- state Compacts, compacts have several advantages relative to other vehicles for accomplishing these goals. First, because states themselves are designing the compact, it can be more responsive to the interests and needs of member states than federal action. Second, compacts have the salutary effect of blurring the borders that separate states and reducing state insularity.3 Third, compacts can preempt potential federal interference into traditional state responsibilities. Finally, compacts offer a “predictable, stable, and enforceable mechanism for policy control and implementation” to participating states.4