OKLAHOMA CITY – A court challenge filed this week claims putting the question of Medicaid expansion on the 2020 ballot may be unconstitutional and could pose a possible conflict with federal law.
“The most vulnerable in Oklahoma and voters deserve to know the truth of what they’ll be voting on,” said Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
The OCPA filed the challenge in the Oklahoma Supreme Court this week, less than a month after an initiative petition was filed to allow Oklahoma voters to decide whether to expand the federal-state health program to cover more low-income residents. It was filed by attorneys with the Oklahoma City-based law firm Crowe & Dunlevy.
Travis Jett, an attorney representing the OCPA, said there are two main legal arguments against the initiative petition.
“The first is based on separation of powers. There’s a significant delegation of legislative authority from the state of Oklahoma to Congress. Congress would ultimately control the eligibility and the costs that can be born by the state of Oklahoma,” Jett said. “The second basis is based on the conflict with federal law. Federal law requires that, if a state chooses to expand Medicaid coverage, it must expand that to adults at 138 percent of the federal poverty level. This initiative petition would extend it adults at 133 percent.”
Rep. Forrest Bennett, D-Oklahoma City supports the idea of Medicaid expansion and claims the logic behind the challenge is flawed.
“They’re not challenging it on legal grounds as much as they’re challenging it on philosophical grounds,” Bennett said. “This is an organization that believes in quite of bit of individual responsibility, and that’s a great virtue but we are talking about families that are working and yet still not able to pay the bills – let alone get access to health insurance.”
A hearing date on the matter has not set yet; however, we’re told the Oklahoma Supreme Court will likely issue an order within the next few days or weeks.
Melanie Rughani, an attorney with Crowe & Dunlevy, told News 4 on Friday that they cannot comment pending litigation, but she said their brief will speak for itself. The brief has not been filed yet.
