State Senator Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) announced last week that he would introduce a state constitutional amendment (SCA 29) that would keep many of the proposed requirements of any health care reform from taking effect in California until approved by the voters of the state.

For instance, before a Federal or State law that required employers to provide or to contribute to the cost of employee’s health insurance could take effect, it would have to be scheduled to be voted on during an election.

Among other provisions that could be affected by Strickland’s amendment: a requirement that individuals have health insurance coverage; regulations that require insurers to offer insurance coverage to people without regard to age or pre-existing conditions; a government-run health plan that competes with private insurers; and a single-payer health plan

In the Ventura County Star, Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, questioned the constitutionality of the proposal.

“Most constitutional scholars believe it is simply unconstitutional,” he said of the idea of states opting out of federal laws. “This was settled when we moved from the Articles of Confederation to our Constitution more than 200 years ago.”

However, voters in Arizona and the legislatures in Virginia and Utah will consider similar bills this year.