Florida Legislature wants voters to ban individual mandate, but federal law likely would prevail

Rick Scott built a national following in 2009 by opposing President Barack Obama's attempt to reform the country's health care system.

As Florida's governor he vowed to keep up the fight, saying he would support "a state constitutional amendment in Florida that prohibits the federal government from imposing President Obama's individual mandate."

A constitutional amendment proposed by Senate President Mike Haridopolos attempts to accomplish exactly that. SJR 2 -- which was passed by the Senate on March 9, 2011, 29-10 and the House 80-37 on May 4 -- would prohibit the government from requiring people to purchase health insurance. A similar constitutional amendment was passed by the Legislature in 2010 but was tossed off the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court because of misleading ballot language.

Scott opposes the federal individual mandate, which works by imposing fines on people who don't have insurance. If people can't find affordable insurance to buy, as measured by a percentage of income, they would qualify for a hardship exemption. Supporters of the law say the mandate is necessary because the new health care law also prevents insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. People could simply wait until they get sick to purchase insurance if the mandate was removed.

The amendment proposed in Florida does not need to go to Scott for his signature. Barring court action, it will appear on the November 2012 ballot and must be approved by 60 percent of voters. Several other states are considering or have considered similar constitutional changes.

But there's a big caveat to the proposal. Even if it passes, the constitutional change likely will not stop the federal insurance law from applying to Florida.

The federal supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the "supreme law of the land," and invalidates state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. If the federal health care bill is upheld as constitutional (Florida and other states are suing), it would most likely supersede state law.

"States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments," Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a health law expert at Washington & Lee University School of Law, told the New York Times.

For this promise, we're judging Scott based on his efforts to repeal the federal health care law -- and specifically his promise to support an amendment to the state constitution attempting to invalidate the individual mandate. On the day the Senate passed the amendment, Scott called it "a giant step forward in stopping the federal government from imposing costly health care mandates on the state that kill jobs and limit personal choice."

We rate this a Promise Kept.