Talk:American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHO --> AASHTO date?
When did AASHO become AASHTO? A quick search turns up nothing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * November 13, 1973 according to this site Toiyabe 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Official?
Is it an official state association or a privat one? --84.44.153.208 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. constitutional law on interstate compacts
The lede states "Although AASHTO sets transportation standards and policy for the United States as a whole, AASHTO is not an agency of the federal government; rather it is an organization of the states themselves. Policies of AASHTO are not federal laws or policies, but rather are ways to coordinate state laws and policies in the field of transportation." In 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report reviewing the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. (Neale & Nolan) The CRS report cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Northeast Bancorp v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors (1985) as suggesting that the creation of an interstate government entity (e.g. the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) is a sufficient condition for an agreement between state governments to qualify as an interstate compact under the Compact Clause of Article I, Section X, (Neale & Nolan pp. 22–23) and in cited both Northeast Bancorp and Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) as stating that any agreement between two or more states that "cover[s] all stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of the parties", prohibits members from "modify[ing] or repeal[ing] [the agreement] unilaterally", and requires "'reciprocation' of mutual obligations" constitutes an interstate compact. (Neale & Nolan pp. 23–24) In Cuyler v. Adams (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that all congressionally approved interstate compacts are federal laws, whether approved explicitly following the Presentment Clause of Article I, Section VII (as with the Republican River Compact) or implicitly under Virginia v. Tennessee and as in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978). (Neale & Nolan p. 26; Drake pp. 691–694)

-- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @CommonKnowledgeCreator: in 50 words or less, what is the issue you have with the article? I read a lot of stuff in your initial posting here, and I fail to find a succinct or coherent point being made, or a proposed change to any wording.
 * AASHTO is a trade organization with the state departments of transportation as its members. It creates various engineering standards, similar to the role of ANSI, and it coordinates the numbering of a few interstate highway systems, like the Interstate Highway System, the United States Numbered Highway System and the U.S. Bicycle Route System.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article states that while AASHTO is not a federal agency, it is an interstate government organization that every state transportation department executive has a voting seat on. Even if though AASHTO is not a government agency, whatever charter that authorizes its existence (i.e. e.g. articles of association) would qualify as an interstate compact per Northeast Bancorp and Virginia v. Tennessee cited above if AASHTO creates policies that the states mutually agree to follow (such as the route numbering system for the United States Numbered Highway System and the United States Bicycle Route System since hodonyms are arbitrary and unrelated to engineering) and coordinates the creation of laws the states mutually agree to implement. The article states "While AASHTO is not a government body, it does possess quasi-governmental powers in the sense that the organizations that supply its members customarily obey most AASHTO decisions." Interstate compacts are federal laws under Cuyler v. Adams, so the lede's statement that AASHTO's policies are not federal laws is dubious. — CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no need to be rude. The point was always there; you just don't recognize it as being valid. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CommonKnowledgeCreator: no rudeness was intended, but I read a lot of content here but I didn't see what you wanted to change in the article. Dumping a legal brief on a talk page doesn't help clarify things.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with Imzadi1979's lucid analysis. AASHTO has nothing to do with interstate agreements because the states themselves are not parties. It's a professional organization.
 * This basic distinction is very obvious to anyone who has ever been a member of a professional organization. For example, an attorney normally participates in social functions hosted by bar associations as an individual professional and not on behalf of his or her law firm or government agency, though one may mention their law firm in passing for networking purposes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect to "cover[ing] all stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of the parties" per Northeast Bancorp and Virginia v. Tennessee:


 * Article III of the AASHTO's by-laws states "Member Departments shall be defined as those departments or agencies of the States of the United States" and that "Active members shall be defined as those Member Departments that are current in paying the Association's specified annual dues, and shall have the privilege of serving on committees, taking part in discussions, and voting on all matters except as otherwise provided herein."


 * Article IV of the AASHTO by-laws states "The AASHTO Board of Directors shall consist of the duly constituted head or other Chief Executive Officer designated to serve as a Director by each Member Department" and that "The Board of Directors shall be the policy-making and oversight body of the Association. It shall be concerned with such matters as official positions on federal legislative and policy proposals; the development of official policy statements; membership dues; adoption of the Association strategic plan; changes in the Association's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Operating Policy; the establishment of forums, councils, special committees, and committees, based on the recommendation of the Strategic Management Committee; and all other policy matters pertaining to the operation or activities of the Association. In acting on such matters, each voting Director from a Member Department shall have a single vote.


 * "Representation by a majority of all voting Board Members shall constitute a quorum to initiate and transact general business. A majority vote of the voting Board Members present on matters of general business shall be considered binding on the Association's officers and committees. For policy matters, a two-thirds favorable vote of all voting Board Members, taken either at the meeting or by electronic or letter ballot, shall be considered binding on the Association's officers and committees.


 * "The Board of Directors shall meet during the Association's Annual and Spring Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the President upon his or her own initiative. A special meeting shall be called by the President or the Executive Director upon the written request of not less than ten voting members of the Board. In the event that a Board Member is unable to attend a meeting, the Member Department shall designate by letter to the Executive Director prior to each Board meeting, the individual who shall serve as the Member Department's representative on the Board at that meeting.


 * "In the event that a Board Member is unable to attend a meeting, the Member Department shall designate by letter to the Executive Director prior to each Board meeting, the individual who shall serve as the Member Department's representative on the Board at that meeting."


 * Pages 10 through 33 of AASHTO by-laws describes the Board of Directors Operating Policy.

With respect to "modify[ing] or repeal[ing] [the agreement] unilaterally":


 * Article II of AASHTO's articles of incorporation states that the charter's "period of duration is perpetual."


 * Article XI of AASHTO by-laws states "The Bylaws may be amended by two-thirds affirmative vote of all voting members of the Board of Directors at any duly called Board of Directors meeting provided at least two-thirds of the voting Board Members are duly represented in attendance and the proposed amendment has been provided to the Board Members at least 14 days prior to the meeting. If not provided 14 days in advance of a meeting, unanimous consent of the voting Board Members present must be secured for consideration of the proposed amendment; thereafter, approval of the amendment will require a two-thirds affirmative vote of all voting members of the Board of Directors.


 * "Three or more voting Board Members may also initiate proposed amendments to the Bylaws to be presented in writing at any duly called meeting of the Board of Directors. Such proposals may be amended by a two-thirds favorable vote at such meeting. Such proposals shall thereafter be submitted to a vote by the voting Board Members by electronic or letter ballot. Ballots shall be sent to the voting Board Members by the Executive Director within 30 days after the meeting at which the proposed amendment was submitted. Ballots returned to the Executive Director within 30 days after such meeting shall be recorded and tabulated by the Executive Director, who shall report the results of such ballot to all the Board Members. If a two- thirds majority of all voting Board Members approve the amendment, it shall become effective in accordance with its terms."

With respect to "'reciprocation' of mutual obligations":


 * Article IX of AASHTO by-laws states "The Member Departments of the Association agree to maintain an active interest in all Association affairs, to attend all meetings whenever possible, to make available from their Department personnel such individuals as may be selected to serve on forums, councils, special committees and committees of the Association, to vote upon all matters submitted to them for electronic or letter ballot, and to maintain their good standing as Member Departments in the Association through the payment of the specified annual dues."


 * Article X of AASHTO by-laws states "Dues shall be set by the Executive Committee, and confirmed by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Directors. The payment of annual dues by a Member Department, in conformity with the schedule set forth by the Executive Committee, shall entitle all representatives from such Member Department to full participation in the Association. The right to vote on any matter shall be limited to voting Member Departments that are current in paying the Association’s specified annual dues at the time of the annual meeting of the Association."

-- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are both wrong. The states are parties to the organization, and upon closer examination of the organization's governing documents, it strongly appears to satisfy the requirements of an interstate compact under the Compact Clause, Northeast Bancorp, and Virginia v. Tennessee. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to make the case that AASHTO decisions are binding in any way when sometimes they make decisions that conflict with federal law (e.g. US-377 and the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' position they put Oklahoma DOT in, which isn't reflected in that article yet because I've been too lazy to write the whole thing up since discovering it). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CommonKnowledgeCreator: you'll need to find a published reliable source that says that AASHTO is an interstate compact. Your analysis on this talk page amounts to original research.
 * AASHTO's articles of incorporation from 1984 state that it was incorporated under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. Would an interstate compact be so incorporated? The organization ( under EIN 53-0204654) has 501(c)3 status with the IRS. Would an interstate compact be so classified? AASHTO itself describes itself as "nonprofit, nonpartisan association", so absent some specific source to the contrary, notwithstanding the pontificating of editors here, their self-description appears to be accurate.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't read AASHTO's bylaws for over a decade (when I was much more curious about transportation policy than I am now), so I had forgotten that the departments are the members. But even then, the bylaws indicate that the member departments are members of the organization, not the states.
 * Also, if you go and read the actual text of several interstate compacts (which I just did right now), they are often drafted as statutory acts to be enacted by the legislature of each member state as evidence of its consent. That's not the case here.
 * Finally, I don't see anything in the bylaws or other AASHTO governing documents in which the member departments expressly agree on behalf of their state governments to be bound by or to follow AASHTO decisions. In contrast, interstate compacts always do include such language.  Notice how the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Adult Offenders repeatedly states that this or that clause is "binding" on each "Compacting State".  --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that you are an attorney and I am not, I will take your word for it in assumption of good faith. But it seems like it shouldn't be that much of a distinction if the members are executive departments of a state government or the state government as a whole since the condition for active membership in AASHTO is a due which is presumably paid out of an appropriation from a state legislature and thus could qualify as implicit agreement to being a party to its charter (especially if the appropriation specifically authorized the spending for the membership due). But I most certainly concede the point about interstate compacts typically being explicitly authorized by statute in each state and that it does not appear that AASHTO was created by such legislation, as well as about AASHTO decisions appearing to being non-binding (although that seems peculiar considering that that would permit the state DOTs to violate the route numbering decisions and throw those designation systems into disarray).

WP:NOR applies only to articles and not to talk pages, so my "pontificating" is acceptable here. (I believe ":P" and ":)" are the appropriate emojis at this juncture. Apologies for the assumption of rudeness.) I initiated this discussion because it did not appear that the cited content in the article was entirely accurate even though the source cited was published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which has an ex officio non-voting seat on the AASHTO board of directors. (It occurs to me that the "August 4, 1964: Report to the American People on the Gulf of Tonkin incident" is or ought to be a standard example of why primary sources can be unreliable. Just because the government says it doesn't make it true.)

To someone who is not a lawyer (but is an American citizen trying to understand how his government works), the language of those Supreme Court rulings, the CRS report, and the Compact Clause appears quite broad with respect to what can be authorized by an interstate compact, about how interstate compacts can be enacted implicitly, and that the governing documents of AASHTO superficially appear to qualify as an interstate compact, and thus, that whatever resolutions AASHTO has passed could have qualified as federal regulations made pursuant to a federal law under Cuyler v. Adams (unless there is a Supreme Court, federal court, or state supreme court ruling that stipulates that entry into an interstate compact must be done by explicit vote of the state legislature for the specific compact and that state executive departments may not enter them under previously existing state laws).

Also, upon reviewing the language of Northeast Bancorp more carefully, it is unclear why a corporate charter that creates a non-governmental organization which states (or state government executive departments) are parties to would not qualify as an interstate compact. State legislatures are authorized to issue corporate charters just as legislative bodies have had the authority to do dating back to the Roman Republic and as the United States Congress did for nearly two centuries beginning with the First Bank of the United States. If states wished to do so by an interstate compact, it is unclear why that would not be constitutionally permissible if it is not in restraint of trade, does not violate some legally authorized monopoly, does not alter the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments, or does not alter the horizontal balance of power among state governments (or violates some other part of the U.S. Constitution or a state constitution). But I digress.

There is no such thing as a "lazy" Wikipedian. We are supposed to be volunteer nerds after all, and it is hard to call someone "lazy" in the performance of a duty or responsibility if they are under no legal or social obligation to perform it (although IMO contributing to Wikipedia as a volunteer and in accordance WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP should qualify as a form of civic engagement). :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)