INTRASTATE PREEMPTION

2007] INTRASTATE PREEMPTION 1119have spurred other cities and some states to take action. For instance, whileabout twenty states have now adopted near-complete bans on smoking in barsand restaurants, most did so only after cities first successfully implementedsuch bans and the effect on local businesses proved negligible. 26 Similarly, inthe realm of gay rights, it was a city – San Francisco – that first requiredmunicipal contractors to offer domestic partnership benefits to gayemployees. 27 Only after this policy had been established for seven years – andfour other California localities adopted similar measures – did the Californiastate legislature pass a similar law governing state contractors. 28 Theseexamples illustrate a widespread pattern of policy innovation: a policy firstembraced by a city proves itself manageable and popular at the local levelbefore percolating “out” to other cities and “up” to the state level. Without thepossibility of city experimentation, these policies might have never beenembraced by other jurisdictions.statewide ban on the practice. James P. Sweeney, Drivers Barred from Smoking If ChildrenAre in Car, S.D. UNION-TRIB., Oct. 11, 2007, at A3.26 Andrea Elliott, Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says, N.Y.TIMES, Mar. 29, 2004, at B2.27 See SAN FRANCISCO CAL., ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ch. 12B, § 12B.1 (effective June 1,1997), available at http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfhumanrights_page.asp?id=5922#sec12b.1;SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THE EQUAL BENEFITS ORDINANCE: A SIX-MONTH REPORT (1998).28 CAL. PUB. CONT. CODE § 10295.3 (West 2004). The four other California localities topass ordinances similar to San Francisco’s were Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, and SanMateo County. BERKELEY, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 13.29.030 (2007), available athttp://www.cityofberkeley.info/bmc/BMC-Part1-Aug07.pdf; L.A., CAL., ADMINISTRATIVECODE § 10.8.2.1 (2007), available at http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:laacca; OAKLAND, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE ch.2.32, available at http://bpc.iserver.net/codes/oakland; SAN MATEO, CAL., COUNTY CODE ch.2.84 (2007), available at http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/sanmateo/index.htm.Sacramento has since passed a similar ordinance. Other localities around the country thathave passed similar ordinances include King County, Wash.; Miami Beach, Fla.;Minneapolis, Minn.; Olympia, Wash.; Seattle, Wash.; and Tumwater, Wash. See MIAMIBEACH, FL., CODE ch. 2, art. VI, div. 3, § 2-373 (1998), available athttp://www.municode.com/resources/ gateway.asp?pid=13097&sid=9; MINNEAPOLIS,MINN., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 18.200 (effective Jan. 1, 2004), available athttp://www.municode.com/resources/gateway. asp?pid=11490; SEATTLE, WASH.,MUNICIPAL CODE ch. 20.45.020 (1999), available athttp://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CHAP&s1=20.45.h2.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/chap1.htm&r=1&f=G; KING COUNTY, WASH., CODE ch. 12.19(2006), available at http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/code/15-Title%2012.pdf; OLYMPIA,WASH., MUNICIPAL CODE ch. 3.18 (2004), available at http://www.olympiamunicipalcode.org/A55799/Oly-muni-PUBLIC.nsf/30c2b313f243223f88255f9c007b495b/86257139002381f488256e760062632a?OpenDocument; TUMWATER, WASH.,MUNICIPAL CODE ch. 2.18 (2007) (effective Jan. 2, 2002), available athttp://www.tumwatermunicipalcode.org/Municipal%20code%20Title2% 20Ch2-18.html.