The Role of the Courts in Securing Welfare Rights and ...

Welfare Law Centerthe named plaintiffs, but later ruled against plaintiffs on the ground that the policy does notviolate equal protection. The court did not address the Article XVII claim. An appeal is pending.The existence of the constitutional provision was a significant factor in the New YorkState legislature’s 1997 enactment of welfare reform provisions which do not terminate aid at theend of the relevant time limit, but instead provide primarily voucher payments. Whether this issufficient is an open question. This is a good example of how constitutional norms can play animportant role in influencing state legislative decisions.In Montana a state equal protection challenge to a limited program for able-bodiedindividuals without children succeeded based on state constitutional language requiring thelegislature to provide for the needy. However, voters subsequently amended the constitution toremove the provision on which the court had relied. 105Unfavorable decisions include Moore v. Ganim, 106 which rejected by a 4-3 vote achallenge to a Connecticut law which allowed localities to limit GA to “employables” to 9 out of12 months; Bullock v. Whitman, 107 an unsuccessful challenge to Kansas restrictions in GeneralAssistance eligibility, in which the court nonetheless acknowledged the possibility that at somepoint restrictions could violate the constitution; and Daugherty v. Wallace, 108 which rejected aclaim that a six-month time limit on GA for those not qualifying for Disability Assistanceviolated the state constitution.Second, state traditions may support claims of a duty to provide assistance. Theseinclude the following:State tradition of caring for the poor. An extensive argument based on longstandingstate traditions of assisting the poor was made and rejected in Moore v. Ganim.Special protection for children embodied in the parens patraie doctrine. Thisdoctrine refers to the state’s authority to protect those unable to protect themselves. This is anuntested theory as a basis for a constitutional duty.Third, state courts have fewer constraints than federal courts in addressing social policyissues. Ramsey and Braveman suggest that state courts are more comfortable dealing with publicMay 1999⋅ 40 ⋅