Both the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) released separate statements on Tuesday urging representatives to reject the ban.
“NASCIO is extremely concerned by efforts from the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit states from enforcing their AI statutes and regulations for the next 10 years,” the association’s statement reads. “States have not had the luxury of waiting for federal action on AI policy. As a result, they have forged ahead in creating their own AI standards that meet their unique needs, in consultation with the stakeholders and citizens who will be most directly impacted. Language in the reconciliation measure preventing them from enforcing these provisions undermines their efforts to deliver services to their citizens and ensure responsible data protections.”
NCSL Executive Director Tim Storey’s letter to the committee likewise recommends the language be stricken from the budget resolution, citing the Senate’s Byrd Rule, which prohibits the inclusion of extraneous provisions in the budget resolution.
“A provision broadly pre-empting state AI laws would certainly violate the Byrd Rule, as its principal purpose is to limit state legislative authority rather than to achieve substantive budgetary outcomes,” Storey’s letter reads. “States have demonstrated leadership on critical issues in the technology space, often well in advance of federal action. By implementing a blanket moratorium on state laws, Congress forfeits the benefits of this policy leadership and eliminates opportunities to test and refine regulatory models through localized experimentation.”
In a statement to Government Technology, Center for Democracy and Technology Director for State Engagement Travis Hall warned that unregulated AI would leave states with few enforcement options in cases of discrimination, harm to children, fraud or abuse, the consequences of which would be “unaccountable.”
“It is particularly concerning that this provision is not accompanied by a federal regulatory framework, as it would place AI and similar tools into a lawless and unaccountable zone," Hall told Government Technology.
Colorado CIO David Edinger said that while the state is “generally supportive of the concept” of proposed federal-level AI regulation — a sentiment Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has previously signaled — Colorado stands by its approach to AI governance.
“The creation of Colorado’s Statewide GenAI Policy and procedures was driven by the need to generate guardrails, such as conducting risk assessments based on standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), while also embracing a spirit of innovation,” Edinger wrote in a statement to Government Technology. “This framework informs our decision-making for how we implement AI in state operations, ensuring we are leveraging the power of GenAI to be more efficient and improve the public services provided to Coloradans, while also keeping the data entrusted to us safe and secure.”
In New York, more than 50 Democratic lawmakers from the city and state signed a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson in opposition to the moratorium, citing the state’s Legislative Oversight of Automated Decision Making in Government Act as “a model for similar legislation in other states.”
Introduced by House Republicans late Sunday, the specific language of the bill states that “no state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act.”
