Published: Tuesday, June 7, 2011
In our view / Two-thirds rule on tax increases
High court should weigh in
Four times in the past 18 years, Washington voters have shackled legislators with a two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases -- to the great frustration of the Democratic majorities those same voters continue to send to the state Capitol.
(Washington Research Council President Richard S. Davis has noted that voters in our blue-leaning state prefer "liberals on a leash.")
Three times, the state Supreme Court has been asked to rule whether such a supermajority requirement violates the state Constitution, an invitation it has declined each time.
It may soon be asked again. Proponents and opponents alike deserve the legal clarity only a high-court ruling can provide.
On the evening before the Legislature adjourned last month, House Democrats scripted the foundation of a potential court challenge in a performance detailed by The News Tribune's Peter Callaghan on Thursday. In a series of carefully crafted questions from the floor to House Speaker Frank Chopp, they attempted to gain standing that the court ruled previous petitioners didn't have.
Conservatives howled, including Tim Eyman, sponsor of the four initiatives since 1993 that have contained the two-thirds requirement.
Without endorsing the Democrats' presumed goal of getting the two-thirds rule thrown out, we wonder how it differs strategically from a court challenge conservatives favor -- the lawsuit by states, including Washington, challenging the requirement in the new federal health-care law that everyone carry health insurance.
After all, Eyman and others constantly remind us that initiatives carry the same weight as laws enacted by the Legislature -- no more, no less. They must follow the same constitutional strictures as any law. The fact that they were approved by voters, no matter how overwhelmingly, doesn't change that.
When legitimate constitutional questions arise, as they have in this case, it's up to the courts to answer them.
In the case of the federal health-care law, it's altogether proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the government can require Americans to carry health insurance. It's an issue that needs to be cleared up so advocates on both sides can move on. Same with Washington's two-thirds requirement on tax hikes -- which applies not just to general taxes, but the repeal of corporate tax incentives.
Some who favor the two-thirds rule have called for settling the question once and for all by letting the people vote on a constitutional amendment. That indeed would settle it.
But it's also premature. The current law enacted by voters may well be constitutional. Let's get a final ruling on that before we start rewriting the state Constitution.
(Washington Research Council President Richard S. Davis has noted that voters in our blue-leaning state prefer "liberals on a leash.")
Three times, the state Supreme Court has been asked to rule whether such a supermajority requirement violates the state Constitution, an invitation it has declined each time.
It may soon be asked again. Proponents and opponents alike deserve the legal clarity only a high-court ruling can provide.
On the evening before the Legislature adjourned last month, House Democrats scripted the foundation of a potential court challenge in a performance detailed by The News Tribune's Peter Callaghan on Thursday. In a series of carefully crafted questions from the floor to House Speaker Frank Chopp, they attempted to gain standing that the court ruled previous petitioners didn't have.
Conservatives howled, including Tim Eyman, sponsor of the four initiatives since 1993 that have contained the two-thirds requirement.
Without endorsing the Democrats' presumed goal of getting the two-thirds rule thrown out, we wonder how it differs strategically from a court challenge conservatives favor -- the lawsuit by states, including Washington, challenging the requirement in the new federal health-care law that everyone carry health insurance.
After all, Eyman and others constantly remind us that initiatives carry the same weight as laws enacted by the Legislature -- no more, no less. They must follow the same constitutional strictures as any law. The fact that they were approved by voters, no matter how overwhelmingly, doesn't change that.
When legitimate constitutional questions arise, as they have in this case, it's up to the courts to answer them.
In the case of the federal health-care law, it's altogether proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the government can require Americans to carry health insurance. It's an issue that needs to be cleared up so advocates on both sides can move on. Same with Washington's two-thirds requirement on tax hikes -- which applies not just to general taxes, but the repeal of corporate tax incentives.
Some who favor the two-thirds rule have called for settling the question once and for all by letting the people vote on a constitutional amendment. That indeed would settle it.
But it's also premature. The current law enacted by voters may well be constitutional. Let's get a final ruling on that before we start rewriting the state Constitution.
Comments
(