Published: Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Court should rule on tax supermajority
When voters adopted Initiative 1053 last November, they forced lawmakers to solve this year's budget problems without raising taxes. You'll remember, I-1053 imposed a requirement that any tax increase receive either a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Legislature or a vote of the people.
With Republicans and many centrist Democrats agreeing that tax increases in this economy are unwise, the supermajority wasn't to be found … or seriously sought. After last year's rejection of new taxes on soda pop and candy, legislators also didn't see much point in referring a tax package to the voters. Even had they come up with something they thought we'd buy, the timing didn't work. You can't build a realistic budget on taxes you think you might get sometime in the future.
The frustration was palpable. And now it has bubbled up in yet another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the I-1053 supermajority requirement. The suit, filed last month by some House Democrats and education advocates, is the fourth to argue that voters cannot use the initiative process to change the rules for passing legislation. Eventually, it will again reach the state Supreme Court, which has thus far declined to issue a definitive ruling on the constitutional question.
It's time they did. Ideally, they will uphold the people's right to set a higher, albeit temporary, vote standard.
A little background. Unlike Oregon or California, Washington does not permit voters to amend the state constitution by initiative. Initiatives are like any law passed by the Legislature, with one bit of additional clout. It takes a legislative supermajority -- that two-thirds requirement again -- to amend an initiative for two years after its passage. After that, a simple majority of the Legislature can repeal or amend the initiative. To assure the supermajority requirement, then, voters must periodically reaffirm it.
Some legislators argue the initiative's supermajority requirement amounts to a constitutional amendment, because it sets a higher standard than the simple majority established in the state constitution. It's a questionable claim. Legislators have themselves required supermajorities for some votes. Moreover, you can argue that the constitution simply sets out a minimum standard. There's no obvious reason that voters cannot do by initiative what lawmakers have done and set a higher statutory requirement.
Dressing this up as an oh-so-serious debate about constitutional law and legislative prerogatives doesn't alter the fundamental issue. It's about the money. The groups bringing this suit want to make it easier to raise taxes. While the court won't rule in time to make a difference in the coming legislative session, a ruling that the supermajority is unconstitutional would pave the way for higher taxes in 2013.
Most Washington voters want to keep the bar high.
They passed supermajority requirements four times since 1993. Last year's high turnout election gave the supermajority its highest victory margin -- nearly 64 percent of 2.5 million votes cast.
The Supreme Court may punt once more, as it did recently when Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown raised the issue in 2008. Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, who presides over the Senate, ruled that a tax measure failed because it had not received the required two-thirds supermajority, though it did receive a simple majority. Brown wanted Owen's ruling overturned. The court said it would "not referee disputes over parliamentary rulings" and moved on, no constitutional elephant to see here.
House Democrats this year think they found a way to force the justices to confront the larger question. Before voting on a bill to repeal a tax preference in order to boost school funding, several representatives conducted an orchestrated exchange with Speaker Frank Chopp. They asked if the bill would require a two-thirds supermajority. Chopp said it would, that he did not have the authority to rule on the constitutional question, and that he would welcome clarification from the courts.
The justices may again decide the case on procedural or technical grounds, ducking the threshold question. For example, they could conclude the group bringing the suit has yet to be harmed or find that lawmakers had other options. A better outcome for taxpayers would be a final determination that the initiative passes constitutional muster.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes on public policy, economics and politics. His email address is rsdavis@simeonpartners.com.
With Republicans and many centrist Democrats agreeing that tax increases in this economy are unwise, the supermajority wasn't to be found … or seriously sought. After last year's rejection of new taxes on soda pop and candy, legislators also didn't see much point in referring a tax package to the voters. Even had they come up with something they thought we'd buy, the timing didn't work. You can't build a realistic budget on taxes you think you might get sometime in the future.
The frustration was palpable. And now it has bubbled up in yet another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the I-1053 supermajority requirement. The suit, filed last month by some House Democrats and education advocates, is the fourth to argue that voters cannot use the initiative process to change the rules for passing legislation. Eventually, it will again reach the state Supreme Court, which has thus far declined to issue a definitive ruling on the constitutional question.
It's time they did. Ideally, they will uphold the people's right to set a higher, albeit temporary, vote standard.
A little background. Unlike Oregon or California, Washington does not permit voters to amend the state constitution by initiative. Initiatives are like any law passed by the Legislature, with one bit of additional clout. It takes a legislative supermajority -- that two-thirds requirement again -- to amend an initiative for two years after its passage. After that, a simple majority of the Legislature can repeal or amend the initiative. To assure the supermajority requirement, then, voters must periodically reaffirm it.
Some legislators argue the initiative's supermajority requirement amounts to a constitutional amendment, because it sets a higher standard than the simple majority established in the state constitution. It's a questionable claim. Legislators have themselves required supermajorities for some votes. Moreover, you can argue that the constitution simply sets out a minimum standard. There's no obvious reason that voters cannot do by initiative what lawmakers have done and set a higher statutory requirement.
Dressing this up as an oh-so-serious debate about constitutional law and legislative prerogatives doesn't alter the fundamental issue. It's about the money. The groups bringing this suit want to make it easier to raise taxes. While the court won't rule in time to make a difference in the coming legislative session, a ruling that the supermajority is unconstitutional would pave the way for higher taxes in 2013.
Most Washington voters want to keep the bar high.
They passed supermajority requirements four times since 1993. Last year's high turnout election gave the supermajority its highest victory margin -- nearly 64 percent of 2.5 million votes cast.
The Supreme Court may punt once more, as it did recently when Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown raised the issue in 2008. Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, who presides over the Senate, ruled that a tax measure failed because it had not received the required two-thirds supermajority, though it did receive a simple majority. Brown wanted Owen's ruling overturned. The court said it would "not referee disputes over parliamentary rulings" and moved on, no constitutional elephant to see here.
House Democrats this year think they found a way to force the justices to confront the larger question. Before voting on a bill to repeal a tax preference in order to boost school funding, several representatives conducted an orchestrated exchange with Speaker Frank Chopp. They asked if the bill would require a two-thirds supermajority. Chopp said it would, that he did not have the authority to rule on the constitutional question, and that he would welcome clarification from the courts.
The justices may again decide the case on procedural or technical grounds, ducking the threshold question. For example, they could conclude the group bringing the suit has yet to be harmed or find that lawmakers had other options. A better outcome for taxpayers would be a final determination that the initiative passes constitutional muster.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes on public policy, economics and politics. His email address is rsdavis@simeonpartners.com.
Comments
(