Two constitutional amendments with budget consequences have been guaranteed a spot on the November ballot. That they may be joined by another of Tim Eyman’s initiatives to limit taxes and spending should bring little joy to voters who favor sensible state fiscal policy.
Each of the two proposed constitutional amendments is straightforward. One sets up a rainy day fund. The other allows voters to approve school levies by a simple majority. Having received the necessary supermajorities in the Legislature, they go into effect if the voters give them simple majority approval.
Backing from Gov. Chris Gregoire and Democratic leaders assured bipartisan legislative approval this year for the rainy day fund, which had previously been championed by Republicans, notably Sen. Joe Zarelli, Ridgefield. The proposed amendment directs 1 percent of state revenues to a reserve fund, where it can only be tapped by a 60 percent vote, except in cases of emergency or when job growth slows to less than 1 percent.
The school lobby has long sought to undo the constitutional requirement that school levies receive 60-percent approval in elections with at least a 40-percent voter turnout. This year, they removed both hurdles, as lawmakers voted to amend the Constitution to drop the turnout requirement and lower the threshold to a simple majority.
The rainy day fund strikes most fiscal conservatives as a common-sense hedge against overspending in a hot economy. It siphons revenues into a pool that may be drained only in extraordinary circumstances. Opinion sharply divides on the simple majority amendment. Critics say it makes raising taxes easier – which of course is the point – while proponents cast it as a matter of simple fairness. Having endorsed the supermajority principle to protect the rainy day fund, some backers of both amendments may experience slight motion sickness, though the positions certainly are not irreconcilable.
Whether you agree or disagree with the amendments, they represent topics easily dealt with by popular vote: commonplace concepts presented in a straightforward manner. Either you support requiring lawmakers to save money or you don’t. It’s the same up-or-down with making it easier to raise property taxes for the schools. Like it or loathe it, there’s nothing too complex about the vote.
Then along comes Eyman with Initiative 960, 15 pages reminiscent of wedding traditions: something old, something new, something borrowed, makes me blue.
It contains the familiar requirement for a two-thirds legislative supermajority or a public vote for tax increases. Among the new wrinkles, the initiative directs the state budget office to calculate the 10-year cost of new taxes and fees as they’re moving through the Legislature. Analysts must e-mail their findings to members of the press and anyone else who requests them, along with the names and contact information of legislators supporting the taxes.
There’s more. If lawmakers block a referendum by attaching an emergency clause to legislation that increases taxes, I-960 requires a public advisory vote in November. Again, legislators’ names, etc., would be printed in the voters’ pamphlet along with how they voted. It’s a “send ‘em a message” advisory ballot.
In sum, I-960 is highly prescriptive, imposing provisions that would make longtime bureaucrats blanch.
Last year, this convoluted initiative would not have had a chance. A robust economy put tax increases on the back burner. Voters felt secure in their homes and jobs. Now, however, the combination of sluggish first-quarter economic activity, a Legislature that increased spending at twice the rate of revenue growth, high gas prices and soaring property taxes creates a more favorable climate for I-960. When voters feel insecure, they try to regain control. That makes them more inclined to let symbols trump substance. The initiative’s message, then, matters more than its methods. In that context, tax limits regain their appeal, even when their loudest advocate has lost his.
Eyman needs 224,880 valid signatures to qualify I-960 by July 6, a hurdle manageable with money. If it qualifies, expect the ensuing controversy to spill over to the constitutional amendments.
And if I-960 dominates the fall election, assign some of the blame to lawmakers who spent too freely. They may have done for Eyman what he alone could not accomplish: restore his relevance in Washington politics.
Richard S. Davis, vice president-communications of the Association of Washington Business, writes every other Wednesday. His columns do not necessarily reflect the views of AWB. Write Davis at richardd@awb.org or Association of Washington Business, P.O. Box 658, 1414 Cherry Street SE, Olympia, WA 98507-0658.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
