Nowhere are Washington’s populist roots more evident than in the initiative process. Read our state constitution and you’ll find it right at the beginning of Article II, the part that delegates power to the Legislature:
"… the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls …"
The initiative process remains a useful safeguard against unresponsive government. Initiatives approved by the people are laws, carrying as much weight as a bill passed by the Legislature. Laws, of course, whether they represent the will of lawmakers or the will of the people, are subject to constitutional scrutiny — and that’s where the initiative process often gets very messy.
Bills passed by the Legislature go through multiple hearings and revisions, and have attorneys poring over them every step of the way. Even that doesn’t keep some from being thrown out in court. Initiatives usually are drafted by lawyers, but undergo less legal vetting than many legislative bills. Legal challenges, often politically motivated, are inevitable with some initiatives. Sometimes, initiatives are ruled unconstitutional. That’s how our legal process works.
Sound Transit’s decision Thursday to join a lawsuit by King and Pierce counties against Initiative 776 followed a typical storyline. The measure, approved by 51 percent of state voters in November, repealed a $15 vehicle license tax levied in four counties (including Snohomish) as well as the 0.3 percent vehicle excise tax approved by Central Puget Sound voters in 1996 for Sound Transit.
The repeal of the Sound Transit tax could force a major restructuring of Puget Sound’s mass-transit plan, and could sink light rail — the prime target of Tim Eyman in sponsoring I-776. A legal challenge by Sound Transit was all but inevitable, especially given that the measure failed within the agency’s taxing district.
If I-776 passes constitutional muster in court, it will have to be obeyed. If it doesn’t, it will be just another in a long line of initiatives that were thrown out because they weren’t crafted well enough.
Voters deserve better assurance that when they vote for an initiative, they’re voting for something that’s constitutional — but the state Supreme Court has said that courts cannot rule on the constitutionality of any initiative or bill before it’s passed. Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, has an intriguing idea: form a panel of retired judges to study each initiative before it goes to the ballot — but after the required signatures have been gathered and verified — and offer their opinion about its constitutionality.
Voters would be unlikely to approve initiatives that fall short, forcing sponsors to go back to the drawing board and correct deficiencies. Backers of an initiative that got the panel’s OK could campaign with greater confidence, and opponents might be less likely to challenge winning measures, knowing their chances of winning were poor.
Having initiatives better scrutinized before an election could save lots of money and headaches afterward.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
