The voters have been crystal clear on this issue – repeatedly. When asked last November to impose the two-thirds mandate, a whopping 64 percent of the voters approved Initiative 1053. The initiative, sponsored by Tim Eyman, has been supported at the polls multiple times, only to have lawmakers suspend the rule after an allotted two-year waiting period.
All sides in this dispute are frustrated.
Voters are frustrated that lawmakers keep maneuvering around the will of the electorate by suspending the two-thirds rule.
Liberals and moderates in the Legislature who favor tax increases as a means of avoiding Draconian budget cuts, are frustrated with the two-thirds hurdle. They say under the two-thirds rule 17 senators can thwart the will of the remaining lawmakers.
Conservatives are frustrated with the lack of spending restraint in the Legislature and the ease at which majority Democrats have repeatedly overturned the will of voters.
And some legislative watchers are frustrated with the unanswered question on whether the two-thirds rule is constitutional.
Throughout the 105-day legislative session and the 30-day extended session, special interest groups concerned with forthcoming cuts to education, colleges and universities and social service programs serving the poor and infirm, pleaded with lawmakers to repeal any number of tax breaks in order to increase revenue and cover some of the state’s $5.1 billion budget shortfall.
Legislative leaders and Gov. Chris Gregoire refused, saying they heard the anti-tax voice of voters last fall as expressed through Initiative 1053 and would, as a result, adopt an all-cuts budget. That’s precisely what they did.
But before leaving town, House freshmen wanted to force a vote so they could – if they desired – challenge the constitutionality of the two-thirds vote requirement.
They latched onto House Bill 2078 as the vehicle. The bill was simple and straightforward. It would have eliminated the business and occupation tax deduction for interest on first mortgages and deeds of trust on residential properties for financial institutions that operate in more than 10 states. The bill transferred the revenue from eliminating the tax break – $83 million – to a fund to reduce K-3 class size.
House Speaker Frank Chopp ruled that – in accordance with I-1053 – passage of the tax increase would require a two-thirds favorable vote. The final vote was 52 in favor, 42 against – a majority, but not the two-thirds majority required under Initiative 1053. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition and four House Democrats joined them in voting “no.”
House Democrats had what they wanted – a bill to test the constitutionality of I-1053.
Now the League of Education Voters, the state’s largest teachers union and a dozen House Democrats have filed a lawsuit in King County to challenge the initiative. They say only a constitutional amendment can put such a restriction on lawmakers – not an initiative.
“Washington’s Constitution makes it clear the state’s paramount duty is to ‘make ample provision’ for the education of every child,” said Chris Korsmo, chief executive officer of the League of Education Voters. “This statute, and similar measures enacted in recent years, hamstrings our state’s ability to invest in the quality public schools our children need to succeed in life.”
Not surprisingly, Eyman was not happy with the court challenge. “I think the court has ruled three times already, unanimously every single time, rejecting these lawsuits. If they are going to throw lemons at it, we’re going to make lemonade,” Eyman said, suggesting the lawsuit might help his latest initiative effort to limit highway tolls.
Eyman’s critics say the courts have never ruled directly on the constitutionality issue.
Two Olympia lawmakers, 22nd District Democrats Chris Reykdal and Sam Hunt, have joined as plaintiffs in the suit, even though 59 percent of Thurston County voters supported the tax limiting initiative last fall. The plaintiffs hope that a Superior Court judge will hear arguments before year’s end with the case going to the state Supreme Court next year.
“We have to get this question answered,” Reykdal said.
Gov. Gregoire said in May that she also thinks the issue needs to be settled by the courts.
We agree. We look forward to a “yes” or “no” decision on the direct question of whether the voters can set voting requirements through an initiative or whether that takes a constitutional amendment. It’s time to end the uncertainty.
