House Joint Resolution 4224 has bipartisan support and 23 co-sponsors. Proposed as a constitutional amendment, it says any initiative that adds more than $5 million in new taxpayer costs must identify a new tax or revenue source, or the state elections office cannot give it a number for the ballot.
Democratic Rep. Fred Finn of Thurston County sponsored it, saying in an interview that the state just can’t afford all the good ideas voters approve, including Initiative 1163 that passed in November to require about $18 million in extra state spending to improve training for homecare workers. Finn said that just three measures – led by Initiative 728 and I-732, which were passed in 2000 for education funding – cost more than $1.2 billion per budget cycle.
“I have got to emphasize they are all (three) great ideas. But in this economic climate we just cannot afford to do them,’’ Finn said. He argued that lawmakers must balance their great ideas with costs to balance a budget every year.
“I want to require a little of that fiscal prudence in the initiative process,’’ he said. “The overriding issue is we are in a severe economic situation that requires us to look at everything … and to look at things on a systemic basis.”
Professional initiative promoter Tim Eyman and others wasted no time jumping all over Finn’s idea, which is echoed in the Senate in a broader way with a proposal from Republican Sen. Dan Swecker of Rochester and Democratic Sen. Debbie Regala of Tacoma. [We wrote about Swecker and Regala’s Senate Joint Resolution 8218 last month.]
Eyman called HJR 4224 “the latest in a series of anti initiative bills” that he called “a yearly tradition down here’’ at the Capitol and he accused lawmakers of “hypocrisy” for trying to set a new standard for initiatives while frequently passing bills that can’t be funded in the future.
“For Olympia to demand of the citizenry what they do not demand of themselves is duplicitous,’’ Eyman said. He also warned that requiring initiative sponsors to identify a tax source that could then be approved by the state budget office would add weeks to the initiative process, delaying valuable time to citizens wanting to collect signatures for their measures to qualify for the ballot.
“Gutting down the 1st Amendment isn’t good for legislatures and it isn’t good for citizens,’’ Eyman said.
Also jumping in against HJR 4224 were the right-of-center Washington State Grange, the left-of-center Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775 NW, and Republican Sen. Pam Roach. Olympia activist Arthur West also chimed in, saying there was no tangible problem to fix because lawmakers can just vote not to fund initiatives that they cannot afford.
Holli Johnson of the Grange called HJR 4224 a “direct attack” on the citizens’ initiative process, which was enshrined in the state Constitution 100 years ago in 1912. Johnson noted that the problem of high-cost initiatives has arisen only in the past decade. She also warned that it is hard to see even 20 or 30 into the future and that amending a process that has worked well so long is wrong.
“It would be much easier to add a ballot provision telling the public there is a budget impact’’ on each measure, Johnson said, suggesting a few words on the ballot.
On any other day, Eyman might have gotten some media attention at the committee meetings. Alas for him, same-sex marriage was the talk of the Capitol Monday, and the initiatives hearing was relegated to a side show.
That said, it was interesting to see Eyman and his arch enemies from SEIU testify on the same side against House Joint Resolution 4224. So did Olympia activist Arthur West.
Misha Werschkul, lobbyist for SEIU 775, said, “Obviously this bill makes some strange bedfellows.’’ She went on to note that SEIU has broader concerns about the initiative process and has advocated having signature gatherers sign their petitions on the back and to require more campaign finance reforms.
Werschkul suggested that the initiative be broadened not just to include a requirement for new revenues but to also require that all initiatives – even tax-cutting ones – be budget neutral.
Werschkul also noted that the last initiative that actually earmarked a new tax source for a new program and passed was I-773 nearly a decade ago. It hiked cigarette taxes to pay for more slots in the Basic Health Plan, but the money was shifted to other general-government purposes and eventually BHP was cut back.
SEIU would like to limit such diversions of money, Werschkul said.
Also voicing concerns was Julie Murray of the governor’s budget office. Murray said the Office of Financial Management can need two to six weeks just to do a fiscal impact statement on measures that qualify for the ballot, and some require OFM to create complex financial models that look both “at the revenue as well as the cost size to determine the true cost of the initiative.’’
“There is some truth that at a minimum a two week delay would be the result of this,’’ Murray said.
Murray said OFM’s calculation of initiative impacts on local governments is the least accurate that it does, and she suggested cutting the local impacts out of the measure. She also asked lawmakers to think about the time frame for costs to be measured – whether it is one, two or 10 years.
Rep. Sam Hunt, the Olympia Democrat who chairs the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee, said the negative testimony makes it a steep climb for the bill to move on from here.
“I think they voiced some legitimate concerns,” Hunt said. “Eyman actually had something productive to say for a change … I think you do hamper the ability of the initiative (to qualify) … as much as I’d like a stopgap or a protection.”
But Finn said he thinks the measure is still needed, and that some objections – especially the timing questions – can be dealt with by amendments.
Republicans Rep. Gary Alexander of Thurston County, who is the first co-sponsor of HRJ 4224, also spoke in favor of it, saying voters really are price-sensitive but never have to take price into account:
“When you (propose) something and there is no cost attached to what that is, they’ll say yes. They want it. If there is a cost attached to it, they’ll say no to it,” Alexander said, adding: “I think the public needs to know both sides of the ledger.’’
Democratic Sen. Craig Pridemore of Vancouver is chair of the Senate Government Operations committee and said he is very interested in Finn’s idea. He said he had a similar bill nearly ready to introduce on his desk.
Finn said he doubts amendments can be perfected by Wednesday, the tentative date for a committee vote on HJR 4224. But he is not giving up and hopes to see it voted on and passed before the session is over.
The odds look long but Finn might be right.
