Supreme Court to check out tax vote "elephant" Sept. 9

• Published July 18, 2008

NOTE: This was updated to add links to the AG brief and to improve some language in the text.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown’s challenge of the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases goes to the state Supreme Court on Sept. 9.

Court clerks say a hearing is scheduled at 9 a.m. At issue is the requirement set into law by Initiative 601 in 1993 and later restated by Tim Eyman’s I-960 last year.

The opening statement in the latest reply brief filed on behalf of Brown by lawyers Thomas Ahearne, Hugh Spitzer and Ramsey Ramerman boils down the political issue in the case like this:

“We all see the elephant. It’s the straightforward question of whether the two-thirds supermajority provision in RCW 42.135.035(1) is constitutional. It either is or isn’t.’’ Click here here to see the brief.

Go here to see the AG attorneys’ brief that asks to throw out the suit on several grounds. One argument is that the law does not conflict with the Constitution.

Attorney General lawyers are representing Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, the Democrat who serves as presiding officer in the Senate, has has interpreted the law as requiring a supermajority vote, and he refused to pass along a tax vote this year to the House because the Senate could not muster the two-thirds needed.

Eyman and Republican lawmakers say Brown just wants to ignore the public and open the door to tax increases next year. But Brown has questioned whether an initiative can put limits on a Legislature’s power since it, in effect, would be modifying the Constitution.

Brown put it this way in March:

“I have no idea where we will be next year, whether we will have budget problems and the range of solutions to solve them. I imagine we would not start with taxes under any circumstances … But the real reason for me is I believe in the Constitution, and it should be hard to amend the Constitution. And it should be done properly when we do it — and that a statute, no matter how good of an idea or where it comes from, should not amend the Constitution.’’