I believe it’s unconstitutional for Initiative 960 to require a two-thirds supermajority vote of lawmakers to raise new revenues for essential public services.
That’s why I’m challenging it before the state Supreme Court – not because I want to make it easier to raise taxes, as Jason Mercier alleges in a recent Viewpoint (TNT, 9-5).
My argument is simple: For a bill to pass the Legislature, our state Constitution requires a simple majority of votes, or 50 percent, plus one. I-960 sought to change this threshold for tax measures to a supermajority vote.
But changing the vote threshold requires amending the state constitution. I-960 did not amend the constitution. Therefore, its higher vote threshold conflicts with the constitution.
Legal scholars agree that, when in conflict, the constitution trumps statutes.
Why is this important? The constitution does spell out some exceptions to the simple majority requirement and specifies where a two-thirds vote is necessary. These include the calling of a special session of the Legislature, impeaching an elected official or amending the constitution itself.
For example, in 2007, I sponsored a constitutional amendment to create a rainy day fund in the state budget. This measure required – and received – a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, and then went to the people for their approval (an effort that has been lauded by critics of my lawsuit, including Mercier in these very pages.)
I-960 passed by 51 percent in 2007. Those who support the aim of I-960 should follow the appropriate, more difficult process for amending the constitution.
It should be harder to amend the constitution than it is to pass a law. More specially, it should be harder to change the vote threshold.
After all, if 51 percent of the people can change the number of votes required on tax measures, then they can raise the number of votes need for any kind of legislation – to protect your civil rights, for example, or your property rights. And why stop at two-thirds? Why not raise the ceiling to 75 percent? Or 90?
Critics like Mercier often ask why I’m asking the court to rule on the matter when the Legislature can, with a simple majority, suspend I-960. But as long as the slimmest of majorities can change the threshold for any kind of legislation – and therefore change the rules in our constitutional system of government – we can expect to see more attempts to do so.
Raising the vote threshold makes public policy hostage to the views of a minority of legislators. I believe this is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Case in point: In 2008, Senate Democrats took a vote for more DUI enforcement on our roadways and for more alcohol treatment for problem drinkers. A 42-cents-per-liter surcharge had been in place for a number of years but had expired in 2007. We believed it was appropriate to revive the surcharge in order to fund these needed public safety programs.
The measure received a 25-vote simple majority in the 49-member Senate. However, it didn’t receive the 33 yes votes required under I-960, and the president of the Senate ruled that the measure did not pass. That’s when I decided to file suit.
People expect government to get the job done. This is for good reason. The past four legislative sessions in Olympia have been the most activist in state history, with important gains in health care, education, public safety, transportation and the environment.
While we’ve made good progress, I don’t think anyone would say that Washingtonians are too healthy, too educated, too safe, don’t sit in enough traffic or have waterways that are just too clean.
Lawmakers must continue to tackle head-on our urgent public needs and make progress for the people of Washington. However, this progress is stymied when a minority of lawmakers can overrule what the majority of lawmakers support. This is exactly the scenario presented by I-960.
I have taken an oath five times to uphold the laws and the constitution of the state of Washington, and I believe respecting the will of the people includes clarifying when our laws are constitutional.
This is of paramount importance when we’re considering the very rules that make our system of government work and that safeguard each of our constitutional rights.
Sen. Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, is the Senate majority leader. Oral arguments in her legal challenge to I-960 began this week.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.