When it comes to school levy elections, some voters are more equal than others.

And when it comes to levy restrictions, some districts want to be more equal than others.

Both issues are now before the Legislature.

One proposed amendment to the state constitution – much to be desired – would give all ballots equal weight in deciding school levies. In other words, it would ditch the anachronistic, 75-year-old requirement that levies win 60 percent of the vote.

That formula effectively gives an opponent of school funding one-and-a-half votes for every one of a school supporter. It means that a large majority of the electorate can approve a levy – and the levy will still fail. A levy failed in Sumner last February, for example, with 58 percent approval.

There were reasons for the 60 percent requirement once upon a time. First enacted in 1932 and enshrined in the constitution in 1944, the supermajority rule prevented landless voters from imposing big tax burdens on landowners, especially farmers.

Today the majority of Washingtonians are homeowners who share any tax burden they approve. Yet the supermajority requirement stands. The Legislature should give the necessary two-thirds approval to the proposed amendment, which would put the question before the voters in November.

And lawmakers should reject quid-pro-quo proposals to restrict levy elections to August and November. That would create nightmarish uncertainties for school districts, which must have staffing plans in place in May for the following year. With the prevalence of mail ballots, the customary elections in February, March and April should not elude anyone’s attention.

A second measure, which would lift the “levy lid” now imposed on school districts, ought to be rejected by the Legislature. This would let all districts in the state ask voters to approve levies equal to as much as 35 percent of the money they receive from the state and federal governments. That’s more than any district is now allowed to ask for.

Two problems with this: First, it would create greater inequities between districts. Wealthier school systems would likely be able to get more funding approved by their more affluent voters while poorer districts would be left behind.

Second, the proposed levy lift would shift more of the burden for school funding from the Legislature to local taxpayers. Already, taxpayers are being asked – through levies – to help pay for such essentials as building maintenance, transportation and various classes that aren’t considered “basic” education but are nonetheless important.

The Legislature shouldn’t be given another excuse to shirk its responsibility to pay for basic education – which is what the levy lift would amount to.