The 2/3 rule for tax increases: Voters have repeatedly demanded it. Olympia should respect it.

When it comes to Washington voters’ position on requiring a 2/3 majority of legislators to raise taxes, there is no ambiguity. Since 1993, voters have affirmed their support for the 2/3 rule five separate times in statewide votes. In just the last six years, voters have approved the 2/3 rule three times, with a whopping 64% voting “yes” in 2010 and 2012.

You’d think with those kinds of numbers, politicians in Olympia would get the message. Instead, Democratic legislators repealed the law to increase the size of state government. Not only did they repeatedly ignore the voters’ clear, consistent demand for the 2/3 rule, they ignored what voters were really saying by voting yes.

The people of this state have been sending legislators a simple message: Work together, write responsible budgets, and don’t raise taxes unless there is broad consensus that they’re necessary. The 2/3 law that voters enacted gave legislators another option if they needed it. If legislators couldn’t cobble together a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, by a simple majority they could send the measure to the ballot and let the people decide.

Not surprisingly, the 2/3 rule is not a partisan or regional issue – in fact, it’s broadly popular across the state. The last 2/3 law on the ballot, Initiative 1185 in 2012, not only received 64% of the vote but won in every single one of Washington’s 39 counties. Looking at legislative districts, it won in 44 of the 49 districts (only the five districts largely within the Seattle city limits voted against it), which means that all but 15 of the state’s 80 Democratic legislators owe their positions to the very same people who voted in favor of the 2/3 rule.

After the same cycle repeated itself four times – voters approve the 2/3 rule, Democratic legislators repeal it when they hope no one is paying much attention – the state Supreme Court weighed in last year and said the law was unconstitutional. As Jason Mercier notes in this column, the court specifically said it was not ruling on the wisdom of the 2/3 rule and ruled that it was up to legislators and the voters to amend the state constitution if they want the 2/3 rule restored.

There is no question about voters’ preferences regarding the 2/3 rule. They have approved it five times, and they would undoubtedly approve it again as a constitutional amendment. When faced today with an opportunity to let the voters decide, the state Senate voted 25-21 in favor, but it did not reach the 2/3 vote needed. Not a single member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted for it. That is disappointing, but they should know that this issue is not going away.

-Rob McKenna

 

Let voters decide on supermajority for tax increases

BY JASON MERCIER

Last February, the Washington Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling overturned the five-time voter-approved requirement that tax increases receive a supermajority vote of the Legislature or voter approval.

In the past, when the court has invalidated a law passed by the people, the Legislature has sought to implement what the people want; Initiative 695 reducing car tab costs and Initiative 747 limiting property tax increases are recent examples.

In response to the court’s ruling, some lawmakers have introduced SJR 8213, a measure to amend the state constitution to require a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature to raise taxes. This proposed constitutional amendment would allow voters, for the sixth time, to consider this taxpayer-protection policy and, if they choose, to place the requirement into the state’s constitution.

Tax limitation is popular. Voters in Washington have enacted or affirmed the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases five times during the past 20 years with the most recent time being in 2012, when 64 percent of voters approved I-1185.

Prior to the court’s ruling, 18 states (counting Washington) had some form of supermajority vote requirement for tax increases. These 18 include several other Western states, such as California, Arizona and neighboring Oregon. Of the states with supermajority tax limitations, only the requirements in Washington and Wisconsin were ordinary law. The requirements in all other the states are part of the state constitution.

There are nearly two-dozen supermajority requirements currently in Washington’s Constitution. These provisions have been placed there to require a high vote threshold for certain government actions. These restrictions appear to be policy choices. Several of these provisions have been part of Washington’s constitution since its ratification in 1889.

The most recent supermajority restriction was added by lawmakers and voters in 2007 with the requirement for a three-fifths legislative vote to access funds in the budget stabilization account. It is clear that supermajority vote requirements are not undemocratic. In most cases they are not even controversial.

Based on the numerous supermajority vote restrictions currently in Washington’s constitution, letting voters consider a constitutional supermajority restriction to raise tax would not be embracing undemocratic principles. Instead it would be following the existing constitutional precedents for requiring higher vote thresholds for certain government actions.

Although the state Supreme Court struck down Washington’s decades-old statutory supermajority for taxes requirement, the justices were clear that they were not ruling on the “wisdom” of the policy itself, and instead that ultimately the people should decide, writing: “Should the people and the Legislature still wish to require a supermajority vote, they should do so through a constitutional amendment.”

SJR 8213 would allow the Legislature and people to make this decision. Its text reflects the policies from the prior five voter-approved initiatives requiring a supermajority vote or voter approval to raise taxes.

For the past 20 years, voters have consistently said they want their lawmakers to reach a broad consensus on the need to raise taxes or to include the voters directly in the decision. Although the Supreme Court invalidated this taxpayer protection as ordinary law, its ruling did not negate the fact that on five separate occasions the voters have demanded this requirement, most recently with statewide passage of I-1185 with a 64 percent vote and approval in 44 of the state’s 49 legislative districts.

In fact, the tax limitation received more votes in 2012 than either President Obama or Gov. Jay Inslee. Allowing the people to vote on a constitutional amendment would be representative of the public would help end this debate once and for all.

Jason Mercier is Washington Policy Center’s director of the Center for Government Reform.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/02/04/3027418/let-voters-decide-on-supermajority.html

The following two tabs change content below.
Rob McKenna
Rob served two terms as Washington’s Attorney General, from 2005 to 2013. He successfully argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and negotiated three of the largest consumer financial protection settlements in national history, all involving mortgage lending and servicing. He is a recognized leader in the development of consumer protections on the internet, in data protection and privacy regulation.
  • armedandsafe

    Elected representatives decided to not represent their constituents. Are we surprised?

  • pjberg

    Well then, since our Congress (Democrats) vote against the will of the people, then we’ll just put changing the state Constitution on the ballot, shall we?

  • jenniecs

    I hope that the Republicans are paying attention. Those Democrats that voted against their constituents should be TARGETED in November. That means that the Republicans should go out of their way to at least mention the issue in the campaigns. Tying raising taxes to democrats is not something the Republicans have ever done very well, if at all.

    • sandyjean412

      Sorry, but even the Republcans (maybe one or two) don’t seem to consider it much of a priority to raise the exemption amount for property taxes for seniors.

  • poggiebait

    A consttutional amendment should make the process more open with better defined tax rationale. If the constitution requires funding education, that doesn’t mean you redefine education and stick multiple levies on the ballot to fund education!! Stop the social engineering and welfare state and fund the real priorities!! If you can’t support increasing taxes – forget the idea!!

  • MikeBoyScout

    Rob, you said “Voters in Washington have enacted or affirmed the two-thirds vote
    requirement for tax increases five times during the past 20 years “.

    Of course you understand that 10 times in last 20 years the voters of WA elected a legislative body that would not legislate a 2/3rds rule. Or maybe you don’t understand?

    You also said “Allowing the people to vote on a constitutional amendment would be
    representative of the public would help end this debate once and for
    all.”

    You seem to be confused about the Washington State Constitution.
    ARTICLE XXIII AMENDMENTS SECTION 1 HOW MADE. does not ask the legislature to “Allow” amendments to our constitution. Our Washington State Constitution directs that “two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses” agree to the proposed amendment.

    I understand you are in favor of the amendment not agreed to by either of the two WA legislative houses, but you do a disservice to you WA tax supported UW education to float the convoluted tripe you do here.

  • sandyjean412

    We don’t have a reprentative legislature and haven’t for a long time — state or federal. Everyone knows that. My senator won’t even answer my calls or letters to say whether he will or will not introduce legislation to raise the exemption amount for property taxes for seniors. I’ll be busy next legislative session bugging him again.