No, a divided court said Thursday, not without a constitutional amendment. Supermajority requirements in Initiative 1053 were struck down.
Because I-1053 and other similar ballot measures since 1993 have been sold as a way to rein in free-spending legislators, voters might now be asking if they need to brace for an avalanche of new taxes.
Probably not, based on comments of legislators in the wake of Thursday’s decision.
To read the court's majority and minority opinions, click on the document file below.
. . . House Democrats said Thursday they didn’t think they could close a projected $1 billion budget gap and come up with another $1 billion for better public schools without some increased revenue. But they talked more about discontinuing some existing tax credits or deductions, or continuing what were sold in 2010 as temporary taxes on beer and some business services, rather than a new tax.
“We don’t know what our budget situation is,” Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane, one of the plaintiffs in the successful challenge to the two-thirds law. The revenue numbers won’t be known until after the next forecast on March 20 but, “it is no foregone conclusion that there’s going to be a raising of taxes.”
“I think voters want us to be thoughtful, and we're going to be thoughtful,” Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, the chairman of the House budget committee said.
Senate Republicans, who dominate the coalition in control of the other chamber, said they will oppose any tax increases that couldn’t muster two-thirds support in a floor vote.
“Within our coalition, we intend to protect the voters’ wishes,” Sen. Mike Padden,
“The court may do what it wants,” Sen. Mark Schoesler of Ritzville, the Republican leader, said. “We will stay the course.”
Gov. Jay Inslee, who would have to sign any spending plan that gets through both chambers, continues to say he opposes new taxes to fix the operating budget. He’s left the door open, however, to extending those temporary taxes set to expire on June 30.
Inslee said he was “heartened” by the decision, saying the super-majority rule “gave a legislative minority the power to squelch ideas even when those ideas had majority support.”
Thursday’s decision features justices arguing over who is correctly divining the will of the people and the intent of the framers of the state and nation’s constitutions.
The court’s majority said it wasn't passing judgment on the wisdom of requiring two-thirds approval for a tax increase, only on the way it came into being.
“Should the people and the Legislature still wish to require a super-majority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation,” Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Jim Johnson said the majority was ignoring precedent to jump into a political debate.
The two-thirds majority requirement has been approved five times by voters through initiative or referendum since 1993. But such a change requires something more than a simple majority vote at the ballot box or in the Legislature, the court majority said. It needs the tougher standard of a constitutional amendment: two-thirds approval in both chambers, followed by a simple majority at the ballot box.
The history and language of the state and national constitutions show a “principle favoring a simple majority vote for legislation,” Owens wrote. “
If a statute can require a two-thirds approval for tax increases, another could require a two-thirds vote to pass any legislation, or even a 90 percent approval, “thus essentially ensuring that those types of bills would never pass.”
In a strongly worded dissent, Johnson accused the majority of a “blatant rewrite of our constitution,” abandoning judicial restraint for an “eagerness to embroil itself in the political arena.”
Overturning the supermajority requirement enacted repeatedly by the public disregards the state's populist roots, and misreads what Johnson said was simply the framers’ intent for a “quorum requirement” to operate the Legislature. But the power of the people will prevail, he predicted.
“If the Legislature passes a tax the people oppose, the people will find a way to repeal it. . . In an even more commanding exercise of their power, the people may choose to enact a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass taxes.”
On Thursday, a key Senate committee voted 13 to 10 to do just that, approving an amendment that would require the Legislature approve tax increases with a super-majority or put them on the ballot for voter approval if they pass both chambers with a simple majority.
The proposal is likely headed the full Senate for a debate that will probably echo the back-and-forth in the Ways and Means Committee. Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, tried unsuccessfully to amend the amendment and require a supermajority for all legislation.
The arguments made for tax votes can be made for any legislation, he said. “Let’s put this out to the people. I guarantee they’ll pass it because they don’t trust us.”
But voters haven’t approved supermajorities for everything five different times at the ballot box, Schoesler countered. Only for taxes.
After Hatfield’s amendment failed, all the committee’s Republicans and Democrat Rodney Tom of
House Democrats, who have a comfortable majority in that chamber, made it clear they would oppose the amendment if passes the Senate. They might agree to some constitutional limits on taxes, but not one like the overturned initiative, which allows tax exemptions and credits to pass with a simple majority while applying the higher standard to raise taxes or end those so-called loopholes.
“No one in his right mind would ever adopt a constitutional amendment that looks like this initiative,” Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said.
Ormsby said if the amendment makes it through the Senate, the House should consider it. But even though his central
The main impact of the court decision, he said, is to provide parameters for this year’s budget decisions: “It provides some clarity.”