Spokane7
67°
November 3, 2010 in City
Supermajority in, some taxes out
Washington voters removed some taxes and made it tougher for the Legislature to create new ones, but seemed to turn down plans to privatize some state services. Idaho voters passed a string of changes to the state’s bonding rules designed to help hospitals, airports and other public projects.
And Spokane voters turned thumbs down to Proposition 1, a plan to raise $5 million per year to help fight high school dropout rates.
In Washington, the most popular proposal of the night with voters was a constitutional change that allows criminal suspects facing life imprisonment to be held without bail before trial. Resolution 4220, sparked by a series of fatal shootings of law enforcement officers in Western Washington last fall, was passing with an approval rating of 85 percent.
Also high in voter support was I-1053, which reinstates a two-thirds supermajority the Legislature will need to raise taxes. The state had that rule for two years, but Democrats suspended it last spring as they struggled with declining revenues that weren’t keeping pace with programmed expenses. They cut some $780 million from the budget, but turned to taxes on some beers, soda, candy, bottled water and processed foods to raise another $500 million.
I-1053, which was sponsored by Tim Eyman and many Republican legislators, was carrying an approval rating of nearly 2-to-1 at night’s end.
In addition, many of those new taxes were being rejected Tuesday night with the passing of I-1107. That measure benefited from a $16 million campaign chest, funded mainly by the nation’s soda bottlers, although ads stressed the taxes on an array of food and beverages and confusion over what candy is taxed and what isn’t. Taxes will be removed on Dec. 2, and the Legislature will have to find ways to trim $55 million from what’s left of this biennial budget, and $217 million from the 2011-13 budget.
With such a strong anti-tax mood, it’s probably not surprising voters turned down – resoundingly – a state income tax on upper-income residents. The proposal would have lowered some state property and business taxes in exchange for an income tax on individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $400,000. Opponents stressed that taxes can always be expanded, and safeguards in the initiative could always be removed by the Legislature after two years with a simple majority vote. Supporters tried to counter, but voters had seen that happen just months before.
Voters also appeared to be rejecting two plans to get the state out of the liquor business, which it has controlled at the retail and wholesale level since the end of Prohibition. They had a choice between I-1100 and I-1105, similar-sounding ballot measures with two very different sets of sponsors.
I-1100 was backed by Costco and other big retailers because it would allow them to set up their own distribution systems and negotiate directly with liquor producers. I-1105 was supported by wholesalers because it required private distributors to take the place of the state’s distribution system. State employees unions and law enforcement groups fought both plans, while supporters of I-1100 tried to make a case with voters to go with their plan but nix the other. In the end, voters seemed able to tell the difference between the two, but didn’t like either: I-1100 was trailing by about 50,000 votes at the end of the night; I-1105 was down by about 370,000 votes.
They also rejected a proposal from the Legislature to sell bonds to pay for energy rehabilitation projects at schools, state universities and government buildings. Democrats pushed it as a job creation measure, Republicans argued that it was too much money for too few jobs.
Idahoans on Tuesday appeared to be strongly supporting all four proposed amendments to the state’s Constitution. The four measures all required two-thirds approval from each house of the Legislature plus a majority vote of the people to pass.
H.J.R. 4, 5 and 7 would allow public hospitals, airports and municipal electric systems, respectively, to incur debt to acquire facilities, property and equipment without the approval of two-thirds of the voters.
With just over a third of Idaho precincts reporting, voters were approving the public hospital amendment 65 percent to 35 percent. They also were saying yes to the public airport amendment (55 to 45 percent) and the “power cities” amendment (60 to 40 percent).
All three amendments forbid repaying the debt using property taxes; instead they require any improvements be paid for with revenues from new or existing facilities. The public electric systems amendment will allow municipalities to enter into agreements to purchase, exchange, or transmit wholesale electricity to customers within its service area without voter approval, again, while requiring that any indebtedness be repaid through rates, not tax dollars.
A 2006 Idaho Supreme Court decision prohibited government entities from taking on multi-year debt for such projects without voter approval. David Frazier, the Boise man whose lawsuit resulted in that decision, said the amendments amount to nothing more than an effort to deny citizens the right to vote on public financing. He said elected officials don’t trust voters to make the right decision.
But supporters said giving public entities the ability to improve facilities and equipment without additional taxes helps attract investment, spurs the economy and improves service. The hospital amendment would permit public hospitals, many of which are in rural areas, to provide updated medical equipment and technology to better care for patients, supporters said. Kootenai Medical Center in Coeur d’Alene is the state’s largest public hospital.
Idahoans also strongly supported S.J.R. 101 which will allow tuition to be charged at the University of Idaho. That is now forbidden, so students pay “fees” instead. The difference is that tuition is what pays for classroom instruction and fees pay for everything else. The distinction has restricted the UI’s flexibility as it has patched together funding for programs while dealing with state budget cuts. Opponents have said the Constitution envisioned free education for students.
That ballot measure was passing 67 percent to 33 percent with just over a third of the state’s precincts reporting.
Staff reporter Tom Sowa contributed to this story.
Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules 
spokanecougar on November 03 at 8:55 a.m.
I am just shocked at some of these things that passed and some that were voted down. Amazing, usually I am happy about my fellow Washington voters, but this morning I am just bewildered.
I find it sad that its usually the older voters that vote for so much change that ends up not affecting them in the future but the younger generation, and its them (including me) that will have to pay for all the cuts this older generation is making now. Thank you older people for ruining the future of my state and country.
MrNatural on November 03 at 9:27 a.m.
Thank God I-100 and I-1105 did not pass. Of all the inane-ishatives this was the one I was most concerned about.
as for the others the greedy won over the needy.
Ninch on November 03 at 10:06 a.m.
As typical a younger person (aka Obama mode) blames the older people for “ruining the future of MY state and country.” The “younger generation” has NO respect for elders who many btw served in military conflicts to ensure that the “younger generation” had the right to a future. In other words, the “younger generation” (aka spokanecougar) gives no value to those before them/him who made real sacrifices for the “younger generation.”
Ninch on November 03 at 10:15 a.m.
In regards to the “greedy won over the needy.” What the heck are you talking about? Is it removing the additional sales tax on beverages and foods? Remember that any such taxes are regressive and hits the low income disproportionally. Or is it the income tax for those making over $200,000, which hits small business owners hard (and Washington State already has a significant B&O tax)? Or is it the Spokane School District initiative to reduce dropouts, which is a very expensive experiential exercise in throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks?
MrNatural on November 03 at 10:32 a.m.
Okay Ninch…I’m a bit acerbic today and I have recently realized that I’m a bit of a tax and spend socialist so I see the situation differently. The sales tax on “crap” foods is a moral persuasion and as for the income tax I did vote no.
The term greedy vs. needy is sort of a slam at both sides.
misjustice on November 03 at 10:51 a.m.
How is the state going to cover the budget gap that the repeal of I-1107 is going to cause? That’s several hundred millions of dollars; get ready for more cuts!
Great, as of Dec. 2nd, we’re back to tax free candy bars and candy bars in a can [soda]!
Now what?
I am glad that the attempts by outside monied interests to privatize our state industrial insurance and liquor sales failed.
horse_feathers on November 03 at 11:17 a.m.
Less government control wins, hallelujah!
two4ruff on November 03 at 1:59 p.m.
I can’t believe 1100 didn’t pass by a landslide. Why would anyone want to continue to pay prohibition era tariffs and keep a state sponsored monopoly of alcohol. I guess the silly scare tactics worked.
liarsinnews on November 03 at 3:13 p.m.
spokanecougar: I`m perplexed as well. Screw the seniors who want everything for free and they could care less about future generations. These social security payday casino players do vote though, right or wrong. I despise freeloaders. I`m over 80 years old, and I do have a problem paying so much for public schools at my age. I think maybe a cut off point after paying 50 years into the school system might help us. One requirement would be a person would have to prove 50 years of paying into the system. I also think a real estate tax exemption for seniors stinks. At least real estate taxes pays for police, fire etc, and every one should pay for needed services. One exception might be the truly needy who are handicapped. I know of some seniors who lied to receive the tax exemption working the system. Enough of that BS.
Bugsy82 on November 03 at 9:49 p.m.
Let’s not assume that only older voters are vets. Who do you think have been tending America’s battles lately.
Further, not all vets are right-wingers.
In general I see many Eastern Washington voters who want the government to provide services: police, fire, parks, streets, food safety, etc., but do not want to pay for it.