Emergency clause abused, tax foes argue
OLYMPIA – This year, state lawmakers in Olympia faced many “emergencies.”
Among them:
“They changed the regulations for manure trucks;
“They removed the rule that milk-bottling be done by machine;
“They added a $1 fee to tires;
“They exempted horse-track parking-lot trams from vehicle-licensing rules.
Simply by slapping a one-sentence “emergency clause” onto any bill, lawmakers can accomplish two things.
For one thing, the new law takes effect immediately, instead of waiting the usual 90 days.
Secondly, it becomes bulletproof. An emergency clause prevents anyone from trying to gather 112,000 signatures and give voters a chance to repeal the law with a referendum on the fall ballot.
On Thursday, the state Supreme Court heard arguments from several groups that say lawmakers are too quick to cry emergency. It was no emergency this spring, several farm, business and political groups say, when legislators suspended a voter-approved spending limit and made it easier to raise taxes.
“The emergency clause has nothing to do with an emergency. It has to do with whether a bill is controversial,” said Timothy Harris, general counsel for the Building Industry Association of Washington, one of the groups that filed the suit. “It’s clearly an abuse. It’s taking power out of the hands of the people.”
Of 523 bills approved by lawmakers this year, 98 contained emergency clauses, according to another plaintiff, the conservative Evergreen Freedom Foundation. They included controversial bills toughening auto emissions rules, encouraging stem cell research and raising taxes.
All contained the same sentence: that the new law was necessary “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, or support of the state government and its public institutions.”
“They’re doing these things in the name of the people, but they won’t give the people a chance to vote on them,” said the foundation’s Jason Mercier.
The case before the high court involves Senate Bill 6078, which suspended for two years a voter-approved rule that required a two-thirds vote of both the state House and Senate to approve a tax increase.
When critics tried to launch a referendum on the change, Secretary of State Sam Reed said they couldn’t. It’s immune to such a challenge, he said, because of the emergency clause.
“I think this court needs to send a message to the secretary of state,” said Richard Stephens, a lawyer for the state Farm Bureau, Grange and other groups suing.
But the Democratic lawmakers behind the bill say it was an emergency. The bill allowed them to increase taxes – on liquor and cigarettes, among other things – and to avoid cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from education or other badly needed government services.
“Those elected to govern have to govern,” said Sen. Debbie Regala, D-Tacoma.
With the Legislature closely divided between Democrats and Republicans, getting two-thirds of the lawmakers to agree to tax increases was pretty unlikely, she said.
“I believe we’re on firm ground. This is necessary for the support of government,” she said. “You can’t run state government if you can’t put a budget together.”
Jeffrey Even, a lawyer for the secretary of state’s office, urged the nine justices to defer to the Legislature’s decision that the change was necessary to support state government.
In a separate brief, the League of Education Voters said that lawmakers clearly knew what they were doing. They debated it for hours.
“Our state is in a real crisis from our inability to deal with the needs of citizens,” Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said in a floor speech at the time. “The two-third vote required is like a straitjacket when you’ve gotten too fat. We simply need to have the emergency clause there.”
Without it, she and other Democrats said, lawmakers would be in Olympia, arguing over taxes, for many months while state government stalled. The state budget year starts July 1.
“Schools cannot afford for us to wait until November to pass an operating budget,” said Rep. Jim McIntire, D-Seattle.