Partisan politics is inherently confrontational. Even when rivals agree on an outcome, they disagree over how to achieve it.

It’s in the DNA, like cats and dogs.

In Olympia, Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, wants to amend the state constitution to require the state to reserve funds to cover emergencies.

Good idea. Republicans, who constitute a vocal minority in the Legislature, want the same thing.

And why not? Holding back a reasonable percentage of your funds as a contingency against dread surprises is common sense.

Where the governor and the GOP lawmakers differ is over how those funds should be secured. The Republicans want a padlock, the governor prefers a twist-tie.

Whatever happens, it will require a broad consensus to create what’s popularly known as a rainy day fund. Constitutional amendments take a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate – just to go on the ballot. Then voters have to say OK.

A simpler statutory version would be pointless. The idea is to impose a level of fiscal restraint that legislators can’t master through self-discipline alone. If revenues can be put on the shelf by passing one law, they can be taken down and spent by passing another.

That dilemma has a flip side, however. When a true disaster strikes, when an undeniable need confronts state government and no other resources are available, how do the Legislature and governor take advantage of their own foresight and tap into those reserves they so prudently set aside?

According to Gregoire’s plan, the state would deposit 1 percent of its general fund revenues into the rainy day fund. To spend that money it would normally take a 60 percent vote in each chamber of the Legislature. An exemption would be provided if the economy went into a skid and state spending was necessary to deal with the consequences. If employment growth was forecast to be less than 1 percent, lawmakers could access the fund with simple majority votes.

Oh, and there’s one other exception. The simple-majority threshold would also apply if the governor declared an emergency that threatened public health or property. What might constitute such an emergency would be pretty much up to the governor.

That, the Republicans correctly perceive, is going too far. And they ought to know, as members of a body that is notorious for saddling bills with emergency clauses that foreclose the voters’ opportunity to challenge them through the referendum procedure.

Both the governor and the Republican lawmakers – whose support will be needed in any constitutional amendment process – are right about the need for a rainy day fund. The governor’s version makes it too easy for her, or any future governor, to circumvent its purpose.