Last week, the Washington state Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that included this line:

“A law passed by initiative is no less a law than one enacted by the legislature. Nor is it more. A previously passed initiative can no more bind a current legislature than a previously enacted statute.”

So is it curtains for, say, Initiative 601 because it limits the prerogatives of lawmakers in ways that statutes cannot? Not yet, because the court once again sidestepped a question that’s been raised ever since I-601 slapped spending limits on legislatures.

To recap last week’s case: The Washington State Farm Bureau, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Building Industry Association of Washington were among groups that challenged a state law enacted in 2005 that raised taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and other items because the revenues collected exceeded I-601 spending limits.

Last year, Superior Court Judge James Allendoerfer in Everett agreed, saying that the Legislature violated I-601 by manipulating the budget to avoid voter approval of the tax increases.

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling with the justification that voter-approved initiatives have the same status as legislation. Justice Mary Fairhurst, who wrote the decision, outlined those limitations:

“No legislature can enact a statute that prevents a future legislature from exercising its law-making power. That which a prior legislature has enacted, the current legislature can amend or repeal. Like all previous legislatures, it is limited only by the constitutions. To reason otherwise would elevate enactments of prior legislatures to constitutional status and reduce the current legislature to a second-class representative of the people.”

But ever since I-601 was enacted 14 years ago, every legislature has been bound by its handcuffs. The Supreme Court has declined to address this seeming contradiction. It’s imperative that the court decide this once and for all, because the success of I-601 has given birth to several progeny, the latest being Initiative 960, which state voters approved this month. Sponsor Tim Eyman has assured voters that this additional shackle on lawmakers is on firm legal ground, because it is based on I-601.

But what if I-601 is unconstitutional?

In reading between the lines of last week’s decision, it would appear that the majority of the justices question whether it passes constitutional muster. In the interest of orderly lawmaking, it would help if they took on that question at the next available opportunity.