The Washington Supreme Court decided unanimously and wisely against giving its immediate attention to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown’s legal challenge to a couple of tax-restricting initiatives on the state’s law books.

That gives us a little time to reflect on the differences between a democracy and a republic and shed some light on the actions of Brown and her primary antagonist, initiative maven Tim Eyman.

In a republic, the people select a relatively small group of representatives to write laws and set policies on their behalf. In our case, that would be the 147 people who constitute the Washington Legislature.

In a true democracy, the people would decide all those issues themselves, but the scope and complexity of modern society make that impractical. Washington, however, is one of those states where initiatives and referendums enable citizens to do what elected lawmakers won’t, or to undo what they did.

Eyman has made an art, not to mention a living, out of the initiative process, papering the ballot seemingly every year with measures that appeal to the dream of enjoying the benefits of state government without enduring the pain of paying for it.

No wonder Brown and many of her colleagues are frustrated. Theirs is the more demanding job – matching the public’s needs and wants against available resources and, yes, identifying if and when it’s necessary to raise or lower taxes.

Along comes Eyman with a tantalizing message for the people: We can remove taxes from that meticulously balanced whole and keep the other stuff. Who could pass that up?

Brown and members of the Legislature, of course, are the ones who have to put things back together after they fall apart.

In her frustration, Spokane Democrat Brown filed suit last week, asking the Supreme Court to say initiatives 601 and 960 are unconstitutional because they prohibit the Legislature from raising taxes with less than a two-thirds vote. That’s more restrictive than the state constitution and, since the constitution can’t be amended by an initiative, the requirement is unconstitutional, Brown argues.

But then the constitution also says bonded debt can’t be more than what can be paid annually with 9 percent of the state general fund. And that didn’t prevent the Legislature from setting a more restrictive 7 percent lid by statute – which also can’t be used to amend the constitution.

It’s a lot easier to understand Sen. Brown’s exasperation than her legal strategy. But she’s the lone plaintiff in the suit, and she comes from a politically safe district, making it a low-risk move.

Eyman, meanwhile, notes that the Legislature can repeal or amend any initiative with a simple majority vote after two years. Rather than getting the court to assume that burden, he says, lawmakers – all of them rather than just Brown – should do so in a recorded vote.

We’re not fond of Eyman’s cherry-picking approach to state government, but we have to agree with his demand for on-the-record accountability.