Editorial: Washington SJR 8201 takes aim at unfunded initiatives

At the end of Initiative 1351, which requires smaller class sizes, voters may or may not have seen a fiscal note stating it would cost a stunning $4.7 billion over five years. The measure offered no way to pay for it. What if it did? Would it have passed?

Those are the questions wrapped up in a proposed amendment to the state constitution – SJR 8201 – that would require initiative proponents to show how their ideas would fit within the Legislature’s four-year budget outlook. If an initiative spends money, proponents would have to identify reductions elsewhere, or raise a tax. If an initiative reduces taxes, it would have to offset that with spending cuts to keep the budget balanced.

I-1351 is the catalyst for the legislative resolution, but it’s not the first initiative to mandate significant spending without a way to pay for it. In 2000, Initiative 732 called for annual cost-of-living increases for teachers. Concurrent Initiative 728 was the original class-size measure. The Legislature repeatedly suspended both for lack of revenue. Meanwhile, voters indicated – via other initiatives – they wouldn’t be amenable to tax increases.

We are sympathetic with the plight of budget writers who watch their carefully crafted compromises detonated by unfunded voter-approved tax cuts or spending increases. Then again, lawmakers themselves have been known to pass unfunded mandates. Still, voters are being provided incomplete information when the budgetary impact of an initiative isn’t stated upfront.

On the other hand, lawmaking by initiative is placed prominently in the Washington Constitution as a reflection of the state’s populist roots. Amending this shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Short of an amendment, the Legislature does have options, just as it did with I-728 and I-732. But those decisions require supermajority agreement in the first two years. One thing lawmakers could do with simple majority votes is amend I-1351 by adding a funding source and sending it back to the voters. In essence, “Here’s how you’ll pay for it. Still want it?” Even so, the Legislature would be on the hook for funding until that election was held.

SJR 8201 has broad bipartisan legislative sponsorship, and would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers before it was sent to the voters. But some details need to be fleshed out. For instance, the resolution calls for the secretary of state, “on the advice of the attorney general,” to determine whether the costs have been sufficiently addressed. What data would be used? What would prevent an attorney general from making a politically skewed judgment? Also, initiative seekers are going to need guidelines on how to arrive at funding balance. Would they be provided assistance in deciphering a complex state budget?

The final language of the resolution has yet to be determined. A long debate lies ahead. The key is to make life easier for budget writers without making it impossible for citizen petitioners. If nothing else, the discussion should be educational.