By Tim Eyman
For the Reporter
For 20 years, the voters have approved initiatives making it tougher to raise taxes.
Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or an independent voter, most everyone agrees it’s better to incentivize politicians to prioritize spending and reform government rather than increase taxes.
Olympia has proven time and again that if it’s easy to raise taxes, they will. And they’ve consistently illustrated that without these tougher-to-raise-taxes policies, they’ll impose higher taxes on regular taxpayers who are ill-equipped to fight back.
Olympia politicians may talk a lot about “closing corporate loopholes” and “forcing the rich to pay their fair share” but whenever taxes are increased, powerful lobbyists protect their clients and you and I get stuck with higher sales taxes, property taxes, candy taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes and utility taxes.
The two-thirds vote requirement for the Legislature to raise taxes has been approved by voters four times (we’re working hard to give voters a fifth opportunity with this year’s Initiative 1185). During legislative sessions it’s been in effect, it’s done exactly what the voters wanted, making tax increases a last resort and forcing elected officials to work together to prioritize spending and reform government.
But during sessions that the Legislature has suspended the two-thirds requirement, it’s only been a debate about which taxes to increase, how much to increase them, and which poor and working class taxpayers get targeted. Twenty years of experience has removed all doubt that politicians cannot be trusted to make tax increases a last resort without the two-thirds vote requirement.
Democrat politicians and their big-monied special interest groups have consistently tried to convince voters to reject this policy at the ballot box. They’ve failed every time. But rather than accept the clear and consistent decision of the people, they’ve embarked on a repeated effort to sue the voters.
On three separate occasions, the state supreme court has exercised judicial restraint and allowed both sides to exercise their powers: the Legislature’s power to ignore the law and the people’s power to pass it. It is a political tug-of-war over an important public policy and the courts have recognized that both sides are fully capable of defending their position without judicial intervention.
Ever since the state supreme court ruled that the Legislature does not have to abide by voter-approved initiatives (Farm Bureau, 2006), Olympia has been given free reign. As the Attorney General’s brief explains: “The two-thirds supermajority vote provision may make it politically difficult to raise taxes, but freedom from political difficulty is not a right or legally protected interest of Plaintiff legislators.” Read their brief in its entirety here: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/sites/default/files/state1053.PDF
A Seattle judge recently ruled differently than the state supreme court has previously. Fortunately, the ruling will be “stayed” pending appeal, meaning the two-thirds will remain in effect until the High Court rules. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic that the Supreme Court will reject the Seattle judge’s reasoning:
• In 1994, the Court found that individual legislators and special interest groups lack standing to bring lawsuits like this (“When a statute may be amended by the very persons the Petitioners claim are being harmed, state legislators, we cannot do otherwise than find that this is only a speculative dispute.”).
• The tax increase they tried to pass last year was approved this year, arguably making their current lawsuit moot.
• Lawsuits like this aren’t valid if the Legislature doesn’t exhaust all their remedies before going to court. They could have appealed the ruling of the Chair and passed the tax increase; they didn’t.
• This Seattle judge didn’t just say that initiatives can’t set a higher tax vote threshold; the ruling said the Legislature couldn’t impose it upon themselves. Article II, section 9 of the Constitution reads: “Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings.” This broad ruling flies in the face of the doctrine of separation of powers.
• A law is constitutional unless the Constitution expressly prohibits it. Our Constitution does not.
• For a lawsuit to be valid, the dispute must be “between parties having genuine and opposing interests” that are “direct and substantial.” The Attorney General has a job to do, defend initiatives, but in my view, their office lacks the direct and substantial interest needed to surpass this threshold.
• Just two years ago, a unanimous court rejected a very similar lawsuit under very similar circumstances (one chamber passed a tax increase and a lawsuit was filed challenging the two-thirds). That 9-0 opinion, authored by Justice Mary Fairhurst, the most liberal justice on the state supreme court, resulted in a “finding this a political question” that should be resolved through the legislative process.
Article I, section 1 of our state Constitution reads: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Article I, section 2 reads: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.
It is simply inconceivable that the founders of our state and authors of our Constitution – people who were deeply committed to limiting the power of government – intended to prohibit the Legislature and the people from making it tougher to raise taxes. It’s silly to argue otherwise as these Democrat politicians and special interest groups are attempting to do.
Our Constitution exists to protect the people from the government, not to protect the government from the people.
Tim Eyman, co-sponsor of “Son of 1053” Initiative 1185, can be reached to 425-493-9127, tim_eyman@comcast.net or www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com.
