I-747 reversal warrants Supreme Court review

Four and a half years after voters passed Initiative 747, Judge Mary Roberts of King County Superior Court has ruled that it deceived them. We opposed I-747, but we never thought it was unclear.

The story goes back to November 2000, when voters passed a Tim Eyman initiative lowering the property-tax lid to 2 percent. A lawsuit claimed that this was illegal under the single-subject rule. In January 2001, Eyman responded by filing I-747, as if to say, "Don't like 2 percent? Try 1 percent." That year, the public debated 1 percent. One side said taxes were too high. The other side, which was our side, said 1 percent was too low.

On Sept. 20, 2001, the Washington Supreme Court struck down the previous year's initiative on the grounds that it had two subjects. Everyone agreed that I-747 did not have two subjects. There was no problem with the legality of it.

The Voters Pamphlet described I-747 as a measure "to limit property tax levy increases to 1% per year." The section called "The law as it presently exists" explained that the limit for districts above 10,000 population was the rate of inflation or 6 percent, whichever was lower.

That was correct. But if you looked at the fine print at the back, you would have seen that the text of I-747 was described as changes to the initiative passed the previous year. That was correct when Eyman filed I-747, and there had been no way to change it, but it was incorrect by Election Day because of the court ruling.

In the election of November 2001, the 1-percent lid passed in every county except King, and was declared the law of the state.

Judge Roberts now invalidates it because of the inaccuracy in the fine print resulting from the failure to anticipate a future event. The result is that voters voted for a 2-percent property-tax lid, then came back and voted for a 1-percent lid, and a King County judge now gives them the 6-percent-or-inflation lid.

This order should be stayed pending review by the Washington Supreme Court.

If it isn't, taxing districts would be wise not to use the new taxing authority unless they want to face the prospect of mailing back refunds.