State's two-thirds rule on taxes should be retained

SEVERAL House Democrats in Olympia want to file a lawsuit asking the Washington Supreme Court to overturn Initiative 1053, the law that requires two-thirds of each house, or a vote of the people, to raise taxes. This page supports the two-thirds rule.

Voters clearly want the rule. They voted for it in 1993, 1998, 2007 and 2010 — on Nov. 2, by 64 percent.

We support the rule because "the public" that goes to Olympia to lobby and testify almost always represents specific interests that want more spending. The political system is biased in favor of spending. The two-thirds rule creates a valuable counterbalance.

The House Democrats' argument in court will be that the two-thirds rule violates the state constitution, which sets the standard for passing a law at a majority. The constitution does say a majority, but it uses negative language. It says, "No bill shall become a law" without a majority. The state's Republican attorney general, Rob McKenna, argues that this sets a minimum standard, and that the voters, through the initiative process, may temporarily raise it.

An initiative like Tim Eyman's I-1053 is like a constitutional amendment in that it limits the Legislature, and is unlike one in that it is much more easily changed. After two years, the Legislature can cast it aside by simple majority, as it did with similar measures in 2002, 2005 and 2010. In our state's system, to keep a recalcitrant Legislature bound by the two-thirds rule requires a new initiative every two years.

It is a political balance that has worked out fairly well. Whether it is constitutional has never been determined. If the court takes the case, we hope it accepts current law.

If the balance is destroyed, the people would have two options: let legislators raise taxes by simple majority any time, or put a supermajority rule in the constitution, as exists in 15 states including Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.