Senate Majority leader to sue over I-960 ruling

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown said Sunday she will sue in a bid to overturn the tax-limiting provisions of Initiative 960, a Tim Eyman-sponsored measure aimed at curbing the Legislature's power to raise taxes.

The lawsuit, which is technically against Lt. Gov. Brad Owen over a Senate floor ruling upholding I-960, will be filed on Monday morning with the state Supreme Court.

I-960 reaffirmed higher vote thresholds for tax hikes and was passed by voters in November. It requires all state tax votes would take a two-thirds vote in both houses. That was previously mandated by I-601, passed in 1993, which lawmakers have amended and even suspended at times. Under the initiative, taxes passed with only a simple majority have to go to the ballot for ratification.

Brown told The Associated Press Sunday the two-thirds requirement is "clearly unconstitutional."

"This isn't about 960, and this isn't about undoing the will of the people," Brown said. "This is about defending the Constitution and the Legislature's ability to pass laws under the Constitution."

Brown said they are asking the court for an expedited ruling. If that's not granted, she said they are asking that they rule before the 2009 legislative session.

Eyman said Democrats are upset their ability to raise taxes has been hindered.

"It is the topic that chafes," Eyman said. "They don't like that voters said they want it to be harder to raise taxes."

Brown said it's not about taxes, it's about upholding the Constitution. She noted the lawsuit doesn't address any other aspect of I-960, such as votes on fees and the public notification process.

"The specifics of the suit is very narrow. It says that the Constitution says that 25 votes in the Senate and 50 in the House is what is required to pass legislation," she said, noting that there are some exemptions, including the vote required to call a special session, pass a constitutional amendment or expand gambling.

Eyman opponents, including legislators, believe I-960 is illegal because it conflicts with the state constitution's provision that the Legislature can pass bills with a simple majority. The initiative shouldn't be allowed to alter that requirement, the argument goes, because it wasn't a constitutional amendment.

Eyman said that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents voters or the Legislature from raising the threshold for passing a tax bill.

"The Legislature should be spending more time living by the laws the people have set forth, rather than circumventing them," he said.

Brown laid the groundwork for the lawsuit on Friday, when she asked Owen to rule I-960 unconstitutional for the purposes of a pending vote on a proposed $10 million liquor increase that would pay for drunken driving enforcement and substance abuse treatment.

Under I-960, the bill would have required approval from two-thirds of the Senate.

In his ruling, Owen said Brown's arguments are "cogent and persuasive" but it was up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of I-960. He also ruled the proposed tax increase did meet the thresholds in I-960, and would require a two-thirds vote.

The tax increase then got a simple majority vote of 25-21, but was defeated because supporters couldn't get the 33 votes needed.

Brown said she hoped the court would rule in time to allow the liquor tax bill to pass this session. If not, she hopes the courts offer guidance soon.

"The ability we have here is to protect the Constitution," Brown said. "We have this opportunity to clarify it, and I'm anxious for the courts to do so."

Brown will be represented by attorneys Hugh Spitzer and Thomas Ahearne; Owen will be represented by the attorney general's office.

In September, the high court rejected an effort to prevent I-960 from appearing on the ballot. Environmental group Futurewise and the Service Employees International Union had argued that the initiative would illegally alter the state constitution.

The court said it wouldn't consider the constitutionality of a ballot measure before an election.

However, in November, the state Supreme Court did rule unconstitutional another Eyman initiative, Initiative 747, which limited property tax increases.