In an age when intractable partisanship often is a hallmark of politics, any proposal that garners support from 40 of the 49 state senators is certain to grab attention.
Such is the case with a proposed constitutional amendment that would impact ballot initiatives in the state. Senate Joint Resolution 8201, which quickly met with bipartisan support (including Sens. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, and Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver), would prevent budget-busting initiatives from landing on the ballot unless supporters defined how the initiative would be funded. The proposal also would require that initiatives to eliminate certain taxes would specify which state programs should be cut as a result of the reduction in revenue.
The impetus for such a proposal is easy to discern. In November, voters approved Initiative 1351, which calls for a reduction in class sizes for K-12 public education. The state Office of Financial Management estimated that implementation of I-1351 would cost the state $4.7 billion over a five-year period, yet the initiative provided no funding mechanism. Attracted by the feel-good notion of reducing class sizes, the electorate approved the idea with 51 percent of the vote — handing the Legislature a multibillion-dollar invoice and saying, “Here, you deal with it.”
In dealing with it, lawmakers have few options. They can come up with billions of dollars through some combination of transferring revenue and raising taxes. Or, by law, they can suspend implementation of the initiative with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Legislature during the first two years following passage. After two years, an initiative can be altered with a majority vote in both houses.
Initiative 1351 was approved by voters, but lawmakers should suspend the law, provide funding specifics, and send it back to voters. While we give great weight to the will of the voters, I-1351 places such an egregious burden on lawmakers and taxpayers that responsible leadership calls for extraordinary measures. I-1351 also serves as a clear example of the need to consider the constitutional amendment. The fact that voters approved an absurdly expensive unfunded mandate points out the danger of such irresponsible ballot measures and, in the long run, will prove to be a waste of time for the electorate and for the Legislature.
The other portion of the amendment — requiring specified cuts for tax-reducing measures — is not as clear-cut but deserves consideration. Tim Eyman, who has made a career out of placing tax-cut initiatives on the ballot, called the bill “another childish temper tantrum by politicians over the citizen initiative process. This bill would forever sabotage the people’s right to propose initiatives that limit taxes.” Eyman asserts that it is unrealistic to specify which programs should be cut if taxes are reduced.
It is a fair argument to suggest that once voters agree to lower a specific tax, it is the job of lawmakers to deal with the consequences. But, as Sen. Jamie Pederson, D-Seattle, said, “The proposed constitutional amendment is really a way of respecting voters by giving them honest information about the cost of their choices through the initiative process.”
We agree with Pederson. Requiring honest debate and presenting realistic consequences to the voters might limit the number of initiatives that appear on Washington’s ballot, but overall it would enhance the process. Rather than burdening voters with initiatives that are financially unrealistic, such a constitutional amendment would streamline the system and place greater responsibility in the hands of the electorate. And that is worthy of consideration.
