In Our View: Reconsider Initiative 1351

In most cases, the will of the people should be inviolate, but there are exceptions. There are times, infrequently, when it is appropriate for lawmakers to say to voters, “Wait a minute, are you sure you meant that?”

Take Initiative 1351, which passed in November with 50.9 percent of the vote. Designed to reduce class sizes in K-12 schools throughout the state, the measure will cost state government an estimated $4.7 billion between now and 2019, according to a pre-election analysis from the state Office of Financial Management. The estimate also says that I-1351 will cost individual school districts an estimated $6 billion to cover costs not picked up by the state. Add it up, and taxpayers can be expected to pay more than $10 billion over the next five years, even though the initiative included no method for funding that bill.

Which prompts us to ask voters, “Are you sure you meant that?”

The problem with Initiative 1351 isn’t the efficacy of reducing class sizes — which is questionable, at best. And it isn’t about the assertion that voters didn’t bother to understand the costs of the initiative — which is rather beside the point. No, the problem is that it places a wholly unrealistic burden on lawmakers as they begin formulating the biennial state budget. Because of that, I-1351 likely will — and likely should — have a lasting impact on the state even if it never goes into effect.

To start with, lawmakers are considering sending the initiative back to the voters. Under state law, the Legislature could, with two-thirds majority in both chambers, overturn I-1351 and then pretend it never existed. Aside from the political difficulties of drumming up that much support, such an action would represent an untoward violation of the will of the people. Or lawmakers, with a majority vote in both the House and the Senate, could simply send the measure back to the voters. “I have yet to find a legislator or the governor who says they can find a way to fund it,” said Sen. Andy Hill, R-Redmond, chair of the Ways and Means Committee. “So we will find a way to correct it.”

The guess is that if lawmakers send I-1351 back to voters with specifics on how to pay for it, the public will come to its collective senses. It is one thing to approve the notion of reducing class sizes; it is quite another to be asked to raise taxes or cut programs to cover nearly $5 billion in state spending.

Equally important, however, could be consideration of a proposal to prevent budget-busting unfunded mandates from coming before voters. It is perfectly reasonable to require that an initiative include a funding mechanism. Lawmakers would be wise to support Senate Joint Resolution 8201, which has a long, bipartisan list of co-sponsors that includes Sens. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, and Ann Rivers, R-La Center. As Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said when the bill was introduced, “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.”

Providing honest information and presenting realistic consequences to voters as they consider ballot initiatives would serve the process well. Initiative 1351 is a prime example of a feel-good idea that required a more thoughtful response from the public. Considering the accompanying price tag, the reasonable response from lawmakers would be saying to voters, “Wait a minute, did you really mean that?”