Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« SL Letter of the Day: Plan Ahead an… | Proof That Down-Ballot Supreme Cour… »

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Olympia Senate Republicans Soothe Themselves with Supermajority Constitutional Amendment, but There's Zero Chance of It Seeing the Ballot

Posted by Goldy on Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:41 PM

In Washington State, you can't amend the constitution by initiative. Which is why with today's landmark court ruling, the two-thirds legislative supermajority requirement for tax increases is dead, dead, dead.

Sure, armed-and-dangerous state Senator Pam Roach (R-Auburn) already had a two-thirds supermajority constitutional amendment bill in the hopper, and soon after today's court decision Senate Republicans quickly jammed it through the Ways & Means Committee. (They had earlier threatened to impose the requirement via Senate rules, but quickly abandoned that ill-conceived effort.) So it's on its way to the Senate floor. But even if they bully enough Democrats to get the necessary two-thirds support (unlikely), it's never going to see the light of day in the Democratic controlled House.

"It has to go through the House Finance Committee," state Representative Reuven Carlyle explained to me this afternoon. "I happen to know the chair pretty well, and I would say it's a heavy lift." Carlyle, of course, is the chair of the House Finance Committee. So that's pretty much that.

And that's the thing about supermajority requirements: They're supposed to be an awfully high hurdle. The framers of our state constitution understood that when they imposed a supermajority on some things—like passing constitutional amendments—while setting simple majority requirements for passing day to day legislation: For if you could amend the constitution by a simple majority, either legislatively or at the polls, then it really wouldn't be a constitution at all.

So barring a dramatic political realignment in Washington State—one which gives Republicans and their road-kill sympathizers supermajority control of both houses—a constitutional amendment imposing a two-thirds supermajority requirement for tax increases will never make it to the ballot. Which is the way this whole constitutional government thing is supposed to work.

FacebookShare

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I was thinking about this irony earlier today. The whole idea of requiring a 2/3 supermajority is that it's really difficult to get that much support for anything!

Posted by crasher on February 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Just in case anyone is curious, it takes 2/3rds of both chambers plus a popular vote majority to pass a State Constitutional Amendment (Article XXIII).

Posted by delirian on February 28, 2013 at 6:19 PM

They deserve a vote!!!!!!

Right?

Posted by Chicken dicks on February 28, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Remember, it only takes a majority vote to kill Corporate Welfare. Just a simple majority vote and all those pesky tax giveaways to Corporations go bye bye. Poof. If they made sense, you can always bring them back by the end of the session, once you've met the Constitutional Requirement to Fully Fund Education, which is our State's Paramount Duty.

Not roads.

Education.

See, in there, in black and white.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on February 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Waaaaaahhhh!!!! It's what the voters wanted!!

--I'm Tim Eyman, and I approved these crocodile tears!

Posted by blackhook on February 28, 2013 at 6:34 PM

You'll be glad to know that Roach doesn't carry a piece on the Senate floor anymore, or so she says. Probably on the insistence of her therapist, who knows that if she did, she'd be likely to pull it out and wave it around again, like she did that time the (Republican) staffer said "hello" to her. She says that when the shooting starts, as all of these kooks believe it will any day now, she'll just hide behind the marble pillar. That's why she demanded a desk next to one. Yes, really.

On the other hand, most of the other Republican Senators, at least the Eastern Washington ones, are indeed carrying concealed weapons on the floor. So if any of you Godless Communist Queers're thinkin' of taking over the government and giving everybody's daughters Gay UN Abortions, you better not try it there, or you got another think comin'.

Posted by Fnarf

on February 28, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Why don't the Democrats try changing the constitution again by presenting a full on shift from Sales Tax and Fees-based government to Income Tax and other progressive manners-based government?

I'm not holding my breath, though...

Also, the 2/3 was never meant to be permanent. It was supposed to inspire some progressive thinking. I think the lawmakers will still stick it to the people who can't afford to donate to their campaigns.

Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM

In case you think I'm joking, http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/mon…

It is illegal to carry a protest sign into the Capitol, but a firearm? No prob. You don't even need a permit if you're open-carrying. A fellow walked in with a rifle the other day, and was allowed to pass; a woman carrying a protest sign had it taken away from her. Maybe Roach is right to be afraid.

Posted by Fnarf

on February 28, 2013 at 7:03 PM

@7, legislature can't enact an income tax. It requires a constitutional amendment. It requires a 2/3 majority in the legislature (an impossibility) and then a majority at the ballot. The populace has proven a dozen times that they're against it by a huge margin (because they don't understand it, but still).

Posted by Fnarf

on February 28, 2013 at 7:06 PM

9: Well, the voters did approve an income tax via iniaitive in the 1930's, but it was struck down by Supreme Court. But you won't hear any Republican screaming about "will of the people" over that decision.

Posted by Teslick on February 28, 2013 at 7:34 PM

@6 that's hilarious, I had to google it:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweek…

@9 I don't think that's true? Seems like an undecided issue, but I don't know anything about laws and stuff.

Posted by JonnoN on February 28, 2013 at 8:04 PM

the supreme court ruling saying we can't have an income tax rests on the dubious proposition that income is property. oh really? so, I can sell you my income for life, that means you can force me to work? that would be an illegal contract, see:> 15th amendment. people can't sell their income the way they can sell, say, rights to a song. income is not property. if democrats had balls, which they don't, having just obeyed an illegal tim eyman non law for years, they'd keep at it, pass an income tax, message it, elect supreme court judges who will uphold it and fucking get in the game and win. but no, their gov. candidate said he won't raise taxes!

Posted by nor is money speech on February 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

@9 It is the opinion of many attorneys who have studied the subject that should an income tax come before the court again, there is a good chance it would overturn the 1932 decision, as it was based on dubious precedent that no longer holds.

I'm in the camp that advocates passing an income tax legislatively, and then letting the court have its say.

Posted by Goldy on February 28, 2013 at 8:35 PM

@13 As if they'd do something so ballsy as to go after the taxes of the wealthy.

It's not as if there are newspapers who are actually criticisizing regressive taxes on a regular basis.

Yay bridge tolls!

Yay car tabs!

Yay gas taxes!

Yay sales tax!

Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 28, 2013 at 8:58 PM

You guys are wrong about the legislature not being able to enact an income tax. It can enact a flat income tax. Under the prior court rulings, it can't enact a graduated income tax without a constitutional amendment. Income is to be treated as property, which under WA law must be taxed equally.

Posted by Bax on February 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

@15 A one percent flat tax. If income is treated as property, then it's subject to the same limitations.

Posted by Goldy on February 28, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Is that a state constitutional requirement, that property must be taxed equally? So, for example, we couldn't have a progressive property tax without changing the constitution? (I was just thinking it might be easier to change property tax structure than to impose an income tax, but maybe it's hamstrung by the same constitutional problem.)

Posted by David Nixon on February 28, 2013 at 11:33 PM

No, it's not a state constitutional requirement. It was based on a line of old SCOTUS decisions that have been overruled.

Posted by Ballard Pimp on March 1, 2013 at 2:45 AM

For those wondering, see Article VII Sections 1 and 2 for info about equal taxation of property and the one percent limitation. So the legislature could pass an income tax, it would just have to be limited to a rate of one percent and be the same for everybody. Assuming, of course, that the courts would continue to maintain that income is treated the same as property.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES…

Posted by Bax on March 1, 2013 at 6:19 AM

@15 and @16 are both correct.

They're only allowed to do a SINGLE exemption, but it could be something like either "federal income tax paid" or "federal income tax AGI exemption" or "first $50,000 adjusted annually to cost of living (multiple of State Minimum Wage)".

Property tax is what holds up a lot of things, because most people are too clueless to know that the Millionaires and Billionaires in this state pay very very little in property taxes compared to the vast majority of US States. And are tax-exempt in most of their property, through the use of foundations, trusts, and other tax-exempt vehicles (none of which have to be tax-exempt, but they are).

Some of us use these same tax exemptions, but most of you don't realize you can too.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Of course there's no chance of it seeing the ballot, because you cowards would never want to face the voters.

Posted by Unbrainwashed on March 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM