After the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the two-thirds supermajority case, then attorney general Rob McKenna told KUOW:
If they were to rule on the constitutionality I think they would uphold it. The opponents of two-thirds ... are hanging their case on a few words in the state constitution that refer to the requirement that a majority of legislators be present in order to pass legislation.
We understand that very clearly. What they [the founding fathers] are saying is if you’ve got 49 state Senators, you can’t have only 20 of them present and pass a law by a vote of 11 to nine. They’re saying you have to have a majority present and then you can have a vote, and then a majority have to vote for it, a majority of the legislature. So, I think that’s what that clearly means. And it was not intended to be a ceiling on a voting requirement to pass bills.
Honestly, that's just plain stupid. Gerberding v. Monroe is a goddamn roadmap for deciding LEV v. State. If the court rules on the constitutionality of I-1053 (and I'm not confident that our popularly elected justices won't once again hide behind justiciability) it would have no choice but to toss the fucker out.
The State primarily relies on the negative phrasing of article II, section 22, and the reasoning in Robb, to claim the provision sets a minimum voting requirement only. Article II, section 22, however, is more like the provision in Gerberding than the provision in Robb. As in Gerberding, where a principle favored the result, there is an informal principle here favoring a simple majority vote for ordinary legislation. Additionally, like the constitutional history in Gerberding that supported the outcome, the constitutional language and history in this case illustrates that the framers never intended ordinary legislation to require a supermajority vote.
Stupid, stupid, Rob McKenna. Smart, smart, Goldy (who, by the way, has a damn impressive record at predicting court rulings, both the outcomes and the grounds).