HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/2013 07 Voter Proposition for Five Council Member Affirmative Vote to Approve New Councilmanic Tax Measures"v .T
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of: January 15, 2013
ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving Proposition to amend Article VII,
Section 2 of the City of Yakima Charter requiring
affirmative vote of at least five City Council members to
approve any new councilmanic tax, and authorizing
submission of Proposition for vote of the people on special
election on April 23, 2013.
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
CONTACT Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney /575 -6030
PERSON /TELEPHONE:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Article VII of the City of Yakima Charter grants taxing authority to the City Council. The
Resolution presents a Proposition, subject to approval of the voters within the City, to
amend Article VII, Section 2 of the Charter to require, after August 1, 2013, the affirmative
vote of at least five members of the City Council to enact any new councilmanic tax. "New
councilmanic tax" means a tax for which the City Council has the authority to levy but has
not levied, or is granted to the City Council by the state legislature after August 1, 2013. The
term "new councilmanic tax" excludes fees, rates and charges, special assessments, taxes
imposed by the City Council on or before August 1, 2013, and taxes imposed by the City
Council on or before August 1, 2013 which are subject to renewal or reauthorization, such
as the general property tax levy and the excess property tax levy. The Resolution, if
approved, authorizes submission of the Proposition to the voters at a special election to be
held April 23, 2013.
Resolution X
Contract:
Contract Term:
Insurance Required? No
Funding
Source:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:
Ordinance Other
(specify)
Mail to:
Amount: Expiration Date:
Phone:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
For Council consideration, discussion and action.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council had preliminary discussion of the issue at its meeting on December 11,
2012, and requested proposed legislation for further discussion and consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
Click to download
1-:71 Memo - Charter Amendment Procedures Dec 21 2012
❑ Resolution- Charter Amendment - Ballot Proposition -Super Maiority- 12 -17 -12
ID Exhibit A- Charter Amendment - Ballot Proposition -Super Maiority- 12 -17 -12
171 City of Yakima Councilmanic Taxes Schedule Dec 21 2012
CITY OF YAKIMA
LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
200 Souffi Third Street, Yakima, Washington 98901 R9FS -6M Fax (509)5/56160
MEMORANDUM
January 4, 2013
TO: Tony O'Rourke, City Manager
FROM: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT, Charter Amendment — Supermajority —Tax Increase
At the Council meeting on December 11, 2012 the City Council asked that discussion
be scheduled to consider a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City of Yakima.
The proposed amendment would be to require that no tax increase or new tax could be
enacted without the affirmative vote of at least five members of the City Council. This
memorandum identifies issues associated with the proposed amendment.
Included with this memorandum is a chart applicable "councilmanic taxes," as well as a
document showing other taxes and revenues.
A. Enactments by Other Jurisdictions.
Pierce County.
On November 6, 2012, voters in Pierce County approved an amendment to the Pierce
County Charter requiring a supermajority affirmative vote by two- thirds of the council to
approve any "new councilmanic tax." The text of the amendment provided that the
County Council shall have the power:
... Subject to the limitations provided by law, to levy taxes appropriate revenue,
and adopt budgets for the County, provided that after January 1, 2013, any new
Councilmanic tax may be levied or increased only by a minimum of two- thirds
affirmative vote of the Council. For purposes of this •subsection, "new
Councilmanic tax" means a tax for which the Council has the. authority to levy but
has not, such as the mental health tax (RCW 82.14.460), or is granted to the
Memorandum to City Manager
January 4, 2013
Page 2
Council by the State Legislature after January 1, 2013, and which excludes fees,
rates and charges, special assessments, taxes imposed by the Council on or
after January 1, 2013, and taxes imposed by the Council on or after January 1,
2013 which are subject to renewal or reauthorization, such as the general
Property tax levy and the excess property tax levy.
(Amended language shown underlined.)
2. City of Spokane
On December 17, 2012, the City of Spokane passed an ordinance and resolution
prese .,nting a proposed charter amendment for voter approval in February 2013. The
proposed charter amendment would require supermajority approval of new
councilmanic taxes and tax increases and reads as follows:
After March 1, 2013, a new councilmanic tax may be levied and an existing
councilmanic tax increased only by a majority plus one vote of the city council.
For purposes of this section, "new councilmanic tax" means a tax for which the
city council has the authority to levy but has not or is granted to the city council
after March 1, 2013. A councilmanic tax does not include fees, rates and
charges, or special assessments. This section does not apply to existing
councilmanic taxes levied by the city council as of March 1, 2013 or any renewal
or reauthorization of those taxes that does not increase the tax rate.
The primary difference between Pierce County's enactment and the proposed Spokane
Charier amendment is found in the last sentence of the Spokane version. For
Spokane, any increase to the "tax rate" in existing councilmanic taxes, and any "renewal
or reauthorization of such taxes, including the general property tax levy and excess tax
levy, would require approval by a supermajority of the City Council.
B. Options — Discussion.
Under state law, the general property tax levy may be increased by one percent or by
the amount of the "implicit price deflator," whichever is less. For all practical purposes,
the lesser amount to date has been the one percent. Thus, the City Council may
approve a general property tax levy equal to 101 % of the highest levy occurring after
1986. RCW 84.55.005(2)(c), as modified by Chapter 1, Laws of 2007, special session.
The "one percent" refers to an increase in the total dollar amount of the levy, not an
increase in the "levy rate. "' Under state law, an affirmative vote of a supermajority of
' "The levy rate may increase as a result of a levy increase, but it may also decrease, despite the levy
increase, because of an increase in the assessed value of property in the city .." A Revenue Guide for
Memorandum to City Manager
January 4, 2013
Page 3
the city council is already required if the city council desires to levy a general property
tax in the amount of 101% of the existing levy upon a finding of "substantial need."
RCW 84.55.0101.
Under the Spokane model, if the assessed valuation of property falls and the total dollar
amount of the general property tax levy remains the same, the individual "levy rate" will
increase for each taxpayer. Thus, in order to levy a general property tax for the new
budget year, the charter amendment may require a supermajority council vote — even
though the total dollar amount of the tax levy remains unchanged. It is unclear from the
Spokane language whether or not the "supermajority" vote would be required even
when the total tax levy remains unchanged.
Another concern under the Spokane model is the excess tax levy. Excess tax levies
are enacted each year, in addition to the general property tax levy, to defray principal
and interest falling due under outstanding bond indebtedness. General Obligation
Bonds (G.O. Bonds) are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the city and are already
approved by the vote of the electorate. As noted above, if the city's assessed valuation
falls, the "levy rate" for individual property owners may increase. If "tax rate" in the
Spokane language is construed to mean "levy rate," this may require a supermajority
vote of council to approve an excess tax levy — even though the electorate has already
approved the bond issue (and repayment).
C. Recommended Language.
In consideration of the above, the following language is recommended for Council
consideration. This language is based on the Pierce County model, and proposes an
amendment to Section 2, Article VII of the Yakima City Charter to read as follows:
ARTICLE VII
SECTION 2. The City Council shall have power and authority to assess, levy
and collect taxes upon all the real and personal property (not exempt from
taxation) within the City for the corporate uses and purposes thereof and provide
for the payment of the debts and expenses of the City, provided that after August
1, 2013, any new councilmanic tax may be levied or increased only by a
Cities and Towns, Municipal Research & Services Center (2009), page 2, footnote 9. The "levy rate" is
the tax rate paid by the property owner expressed as a dollar amount "per thousand dollars of assessed
valuation (AV)" of the property. For most cities, the maximum "levy rate" is $3.375 per thousand dollars of
assessed valuation, but can be increased for certain purposes. For example, if the city has a Firemen's
Pension Fund, it can levy an additional $0.225, for maximum of $3 60 per thousand dollars of assessed
valuation.
Memorandum to City Manager
January 4, 2013
Page 4
minimum affirmative vote of five members of the City Council. For purposes of
this section, "new councilmanic tax" means a tax for which the City Council has
the authority to levy but has not levied, or for which authority is granted to the
City Council by the state legislature after August 1, 2013. The term "new
councilmanic tax" excludes fees, rates and charges, special assessments, taxes
imposed by the City Council on or before August 1, 2013, and taxes imposed by
the City Council on or before August 1, 2013 which are subject to renewal or
reauthorization, such as the general property tax levy and the excess property
tax levy pursuant to Section 3 below.
As discussed above, state law already requires the affirmative vote of at least five
Council members to approve a general property tax levy equal to 101% of the previous
levy amount. The language also exempts reauthorization of the excess tax levy in an
amount necessary to defray principal and interest payments coming due for bond
indebtedness and any local improvement district assessment guaranty fund.2
D. Charter Amendment Procedure.
Article XIII of the Yakima Charter provides:
This charter may be amended in the manner provided by the laws of the State of
Washington. Special elections for amending this charter may be called by the
City Council or shall be called upon petition of qualified voters of the City of a
number not less than fifteen percent of the total number of votes cast at the last
2 The proposed amendment also leaves unchanged Section 3, Article VII of the Yakima City Charter,
which reads.
SECTION 3 The aggregate of all the property taxes levied or appropriated for City purposes
including funds for the parks and playgrounds, police and firemen's relief shall be taken and
apportioned by the City Council from the current expense fund which for any one year shall not
exceed the statutory limits established by State law on each dollar of assessed valuation of the
property within the City except as follows.
(a) The levies for redemption of and interest on the bonded debt of the City heretofore or
hereafter authorized in the manner provided by law;
(b) The levy for local improvement district assessment guaranty fund as required by law;
(c) Such other levies as may have been heretofore or which may hereafter is required by
general law.
Thus, the provisions of Section 3 serve to clarify the scope of the amendment to Section 2, Article VII of
the Charter.
Memorandum to City Manager
January 4, 2013
Page 5
preceding general state election and otherwise as set forth in State law.
RCW 35.22.130, discussing the "requisites of petitions" for amendment, includes the
following provision:
...This and RCW 35.22.120 do not deprive city councils of the right to submit
proposed charter amendments but affords a concurrent and additional method of
submission.
Article 11, Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution provides in part:
Such charter may be amended by proposals therefor submitted by the legislative
authority of such city to the electors thereof at any general election after notice of
said submission published as above specified, and ratified by a majority of the
qualified electors voting thereon. In submitting any such charter, or amendment
thereto, any alternate article or proposition may be presented for the choice of
the voters, and may be voted on separately without prejudice to others.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, amendments may be proposed by the City Council. The
language in the above - quoted portion regarding submission of an amendment "at any
general election" has been held to include both general elections and special elections.
The proposed amendment can be presented to the City Council in the form of a
Resolution containing the approved text of the amendment and a proposed ballot title
The proposed amendment, as approved by the City Council, would then be presented
to the County Auditor for scheduling on the appointed special election ballot. The
proposed amendment is subject to the following publication requirements set forth in
Article XI Section 10 (Amendment 40) of the State Constitution.
. Said proposed charter shall be published in the daily newspaper of largest
general circulation published in the area to be incorporated as a first class city
under the charter or, if no daily newspaper is published therein, then in the
newspaper having the largest general circulation within such area at least once
each week for four weeks next preceding the day of submitting the same to the
electors for their approval, as above provided..:.
(Emphasis added ).3
3 The last Charter Amendment consisted of extensive revisions to virtually every Article in the Charter. On
this basis, the amendment was treated as a "revised charter." Given the extent of the changes, it was
determined that the entire Charter (with amendments) should be published. The proposed amendment
must also be published in both English and Spanish. The present amendment concerns only one Article
i
Memorandum to City Manager
January 4, 2013
Page 6
A proposed Charter amendment submitted to the voters on the April 23, 2013 special
election should be well within the time limits necessary to certify the final vote tabulation
prior to the amendment's effective date of August 1, 2013. Consequently, the
amendment would be in place prior to preparation, discussion and finalization of the
2014 Budget.
and does not constitute a "revised charter." Thus, only the proposed amended section or Article need be
published.
RESOLUTION NO. R -2013-
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Yakima, Washington, providing for the
submission to the voters of the City of Yakima a Proposition on whether
Article VII, Section 2 of the Charter of the City of Yakima should be
amended to require the affirmative vote of at least five members of the City
Council to approve all new councilmanic tax measures and increases
thereto, and requesting the Yakima County Auditor to submit the
Proposition to the voters on the regular municipal election to be held
April 23, 2013.
WHEREAS, Chapter 35.22 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) authorizes first
class cities of the State of Washington to amend and revise their charters upon approval by a
majority of the qualified voters of the city voting in a general or special election called for that
purpose; and
WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 2, states that the City Council shall have power and
authority to assess, levy and collect taxes upon all the real and personal property (not exempt
from taxation) within the City for the corporate uses and purposes thereof and provide for the
payment of the debts and expenses of the City; and
WHEREAS, an amendment of the charter may be initiated by the City Council through
the approval of a resolution requesting that a proposition be submitted to the qualified voters in
the City to decide whether the City should adopt an amendment to Article VII, Section 2, of the
Charter of the City of Yakima to require the affirmative vote of at least five members of the City
Council to approve all new councilmanic tax measures and increases thereto, and providing
that "new councilmanic taxes" for purposes of such Article means a tax for which the City
Council has the authority to levy but has not levied, or for which authority is granted to the City
Council by the state legislature after August 1, 2013. The term "new councilmanic tax"
excludes fees, rates and charges, special assessments, taxes imposed by the City Council on
or before August 1, 2013, and taxes imposed by the City Council on or before August 1, 2013
which are subject to renewal or reauthorization, such as the general property tax levy and the
excess property tax levy; and
WHEREAS, the City .Council desires to hold an election in the City of Yakima on the
special election date of April 23, 2013, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of
the City the proposition of whether the City of Yakima should approve the amendment as
1
described above, all as set forth in the proposed amendment to Article VII, Section 2, of the
Charter attached hereto as Exhibit "A;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the best interests and general
welfare of the City of Yakima would be served by submitting to the qualified voters in the City
the proposition of whether the City of Yakima should approve the amended Charter as set forth
herein, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
1. The proposition to be submitted at the April 23, 2013 special election shall be in the
form of a ballot title as follows:
PROPOSITION NO. 1
ADOPTION OF AMENDED ARTICLE VII, SECTION 2, CHARTER OF THE CITY
OF YAKIMA
PROPOSITION NO. 1 concerns an amendment of Article VII, Section 2, of the
City of Yakima Charter. The proposed amendment states that, after August 1,
2013, any new councilmanic tax may be levied or increased only by a minimum
affirmative vote of five members of the City Council. "New councilmanic tax"
excludes fees, rates and charges, special assessments, taxes imposed by the
City Council on or before August 1, 2013, and taxes imposed by the City Council
on or before August 1, 2013 which are subject to renewal or reauthorization; all
as set forth in Resolution No. 2013 -_ Should this proposition be approved?
YES ........... . .... . ....... [-1
NO..... ...... ........... .L-]
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with
the Yakima County Auditor.
3. The Yakima County Auditor is requested to call and conduct an election to be held in
the City of Yakima on the special election day of April 23, 2013, for the purpose of
submitting to the qualified voters of the City of Yakima the proposition set forth in
Section 1 above.
2
4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any
other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 15'h day of January, 2013.
ATTEST-
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
3
, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
Only that portion of Article V11 that is proposed to be amended is shown. Remainder of text
remains unchanged. Proposed changes are shown in legislative format.
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 2
Section 2.
The City Council shall have power and authority to assess, levy and collect taxes upon all the
real and personal property (not exempt from taxation) within the City for the corporate uses and
purposes thereof and provide for the payment of the debts and expenses of the City; provided
that after Auqust 1, 2013, any new councilmanic tax may be levied or increased only by a
minimum affirmative vote of five members of the City Council. For purposes of this section,
"new councilmanic tax" means a tax for which the City Council has the authority to levy but has
not levied or for which authority is granted to the City Council by the state legislature after
6ugu;3t 1, 2013. The term "new councilmanic tax" excludes fees, rates and charges, special
assessments, taxes imposed by the City Council on or before Auqust 1, 2013, and taxes
imposed by the City Council on or before August 1, 2013 which are subject to renewal or
reauthorization, such as the general property tax levy and the excess property tax levy pursuant
to Section 3 below.
CITY OF YAKIMA - COUNCILMANIC TAXES
Tax . Authority Passage Revenue
General Property Tax RCW 84.55.0101, .120 City Council, showing of $164,000 (2013)
Levy — 1 % Increase substantial need, and
affirmative vote of majority
plus one
Retail Sales Tax Chapter 82.14 RCW Varies. City Council may adopt Current sales tax rate
Chapter 3.78 YMC basic sales tax by majority vote is 8.20% (city receives
subject to referendum, other specific only 0.85°/x) for total
sales tax increments subject to projected $13,350,000
vote of the people (i e.,criminal (2013 budget)
justice sales tax)
Utility Tax RCW 35.21.870,
Chapter 5.50 YMC
(electricity, telephone,
natural gas, steam
energy)
YMC 5.50.060 — water
businesses,
City Council, majority vote, up TOTAL. $13,897,000
to 6 %, thereafter, vote of the people. (2013 budget)
Current city rate 6%
(Subject to Referendum)
City Council, majority vote.
Water Businesses: 20%
(Subject to Referendum)
Chapter 7.64 YMC. City Council, majority vote.
Water and Wastewater; Water and Wastewater: 20%
Refuse, Stormwater Refuse. 15%
Stormwater 6%
Gambling Tax RCW 9.46.110 City Council, majority vote, varying $871,000 (2012)
Chapter 5.49 YMC rates ranging from 2% to 20 %,
depending on type of gambling. City
tax rates range from 2% to 10%
Real Estate Excise Tax RCW 82.46.010 City Council, majority vote, $452,000 (2012)
Chapter 3.79 YMC REET 1 0.25 %; REET 2. 0.25%
(capped at 0.25% for each)
Admissions Tax RCW 35.21.870 City Council, majority vote, up Not adopted.
(Not adopted or imposed to 5% (capped at 5 %) Estimated possible
in City of Yakima) revenue $500,000
- r- ._- ....__... - -... .ter.... �... .....,,,..��.... ••... p.v..�..,r.. w...�.v..y �__ _.. ..
Distributed at the
Meeting I )S-L?
THE SPOKESMAN-REVIEW December 1, 2012
Tax threshold starts locally
Chris Cargill
Can you hear us now? That's the question Washington voters are asking lawmakers
following passage — for the fifth time — of a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. It's a
reasonable and popular tax policy in our state, and now is the time to take it local.
;'A higher threshold to raise taxes makes increasing taxes a true last resort. Newspaper
editorial boards across the state, including that of The Spokesman- Review, concluded a
supermajority requirement keeps lawmakers focused on efficiencies. "It's forced
lawmakers from both major political parties to fully debate the merits and compromise,"
proclaimed the Walla Walla Union Bulletin.
The evidence is clear. In 2010, when given the chance, Washington lawmakers jumped at
passing more than $6.7 billion in tax increases over 10 years after they suspended the
supermajority requirement. Months later, voters repealed some of those new taxes.
The supermajority requirement is popular throughout Washington. It passed in all 39
counties, even in more - liberal King County. In Spokane County, it received 70 percent
support and, in the city of Spokane, it was nearly unanimous among precincts.
It is unlikely that voters differentiate this policy preference between state and local. This is
why citizens in Spokane should have the opportunity to adopt a higher threshold for
taxes in the city. A charter change would be simple; all new taxes or tax increases in the
city of Spokane would require five votes on the City Council for approval, instead of the
current four.
Pierce County residents just approved a charter change that did exactly that with an
overwhelming 67 percent of the vote. It now takes five votes to pass a county tax
increase there.
Opponents will argue that a supermajority requirement to raise taxes is undemocratic.
They ignore the fact there are more than 20 other supermajority provisions in the state
constitution and a number of five -vote requirements in the city of Spokane.
1 of 2 12/14/2012 7:09 PM
In late November, Spokane's City Council nearly adopted a 1 percent hike in property
taxes just weeks after approving a generous benefit package for the city's firefighters. It
failed by just one vote. One councilmember proclaimed taking the 1 percent hike was no
different than what has been done in previous years.
And that is exactly the problem. When governments operate on autopilot, citizens are left
holding the bag. Had a five -vote requirement been in place, consensus would have been
required and previous 1 percent hikes would not have passed without a larger discussion
about the growing financial burden on taxpayers.
In October, consensus among council members was reached and the city's hotel tax
went up to pay for expansion of the Spokane Convention Center and Spokane Veterans
Memorial Arena. That vote was 6 -1.
As the legislature heads into its next session facing a $900 million shortfall, despite a
$1.5 billion increase in tax revenue, lawmakers will be eager to hand off costs to local
governments. A charter change in Spokane and other cities to require a higher threshold
for tax increases will give local taxpayers the opportunity to avoid getting stuck with
the bill.
Voters continue to make the call. They should be given the chance to adopt the
supermajority policy at the local level. Spokane and other city governments across
Eastern Washington should listen to voters and adopt a reasonable supermajority
tax limitation.
Chris Cargill is the Eastern Washington director for Washington Policy Center, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan research organization with offices in Spokane, Tri- Cities, Olympia and Seattle. Online at
wvvw was .' gto , olic ofv.
Get more news and information at��.cna
2 of 2 12/14/2012 7:09 PM
Supermajority voting is a basic part of Washington sta... http: // crosscut. com / 2011 /05 /05 /_washinoton7le9islat...
Distributed at the
• Article 2, Section 12: Two- thirds vote of the legislature required to LMeeting - r- I
convene a special session.
• Article 2, Section 12: In the same section, a two - thirds vote of the
legislature required to consider additional issues during a special session.
• Article 2, Section 24: A 60 percent vote of the legislature or a 60 percent
vote of the people required to approve a lottery.
• Article 2, Section 36: Two- thirds vote of the legislature required to
consider a newly introduced bill within ten days of final adjournment.
• Article 2, Section 43: Two - thirds vote of the legislature required to
amend a redistricting plan.
• Article 2, Section 43: In the same section, a two- thirds •vote of the
legislature required to reconvene a "redistricting commission.
• Article 3, Section 12: Two - thirds vote of the legislature required to
override a governor's veto.
• Article 4, Section 9: Three- fourths vote of the legislature required to
remove a judge, attorney general, or prosecuting attorney from office.
• Article 5, Section 1: Two- thirds vote of the Senate required to convict a
state elected official after impeachment.
• Article 7, Section 2: Three -fifths vote of the people required to. approve a
local tax levy (except for school levies).
• Article 8, Section 1: Three -fifths vote of the legislature required to incur
state debt.
• Article 8, Section 6: Three -fifths vote of the people required to incur local
district debt in excess of 1.5 percent of the local property tax base.
• Article .11, Section 2: Three -fifths vote of the people required to relocate
a county seat.
• Article 11, Section 16: Three -fifths vote of the people required to incur
city or county debt in excess of 1.5 percent of the property tax base.
• Article 14, Section 2: Two - thirds vote of the people required to relocate
the state capitol.
• Article 23, Section 1: Two - thirds vote of the legislature required to
propose amendments to the state constitution to the people.
• Article 23, Section 2: Two- thirds vote of the legislature required to
propose convening a state constitutional convention to the people.
• Article 28, Section 1: Two - thirds vote of the legislature required to
change the membership of the independent state salary commission.
• Article 32, Section 1: Three -fifths vote of the legislature required to
expand'the definition of an industrial development project once bonds
have been issued.
Several of these provisions have been part of Washington's constitution since
its ratification in 1889. It is clear supermajority vote requirements are not
undemocratic or even controversial in most cases.
One way to resolve the ongoing debate over whether voters truly want
lawmakers to be restricted by the two- thirds vote requirement for tax increases
is for the legislature to refer the question to voters in the form of a
constitutional amendment. Several constitutional amendments to do this were
introduced this year, but they did not receive a public hearing or legislative
consideration.
If such an amendment were ratified by voters, we would know their four -time
approval of the two - thirds requirement was not a fluke and that the -people
really want a broad legislative consensus before lawmakers raise their taxes. If
the amendment were rejected, lawmakers could feel free to disregard the
2 of 3 12/14/2012 7:38 PM
Supdrmajority voting is a basic part of Washington sta... http: / /crosscut.com/ 2011 /05/05 /washington - legislat...
restriction, as they have repeatedly done in the past, without concern about
overriding the will of the people.
Based on the numerous supermajority vote requirements currently in
Washington's constitution, providing the voters the opportunity to consider a
constitutional supermajority requirement to raise taxes would not be embracing
undemocratic principles. It would simply be following the existing constitutional
precedents for requiring higher vote thresholds before the government takes
certain actions
Jason Mercier is director of the Center for Government Reform at Washington
Policy Center, a non - partisan independent policy research organization in
Washington state. For more information visit washingtonpolicy.org.
View this story online at: http : / /crosscut.com /20 .1/05
/05 /wrashington- legislature/ 20888/Supermajority- voting- is- basic-
part -W ashington -stat/
@ 2012 Crosscut Public Media. All rights reserved.
Printed on December 14, 2012
-R
Y
e �(
3 of 3 12/14/2012 7:38 PM