I-1185: Will the circle be unbroken on Eyman tax measures?

Voters will decide in November whether to renew limits on lawmakers' ability to raise taxes. But court rulings could create new dynamics.
Lawmakers continue to huddle behind closed doors at the capitol.

Lawmakers continue to huddle behind closed doors at the capitol. MathTeacherGuy/Flickr

The general election vote on Initiative 1185 won't be the last word on whether any Washington tax increase needs a two-third majority in the Legislature.

The final word may come from the Washington Supreme Court. Or it may not.

This is the political issue that won't die. In fact, it has been born, dodged a bullet, got killed, got reborn, and now simultaneously faces another bullet and another potential rebirth — all in the past five years. And there's no guarantee this cycle will stop in the near future.

This is the latest chapter in a clash between those on on the liberal side who believe the Legislature should need only a simple majority to raise taxes and close tax exemptions, and those on the conservative, tax-skittish side who believe a two-thirds majority should be needed to do so. The two-thirds requirement is the status quo, although that could change if the initiative fails in the Nov. 6 vote or the state Supreme Court rules against limiting legislative taxing powers through the initiative process.

To Washington's initiative king Tim Eyman and Republican legislators, the two-thirds requirement serves as an extra safeguard against a Democrat-dominated Legislature increasing taxes and closing tax exemptions. "We want raising taxes to be absolutely the last resort," Eyman said. " I-1185 is sort of an insurance policy."

However, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, an attorney who helped map out the legal challenge to the two-thirds majority requirement now pending before the state Supreme Court, argued that one-third of one legislative chamber can stop the majority from trying to fix many of the state's problems. In an interview, he said that when state voters approve the two-thirds majority in two initiatives in the past, they were not told which state programs — such as education, colleges or health care — face budget cuts.

Pedersen noted that Washington's voters have already passed initiatives to provide training for some health workers and to reduce elementary school classes sizes, which, coincidentally, is an expensive measure that the Washington Supreme Court also ordered the state to carry out in a ruling several months ago.

Both Eyman and Pedersen point to the 2010 legislative session — the only recent session in which the two-thirds majority was not in effect —  as the best clue of how the House and Senate would if behave if only a simple majority is need to raise taxes. No broad tax increases occurred in 2010. But the Legislature added taxes to beer (28 cents per six-pack) , soda (2 cents on 12 ounces),  candy, bottled water, some service businesses, and some banks and credit-card firms. That same year, the American Beverage Association spent roughly $16 million to successfully convince voters in a public referendum to repeal the soda and candy tax increases.

Eyman interprets the 2010 tax increases at the Legislature running amok without the two-thirds majority rule. "They're just like Pavlovian dogs. They heard the dinner bell and started to drool," he said.

In contrast, Pedersen pictures the 2010 tax measures as legislators cautiously installing a few limited increases that a simple majority would actually support. "We fiddled around the margins. That's what we had the votes to do," Pedersen said.

Pedersen noted that state Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle tried unsuccessfully this year to put time limits on tax exemptions, which would have require them to be reviewed to see if they still meet their original purposes before renewal. With the supermajority requirement in effect, that bill did not survive the one-third-plus Republican opposition. Pedersen speculated that proposal could be revived if the two-thirds-majority requirement disappears.

So far, Washingtonians have not seen any ads pro or con on the issue. Eyman raised $1.3 million for I-1185, which he said all went to collecting signatures to put the proposal on the ballot. That figure includes $400,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based Beer Institute, $210,000 from oil companies BP Oil and Conoco-Phillips, and $45,500 from the Association of Washington Businesses. Meanwhile, opponents raised $65,570 with labor groups providing the biggest chunks, according to Washington Public Disclosure Commission figures.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Fri, Oct 12, 1:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Has anyone polled on this issue? Syllogisms are no substitute for facts.

simorgh

Posted Fri, Oct 12, 8:24 a.m. Inappropriate

If the polling question is related to I-1185 the answer is yes. Recent KING 5 News Poll shows 56% support.

As for polling on a constitutional amendment - here are the results of our survey of lawmakers and candidates on whether they would allow the voters the opportunity to settle this debate if I-1185 passes keeping this policy a perfect 5 for 5 at the ballot box since 1993: https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/updated-legislative-tax-survey-results

jmercier

Posted Fri, Oct 12, 8:32 a.m. Inappropriate

Why won't the legislature listen to the will of the sheeples on this issue?

Too in love with the tax revenue, which they can shovel to their "friends", methinks.

If a solution is good, truly good, and requires new taxes, it should easily meet the 2/3 requirements.

If it is picking winners and losers, not so much

Geezer

Posted Mon, Oct 15, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate

Groups like the Washington Policy Center, which is a free market think tank love I-1185 and its ability to let 1/3 of the Legislators in one House of the Legislature over rule the majority. They can't win a majority of Legislators getting elected that support their far right views, but by fooling people that somehow I-1185 and its predecessors benefits citizens, they are able to push for unconstitutional measures like I-1053 and i-1185.

I-1185 is a Tax Loophole Protection Act. While tax loopholes to benefit business interests can be passed by a simple majority, I-1185 requires a 2/3 vote to repeal them. Loopholes get protected from being cut while education funding, programs to help seniors and healthcare for children get cut by a simple majority.

Just look who put up the million dollars to get I-1185 on the ballot.
BP, Conoco Phillips and other Big Oil Companies along with Beer Distributors. Think BP has your interests at heart. Their bottom lines is adding to their profits, not helping the citizen taxpayers of Washington. They are laughing all the way to the bank every time voters buy Eyman's anti-tax hype. Vote NO on I-1185. It's time to end corporate welfare. They need to pay their fair share to do business in Wshington State.

Posted Wed, Oct 17, 1:47 p.m. Inappropriate

Eyman has the legislature acting like children. If the legislature had taxpayers best interest at heart they too would want a 2/3 majority over raising taxes.

After reading the article you should comprehend why oil,gas, beer and soda are funding an anti-tax measure. They, we and I already feel like we pay way more than our fair share for what we are getting.

The legislature can be compared to the mentality of being in a bad marriage, everyone sees the problem but the ones in the relationship.

and a Thank You to Crosscut for allowing this discussion.

salmonjim

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »