Nerditorial: I-1053 Must Die

His Exalted Majesty Tim Eyman, the Emperor of Washington State, is displeased that some folks are calling Bravo Sierra on Initiative 1053. In court.

From the Seattle Times (link HERE.):

The lawsuit contends the supermajority requirement — though popular — violates the state constitution, which gives the Legislature the authority to pass laws, in most cases, by a simple majority vote.

And His Majesty issued the following decree...

"The courts are not going to look favorably on a bunch of whiny politicians complaining it's not fair that we have to take a hard vote on taxes in order to sidestep an initiative that passed in every legislative district outside of Seattle," Eyman said.

After which, Eyman is believed to have said, "Off wit' their, 'EADS!!!"

The mechanism used to "sidestep" His Majesty's Initiative?

The Washington State Constitution... or as Eyman refers to it... "THAT pesky thing."

The crux of the issue is this...

The Constitution provided for the State Legislature to pass bills, including bills that close tax loopholes, with a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

I-1053 sets a two thirds vote requirement for bills that increase taxes, which apparently includes closing tax loopholes.

Well, the Constitution says one thing, and I-1053 says another.

So which document prevails?

If Eyman wants to amend the Constitution, he's out of luck because the Constitution can't be amended by Initiative.

Can the State Constitution be "sidestepped" with an initiative?

There are a large number of supermajority vote requirements already written into the constitution.

Here is a fairly exhaustive list...

•Article 2, Section 1: Two-thirds vote of the legislature required to amend a voter-passed initiative within two years of the initiative’s enactment.
•Article 2, Section 9: Two-thirds vote of the House or Senate required to expel a member.
•Article 2, Section 12: Two-thirds vote of the legislature required to convene a special session.
•Article 2, Section 12: Also; 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: Also: 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.

You will note that in a few places, there are supermajority requirements on raising taxes... all less than two thirds mind you... and only on raising taxes by more that 1.5%. But inso far as raising taxes or closing tax loopholes at all, there is no supermajority requirement written into the Constitution itself.

The public is able to modify statutory law by Initiative and Referendum. But the public is not able to modify the Constitution by this method, much to the irritation of His Grace.

I wonder if the court is going to look favorably on the notion of adhering to the language in the Constitution.

Apparently, in the past, these legal challenges have been dismissed on the grounds of the party filing the suit lacking legal standing.

I suspect that won't be the problem in this case.

But we shall soon see.