by Jason Mercier
Not withstanding the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's Constitution,
in no uncertain terms, defines the state's hierarchy of political and legislative
powers this way: The people come first, the legislature second.
Article
1, Section 1Political Power: All political power is
inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain
individual rights.
Article
2, Section 1Legislative Powers, Where Vested: The legislative
authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature,
consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called
the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve
to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject
the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve
power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act,
item, Section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
(a) Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative
. . . (b) Referendum. The second power reserved by the people is the referendum
. . .
Despite our Constitution's unequivocal granting of legislative power first
to the people, the legislature has consistently ignored the will of the
people and disregarded both the spirit and clear intent of the laws we have
passed exercising our clear constitutional power. Now it appears some lawmakers
believe their past "omnipotent" wisdom in overriding the people's
laws serves as precedent to further frustrate the will of the people.
At a March 23 House Appropriations hearing on a bill to "reform"
the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked supporters
of I-601's two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise
taxes the following question:
Both of you oppose the removal of the supermajority requirement [for
tax increases]. Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually
not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I
mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing.
It's a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that
chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority
[to raise taxes]?
Along with the gutting of the I-601 spending limit currently under consideration
in the legislature:
Democrats are planning to raise taxes to fund Initiatives 728 and 732.
Despite the fact the people were promised that tax increases would not
be necessary to fund them and the people, by a 2-1 margin, just last year
defeated I-884, which would have raised taxes to fund the provisions of
these initiatives.
The legislature is currently considering passage of a bill to ban discrimination
based on sexual orientation. This despite the fact the people, in 1997,
defeated I-677 by a 2-1 margin which sought to prohibit discrimination
based on sexual orientation "in employment, employment agency, and
union membership practices, without requiring employee partner benefits
or preferential treatment."
In 2003 the legislature raised the gas tax despite the people's rejection
of R-51 in 2002 by a 2-1 margin. R-51 asked the voters to approve a gas
tax increase. The legislature is now considering another increase to the
gas tax.
The legislature this session also flirted with changing I-200 (ending
state discrimination based on race/affirmative action) and I-593 (three-strikes
law) despite their overwhelming approval by the people.
Just because state officials have ignored the clear will of the people
in the past doesn't mean they should continue to do so. Rep. McIntire is
right about one thing: some state officials have demonstrated a consistent
lack of respect for the will of the people.
Though the state's Constitution may appear to be an antiquated document
to some state officials, the fact remains the people's legislative powers
come first and foremost to that of the legislature. Just how exactly are
our state officials representing our will by constantly ignoring the laws
we pass?
Jason Mercier is a budget research analyst for the
Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan, public policy watchdog organization,
focused on advancing individual liberty, a free-market economy, and limited
and responsible government.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"