Super-majority tax law struck down in Washington state

SEATTLE Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:48pm EST

Related Topics

Photo

Under the Iron Dome

Sirens sound as rockets land deep inside Israel.  Slideshow 

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Washington state's Supreme Court made it easier for lawmakers to raise taxes on Thursday, striking down as unconstitutional a voter-approved law that required a two-thirds majority of the state legislature to approve such increases.

In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled against an initiative launched by conservative political activist Tim Eyman and twice approved by voters, most recently in November, to require a super-majority to raise taxes.

The court instead decided that half of the state's lawmakers, plus one, or a simple majority, could vote to increase taxes in the cash-strapped Pacific Northwest state, which collects no personal income tax.

"Our holding today is not a judgment on the wisdom of requiring a super-majority for the passage of tax legislation," the court ruled in its majority opinion. "Should the people and the legislature still wish to require a super majority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation."

The ruling came as the state faces court-imposed mandates to fully fund basic K-12 public education, with a total of $4.5 billion needed by 2019, beginning with $1.4 billion from 2013 to 2015, according to the Washington State Budget & Policy Center.

Lawmakers are also grappling with a $1 billion deficit and transportation infrastructure problems.

The League of Education Voters, a plaintiff in the case, called the ruling a "huge win for kids and schools," and Democratic Governor Jay Inslee hailed the ruling as protection for the state's constitution.

"The supermajority requirement gave a legislative minority the power to squelch ideas even when those ideas had majority support," Inslee said in an emailed statement.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn also applauded the ruling for a "common sense" approach "to fully fund education and invest in our transportation system."

But Republican state Senator Pam Roach of Auburn warned the ruling could open "the floodgates of taxation."

A proposal for a permanent state constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds super-majority was expected to pass a committee in the Republican-dominated Senate later on Thursday, Roach said.

"We have a lot of pent-up tax bills from last session. We know what's in the offing. Those tax bills are likely to begin to pass, but probably not in this session," Roach told Reuters.

Eyman, who did not immediately return calls by Reuters, launched the initiatives to stay ahead of potential tax increases.

(Reporting by Laura L. Myers; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Andre Grenon)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
morbas wrote:
Taxation by sale tax is less progressive than federal income tax, which burdens the lowest income levels with the highest effective rate; and the upper 2 percent with the lowest effective rate. Thus, government entities withut income taxation borrow more in a recession, as the lower quintile’ wages are more diminished ans less to spend. We have cities falling into bankruptcy. California had a deficit problem of different causality, yet resolved revenue problems partially by a surtax on the 1%. Another failure of Democracy is a super majority requirement for standard legislation, not unforseen by our founders.

Feb 28, 2013 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
michael10sley wrote:
Republicans want everything to work but they don’t want to fund anything. Programs and institutions don’t run on magic or wishes.
This is a nationwide problem, not just in Washington state.
Congress just left for a long weekend with the sequestration unaddressed and that was because Republicans don’t want their rich buddies to pay their fair share of taxes. Instead they want to bankrupt those of us who’ve payed taxes all our lives by restructuring Social Security. Good luck with that, Mr. Speaker.

Feb 28, 2013 10:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:
In My Humble Opinion based on 2011 national income data, and will only require House of Representative action.
Email this to your Representative and Senators.

Honorable Senator/Representative/POTUS,
Stop Sequestration.
This is a mandate for a Federal income tax system that funds Federal, Health (Obama-Care and Medicare) and Social security. One Margin level will yield the $3.8T revenue: %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k upwards 35% flat rate, income bundled and taxed in summation form, couples freely share, no business tax and no exemptions. The rate is less than 2011 single standard at under $200K. The Federal Reserve sets the rates, mandated to maintaining monetary value and supply.

Thank you for your immediate attention,
Your constituent [Zip Code]

Mar 01, 2013 7:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.