|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Legislative Action Center / Issues - Law & Courts / Washington Supreme Court Prevents Referendum on Bill Gutting I-601 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Washington Supreme Court Prevents Referendum on Bill Gutting I-601 |
|
|
|
Written On: July 15, 2005 |
|
|
|
Olympia—The Association of Washington Business (AWB) expressed disappointment that the Washington Supreme Court ruled late Thursday against a group attempting to place a Save I-601 referendum on the fall ballot.
The case, Washington State Farm Bureau Federation v. Reed, stems from the Legislature’s passage of Substitute Senate Bill 6078, which changed the supermajority requirements of Initiative 601 for raising taxes to a simple majority vote of the Legislature. That made it easier for the Legislature to raise taxes on cigarette and alcohol purchases, inheritances, warranties, and several other things to balance the 2005-07 state budget.
Because the bill was controversial, and susceptible to a referendum drive to put it before the people, the Legislature placed an “emergency clause” on the supermajority portion of the bill, which exempted that part of the bill from referendum. AWB disagreed with the rationale that the emergency clause was necessary for the support of state government.
A group of business organizations led by the Farm Bureau filed a referendum on SB 6078, but Secretary of State Sam Reed rejected the filing because of the emergency clause. The group then filed suit challenging the validity of the emergency clause and sought a court order forcing Reed to process the referendum.
AWB filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the arguments of the Farm Bureau coalition. It urged the Washington Supreme Court to articulate meaningful standards for the Legislature to use in future cases when it comes to the proper use of the powerful emergency clause to exempt bills from referendum and take away a potential vote of the people.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the emergency clause in SB 6078, arguing that the court has historically deferred to the Legislature on such questions, and that SB 6078 must have been necessary for the support of state government since none of the tax-raising bills passed by more than a bare majority vote. In other words, had I-601 remained intact, the Legislature would not have had the political will to raise taxes.
The court’s majority opinion by Justice Charles Johnson drew stinging rebukes from three justices, including newcomer Justice Jim Johnson. Justice Richard Sanders in dissent argued that the court had abdicated its constitutional responsibility to review acts of the Legislature and had violated the sacred trust of the people that the Supreme Court would protect the constitutional right to challenge legislation through referendum.
From AWB’s perspective, as argued in its brief, the case is about the bounds of the Legislature’s authority. “Unfortunately, the court missed a prime opportunity to set standards for the Legislature,” AWB President Don Brunell said. SB 6078 does not raise revenue, does not impose taxes, and fails to appropriate anything. It is not for support of state government.
“If SB 6078 is immune from a referendum because of an emergency clause, then just about any controversial bill will be immune from referendum if the Legislature just uses that phrase and rationale,” Brunell said.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
