Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Editorials / Opinion


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Northwest Voices | Letters to the Editor

Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words letters@seattletimes.com.

June 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Comments (0)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Two-thirds vote required to pass tax increases

Posted by Letters editor

A slippery slope

In the editorial “Retain two-thirds rule” [Opinion, June 5], you contend that Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 (which violates Article II, Section 22) could pass constitutional muster:

“The constitution does say a majority, but it uses negative language. It says, ‘No bill shall become a law’ without a majority. The state’s Republican attorney general, Rob McKenna, argues that this sets a minimum standard, and that the voters, through the initiative process, may temporarily raise it.”

A similar argument was made by proponents of a 1053-like measure in Alaska several years ago, and rejected by Alaska’s Supreme Court in Alaskans for Efficient Government v. State of Alaska (2007). “Other courts interpreting constitutional language have wisely refrained from attributing any automatic significance to the distinction between negative and positive phrasing,” the court ruled.

Referring to the proponents (Alaskans for Efficient Government), the court added, “AFEG’s logic would just as readily compel the anomalous conclusion that section 14 was meant to set a ceiling but not a floor — that a majority vote would be the maximum needed to enact any bill, but the legislature would remain free to specify a sub-majority vote as sufficient to enact laws dealing with specified subjects, as it saw fit.”

Majority vote means fifty percent plus one. No more, no less. There is no minimum standard. There is only the standard the founders intended — the only standard that makes sense in a democracy.

Our founders knew when it was appropriate to use supermajorities to protect minority rights from mob rule. Wherever a supermajority is required, the Constitution spells it out. But there is no reference to supermajorities in Article II, Section 22. That’s because the founders intended for a majority vote to decide the fate of all bills — not just some bills.

Initiative 1053 is a slippery slope. Unless it is struck down, we will not be protected against future copycat measures that undemocratically tie lawmakers’ hands and prevent our republic from functioning as it was designed to. The Times gravely errs in attempting to justify its support of an initiative that dangerously undermines our plan of government.

— Andrew Villeneuve, executive director, Northwest Progressive Institute, Redmond

Another look at the vote

According to the Washington state election results website for 2010, 63.75 percent of those voting (of 71.24 percent of eligible voters) approved Initiative 1053 requiring two-thirds of the legislators to vote in favor of raising taxes.

That means 45.42 percent of eligible voters require all of the legislators to be responsible for everyone in the state without the ability to ask for help from the people they represent. When two thirds of the eligible voters vote for I-1053, then I will be willing to abide by the results.

— Bill Badgeley, Seattle

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.

Recent entries

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Browse the archives

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011