Based on the results of the November election, 2007 may go down in history as a mini-tax revolt in Washington State. Not only were a majority of the local tax increases on the ballot rejected, voters also turned down a huge transportation tax increase, adopted a tax and fee limitation measure and enacted a constitutionally restricted budget savings account.
For a rainy day
The most popular statewide ballot measure was a constitutional amendment creating a mandatory and restricted budget savings account. SJR 8206 was adopted with 68 percent of the vote.
“I’m very pleased the voters of Washington have said yes to creating a Rainy Day Fund with the constitutional protection needed to fulfill its purpose,” Sen. Joseph Zarelli, who has championed this idea in the legislature for years, said in a statement. “If you look at how state overspending – up 33 percent in just the past four years – has put government on the road to a deficit, how our state economy is cooling, and how soaring property taxes are cutting into household incomes all around Washington, it’s not a surprise that people like the idea of putting money aside while we can.”
Tax transparency
Washington voters also supported a measure to make it harder for lawmakers to circumvent the state tax and spending limit (I-601, passed by voters in 1993).
I-960, advertised as the “Taxpayer Protection Act,” re-affirms an often ignored law that requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. The measure also requires that the legislature approve all state fee increases and that the public be notified via email any time a tax or fee increase is proposed. I-960 also mandates that if the legislature raises taxes without first referring them for voter approval, the voters will have the opportunity to participate in a non-binding advisory vote on the tax increase.
Despite claims from opponents that adoption of I-960 would shut down state government, 52 percent of the voters supported the measure.
Not willing to concede defeat, however, opponents threatened court action.
Christian Sinderman, spokesperson for the No on I-960 campaign, said a constitutional challenge in the courts is likely.
Court invalidates previous property tax relief
Just a mere two days after the election, the state Supreme Court overturned a ballot measure (I-747) adopted by 58 percent of the voters in 2001 that limited property tax increases to one percent.
[Ed. note: The property cap tax has since been restored.]
In a highly controversial 5-4 decision that brought near universal condemnation of the Court, the majority claimed that voters were misled when they enacted a one percent cap on property taxes.
Writing for the majority, Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote, “The Voters’ Pamphlet was ambiguous as to whether the effect of I-747 would generally lower the property tax levy limit by 1 percent or by 5 percent.”
The four dissenting judges, however, took issue with the majority’s condescending treatment of voters.
“No reasonable argument can be sustained that voters were in any way misled or confused by the effect of I-747, which expressly and was specifically aimed at lowering the tax growth to 1 percent,” said dissenting Justice Charles Johnson. “The majority seems to suggest that the voters are unable to think or read for themselves, when in fact our democratic process is based on the assumption that voters do in fact read and understand the impact of their votes.”
Respect the will of the people
Notwithstanding the state Supreme Court ruling, taxpayer advocates remain encouraged and hope elected officials will honor the voters’ decision.
Jason Mercier is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center. WPC can be reached at www.washingtonpolicy.org or by calling 206-937-9691
