Regular readers know that I am passionately non-partisan and non-political in this personal blog. I work hard to raise real policy issues and to do so with a genuine respect for the institution of government and to avoid front line politics. My goal in this post is not to attack any initiative or proposal before the voters but to elevate the philosophical level of the dialogue itself about the core public values of minority rights and majority rule.

I readily acknowledge that on the surface it might not appear there are large numbers of Seattle Democrats who share a passion with the Republicans about the role, value and integrity of the 10th Amendment. And yet I do share a heart-felt belief that the 10th Amendment to our nation’s constitution is a critical element of the power dynamic between state capitals and Washington, D.C., and I wish my party held a more nuanced view of the fundamental constitutional issue itself.

I acknowledge that I cringe when I see virtually every bill passed by Congress grasp onto the commerce clause as rationalization and justification. States are the laboratories of innovation and we must always hold that title. That is made harder by a proud federal government that seems to stretch its purview regardless of party or position. When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House they, too, found it impossible to resist the sweet temptations of the commerce clause.

And so it is with a sense of disappointment that I see so many conservative activists who hold a view that we should put our state history aside and readily pass modifications to our statutes and state constitution through initiatives to require 2/3 and super majority votes by the Legislature in order to raise taxes of any sort. I respect the voter’s rights to do so, of course, but I encourage us to rethink our current passions for the central idea.

Our state and federal constitution holds a firm mistrust of super majority requirements. The list of super majority vote requirements is slim and includes the historically seldom used Senate cloture. Usually it is, as one would expect, used to prevent easy modification of the constitution itself.

The philosophical issue of super majorities is based upon both protection of minority rights and the absolutism of majority rule. Both sides win from a careful balance of minority and majority interests, a balance our founders took very, very seriously and that stands to this day. The problem, in my view, is that we have today become intoxicated with the idea that taxation levels rise to the level of risk, importance and influence that we should equate that tiny vote–any vote on any tax no matter how inconsequential–with the extraordinary step of modifying our very constitution.

In our anger and frustration, we have lost site of the importance of citizen-legislators engaged in representative democracy itself. (Term limits once seemed like a magic elixir only to fade over time when the public discovered that in many ways it only increased the power of the unelected institutional infrastructure of government staff, lobbyists and professionals).

The rationale for firmly taking away the simple majority of legislators’ right to govern, naturally with minority participation and role, is morally questionable. Taxes currently hold massive public attention and sway, and yet in times past social, political, moral and financial issues found themselves at the very heart of the public’s mindset.

Initiative 1053 comes about because many advocates felt angry with the Legislature for modifying I-960, a position that is naturally understandable on one important level. Yet the historical precedence for modifying voter-driven initiatives is a vital part of our state constitution itself because we believe in the core foundation of representative democracy. We elect people as citizen legislators to wrestle with the complex, difficult challenge of being a STATE representative. That means we have a moral and public obligation to represent both the immediate short term views our district constituents and also the long term interests of all state citizens.

Legislatures Democratic and Republican have modified voter-approved initiatives following the constitutional period of two years since our state’s founding. We have eventually done so on virtually every complex subject the voters have seen, a policy decision made by our state’s founders because it provides the flexibility we as a state need to deal with reality of governing. Majorities of duly elected citizen legislators of both parties over generations have made policy choices to modify initiatives and referenda because they felt it was in their fiduciary interests as legislators to do so. That is not anti-democratic, it is the very essence of a strong and vigorous democracy that cares about policy.

I stand philosophically with our founders against requiring super majorities to tie the hands of the Legislature to vote by majority on virtually any issue other than modifying the state constitution itself. Power of the minority is critical but not absolute.

The right of 50% plus one of citizens to be represented by 50% plus one of citizen legislators who stand for the majority values of the majority of local communities is the driver of our nation’s success.

What comes after taxes?

If the majority of voters–who hold supreme and unquestioned power in our state–wish to require that there should be supermajorities of legislators to approve taxes or abortion rights or education funding or other tough issues, I will of course respect that position to the best of my ability given my fiduciary obligation to represent my district and our state. Yet I urge voters to see the dark side of today’s rabid focus on one category of public policy issues–taxes–when tomorrow it could be something we do not expect to surface nor desire.

In twenty years, what if we have a handful of sweeping categories where super majorities are required to conduct everyday business of legislating?

Perhaps if we truly no longer believe in representative democracy, and we believe that direct representation on topics such as taxes, abortion, death penalty, education, health care, transportation and more is a more effective model itself, we should simply install a computer in every home in our state. We could then require seven million people to vote directly and adopt super majorities for every single issue, every vote, every topic and every bill regardless of category.

That obvious exaggeration does show that we must always maintain a healthy balance between representative democracy and direct democracy, where the people’s voice is always in control, as was our founders’ treasured goal.

We elect regular people living real lives to go to Olympia as citizen legislators to study bills, to learn, to debate, to question, to struggle and wrestle with the complexity of issues–and then to vote. And the public can un-elect those same people 24 months later. That model, combined with the constant and healthy energy of direct democracy when the legislature does not hear well, makes our larger system of democracy work in some sense of harmony.

Our state constitution–with initiatives and referenda at the heart– is sacred to us all in that it protects individual liberties and the public’s voice with fierce conviction. Our national constitution is the moral grounding of the greatest nation imaginable that shines a light of hope around the world. The founders of our state and nation built a carefully balanced model of representative and direct democracy that used super majorities with unmatched and impressive reserve.

It is ironic at best, and deeply sinister at worst, that it only requires a 50%-plus one vote majority to pass an initiative requiring a super majority vote of the Legislature.

We are so much more than what we’ve become.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.