2/3 majority vote is an assault upon our Constitution.
In assembling data about how state taxes are collected and how the money is spent–who pays and who receives–my first goal is to educate the public that King County and a handful of others subsidize nearly everyone else. My second goal is to make the argument–exactly as President Obama did in his State of the Union Address–that we must invest in our high growth areas to recover from this Great Recession.
It is important during these times of dramatic spending reductions to push back against the inaccurate view of many that rural areas subsize the urban core. The truth is exactly the opposite. This means that if “everything is on the table” in terms of reductions–as is justifiably the case–then that means we must also have the courageous honesty to transparently outline who receives a disproportionate share of state resources.
So far this exercise has been tongue and cheek and all in good fun to stretch the comfort zone of the institutional political establishment a bit. Still, Rep. Glenn Anderson introduced a bill, that I co-sponsored, to allow the Legislature to merge counties that are ‘net recipient’ entitities of at least two-to-one ($2 in spending for each $1 in taxes paid) over 10 years.
I have been prepared to let the issue go since the point has been made.
Today, however, the issue is surfacing in a deadly serious public policy debate about the proposal, introduced by Republican legislators, to change our state constitution to require a 2/3 majority vote to raise any taxes or eliminate any tax exemptions. Initiative 1053, passed by voters in November, is likely unconstitutional. Hence, advocates have taken the next step to attempt to change our constitution to categorically enable the idea to pass legal muster.
Since advocates of 2/3 majority rules have taken this step, I think we should reply to their tactic by introducing legislation in direct response to their assault upon our state constitution and democratic rights of our republican form of government.
I am considering introducing legislation only because I-1053 advocates have pushed it too far.
The Legislation I would like to introduce grants legislators from districts that are “net donors” of taxes two votes on appropriation issues while legislators from “net recipient” districts receive one vote on appropriation issues.
Yes, it would be unconstitutional. That’s the point. We need the public to engage with us in a serious dialogue about the importance of majority rule and representative democracy. Supermajority requirements (or weighted voting rights) for public policy issues–whether taxes or hot-button social policies–are undemocratic, unfair and unwise.
For each step advocates of tyranny of the minority take we must match them one-for-one to advocate for majority rule.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
I’m sure you’re aware of this already, but there’s no way your proposed amendment would ever survive a challenge in federal court. The principle of “one person, one vote” has been pretty well established. Setting aside certain classes of legislation where people from certain districts are represented twice as well as people from other districts is a pretty clear violation of this principle.
@Revuen – The AOR links aren’t set up properly and can’t be used. Can you resolve them so that we can link to the legislation in question?
@Eric – Shouldn’t the courts reject the US Senate then?
“Initiative 1053, passed by voters in November, is likely unconstitutional.”
Let me emphasize, YOU YOURSELF state that it is not fact that I-1053 is unconstitutional by using the term “likely”.
Until this has been decided on by the State Supreme Court (which it will likely take), I-1053 is legal, constitutional and is the will of Washington Voters by a significant margin. To continue to seek retribution by finger-pointing and now game-playing is utterly ridiculous of you—>>“I am considering introducing legislation only because I-1053 advocates have pushed it too far……yes, it would be unconstitutional “
So, this is what the 36th needs from you, Reuven?
Political posturing and partisan ” Legislative Fight Clubs”?
I’m embarrassed for you on this one. I really am.
You’ve seriously let Eyman get to you and it’s showing.
It also really makes you look like you are itching to pass new taxes on your constituents who are already burdened by a recession and high unemployment.
I’m well aware of how passionate you are against I-1053′s overwhelming support by voters in the State of Washington, but doesn’t that actually put you in direct conflict with the will of the voters? If not, then who are you fighting?? And why? Please shed some light on this for your constituents who read your Blog.
And what is so bad about presenting an Amendment to the State Constitution??
Isn’t that how it is supposed to be done in Government?
Heck, if the Feds actually did things by the book, they would actually seek more amendments, opposed to outright ignoring the Constitution.
There is nothing sinister about seeking amendments to the Constitution in any form.
“I think we should reply to their tactic by introducing legislation in direct response to their assault upon our state constitution and democratic rights of our republican form of government. <– Isn't this the kind of sensationalism that you in Paine "dress-up" chided Eyman-supporters for????
Man, Reuven. We are more than what we've become, brother.
As far as the other "action" you highlight in today's post, I actually think Rep. Anderson's Bill isn't that bad of an idea. I would actually support that law, because I believe it would be the gateway to the Eastern counties nullifying and looking for other "options" other than sharing a state with King and Pierce County . Seattle Liberals may think that sounds splendid, but believe me, it would only be a matter of time before the Eastside lured businesses away from a tax-happy state that bogged them down with excessive regulation and taxation.
I support your co-sponsorship of Rep. Anderson's bill, but primarily because I enjoy watching you cast yourself as the gun-slinger that aims to p*ss off and alienate the east-side of the state.
I want front row tickets for what could eventually transpire from you guys flaming the animosity back to a bonfire.
-Best
Do the donor counties contain a simple majority of the legislature?
Could you introduce legislation to require a 2/3 majority vote for any spending in excess of the tax revenue collected from a county the previous biennium? It would be just as unconstitutional as I-1053, but might come across as being less flippant. Plus, it could be passed without requiring a constitutional amendment, just a simple majority vote.
Dear Sir, Representative Carlyle;
My name is Ashley Hamilton. You may remember me as the African-American female visitor to your office earlier this day. I accompanied the Higher Education Committee representative for University of Washington-Bothell, Kelly Snyder.
First and foremost, thank you for your conversation with us this day; you highlighted, if nothing more, the need for ACCURATE spending and a SYSTEM (a so utilized word…) to accompany/manage directed change. From your prudent observations, I—a graduate student of policy–commend your efforts in understanding the issues at hand and welcome your grasp at attempting to rectify the most pertinent issue: money spent and return on investment.
As a Master’s of Policy Studies candidate at the University of Washington-Bothell campus, I understand all to well expense and return. If only to further my case, as a Senior Sales position in my current employment, I am well accustomed to the ebb and flow of the financial balance sheet, sales equations, and comparative progress to last years sales with all intended implications for future business.
These elements of business and investment, I understand.
What remained a complexity upon leaving your office after discussing the student populations across the state, was how the money poured into UW-Bothell was a LOSS for the state spending as a whole, against a comparison of appropriating those same funds, hypothetically, for a “college-branch” into a 4-year Everett university. My confusion relied on your assertion that the 80% of students attending community college now in the city of Everett, roughly 10,000 individuals, as compared to the 2,500 currently attending UW-Bothell, constitute a LOSS of spending for the state of Washington. Since (my understanding of Rep. Carlyle’s logic) more students attend community college in Everett than at the UW-Bothell, the investment in UW-Bothell is a LOSS due to more revenue generated in other areas of the state on the variable of ‘post-secondary enrollment’. More students attending, more revenue and ROI (return on investment), this I get.
At the time, in your office, Rep. Carlyle, I conceded to this point;
The one question I wish I had asked: Conceding that the extension campus of UW in UW –Bothell should have been placed in Everett rather than Bothell, what would the effect be of tuition rates in that county? This is to ask: would the 80% attendance to community colleges in Everett, as you assert, fuel a UW branch above the current UW-Bothell attendance of 2,500 , taking into account the tuition expense for a UW education? Or, would the Everett community college enrollment sustain against the cost to attend a preeminent institution?
I put the question to you, Rep. Carlyle. Despite the “intagible differences” that may or may not exist between the UW Seattle campus and its branches: “the bottom line is the bottom line” UW is UW and cost is cost. Would the Everett academic-seeking population sustain against academic cost? The answer to this question may justify the placement of UW-Bothell taking into account time, place, and ability to “pull” potential students.
As this question was not addressed, I cannot accept your consideration that the UW-Bothell is not a viable institution for this state.
Thank you.
A. Hamilton
Huge addict from this page, plenty of your blog posts have really helped me out. Looking forward to upgrades!
Thank you, Reuven. I hope you will proceed with that legislation, and I appreciate that you are day-lighting very important issues for the citizens to consider. We must have these conversations.
I agree in principle with things like levy equalization that sends the money I pay in taxes away from my own child’s school to schools in property-poor districts. I believe all children deserve an appropriate education. Yet when the current state of the state threatens my child’s education with drastic cuts, I can’t help but be bothered by the cognitive dissonance I see coming from folks who claim to favor “limited government” and decry socialism while simultaneously being the largest recipients of state money and demanding that levy equalization be kept sacrosanct.
We need massive voter education so that people in every county in this state understand who pays for what and who benefits. You cannot continue to vote against every single measure designed to raise or maintain revenue and then demand that YOUR services not be cut, particularly when your county takes in more state money than it pays!
I voted yes on 1098 and no on 1107. Heck, even my 7-year old helped with the 1098 campaign by stuffing envelopes and helping me gather signatures to get it on the ballot. She’s interested in how democracy works, and unfortunately, she is learning that people don’t want to pay for the services they demand; they expect someone else to pay. And this disconnect means that her class sizes will be even bigger next year, and worse, that she may eventually lose access to the gifted program that is meeting her academic, social, and emotional needs in a way that no other school program has been able to do.
So, yeah, I’m fed up with voters who expect something for nothing and the legislators who want to codify supermajorities, which will only ensure that nothing ever gets done in Olympia again. We need a functioning, representative democracy and for everyone to act like grown-ups to get our state, and our children, through the current fiscal crisis.
Please keep talking and writing.
Reuven, I’m sorry that the bill to merge certain counties is combined with any information about “net contributing” counties and “net receiving” counties.
Instead, would you consider finding a GOP rep to co-sponsor a bill to allow any two adjacent counties that are not collecting enough in taxes to sustain essential county services to merge? Several counties are broke and have been on state welfare to maintain county government functions. This would exclude state highway dollars, low-income housing, state lands and other functions of state government and focus on the obvious fact that a handful of our counties are bankrupt and should be merged for efficiency.
This would take the efficiencies in government movement to the county level, applying solid business practices that merge (or sell or eliminate) business divisions that are no longer the most efficient way to deliver services. Our counties are based on the maximum size to allow someone to travel to the county seat in 1889, do their business and return without having to spend the night. Surely they deserve another look.
We can’t keep these county governments on state welfare forever.