The most important document for any democratic form of government is its constitution. It doesn't matter at what level that takes place, national, state or local, a constitution is the foundation, the bedrock upon which democratic government is built.
Constitutions are guides created to establish how we create laws governing the daily functions of government. It's imperative then that changes to any constitution be a difficult and involved process, one that doesn't subject itself to the ever-changing directions of public opinion.
That is essentially the crux of a lawsuit filed last Monday by the League of Education Voters, Washington Education Association, state legislators, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Utter and other taxpayers challenging the constitutionality of Initiative 1053. Passed last November by 63.75 percent of voters, the initiative made law that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.”
The statue restored changes to how the Legislature functioned regarding taxes that were first created by 2007's I-960 that said essentially the same thing and was passed by 51.24 percent of voters.
It's unfortunate the lawsuit challenging I-1053's constitutionality is being brought by education organizations because they have their own agenda regarding the constitution, and that's Article IX's reference to the state's “paramount duty” to provide for basic education. Education, however, isn't the only state function affected by the initiative. Just ask proponents of basic health care, social justice, job training and a host of other state-funded enterprises.
This is really a constitutional issue, one that as state Rep. Jamie Pederson (D-Seattle) said, “…has gone unanswered for many years. It's time to get a decision, once and for all.”
Washington's constitution is pretty clear about how the Legislature operates. Article II, Section 22, “Passage of Bills” stipulates that no bill shall become law unless it receives majority approval upon final passage.
And Article XXIII “Amendments” is clear that changes to the constitution begin in the Legislature; require a two-thirds majority approval in each house and majority approval from voters for final passage. Washington's constitution also says the people reserve the right to pass their own bills, laws and reject the same or portions or sections of such through the use of the initiative or the referendum.
But nowhere is there an allowance for the people to amend their core foundation of principles of operation as defined in the constitution through initiative or referendum without it first originating in the Legislature. And, nowhere does it say the people can't.
Hopefully that is what this lawsuit will decide and eventually it will be decided by the state Supreme Court.
Despite what opponents of the lawsuit say, this is not a Democrat or Republican, right or left, liberal or conservative issue. Changes to our founding document should not be made simply because people don't like something, sign a document presented them by paid individuals who likely have no vested interest in what they're pushing, and then approved through emotionally-charged, and sometimes intellectually-deficient, popular votes.
Just because something is popular, even wildly popular, doesn't mean it's right. Changes to the constitution need to be slowly, thoughtfully and carefully debated with all sides being allowed to present their arguments.
They shouldn't be done through the emotions of the pocketbook. There will be emotion enough when the time comes.
Reader Comments(0)