Reaction to ruling on supermajority tax votes

February 28, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - State officials and other react to a Washington state Supreme Court ruling striking down a requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to increase taxes.

___

"The supermajority requirement gave a legislative minority the power to squelch ideas even when those ideas had majority support. That is inconsistent with our fundamental form of representative democracy." _ Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee.

___

"The court can rule the way the court decides to rule, but our caucus will stand with the people of this state." _Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler of Ritzville.

___

"We must continue to be responsible stewards of tax dollars and do more with less, but when revenue options do come up for a vote, today's ruling means that the elected representatives of the people will be able to hold a fair vote in which every legislator's vote counts equally." _Sen. David Frockt, D-Seattle and one of the plaintiffs in the case.

___

"If citizens have wondered why the Majority Coalition Caucus is so important, this is why; today's decision underlies the need for our emphasis on reforms and spending restraint." _Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, D-Medina.

___

"Today the court made clear that our constitution cannot be amended by the initiative process." _Rep. Chris Reykdal, D-Tacoma.

___

"The state Supreme Court's decision today is a disappointment and sends voters a clear message: your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to tax decisions in Washington state. That's a sharp rebuke of the voting public." _Don Brunell, president of the Association of Washington Business.

___

"The state is in a significant budget crisis, and the state has serious obligations with funding education. The result of this ruling is that it gives the Legislature their full set of tools to deal with those issues. Specifically how it will play, we can't see, but the Legislature has the full set of options available to them." _Paul Lawrence, attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to overturn the supermajority rule.

___

"While today's ruling impacts the law of the land, it doesn't change the will of the people." _Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia and budget leader for House Republicans.

___

Our holding today is not a judgment on the wisdom of requiring a supermajority for the passage of tax legislation. Such judgment is left to the legislative branch of our government. Should the people and the legislature still wish to require a supermajority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation." _Justice Susan Owens, writing for the majority.

___

If the history of this great state can teach us anything, it is this: the power of the people will prevail. If the legislature passes a tax the people oppose, the people will find a way to repeal it." _Justice Jim Johnson, in his dissent.

___

"This decision ends the tyranny of the minority that the Washington State Legislature has endured for the last several years. Now legislators can do their job and approve revenue or remove tax exemptions when they deem it necessary to do so. Finally, common sense, justice and the law are lined up." _ Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council.

___

"I'm as passionately in favor of this policy today as I ever was. I know based on a lot of experience that the voters feel that way too." _ Anti-tax initiative promoter Tim Eyman, speaking to reporters in front of the Capitol.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories

  • I-5 Bridge Collapse
    Three people were pulled from the water after I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River

  • Ban Lifted
    Washington state leaders hail vote to allow openly gay Boy Scouts

  • There's a Zone for That
    Mapping out a plan for marijuana growers and sellers
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (3)


  • Add A Comment

  • calapete wrote...
    shouldn't a supermajority rule take supermajority to implement?
    February 28, 2013 12:03 pm
    Timmys never had supermajority support, so why should the state be handcuffed by supermajority rules?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    This has been passed
    February 28, 2013 12:52 pm
    a few times, the last time with nearly 66% of the voters in favor of the ** SUPERMAJORITY ** (if that's what you want to call it). As far as the voters are concerned - this is a bi-partisn thing that nearly 2/3 of our citizens want. The only spending our state constitution is required to provide for is education. So we don't have a shortage of funds for education, what these a-holz need to be saying is that we have a shortage of entitlement and welfare spending.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • southi5 wrote...
    calapete
    February 28, 2013 1:58 pm
    Timmys never had supermajority support? How do you suppose those initiatives keep passing? Ever been to a hearing when Timmy has been there? He gets more press than the politicians. This won't be the end, the state will have to spend/waste a ton more money on this fight.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }