Listen to Dori Monson weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Dori Monson


Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.
eyman-taxruling980.jpg
Initiative activist Tim Eyman speaks to the media in front of the Capitol in Olympia following the Supreme Court ruling that overturned one of his initiatives that limited the ability of the Legislature to raise taxes. (AP Photo/Rachel La Corte)

Critics blast Supreme Court tax ruling as political power play

BY Josh Kerns  on February 28, 2013 @ 2:00 pm (Updated: 3:07 pm - 2/28/13 )

Critics are blasting the Washington Supreme Court justices who struck down an initiative requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a tax increase Thursday, arguing it was a political rather than judicial decision.

"This was an activist Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court has prudently decided not to go before," said KIRO Radio's Dori Monson, as he criticized the ruling and the court even taking up the issue.

The justices ruled Thursday the measure violated the state constitution. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority the constitution makes clear any bill receiving a simple majority vote will become law, and no language in the provision qualifies that requirement by stating a bill needs "at least a majority vote."

But constitutional attorney David Roland with the Olympia-based Freedom Foundation strongly disagrees.

"The very first statement in the Washington State Constitution is that all political power is inherent in the people and the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. That's the central premise of government authority in Washington state," he told Dori in an interview Thursday.

Rowland argues the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by even taking up the case, considering nearly two-thirds of voters overwhelmingly approved the supermajority measure last November.

"Article Two makes clear that the people themselves were reserving the ability to make laws over and above the legislature. By reserving the initiative and the referendum powers the people were saying we are the final say in how our government is going to function not the legislature," he said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Charles Johnson, writes the majority of justices were eager to "embroil itself in the political arena," arguing the court has repeatedly "rejected the invitation to engage in this political dispute, exercising the wisdom, restraint, and temperance not to step outside the court's constitutional authority."

Rowland told Dori he thinks last year's Supreme Court ruling that the state was not fulfilling its constitutional duty to adequately fund basic education played a big part in the decision.

"The McLeary cases suggests that Washington state is going to have to pay billions more dollars for education. And the question is where is that money going to come from," he said.

"The best guess is that the majority looked at what it said in McLeary, looked at the unlikelihood the legislature was going to be able to raise two-thirds support in both houses to get any new tax increases so they decided to remove a barrier."

While Rowland and Dori both predicted a flood of tax increases will now ensue, Rowland is holding out hope for a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for any new tax increases. That would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature to put the measure on a statewide ballot. A simple majority of voters is needed to approve it

"Lawmakers clearly don't like restrictions placed on themselves," Rowland said of the prospects for lawmakers to approve the amendment. "However, another thing to keep in mind is two-thirds passed overwhelmingly in just about every district in state. The one thing that legislators like less than having their authority restricted is being voted out of office," he said hopefully.

Josh Kerns, MyNorthwest.com Reporter
Josh Kerns is co-host of KIRO Radio's Seattle Sounds (Saturday nights 7-8) and a digital content producer for MyNorthwest.com.
More Dori Monson

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 (5)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hey - I know they are all judges and all that, but..................
    February 28, 2013 2:40 pm
    could somebody tell them (at least the 6 votes) that the Federalist papers and NOT part of either the Federal or Washington State constitution. ... Kind of hard to base case law on political slogans and opinions from 225 years ago.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pete in Seattle wrote...
    AS a matter of principal
    February 28, 2013 3:08 pm
    Any initiative requiring a supermajority ought to have attached a requirement that itself needs to be passed by at least the supermajority it proposes. SO if the proposed requirement is two-thirds the initiative ought to be required to attain two-thirds in order to pass.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    It's hilarious how the party of the right demands that we ignore the Constitution THIS TIME
    February 28, 2013 3:16 pm
    Wow. it's amazing how the party of the right - that demands that we carefully and explicitly follow the Constitution to the letter of it's intented meanings demands that we IGNORE IT now. Guess what folks? Whether you or I like it or not, the Constitution declares that a simple majority vote is all that's required AND the documentation of the arguements made during the writing of the state Constitution clarify what was meant very decisively - that it is intentionally a simple majority. IF you don't like it - get it changed LEGALLY - which means a constitutional amendment. Let's stop the false proclamations from Timmy 'the false God' Eyeman and others and do it the right way if that's what you want (but be warned - sometimes these kinds of things come back to bite the folks who create these kinds of rules - someday the dems will be the minority and they could stop the Repubs from passing spending bills!)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • O-town listener wrote...
    Umm... FMS...
    March 2, 2013 8:38 am
    If this truly did pass, "overwhelmingly in just about every district", which it seems like it did with most coming in between 65%-75% support, then this was obviously supported heavily by Democrats as well - unless you believe there is an overwhelmingly Republican presence in the state. Heck, even King County passed it 54% to 46% and I know you aren't going to try and tell me that 54% was all from Republicans in King County. Seems like for once there was actually some heavy cross aisle support for something.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WiIliam Lawn wrote...
    the law was completely constitutional
    March 3, 2013 10:45 am
    The whole state constitution revolves around the people having the final say so and authority. They are taking this one section out of context just so the liberal justices can legislate from the bench. And morons like phony marine sgt just blindly following their party. Fools like them would sacrifice their first born on the steps of the capitol building if their liberal hierarchy told them too. The liberal rule of this state is just slavery of a different sort.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }