Pro­po­nents of I‑1185, includ­ing its pri­ma­ry spon­sor Tim Eyman, would have vot­ers believe the issue this ini­tia­tive would address is tax­es. In fact, the issue is democ­ra­cy — specif­i­cal­ly, an attack on democ­ra­cy and major­i­ty rule, fund­ed by pow­er­ful cor­po­ra­tions and pro­mot­ed by the far right.

Since Cal­i­for­nia approved Propo­si­tion 13 in 1978, cre­at­ing a require­ment that two-thirds of leg­is­la­tors must vote to approve any tax increase, con­ser­v­a­tives across Amer­i­ca have embraced the idea that super­ma­jori­ties must approve any tax increase. Their rea­sons are sim­ple: Super­ma­jor­i­ty schemes like the one I‑1185 tries to reim­pose cre­ate give con­ser­v­a­tives veto pow­er over key fis­cal decisions.

Con­sid­er Cal­i­for­ni­a’s exam­ple. Democ­rats have had the major­i­ty in the state leg­is­la­ture since 1970 (aside from a two year peri­od in the mid-1990s when Repub­li­cans had a one-seat advan­tage in the State Assembly).

The Repub­li­can Par­ty in Cal­i­for­nia is slow­ly but sure­ly with­er­ing, unable to elect statewide can­di­dates and with no hope of reclaim­ing the Leg­is­la­ture. But as con­ser­v­a­tives usu­al­ly make up about a third of the over­all elec­torate, and are increas­ing­ly con­cen­trat­ed in spe­cif­ic geo­graph­ic areas, they are usu­al­ly able to elect at least a third of the seats in each house of the leg­is­la­ture. Two-thirds schemes give them a veto they would oth­er­wise not have earned at the bal­lot box.

The result is inher­ent­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic. Vot­ers in Cal­i­for­nia have repeat­ed­ly elect­ed Democ­rats to majori­ties in the leg­is­la­ture, but that major­i­ty can­not gov­ern or imple­ment its agen­da. A sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tion is emerg­ing in Wash­ing­ton, where Repub­li­cans are also fac­ing a long-term polit­i­cal decline. They haven’t held a major­i­ty in either cham­ber for years. They’re not expect­ed to retake the Sen­ate this year, and the House looks increas­ing­ly out of reach.

Rather than address this long-term decline and try to win a legit­i­mate gov­ern­ing major­i­ty at the bal­lot box, Wash­ing­ton’s con­ser­v­a­tives have instead begun try­ing to change the rules and under­cut our Constitution.

I‑1185 is mere­ly the lat­est effort to give con­ser­v­a­tives veto pow­er over the state’s fis­cal deci­sions, pow­er they haven’t earned.

The result is that the peo­ple of Wash­ing­ton lose pow­er to address the prob­lems fac­ing the state. Par­tic­u­lar­ly when it comes to edu­ca­tion and trans­porta­tion, more fund­ing to expand ser­vices and infra­struc­ture is des­per­ate­ly needed.

But with a two-thirds rule in place, the Leg­is­la­ture is unable to address that issue unless con­ser­v­a­tives agree — and as we know, they won’t give their con­sent to any new fund­ing. They’re even opposed to recov­er­ing rev­enue for our state by repeal­ing out­dat­ed tax exemp­tions that have been sit­ting on the books for years.

The inher­ent­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic nature of I‑1185 is exac­er­bat­ed by the fact that it is on the bal­lot only thanks to some of the nation’s wealth­i­est busi­ness­es. Oil com­pa­nies and the beer lob­by are among the largest con­trib­u­tors to the cam­paign in sup­port of I‑1185, as they were two years ago for I‑1053, which was declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in May by King Coun­ty Supe­ri­or Court Judge Bruce Heller. (The Supreme Court is cur­rent­ly weigh­ing an appeal).

These com­pa­nies would face high­er tax­es under a demo­c­ra­t­ic leg­isla­tive process that reflect­ed the will of the peo­ple. But rather than sub­mit to democ­ra­cy, these com­pa­nies have decid­ed to elim­i­nate it when it comes to rais­ing rev­enue — one of the most impor­tant deci­sions the peo­ple’s elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives have to make. Their friends on the right, includ­ing the Wash­ing­ton State Repub­li­can Par­ty, are more than hap­py to assist, since they share this hos­til­i­ty to democracy.

Most Wash­ing­to­ni­ans are of an open mind when it comes to tax­es. They make their deci­sions based on whether they agree with the pur­pose of a tax, on the nature of what will be taxed, and whether they believe the process of tax­a­tion is fair. If they want to elect a leg­is­la­ture that would raise tax­es in order to ensure chil­dren are giv­en a good edu­ca­tion and that peo­ple can get around the state afford­ably and sus­tain­ably, that should be their right. I‑1185 takes away those rights and hands the pow­er over those deci­sions to a small polit­i­cal fringe and their wealthy backers.

The choice fac­ing vot­ers this fall isn’t about tax­es. It’s about democ­ra­cy. More and more orga­ni­za­tions across the state are com­ing to under­stand this choice, as they increas­ing­ly line up against I‑1185. We still don’t yet know how the Leg­is­la­ture will solve our many press­ing prob­lems — the days of back­fill­ing to keep impor­tant ser­vices going for anoth­er year or two are over.

By stop­ping I‑1185, we can at least give our elect­ed lead­ers a fair shot at solv­ing those prob­lems democratically.

Vote NO on I‑1185.

Adjacent posts

One reply on “Initiative 1185: An attack on democracy”

  1. I will keep this short, and sweet. You talk about I‑1185 being unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic?? this seems fun­ny because aren’t the peo­ple of Wash­ing­ton State vot­ing on it? On anoth­er quick note… Check out the Debt Clock for Wa. State (OUCH)..Maybe cut some pork off a already swollen state gov­ern­ment? Oh & by the way Cal­i­for­nia is for all intense pur­pos­es Bank­rupt? I would nev­er use them as an exam­ple in any finan­cial terms, and I would not brag that Democ­rats are in pow­er & have been in pow­er right along as the state goes belly-up!!

Comments are closed.