This morn­ing, just pri­or to the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives’ adjourn­ment for the day, Repub­li­can State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ed Orcutt of Kala­ma attempt­ed to fast-track a res­o­lu­tion that would amend the Wash­ing­ton State Con­sti­tu­tion to require a two-thirds vote to raise or recov­er any rev­enue, as fer­vent­ly desired and demand­ed by Muk­il­teo-based ini­tia­tive prof­i­teer Tim Eyman.

Ris­ing dur­ing the fourth order of busi­ness, after the House had adopt­ed 2SHB 1737, Orcutt (R‑20th Dis­trict) moved to sus­pend House rules and advance his HJR 4215 to sec­ond read­ing, which would mean bypass­ing the com­mit­tee process alto­geth­er. Orcutt then pro­ceed­ed to deliv­er a speech in favor of his motion, in which he recit­ed sev­er­al of Tim Eyman’s favorite talk­ing points.

House Major­i­ty Leader Pat Sul­li­van (D‑47th Dis­trict) rose in response, and urged a no vote, not­ing that the com­mit­tee process is where bills and res­o­lu­tions alike go to be dis­cussed, amend­ed, and refined. Ini­tia­tives like Tim Eyman’s uncon­sti­tu­tion­al I‑1366, Sul­li­van not­ed, do not go through the Leg­is­la­ture’s delib­er­a­tive com­mit­tee process, which essen­tial­ly serves as a fil­ter to weed out leg­is­la­tion that is poor­ly craft­ed, not ready for prime­time, or sim­ply a bad idea to begin with.

The House then vot­ed forty-eight to forty-nine not to adopt Orcut­t’s motion.

“Hav­ing failed to receive the nec­es­sary two-thirds vote, your motion fails,” House Speak­er Pro Tem Jim Moeller declared to Orcutt and the House as a whole.

Orcut­t’s res­o­lu­tion was then referred to House Finance with­out objection.

The roll call vote has­n’t been post­ed, but it looks like it was a par­ty-line vote. The House has fifty Demo­c­ra­t­ic mem­bers, and one of them was excused at the time of the vote. The Repub­li­can cau­cus cur­rent­ly con­sists of forty-eight members.

No doubt Repub­li­cans planned this vote as a test to see if any Democ­rats would capit­u­late, and to com­pile attack fod­der for the com­ing 2016 elections.

Kudos to the Democ­rats for stick­ing togeth­er and stand­ing up to this non­sense. If our cher­ished tra­di­tion of major­i­ty rule is to sur­vive, it must be defended.

Arti­cle II, Sec­tion 22 of our Con­sti­tu­tion says that bills pass by major­i­ty vote. That means fifty of nine­ty-eight in the House and and twen­ty-five of forty-nine in the Sen­ate must vote aye. No more, and no less.

This pro­vi­sion of our Con­sti­tu­tion dates back to state­hood. To sab­o­tage it now would upset the bal­ance of major­i­ty rule and minor­i­ty rights that our Founders entrust­ed to us. It would be a ter­ri­ble thing to do.

Shame on Ed Orcutt and his Repub­li­can col­leagues for attempt­ing to sub­vert major­i­ty rule. They should remem­ber what hap­pened last year in the Sen­ate, when Repub­li­cans set them­selves up for fail­ure by unwise­ly chang­ing Sen­ate rules to require a two-thirds vote to advance cer­tain rev­enue bills… only to find them­selves imped­ed by their own rules change a few weeks lat­er when they want­ed to pass a trans­porta­tion rev­enue bill. (Hap­pi­ly, Lieu­tenant Gov­er­nor Brad Owen came to their res­cue and struck down their two-thirds scheme.)

If Repub­li­cans ever get the major­i­ty back in the House, they’re going to want to be able to pass bills and bud­gets on their own, with­out Democ­rats being able to veto their every move. They should be more proac­tive with their imag­i­na­tions and con­tem­plate the shoe being on the oth­er foot.

Major­i­ty rule is good for Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans alike. This truth is some­thing that the elder states­men of their par­ty — peo­ple like Sam Reed, Ralph Munro, and Dan Evans — under­stand. Why don’t Orcutt and his col­leagues get it?