Washington Supreme Court Invalidates Supermajority Requirement for Tax Legislation

Washington Supreme Court Invalidates Supermajority Requirement for Tax Legislation

The Washington Supreme Court held that an enactment's supermajority requirement for tax increases is constitutionally invalid because the requirement may only be implemented by amending the state constitution.

Prior coverage <a href="/lr/resolve//31k1"> <img src="//s3.amazonaws.com/binary.taxnotes.com/image/etl/doclink.gif" border="0" alt="2011 STT 144-24: News Stories"/></a>. Prior coverage <a href="/lr/resolve//2vqz"> <img src="//s3.amazonaws.com/binary.taxnotes.com/image/etl/doclink.gif" border="0" alt="2012 STT 188-20: News Stories"/></a>. Superior Court decision <a href="/lr/resolve//2sj4"> <img src="//s3.amazonaws.com/binary.taxnotes.com/image/etl/doclink.gif" border="0" alt="2012 STT 106-39: State Court Opinions"/></a>.

The Washington Supreme Court held that an enactment's supermajority requirement for tax increases is constitutionally invalid because the requirement may only be implemented by amending the state constitution. In 1993 Washington voters approved Initiative 601, which provides that any bills containing tax increases should be passed by two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The initiative also requires that any tax bill increasing spending beyond the state budget should be approved by voters. The supermajority and referendum requirements were enacted into RCW 43.135.034. Through the years, voters passed I-960 and I-1053 to maintain the supermajority and referendum requirements. In July 2012, I-1185 was passed after I-1053 expired. In July 2011, the League of Education Voters, Washington Education Association, legislators, and individual taxpayers (collectively plaintiffs), filed a complaint in superior court, challenging the constitutional validity of the supermajority and referendum requirements. The court held that the plaintiffs' challenge to the supermajority and referendum requirements was justiciable and that the requirements violated Art. II, section 22 and Art. II, section 1(b), respectively, of the state constitution. The state appealed. The supreme court agreed with the superior court's decision regarding the justiciability and constitutionality of the supermajority requirement. Because the House cannot pass legislation to fund K-12 education with a simple majority, the court concluded that the supermajority requirement's constitutionality presents an issue of major public importance. Turning to the constitutionality of the supermajority requirement, the court determined that the provision is invalid. Because the enactment provides a minimum and maximum voting requirement, the court found it violated art. II, section 22. The court held that the supermajority requirement improperly amends the constitution by imposing a two-thirds vote requirement for tax legislation. However, the court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the referendum requirement presented a justiciable controversy. The court held that as a result of hypothetical nature of the claim and the plaintiffs' lack of injury, the case does not present a justiciable controversy. The court affirmed the trial court's decision as it relates to the supermajority requirement, but reversed its decision concerning the referendum requirement.

The Washington Supreme Court held that an enactment's supermajority requirement for tax increases is constitutionally invalid because the requirement may only be implemented by amending the state constitution. In 1993 Washington voters approved Initiative 601, which provides that any bills containing tax increases should be passed by two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The initiative also requires that any tax bill increasing spending beyond the state budget should be approved by voters. The supermajority and referendum requirements were enacted into RCW 43.135.034. Through the years, voters passed I-960 and I-1053 to maintain the supermajority and referendum requirements. In July 2012, I-1185 was passed after I-1053 expired. In July 2011, the League of Education Voters, Washington Education Association, legislators, and individual taxpayers (collectively plaintiffs), filed a complaint in superior court, challenging the constitutional validity of the supermajority and referendum requirements. The court held that the plaintiffs' challenge to the supermajority and referendum requirements was justiciable and that the requirements violated Art. II, section 22 and Art. II, section 1(b), respectively, of the state constitution. The state appealed. The supreme court agreed with the superior court's decision regarding the justiciability and constitutionality of the supermajority requirement. Because the House cannot pass legislation to fund K-12 education with a simple majority, the court concluded that the supermajority requirement's constitutionality presents an issue of major public importance. Turning to the constitutionality of the supermajority requirement, the court determined that the provision is invalid. Because the enactment provides a minimum and maximum voting requirement, the court found it violated art. II, section 22. The court held that the supermajority requirement improperly amends the constitution by imposing a two-thirds vote requirement for tax legislation. However, the court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the referendum requirement presented a justiciable controversy. The court held that as a result of hypothetical nature of the claim and the plaintiffs' lack of injury, the case does not present a justiciable controversy. The court affirmed the trial court's decision as it relates to the supermajority requirement, but reversed its decision concerning the referendum requirement.