State Supreme Court Rules Against Referendum On I-601 Overhaul

By Rachel La CorteAssociated Press Writer OLYMPIA (AP) – The state Supreme Court has struck down an attempt to force a voter referendum on the Legislature’s overhaul of voter-approved tax-and-spending limits, with one justice writing in dissent that the majority betrayed “the sacred trust” of the people. In a 6-3 decision last Thursday, the high court ruled that under existing law, the secretary of state properly refused to accept Referendum 60. It also ruled that the emergency clause in the measure was a valid move by lawmakers. Opponents have argued lawmakers were purposely trying to evade the possibility of a public vote by including that emergency clause. “The Washington State Constitution and our jurisprudence dictate that the Legislature may suspend the right of the people to order a referendum on a bill where the bill is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or in support of state government and its existing public institutions,” Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote for the majority. The court’s decision came with unprecedented speed, just two weeks after oral arguments. Secretary of State Sam Reed was sued by several groups after he refused to accept the “Saving I-601” referendum because the Legislature had declared its spending revision measure off-limits to a citizen vote. Reed said he had no discretion, given the Legislature’s inherent power to make its own choices about emergency clauses. “The role of the secretary of state is ministerial,” he said Thursday. “We are not here to pass judgment on whether the Legislature was correct in deeming something an emergency.” Referendum 60 sponsors rushed to the high court, seeking an 11th-hour ruling that lawmakers erred in slapping an emergency clause on the bill to make it take effect immediately, foreclosing a vote. The challengers included the Washington Farm Bureau, Washington State Grange, state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, the Building Industry Association of Washington and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. All are fiscally conservative groups. “We’re disappointed, but we’re not done,” said Dan Fazio, attorney for the Farm Bureau. Fazio said another challenge was planned in a superior court yet to be determined on what he said were several problems with the law. In a sharply written dissent, Justice Richard B. Sanders wrote that the majority betrayed “the sacred trust the people of this state place in this court.” “A legislature determined to inoculate itself from referendum, a secretary of state determined to violate his statutory and constitutional duty to allow a referendum petition to at least circulate, combined with a supreme court openly hostile to the people’s check on the legislature, brews a potent poison to the people’s constitutional role in the legislative process,” Sanders wrote. In 1993, voters approved Initiative 601, requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses to raise taxes. The initiative also limited state spending growth to inflation plus population growth. Over the years, lawmakers have adjusted the measure to allow additional spending. This year, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 6078, revising the spending limits and allowing a simple majority vote on tax and fee hikes this year and next. The bill included an emergency clause to put it into effect the minute Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire signed it. Democrats then quickly passed a $500 million package of revenue bills to balance the $26 billion, two-year state budget. Critics said lawmakers slapped emergency clauses on about 20 percent of the 500 bills they passed this year. Without the emergency clause, which says the legislation was necessary for support of public institutions and safety, the bill wouldn’t have taken effect until 90 days after the session ended and citizens could have tried to gather enough signatures to force a statewide vote in November. In addition to asking the court to force Reed to process the referendum, the groups had asked the court to authorize a new 90-day signature-gathering window, since the deadline to collect about 112,000 signatures would be July 23. In its decision, the court cited its 1996 CLEAN vs. State decision, in which the court determined that the emergency clause enacted as part of the Stadium Act to fund Mariners Stadium was legal. In that case, the court wrote that it was required to “grant considerable deference” to the Legislature’s determination that an emergency exists. “For this court to substitute its judgment for the legislature’s in determining whether an emergency exists ‘would be most unwise and would constitute a major assault on the historic balance of powers,”’ the majority wrote, citing the earlier decision. In the current case, the majority found that the petitioners presented no evidence “that the legislature feigned the necessity of enacting the emergency clause in order to prohibit referendum.” Justice Barbara A. Madsen — who dissented in the 1996 case — concurred in this case, writing that the courts are not the proper forum to resolve political disputes. “I prefer to allow the process to work as the founding fathers intended,” she wrote. “Since the referendum is unavailable in this case, should the people want to overrule their elected officials they can do so by initiative as they have done in the past.”