MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF KING COUNTY

OPPOSES Initiative 960

Requiring two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval

November 6, 2007 General Election Ballot

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

Sponsor Tim Eyman describes Initiative 960 as “one part clean up bill, two parts public disclosure.” The initiative is intended to reinforce the earlier Initiative 601, passed in 1993, which set state spending limits at the average rate of increase in the state population and inflation during the previous three years and required a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Much of I-960 is designed to return to some of the I-601 provisions which have since been amended and is aimed at making it more difficult, both procedurally and politically, for the legislature to raise taxes and fees. The initiative contains four major provisions:

Supermajority to Raise Taxes: The two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases included in I-601 has been suspended by the legislature during two biennia to require only a simple majority. The state spending limit has been interpreted as applying only to taxes which flow to the general fund. I-960 would prohibit suspension of the vote requirement for two years, and would apply to tax revenue flows to any fund or account inside or outside the general fund.

Advisory Votes for Tax Increases: Any tax increase enacted without a voter referendum would be subject to an advisory vote of the people at the next general election. The initiative specifies that each tax measure would be given at least two pages in the voters’ pamphlet and would include a thirteen-word description of the measure, a 10-year cost projection, and a list of all the Senators and Representatives, their contact information, and how they voted on the tax increase. The prescribed two pages would include no information on the reason or need for the tax increase and no pro or con statements.

Legislative Approval of All Fee Increases: The legislature would have to adopt by vote every fee increase or new fee imposed by any state agency. It would no longer be able to delegate fee-setting to state agencies as it does now.

Public Notice Regarding Tax Bills: I-960 would require the Office of Financial Management to estimate the ten-year cost to taxpayers of any bill introduced in the legislature that would raise taxes or fees. Currently the cost impact of every bill is estimated for 6 years and included as a fiscal note. The state would also be required to set up an email alert system to distribute these cost projections and notify subscribers when hearings are scheduled and how legislators have voted on the tax bills.

ARGUMENTS FOR I-960:

Initiative proponents make the following arguments for I-960:

• Requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature for all tax bills is only closing a loophole from I-601 and returns to its original voter intent.
   

• An advisory vote for adopted tax measures will not be necessary if the legislature refers all tax measures to the voters, as the proponents think they should.
   

• The advisory vote will also discourage use of the emergency clause to avoid a referendum and will reserve its use for true emergencies.
   

• The email alert system for tax bills and the two pages in the voters’ pamphlet for advisory votes will give voters the opportunity to register their approval or disapproval of any tax increases.
   

• Allowing state agencies to set fees is taxation without representation. Elected officials who can be held accountable should set the fees.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST I-960:

Opponents make these arguments:

• The initiative is too rigid. Unlike I-601, it leaves no flexibility to set up funds for emergencies or one-time needs without a two-thirds vote of the legislature.
   

• It is too costly. It will cost at least $1.8 million each biennium, with the majority of the costs falling to local governments who will have to print longer ballots and two pages in the voters’ pamphlet for each advisory vote.
   

• The prescribed format for the advisory vote text lacks adequate contextual information to explain tax increases to voters, and instead appears punitive in intent, enumerating the representatives who voted for the increase.
   

• Because the advisory votes would be non-binding, they could fuel more voter disaffection.
   

• The initiative will bog down government. There are as many as 500 fees charged by the state, increasing any of them would have to be considered by the legislature. Voters have plenty of opportunity to protest new or increased fees through the hearings required in agency rule-making, and also at the legislature when agency budgets are being considered.
   

• Public disclosure is important, but the state already has an excellent electronic tracking system for all its legislation which can be used by the voters.

RECOMMENDATION and RATIONALE

The Municipal League of King County OPPOSES Initiative 960.

Requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature for passage of any tax bill gives too much power to the minority – the one-third of the legislators who oppose the tax. The supermajority and advisory vote provisions of I-960 indicate that the proponents of the initiative do not trust representative government, and want all tax decisions to be made directly by the people through referendum. Representative government is based on allowing a majority of our elected officials to make decisions for us. If we are displeased with their decisions, we can work to defeat them at the next election. The advisory vote, required even when a tax has been adopted by two-thirds of the legislature, is designed more to intimidate legislators than to engage the public in meaningful debate. Because the vote is nonbinding and held after the tax has been adopted, it will confuse and discourage voters.

Other provisions of I-960 are also troublesome. Requiring all fees to be approved by the legislature would distract our legislators from higher legislative priorities. We believe that agency administrative procedures are the appropriate method for adopting fees. For these reasons, the Municipal League oppose Initiative 960.