Supreme Court upholds 2005 tax maneuvering
OLYMPIA - The Legislature dodged a bullet Wednesday when the state Supreme Court upheld a tax package that lawmakers passed in 2005 to balance the state budget.
But Washington’s voter-approved spending limit may have dodged an even bigger bullet. For the first time, two justices argued that 1993’s Initiative 601 is an unconstitutional encroachment on the Legislature’s authority.
While the court sidestepped the broader question about the spending limit’s legality, the ruling likely provides fodder for possible legal challenges to Initiative 960, a measure voters approved earlier this month that reaffirms I-601’s restrictions on tax increases.
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said the court ruling “doesn’t surprise me because I do believe the Legislature has a very strong constitutional power when it comes to writing budgets.”
But Bob Williams, president of the conservative Evergreen Freedom Foundation, called the ruling “nuts” and said it gives the Legislature broad authority to thwart the will of voters.
In 2005 the Democrat-controlled Legislature approved more than $250 million in “sin taxes,” including a 60-cent-per-pack increase in cigarette taxes and a $1.33-per-liter tax on hard liquor.
A coalition of conservative groups sued, arguing some of the taxes violated I-601, which requires a public vote on tax increases that exceed the I-601 spending limit.
Last year, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge James Allendoerfer agreed. He ruled that lawmakers artificially inflated the spending limit by shifting money between various state accounts, thereby circumventing I-601.
But before Allendoerfer’s ruling, the Legislature passed another bill that retroactively increased the spending limit.
In its unanimous ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court said the Legislature has the authority to do that.
“It is neither the prerogative nor the function of this court to substitute our judgment for that of the legislature in enacting laws unless those laws clearly contravene state or federal constitutional provisions,” Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote for the majority.
If the high court had upheld Allendoerfer’s ruling, the state might have faced the messy prospect of reimbursing millions in taxes.
Lynn Harsh, chief executive at the Freedom Foundation, one of the groups that sued the Legislature over the 2005 tax package, said the ruling means lawmakers can violate the law and then “retroactively ‘cure’ its violation.”
“If a legislator is caught speeding, can she go back and change the speed limit to avoid paying the fine?” she asked in a written statement.
Harsh said the ruling also does not bode well for I-960, the Tim Eyman-sponsored measure that voters approved by a wide margin this month.
“Given today’s decision, unfortunately, the court will turn a blind eye if the Legislature games I-960 in the future,” she said.
While all nine justices agreed the Legislature’s actions were legal, four wrote concurring opinions raising vastly different views on the validity of I-601 and the reach of legislative power.
By avoiding the broader question about I-601’s constitutionality, the majority is ignoring the “elephant in the courthouse,” wrote Justice Tom Chambers.
“I would hold that I-601’s referendum requirement is an unconstitutional intrusion into the legislature’s plenary power to pass laws,” Chambers added.
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander agreed.
But Justice Jim Johnson wrote that under the state constitution, government’s purpose is “to protect and maintain individual rights.”
“Representative government is a tool to those ends, and when not fulfilling the purpose of protecting individual rights, the people can protect those rights on their own with an initiative or a referendum,” Johnson wrote.
The Associated Press and Seattle Times staff reporters Andrew Garber and David Postman contributed to this story. Ralph Thomas: 360-943-9882 or rthomas@seattletimes.com