Supermajority for tax increases declared unconstitutional

[eridani]

Governor Jay Inslee, advocates thrilled with today’s landmark Supreme Court decision
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in LEV v. State has now been up on the World Wide Web for a couple of hours, and we’ve been on the receiving end of a number of statements and press releases commenting on the decision. We’d like to share some of what we’re hearing with you.

First, Governor Jay Inslee released a very enthusiastic and thoughtful statement that we’re going to run in full, because it rocks:

The state Supreme Court did the right thing today in ruling that a supermajority requirement for ordinary legislation would alter our system of government. The supermajority requirement gave a legislative minority the power to squelch ideas even when those ideas had majority support. That is inconsistent with our fundamental form of representative democracy.

Majority rule is a foundation of our system of government. Alexander Hamilton understood this and warned that giving ‘the minority a negative upon the majority’ would cause ‘tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.’ James Madison understood this. And the framers of Washington’s Constitution had vigorous debate on the issue and were deliberate in embedding the principle of majority rule in our constitution.

Those principles have served the people of Washington well, and I’m heartened that the state Supreme Court acted today to protect our Constitution.

Indeed it did. Well said, Governor!

Representative Chris Reykdahl, one of the legislators who participated in the legal challenge, characterized the decision as historic.

Senate Republicans Soothe Themselves with Supermajority Constitutional Amendment, but There's Zero Chance of It Seeing the Ballot

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/28/senate-republicans-soothe-themselves-with-supermajority-constitutional-amendment-but-theres-zero-chance-of-it-seeing-the-ballot

And that's the thing about supermajority requirements: They're supposed to be an awfully high hurdle. The framers of our state constitution understood that when they imposed a supermajority on some things—like passing constitutional amendments—while setting simple majority requirements for passing day to day legislation: For if you could amend the constitution by a simple majority, either legislatively or at the polls, then it really wouldn't be a constitution at all.

So barring a dramatic political realignment in Washington State—one which gives Republicans and their road-kill sympathizers supermajority control of both houses—a constitutional amendment imposing a two-thirds supermajority requirement for tax increases will never make it to the ballot. Which is the way this whole constitutional government thing is supposed to work.

[demwing]

1. k&r /nt

[DallasNE]

2. The Tyranny Of Minority Rule Takes A Hit

Now we just need to find a way to end the tyranny of the simple majority when it comes to votes on issues that nullify voting by creating rules that result in 8 hour lines to vote or a back door poll tax in the form of voter ID laws that should rightfully require a supermajority. In other words, we need to stop getting things backwards so often and this at least is a step in the right direction.

[rhett o rick]

4. Big step. We must get more democrats in state government.

And not the Blue Dog's like Sheldon and Tom.

[Maineman]

3. That is good for Washington State. We need to get that to the US Senate!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!