Sponsors of initiatives should look at consequences
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:21 AM PST
Printable version
E-mail this articlePerennial initiative sponsor Tim Eyman grabbed the first headlines of the 60-day legislative session that began Monday. Eyman called an early morning news conference at the secretary of state's Capitol office to announce the start of a signature-gathering campaign aimed at placing his so-called "Save Our $30 Tabs" initiative on next fall's ballot.
The measure would repeal vehicle taxes and fees enacted last year to help pay for a $8.5 billion, 16-year transportation package. Eyman's new initiative would reduce funding for the package by $2.5 billion -- a fact that prompted Rep. Dean Takko, D-Longview, to pose the logical question to Daily News reporter Don Jenkins. "Without the whole thing the package doesn't fly," remarked Takko, "so what do we cut?"
We'll not likely get an answer to that question from Eyman. Initiative sponsors rarely, if ever, bother with such pesky details. That's too bad, because the initiative process has taken on a larger role in government of late, larger than we think is prudent. And mandating revenue cuts and the like without a thought as to what projects, programs or services will be sacrificed is not what many people would term a responsible way to govern.
Several years ago, the Legislature flirted with reforms that would force initiative sponsors to consider the fiscal implications of their measures. One proposal would have required sponsors to identify where budget cuts should be made to accommodate tax-cutting initiatives. That proposal was a nonstarter. But who, other than the sponsors of a tax-cutting initiative, wouldn't welcome more information as to consequences?
Washington voters may well embrace Eyman's latest initiative. They certainly flocked to his 1999 initiative, which first lowered vehicle tabs to $30. But cities and counties around the state have only recently recovered from the hole that measure blew in their budgets. A little forethought as to exactly what would follow such a dramatic loss of revenue might have made for a much smoother landing.
Historically, initiative and referendum petitions often served a valuable role, facilitating the expression of grassroots sentiment on various single issues. They've strayed from their grassroots origins with the emergence of professional signature gatherers and wealthy promoters ready to spend great sums of money to promote their narrow interests.
In any event, initiatives are a poor substitute for the more deliberative legislative process. They deal with single issues, by law, and much of the support they attract tends to be single-minded, by choice. That's not going to change so long as initiative sponsors can ignore questions like the one raised Monday by Takko.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories