by Amber Gunn

Senator Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) has been hard at work submitting editorials all over the state in an attempt to justify her lawsuit to overturn tax and spending restrictions approved by Washington voters twice in the last 15 years.
After a showdown on Feb. 29 over the Legislatures inability to raise liquor taxes with a simple majority vote, she filed a writ of mandamus asking the State Supreme Court to overturn existing, voter-approved law by March 13 when the Legislature was scheduled to adjourn.
The face-off was contrived by legislative Democrats to set up a challenge to our states two-thirds legislative vote requirement for tax increases.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court denied Senator Browns request for expedited review.
Why would the democratic leadership and its special interest backers want to dismantle the will of the people? An incoming $2.4 billion budget deficit may have something to do with it.
Legislators are in a morass of their own making. They have spent, promised and committed to a slew of new programs and policies for which they cannot pay. The tab is coming due and some legislators want to dig deep into the wallets of taxpayers rather than properly prioritize the money they have.
Senator Browns grandstanding is curious given that the two-thirds requirement has been in place since 1993, when Initiative 601 was passed by voters. The Legislature could have removed the threshold at any time, but instead only suspended it in 2002 and again in 2005.
When passed in November, Initiative 960 reaffirmed the two-thirds requirement established by I-601. Rather than facing the political consequences of repealing it, Sen. Brown is asking the court to do it for her.
Her position on supermajority votes is astoundingly hypocritical. The Senate imposes various rules on itself that require supermajority approval, including Rule 53, which requires a 60 percent vote to adopt amendments to the budget.
That rule was exercised this session when senators tried to eliminate a $250,000 earmark for basketball tickets from the budget. From a strictly constitutional standpoint, the amendment should have passed since the majority threshold was reached. However, because of the Senates self-imposed 60 percent threshold, the amendment failed.
If the Legislature can adopt restrictions not in the Constitution, so can the voters.

Amber Gunn is the Director of the Economic Policy Center for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia.