I-722 ruled unconstitutional

E-mail this article Print this article

OLYMPIA - An anti-tax measure passed by 56 percent of voters in November was thrown out yesterday by a Thurston County Superior Court judge who said it violated the state constitution on several grounds.

Initiative 722, known as the "Son of 695," met the same fate as its progenitor initiative and for some of the same reasons. Judge Christine Pomeroy ruled from the bench that sponsor Tim Eyman tried to do too much in one initiative.

Pomeroy issued her decision from the bench just a breath after attorneys finished their arguments.

The judge said that the initiative violated the state constitution because it covered two subjects: It repealed a variety of local taxes and fees passed in 1999 and created a new limit on the growth of property taxes. She said the tax-repeal provision also violated the constitution's ban on gifts of public funds.

Moreover, Pomeroy said, I-722 ran afoul of the constitution's guarantee of a uniform tax system in Washington.

She agreed with attorneys for Washington cities and counties who argued that the property-tax limits in I-722 would shift taxes from desirable, fast-appreciating, properties to properties with slow-growing taxes.

"The ruling is a victory for your average homeowner, senior citizen and small-business owner who escaped having taxes shifted to them by this initiative," said King County Assessor Scott Noble, who was in the courtroom in Olympia yesterday.

Eyman also watched the proceedings yesterday. He didn't seem surprised by the decision, which was foreshadowed by Pomeroy's January ruling that suspended the initiative until she could hear full arguments and make a final decision.

Eyman said the ruling would act like "gasoline on the fire of enthusiasm" for his latest initiative, I-747, which would create an even more stringent property-tax cap than I-722's. He said that next week he will "become a fund-raising fool" to get money for the signature-gathering campaign.

Case moves to Supreme Court

The legal battle - in which both the Attorney General's Office and the I-722 campaign are defending the initiative - now goes to the state Supreme Court.

In recent years the court has issued clear decisions with overwhelming majorities on the topic of keeping initiatives to one subject and of ensuring that tax-relief measures don't merely shift taxes from one group to another.

There is a political fight, too. That will turn to the Legislature, where pressure will build for lawmakers to carry on the property-tax relief that Pomeroy ended.

"It's the will of the people. Legislators were sent there to follow the will of the people," said state Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver.

Last month Benton introduced legislation and proposed constitutional amendments that would replicate the property-tax provisions of I-722. He said he did that in anticipation of the initiative being found unconstitutional by "the anti-citizenry courts."

House Republicans also have legislation to limit property taxes. Rep. Jack Cairnes, R-Renton, co-chairman of the House Finance Committee, said he hopes the court ruling will prompt legislative action on the bill. He said Democrats should join with Republicans now to do something in the hope that it would head off Eyman's latest initiative.

"I think rational people should come together and solve this unless they want to see that new initiative flying through because the people have been really clear," Cairnes said.

Budget-balancing challenges

Last year, after a King County judge ruled Eyman's Initiative 695 unconstitutional, lawmakers and Gov. Gary Locke moved quickly to put back into law the $30 car-license fees created by the initiative.

But Democrats, who share power with Republicans in the House and hold the majority of votes in the Senate, are in no rush now to pass property-tax relief. Increasing costs and decreasing revenues mean lawmakers and Locke already face a tough time balancing the budget.

"The governor understands the sincerity of wanting property-tax cuts on everybody's part but we are in a budget situation now that is really so critical," said Locke spokeswoman Dana Middleton.

Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said this session lawmakers must deal with rising costs for transportation projects, education and health care.

"Once we do all those things there's not going to be much money left," she said.

I-695 and 'Son of 695'

Eyman called I-722 "Son of 695" because he saw it as the next step in his anti-tax crusade.

Initiative 695, approved by voters in November 1999, eliminated the state car tax and required public votes on all tax and fee increases. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in October that it violated the state constitution.

I-722 would have repealed all local tax and fee increases imposed in the last half of 1999, from when I-695 qualified for the ballot to when it became law.

It also would have restricted property-tax increases to 2 percent a year. Pomeroy's December injunction prevented it from being implemented.

Washington cities and counties as well as a few social-service agencies and individual taxpayers claimed, among other things, that just like I-695, I-722 violated the state constitution's provision that a piece of legislation - whether in the Legislature or a citizen initiative - can deal with only one subject.

In throwing out I-695, the Supreme Court said "the single subject rule ... is intended to prevent legislators, whether the people or the Legislature, from having to vote for a law that they do not favor in order to obtain a law which they do."

Thomas Ahearne, a Seattle attorney representing the local governments and other plaintiffs, put it this way in court yesterday:

"You can't tell whether you are throwing out the baby with the bath water because you don't know which is the baby and which the bath water."

Jim Johnson, attorney for the I-722 initiative campaign, told the judge that voters knew what they were voting on and "the stupid-voter argument doesn't work."

"Limiting property taxes is the unity of this whole measure," he said.

David Postman can be reached at 360-943-9882 or dpostman@seattletimes.com.