Home

2008 Transparency & Accountability Reforms
Searchable State Budget Website and Emergency Clause Reform

by Jason Mercier
Director, Center for Government Reform
January 2008

Lawmakers have the opportunity during the 2008 Legislative Session to address voters’ concerns about government transparency and whether or not elected officials respect the people’s constitutional rights. In fact, proposals have already been introduced to create a budget transparency website and to protect the right of referendum with emergency clause reform.

Illustrating the importance of these issues, newspaper editorials across the state have expressed support for the legislature to take action on these reforms. Here are additional details on the proposals (information below is from two Washington Policy Center December 2007 studies).


Creating a Free, Searchable Website of State Spending (WPC study)

In 2006, the federal government enacted a law that provides a roadmap for states on how to allow citizens to find out about government spending. The law was co-sponsored by senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) and was passed unanimously by Congress. The new law creates a free searchable website that allows citizens to track the recipients of all federal funds.  The privacy of individuals is protected.  For example, one cannot look up how much someone receives in monthly Social Security.

Many states are moving forward with this type of reform such as Hawaii, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, South Carolina, Missouri and Texas. Similar bipartisan proposals have been introduced here in Washington.  State representatives Mark Miloscia (D-30th District) and Dan Kristiansen (R-39th District) introduced HB 2342 last session, “to make the state budget information available to the public.”  The bill would create a free, searchable website for use by the public and provide details about state spending and agency performance. The proposal, however, did not receive a public hearing.

Earlier this month Sen. Val Stevens (R-39th District) and nine co-sponsors introduced a similar bill for the 2008 Legislative Session (SB 6387). State Auditor Brian Sonntag (D) and Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) have also voiced support for this type of reform as well as members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee (Senators Oemig, Hewitt, Carrell, Roach and Schoesler).

Microsoft and Google have also expressed a willingness to work with the state to make this reform a reality.

If the state had a searchable budget website, rather than having to dig through thousands of pages of budget documents, the public could find details on state spending linked to a plain-English explanation of what it meant, broken down further by how the money is spent all the way to the program level.   Performance information for the spending would also be included. That way, any citizen with internet access could go to a single source for the public spending information he or she is looking for.

Additional information


Ending Abuse of the Emergency Clause (WPC Study)

Since 1997, more than 700 bills have been adopted using an emergency clause, including 75 times during the 2007 Legislative Session and special session.  This means the people of Washington were denied their right to repeal bills by referendum on approximately 17% of all the bills enacted since 1997.

Responding to the public outcry over this abuse, Governor Gregoire in 2007 vetoed the emergency clauses off of ten bills before signing them into law.

Here is an excerpt from one of the Governor’s veto messages, in which she explains her reasons for removing the emergency clause: “An emergency clause is used when immediate enactment of a bill is necessary to preserve the public peace, health, or safety or when it is necessary for the support of state government.  It should be used sparingly because its application has the effect of limiting citizens’ right to referendum.” (Line-item veto of HB 1000, April 17, 2007)

The best way the legislature can preserve the people’s constitutional right of referendum is to refrain from attaching an emergency clause to controversial bills, and return to using the clause for its original purpose: to respond to true public emergency. Short of that, the only way to assure the right of referendum is with a constitutional amendment creating a supermajority vote requirement for the use of emergencies clauses (except for appropriation bills). Two proposals have been introduced to implement this reform.

HJR 4218 and SJR 8225 would require a 60% vote of the legislature to enact a bill with an emergency clause. The proposed constitutional amendment would amend Article 2, Section 1 (b) to read as follows (the proposed changes that would be added are underlined):

 

“The second power reserved by the people is the referendum.  It may be ordered on any act, bill, law, or any part thereof passed by the legislature, except such laws approved by an affirmative vote of sixty percent of the members of each house of the legislature as necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions . . . An appropriations bill authorizing expenditures for operating, capital, or transportation purposes and imposing any requirements, conditions, or limitations on such expenditures contained therein is exempt from the sixty percent voting requirement of this section.”

This means that the legislature would be prohibited from attaching an emergency clause unless the bill was approved by a 60 percent vote.  Budget bills, however, would be exempt from the supermajority vote requirement, allowing them to pass with a simple majority and not be subject to referendum.

If a true public emergency occurs that warrants denying the people their right of referendum, a 60% vote requirement in the legislature should not be difficult to achieve.  In the case of a true emergency, such as the recent flooding, the public would most likely welcome the use of the emergency clause by the legislature, recognizing it is intended to be used at just such a time.

Additional Information