Emergency clause usage drops
Constitutional reforms still needed
April 2008
The Legislature’s use of referendum-denying emergency clauses dropped from 14 percent of all bills passed in 2007 to seven percent this year--the lowest percentage over the past decade. Despite this reduction in the number of emergency clauses used by the Legislature, constitutional reforms are still needed to guarantee the people’s right of referendum.
To provide a check on the legislature, the state constitution grants the people the power to veto unwanted legislation through the use of a referendum. This right is guaranteed on any bill adopted by the legislature except those that include an “emergency clause.” An emergency clause states that a bill is exempt from repeal by referendum because the bill is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.”
The purpose of the emergency clause is to allow state government to respond to true public emergencies, like a large-scale natural disaster or wide-spread epidemic disease.
Yet, over the years lawmakers have routinely abused the exemption by attaching an emergency clause to 764 bills since 1997, including 24 times during the 2008 legislative session.
Below is a year-by-year list of how many times lawmakers have attached the emergency clause to bills since 1997.
Emergency clause usage 1997-2008
Year |
Bills enacted |
Emergency clauses |
Percentage |
1997 |
459 |
98 |
21% |
1998 |
348 |
43 |
12% |
1999 |
416 |
78 |
19% |
2000 |
263 |
29 |
11% |
2001 |
375 |
90 |
24% |
2002 |
371 |
57 |
15% |
2003 |
447 |
90 |
20% |
2004 |
278 |
46 |
17% |
2005 |
519 |
98 |
19% |
2006 |
372 |
36 |
10% |
2007 |
526 |
75 |
14% |
2008 |
328 |
24 |
7% |
Total |
4,702 |
764 |
16% |
Average |
392 |
64 |
16% |
In Washington the governor has line-item veto authority over bills passed by the legislature. This year Governor Gregoire vetoed the emergency clauses off of five bills before signing them into law. In 2007 the Governor vetoed ten emergency clauses.
Here are excerpts from some of the Governor’s veto messages, in which she explains her reasons for removing the emergency clause:
“Section 40 is an emergency clause. Fourth Substitute House Bill 1103 increases the authority of regulators to remove health care practitioners who pose a risk to the public but does not necessitate an emergency clause. An emergency clause is to be used where it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety or whenever it is essential for the support of state government. I do not believe that an emergency clause is needed.” (Partial veto of HB 1103 – March 25, 2008)
“Section 15 is an emergency clause. An emergency clause is to be used where it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety or whenever it is essential for the support of state government. This bill makes technical corrections to existing law by deleting obsolete terms and correcting references. I do not believe that an emergency clause is warranted.” (Partial veto of SB 6310 – March 27, 2008)
Governor’s Gregoire’s decision to strip the emergency clause out of some bills that clearly do not address public emergencies is a positive development. The increased scrutiny by the public and the Governor has had a measurable impact on mitigating the Legislature’s abuse of the emergency clause.
There is no guarantee, however, that this trend will continue. The most effective way to end the Legislature’s abuse of the emergency clause is with a constitutional amendment creating a supermajority vote requirement for its use. 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 percent vote requirement in the legislature should not be difficult to achieve. In the case of a true emergency, 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. Political convenience, however, should no longer qualify as an exemption to the people’s right of referendum.