Washington's constitution doesn't waste any time laying down the law when it comes to who is in charge:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

It is because of this clear authority of power of the people over their government that before any legislative powers are granted, the people reserve for themselves co-equal lawmaking authority. This power is explained in Article 2, Section 1:

The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature. (a) Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.

Of course, if Marvel Comics has taught us anything, with great power comes great responsibility.

Based on the recent passage of several budget-busting initiatives (I-728, I-732, I-1351) there is a growing sense in the Legislature that the people aren't properly exercising this power and that the type of proposals they are allowed to put on the ballot should be restricted.

One proposal recently introduced, SJR 8201 (Amending the Constitution to address changes in state expenditures and revenues made by initiative) is a serious and interesting idea to keep the budget from being blown up by an unfunded initiative mandate, but as currently written it may have the effect of being a chainsaw when all that is needed is a scalpel.

According to the bill report for SJR 8201:

The state Constitution is amended to provide that the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Attorney General, cannot accept the filing of an initiative that causes the state budget to violate the statutory balanced budget requirement. This prohibition applies to initiatives that modify either state expenditures or state revenues. The determination must be made within 20 days of the issuance of the official ballot title for the initiative. The prohibition does not apply to an initiative that amends or repeals an increase in a state tax, if the initiative is filed within one year of the enactment of the tax increase.

While this seems like a rational proposal the devil is always in the details and unfortunately there aren't many details to help fill in the blanks. According to staff the limited text of SJR 8201 stands on its own and there won't be an implementing bill to flesh out the details or definitions. This leaves the decision of what it means to comply with this requirement up to the administrative determination of the Attorney General and Secretary of State without the protection of statutory guidelines.

For example, what does it mean to comply with the 4yr budget outlook requirement? Does that mean any proposed spending increase or tax cut must be within the ending fund balance or total reserves? Currently the ending fund balance in the 4yr outlook is projected to be $19.5 million. Does this means that if I-900 (performance audits) had been filed today it would have been kept off the ballot? What about I-695 ($30 car tabs) or would that have been ok since it didn't necessarily impact the operating budget but instead the transportation budget?

It’s difficult to evaluate the full impact of this without seeing those provisions defined in more detail along with a timeline of when (presumably) the Office of Financial Management (OFM) would score the bill, the back and forth with the filers and when signature could actually be gathered, etc.

Just like when lawmakers consider a bill voters should also take into consideration the fiscal impact of what they are being asked to approve. This is why RCW 29A.72.025 currently requires OFM to create a fiscal note for a ballot measure and those details to be published in the voters' guide:

A fiscal impact statement must describe any projected increase or decrease in revenues, costs, expenditures, or indebtedness that the state or local governments will experience if the ballot measure were approved by state voters. Where appropriate, a fiscal impact statement may include both estimated dollar amounts and a description placing the estimated dollar amounts into context. A fiscal impact statement must include both a summary of not to exceed one hundred words and a more detailed statement that includes the assumptions that were made to develop the fiscal impacts. Fiscal impact statements must be available online from the secretary of state's web site and included in the state voters' pamphlet. Additional information may be posted on the web site of the office of financial management.

It is possible, however, voters don't review this fiscal note before casting their vote.

Rather than amending the constitution to restrict the type of ballot measures voters could propose, perhaps a different approach would be to amend RCW 29A.72.050 to include in the official ballot title something to the effect of:

OFM has determined this proposal would increase state spending by XXX without providing a revenue source. This means other state spending may need to be reduced or taxes increased to implement the proposal. Should this measure be enacted into law?

This would complement the existing fiscal note OFM does on ballot measures while putting front and center in the actual ballot title the fiscal implications before voters.

While this would probably require OFM to score proposals before they could move forward which would impact the timelines, at least it wouldn’t prohibit citizens from putting proposals on the ballot – it would just provide more truth in advertising to help inform the voters.

After being provided the details of what a ballot measure costs, should voters still decide to blow up the budget, lawmakers are already provided an escape valve if they can secure a 2/3 vote to suspend, amend, or repeal an initiative approved by voters.

Another potential option for lawmakers to consider would be to propose a constitutional amendment that changes the 2/3 vote requirement to change an initiative within the first 2 years with these restrictions:

• Initiatives can be suspended, amended, or repealed with a simple majority vote if the enactment of that change is first referred back to voters for ratification as a referendum;
  
  
• If not sent to voters as a referendum the current 2/3 vote requirement is needed.

One way to potentially cut down on the number of initiatives in the first place would be to reform the Legislature's abuse of the emergency clause which infringes on the second power reserved by the people in the constitution, the right of referendum.

Though not re-introduced yet this session, consider the reform proposed by SJR 8206 (Amending the Constitution to require emergency clauses only be allowed by amendment to a bill and approved by sixty percent of each house of the legislature).

According to the bill report for SJR 8206 the proposal would amend:

Article II, section 1(b) of the Constitution revising the provisions relating to the passage of emergency clauses in legislative acts will be submitted to the voters at the next general election for their approval and ratification or rejection. The constitutional amendment submitted to the voters will state the following:

• ?an emergency clause may only be introduced in the form of an amendment to a bill;
  
  
• passage of an amendment containing an emergency clause requires the affirmative vote of 60 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature; and
  
  
• emergency clauses included in appropriations bills authorizing expenditures for operating, transportation, or capital purposes are exempt from these requirements.

I had the opportunity to talk to the prime sponsor of SJR 8201 today, Sen. Fain, and he made it clear that he is open to other ideas on how to improve the initiative process to make sure voters are provided the information they need to make an informed decision. In fact, he is currently working on a proposal to add more detail about the fiscal impact to the ballot title.

Sen. Fain told me, "These costly unfunded mandates are putting tremendous pressure on the legislature to raise taxes."

Sen. Fain also said he views SJR 8201 as an opportunity to start a conversation about the best way to move forward.

One thing we can all agree on is the people, just like lawmakers, sometimes pass fiscally irresponsible proposals. The question we now need to answer is are the current tools available to respond to these decisions effective and how best to make sure future decisions are made with accurate information without infringing on constitutional powers.