The defeat by voters of two-thirds of the school bond levies that appeared on the February ballot has ignited a debate about why so many school officials have lost the public’s confidence.

Left-wing Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat thinks he knows the answer.  He complains that the state’s taxpayer protection law that requires 60% voter approval before a community takes on 30 years of bond debt is “undemocratic.”

This shop-worn argument is not only unimaginative it is incorrect.  The idea that a super-majority safeguard is not democratic has been rejected by bipartisan votes in the legislature many times.  Super-majority safeguards are common in democracies here and around the world.  Washington’s state constitution has over 20 such provisions.

The 60% safeguard for local bond debt has been in place for decades, is popular and makes good sense.  It requires school officials to gain a higher level of agreement before locking the entire community, including their own students when they reach working age, into shouldering a heavy debt burden.  At a minimum it protects the next generation from paying for borrowed money, plus brokerage fees and interest, that school officials want to spend today.

Tellingly, Westneat bemoans the “polarized” state of today’s politics, then goes on to polarize the discussion by insulting those who disagree with him.  He refers to Eastern Washington residents as “...you out there in the hinterlands.”  He calls those with other viewpoints “bad-faith naysayers” for noting the decline of public confidence in education (46,000 families have left the system since 2019).

Spewing harmful tropes like “demeaning booby prize” and “bad-faith actors” is hardly a way to invite others into an inclusive and collaborative dialogue about our public schools.

For an informative analysis, one with no name-calling, of the latest failed effort to cancel the 60% safeguard see Washington Policy Center’s Legislative Memo, here.