HJR 4218, the 60% legislative vote for emergency clauses, got a courtesy hearing yesterday and will almost certainly die tonight at midnight. Yet, as the Evergreen Freedom Foundation submitted testimony for the House Joint Resolution - in part, “Article I, Section 1 of the Washington constitution says that “all power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed….” The right of initiative and referendum are a part of this power that the people reserved to themselves, so any attempt by the legislature to deny this power should be severely limited. ” I also believe the time is ripe to say that the Washington Education Association was able to stop an emergency clause on charter school legislation and brought the bill as Referendum 51 to the 2004 electorate where the legislation died. Maybe, just maybe, they should get on board and save HJR 4218…

State Representative Barbara Bailey also posted an op-ed regarding the emergency clause on the 13th (15 days ago) and because of post-session removal of press releases will be reprinted in full below with my emphasis:

When is an emergency an emergency? This is a question legislators should more clearly define when applying emergency clauses to legislation.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “emergency” as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.”

In the Legislature, an emergency clause added to a bill allows the measure to become law immediately after the governor signs it. Other bills signed by the governor but lacking the clause must wait until 90 days after the legislative session ends.

The state constitution defines the use of an emergency clause as legislation “necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety, support of state government and its existing public institutions.” In other words, a real EMERGENCY.

An emergency clause also exempts a bill from the referendum process. It is this power that most concerns me because of its potential abuse by lawmakers who may apply the emergency clause to a bill not to respond to an emergency, but to prevent citizens from changing legislation.

During the 2005 and 2006 sessions, lawmakers attached emergency clauses to 447 bills. One which contained an emergency clause was a bill that eliminated, until June 2007, the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes and instead gave lawmakers the ability to raise taxes with only a simple majority. The two-thirds requirement had been contained in Initiative 601 which was a voter-approved measure. Since there was no emergency in 2005, one has to wonder what the real purpose was for attaching the emergency clause to the bill. Was it a way to prevent voters from repealing that legislation?

From those two legislative sessions, 132 bills containing emergency clauses were signed into law. Did so many emergencies really exist? Or were those clauses applied only to prevent citizens from responding to those laws at the ballot box?

Since 1912 Washingtonians have had the cherished right to make and remake their laws through initiatives and referenda. This process guarantees Washington’s electorate the right to legislate. No one, not the governor, the Legislature, nor the Supreme Court should deny this freedom from our citizens. It is a fundamental process of a government of, for and by the people.

When government powers are abused, all citizens suffer. That’s why I have introduced legislation seeking to prevent abuse of the emergency clause. The measure I have proposed, House Joint Resolution 4218, would require 60 percent approval from the Legislature before an emergency clause could be attached to a bill.

Because use of the emergency clause is written into the state’s constitution, it requires a vote of the people to make a change. If approved by the Legislature, Washington’s voters would get the final say this November on strengthening the legitimate use of the emergency clause.

Let’s ensure that emergency clauses are used for EMERGENCIES and not as a means to shut out the will of the people.

She also released a press release yesterday about the hearing and the lack of an up-or-down vote on her proposal:

. . . Although Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia, and Evergreen Freedom Foundation Economic Policy Director Jason Mercier testified in favor of the measure, and no one testified in opposition, the committee took no action on the resolution. Afterward, Bailey said she appreciated the public hearing, but is disappointed that the chairman of the committee did not allow a vote. "This is very significant because we are only one day away from the cutoff for policy bills — the day bills must pass from their respective committees or they are considered dead for the session. This issue is too important to let go," said Bailey. "As I said in committee, it is a matter of public trust. How can we call funding of a new Sonics stadium or a new NASCAR race track an emergency? Yet the emergency clause has been attached to both of these bills, not for an emergency, but most likely for the sole purpose of circumventing the cherished right of people to put these issues on the ballot for a public vote," added Bailey. "When government powers are abused, all citizens suffer. Although I'm very disappointed this bill did not get a vote, I will continue working to restore integrity to the emergency clause."

I conclude on that note by quoting the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's Amber Gunn - already a living legend:

“Did you get your free season tickets to the new Sonics and NASCAR stadiums? Well if all goes as planned in the legislature this year, you should. That’s right folks, looks like the NBA and NASCAR aren’t making enough to pay for their own facilities so lawmakers are asking taxpayers to foot the bill. … To make matters worse, citizens will be denied their constitutional right of referendum on these two bills. By including an emergency clause with both proposals, lawmakers are claiming the stadiums are “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.” This is a stretch by any interpretation. Seattle voters already spoke loud and clear last November when they passed Initiative 91. Subsidizing private entities is not a core function of government. No doubt a majority of taxpayers in our state would agree—especially if given the chance to vote.”