Proposed I-960 Changes Would Improve Budget Process

Two and half years ago, the Budget & Policy Center published a policy brief expressing serious concerns regarding proposed ballot-initiative 960.

We said:

Responsible, efficient, and accountable policymaking is hindered when artificial and excessive restraints are placed on the legislature. Such is the case with Initiative 960, an initiative on the November ballot that would undermine the ability of the state to formulate and implement rational and thoughtful responses to public priorities. Contrary to claims of proponents the measure would not advance government transparency or voter awareness.

On Thursday, the Senate Ways and Means Committee heard Senate Bill 6843, which seeks to rectify many of the concerns we identified, while strengthening the integrity of the legislative process.

While many might focus on the temporary suspension of the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes, the legislation also would:

• Modify the cost projections required by the state budget office. I-960 requires the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to develop 10-year cost projections for any bill that might raise revenue. Ten-year economic projections are highly unreliable, however. Additionally, very few bills actually get a hearing, meaning hundreds of analyses of questionable worth are produced that clog up the legislative process. Instead, the bill would require OFM to develop more reliable five-to six- year cost projections, and only for bills that actually receive a hearing.

• Increase transparency by eliminating the advisory vote. I-960 requires that all bills meeting the new definition of a tax increase (and not otherwise required to be approved at the ballot) be sent to the voters in a non-binding advisory vote. But under I-960, the amount of information included in voter's pamphlets about advisory vote measures is very limited.  Unlike other types of ballot initiatives, advisory votes do not have to contain an explanation of the measure written by the attorney general, detailing how they would affect current law.  The initiative does not even allow written arguments -- both for and against advisory vote items -- to be included in the voter's pamphlet. In fact, the only descriptive language allowed for advisory votes under I-960 is a 13-word ballot question, along with a list of every legislator’s contact information, their party affiliation, and how they voted on the issues during the previous legislative session.
• Allow lawmakers to modify or close existing tax expenditures and loopholes. By requiring a two-thirds vote on all revenue-related measures, I-960 made it difficult for legislators to eliminate costly tax expenditures and loopholes. Suspending the initiative, would give lawmakers greater flexibility to reign-in tax expenditures along with other ineffectual spending items during the budget process. For example, the legislature is currently considering measures that would help level the playing field between in-state and out-of-state businesses. Without changing I-960, the legislature would be forced to muster a 2/3 vote even though they would be benefiting Washington businesses.