Opinion - A simple majority isn't so simple

The "supermajority" issue is hardly the no-brainer some people make it out to be. So be wary of cheering along the current effort in Olympia to do away with the decades-old, constitutional voting provision for school levies.

The no-brainer crowd crows that it is undemocratic to require a 60-percent passage rate for school money measures when politicians typically are elected to office with just more than 50 percent of the vote. And while it sounds well and good to say that the majority should always rule in any given election, the reality is, the majority rarely rules, given low voter turnout especially in lesser known school-levy elections usually held in months that voters aren't paying attention to political questions.

The time of year schools schedule these extra-cost special elections is actually intended to reduce voter turnout, thereby eliminating the opportunity for a true majority rule.

Setting aside the platitudes, the supermajority requirement was created for a good reason that its critics don't like to talk about: School levies tax only property owners. And a supermajority helps safeguard property owners from the spending whims of those whom the tax does not directly affect. Sixty percent support for taxes that only some people in the community have to pay makes sense still today, even given the increased number of propertyowners. While landlords can pass on their tax burdens to renters, the connection is often lost on renters. And the tax pain is diluted by communal living in any case.

There are other reasons to keep the supermajority around. One of the most compelling among them is that school employees are numerous and have an extra special interest in school levies. Statewide, there are 160,000 people on the K-12 payroll. About 99,000 of them are full-time school employees.

These workers make up a good bulk of voters in a lot of communities. Take Clark County, where the second- and third-largest employers are the Evergreen and Vancouver school districts, respectively. In a December survey by The Columbian, Battle Ground School District rounded out the top 10 employers in the county. Isolate school employees in their given communities and they can dominate a voting area.

These workers are inclined to vote in favor of school levies because it can benefit them personally, which makes sense. They are also pressured to vote for school measures by their union and even their own schools and principals.

Remember in 2000 when the Vancouver School District experienced a rare ballot failure? Then Superintendent Jim Parsley and his staff were so baffled they rounded up the voter turnout list and matched it up against the school district's list of employees. The school district concluded that 504 employees who were eligible to vote in the election chose not to. (Who votes in an election is public information. How each person votes is not.)

Parsley called the situation a "problem" and proceeded to tell all the district's principals what percentage of their staffs did not vote. He later insisted it wasn't meant to intimidate anybody. A union official defended the district's actions, saying, "Lots of teachers worked hard (on the bond). And it was lost because a few people didn't take the time to do their part: vote and support where they worked."

Again, a 60 percent passage rate isn't ridiculous when it concerns a special election, when non-property owners have so little to lose and school employees, who make up large swaths of the voting population, have so much to gain and are under a lot of pressure to meet their bosses' demands.

Still, on Monday, the state House passed House Joint Resolution 4205, which could allow voters to eliminate the constitutional requirement that school levies receive 60 percent voter approval. (School bond measures would still be subject to a supermajority.) The proposal did not include an adjustment that would allow simple majorities on school levies only in November elections which makes good sense and could make a simple majority palatable.

If the proposal passes in the Senate with the two-thirds vote needed to change the state constitution, come November, voters get the final say. Let's hope if they do, all the reasons for the supermajority will at least be presented by those who write our laws and spend our money.

Elizabeth Hovde's column of personal opinion appears on the Other Opinions page each Thursday. Her e-mail address: elizabeth [DOT] hovde [AT] columbian [DOT] com.

I obviously altered her e-mail to protect her from spambots and lefty trolls.

http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2005/02/table-of-contents-on-school-levy-issue.html is a one-stop shop for monitoring this issue as it develops. You may want to bookmark it - because I'll update that post daily.

Washington State's kissing cousin to California's Proposition 39, passed in 2000. The aim is to make it easier to pass bonds that only property owners have to pay. And with a majority vote, virtually ALL of them will pass regardless of merit. Its being seductively marketed as for "the children." Aren't these measures always? Now you know how liberals weaken and eventually intend to do away with even the flimsiest taxpayer protections.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

3 posted on 02/25/2005 6:29:58 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

In CA, we now need 2/3 of the vote for special-purpose taxes, and it has saved us quite a number of times. This article gives a good justification for the over-50% requirement.

Not for passing school bonds. That used to require a 2/3 majority but Prop. 39 reduced it to 55%. Liberals now want to lift the Prop. 13 1% cap and allow parcel taxes to be passed by the same 55% margin. Again, a tax increase on property owners. And guess what the new proposal is for? You guessed it - "the children."

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

5 posted on 02/25/2005 6:42:13 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

There any news articles about this I can read?

I've been blogging up a storm about this since Monday.

WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS!!

WASHINGTON STATE DESERVES BETTER!!

BLAIR ON!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.