State Reps. Chris Hurst and Cathy Dahlquist (guest editorial, “Citizens’ voicespoke loud and clear on tax questions,” Reporter, March 8) seem to believe that the state Supreme Court should have ruled that the two-thirds majority for tax increases is valid, despite the fact that it violates the state constitution.
Their stated justification for this approval is that a substantial majority of the voters supported three citizen’s initiatives in favor of the idea. However, if the Court had approved the initiative, that action would have been – you guessed it – unconstitutional.
The state constitution specified a process for approving amendments, and the process is not “because a majority of the electorate wants it that way.” Constitutions are serious documents, and the writers of Washington’s wisely included an amendment process that is very deliberative. It is patterned after the U.S. constitution, and I think most of us would agree that the U.S. constitution is hardly a failed experiment.
– Pete Beaupain
Talk to us
Please share your story tips by emailing editor@kentreporter.com.
To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website http://kowloonland.com.hk/?big=submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 300 words or less.
