Washington’s voters have consistently voiced a desire to restrict the ability of government officials to unduly raise their tax burden. Initiative 601, passed by voters in 1993, required not only a strict spending limit and a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to raise taxes, but also voter approval of any tax increase in excess of the state spending limit.

Despite this clear directive by the voters, lawmakers have suspended the two-thirds vote requirement twice (in 2002 and 2005) and state Sen. Lisa Brown filed a lawsuit on March 3, asking the state Supreme Court to declare the two-thirds vote requirement unconstitutional to make it easier for the Legislature to raise taxes.

The court will hear arguments on Brown’s lawsuit on Sept. 9. A final ruling could come in time for next year’s legislative session, when lawmakers will try to close a projected $2.7 billion budget deficit – the estimated gap between rising revenues and the even faster increase in state spending. If the court strikes down I-601, the justices will make it more likely that lawmakers will increase taxes in 2009, rather than look for ways to slow down the rate of spending growth.

Ironically, while objecting to the supermajority requirement for tax increases, Brown sponsored Senate rules that require a supermajority vote to amend the budget on the floor. This rule was used during the 2008 supplemental budget deliberations to block an attempt to remove $250,000 from the Senate budget to buy tickets for girls to attend Seattle Storm basketball games. The amendment to remove the funding secured failed since it didn’t receive the required 60 percent vote.

The state attorney general is defending the I-601 law against Brown’s challenge. The AG points out that in the 15 years since voters adopted I-601, “the Legislature has not chosen to repeal the statute or permanently amend its two-thirds vote provision, although it could have.”

Brown says I-601 violates the state constitution by requiring a two-thirds vote to pass tax increases, when the constitution requires only a 50 percent majority vote to pass a law. The attorney general rightly argues that the constitution only says a bill has to receive a minimum vote of 50 percent to pass, and that the Legislature, or the people, can add to that requirement for some bills if they like. Obviously, the AG says, any bill that receives a two-thirds vote has already satisfied the constitutional requirement of 50 percent.

Regardless of what the court rules, the long-term solution is for state officials to enact meaningful constitutional restrictions on tax and spending increases to help provide a restraint on excessive government spending and future tax increases. Under a statutory law like I-601, it has proven too easy for lawmakers to circumvent and ignore the spending limit.

What the people intended to be a firm but reasonable check on state spending and tax increases has been reduced almost to zero by the Legislature, as lawmakers seek to accommodate their desire for excessive spending. It is bypassed regularly by lawmakers intent on boosting spending and taxes.

I-601 is better than nothing, and the court should uphold it, but only a constitutional tax and spending limit will help prioritize government spending and provide a legislative climate in which further increases in the government’s financial burden are difficult to pass.

Jason Mercier is director of Center for Government Reform at Washington Policy Center, a non-partisan, public policy research group in Seattle and Olympia.