Legislative Commentary

Washington’s constitution does not clearly prohibit a state income tax, contrary to what many think.

I’d like for the voters of our state to finally have the chance to shield themselves from an income tax – at both the state and local level. The Senate minority doesn’t share that opinion, however. Please keep reading for the details.

On Wednesday evening the Senate wrapped up its voting on bills introduced by senators. For the next few weeks the action will again be focused at the committee level, as we consider bills passed by the House.

By the end of March we will have a much better idea, which pieces of legislation are still in play. Also, our work on a new state operating budget is about to shift into a higher gear, as the year’s first state-revenue forecast will be in hand by this time next week. The forecast gives our budget team an update on the amount of revenue available for state services and programs.

Due to the long hours of voting in the Senate chamber, my calendar this week showed about as many meetings with the governor as with folks from back home, who included some WSU student-body government leaders.

I am looking forward to the more measured pace of committee work for the rest of the month, and especially looking forward to getting home to Adams County. It’ll be the first time in a long while, and I have a farm to run!

New progress on education funding

A couple of weeks ago I reported on what some were calling the “levy cliff” – how a temporary increase in school districts’ taxing authority is set to expire in 2018, after eight years.

In January the House passed legislation to extend the increased taxing authority, and ever since then our Senate majority had come under fire for not voting on the House bill.

Frankly, we didn’t see the need. The Education Equality Act (Senate Bill 5607) approved Feb. 1 addresses the levy-lid situation while also solving the greater challenge posed by the Supreme Court’s 2012 McCleary decision.

The flaw in the House approach was that it wouldn’t help wean school districts off the use of local-levy dollars for things considered to be “basic education” – even though the overreliance on local dollars is at the core of the McCleary ruling.

The governor and many other Democrats in Olympia seemed convinced that school districts would be forced to make deep cuts if we didn’t address the levy-lid issue separately.

I wasn’t hearing that from the superintendents of the 29 school districts in the Ninth District, but the issue was becoming a distraction, so this week the Senate responded.

We took the portion of our education-funding plan that resolved the levy-lid situation and approved it as a separate piece of legislation.

The end result is that the temporary increase of local school-levy authority is extended, but now school districts must closely account for locally generated dollars to ensure they are not used for basic-education expenses.

Our solution (Senate Bill 5023) was supported by all 24 minority Democrats in the Senate and every Democrat member of the House. This is significant because it represents the first time that any of them have endorsed any part of our Education Equality Act.

I am confident the governor supports SB 5023 as well. Now that the levy-cliff distraction has been put aside, others in the lawmaking process need to join us in focusing on the real task at hand – agreeing on a constitutional approach to funding our schools.

Voters won’t get to weigh in on prohibiting a state income tax

Washington voters have rejected a state income tax at every opportunity, most recently in 2010. Voters in Olympia – which isn’t exactly a conservative town – even said no to a municipal income tax this past November.

That hasn’t stopped the governor and other Democrats from proposing a new tax on income from investments, commonly known as “capital gains.”

To me that’s a state income tax, even if it would involve just one category of personal income.

If voters had an opportunity to protect themselves from a state or local income tax, through a change in the state constitution, I think a majority would say yes. Senate Joint Resolution 8204 would give them that chance, and this week we brought it to a vote.

Proposed constitutional amendments require a higher threshold of approval than a regular bill.

They need approval from two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House, rather than a simple majority. Then they go to the ballot, where Washington voters have the final say.

Two-thirds of the Senate is 33 votes, and our majority has 25 votes, meaning SJR 4204 needed solid bipartisan support to move forward.

Leaders of the Senate’s minority Democrats will tell you they don’t support a state income tax, but only two members of the minority joined us in supporting SJR 4204, and the measure fell six votes short of going to the House.

Unfortunately, it means taxpayers can expect more proposals about this or that form of state income tax.

From ambulance drivers to driver’s licenses, Senate votes cover a wide range

I understand why the state Department of Health, which oversees ambulance services, requires an ambulance driver to have a first-aid certificate unless there are two or more EMTs riding along to care for a patient.

But that can put a volunteer fire district in a difficult situation, because it isn’t easy to find volunteers with medical training. So I introduced Senate Bill 5751, which would change a few words in the law and drop that requirement in certain circumstances.

SB 5751 is one of the many straightforward pieces of legislation to pass unanimously during the recent stretch of voting by the full Senate. The bill had a public hearing before the House healthcare committee today and is scheduled for a vote next week.

It’s a reminder that every piece of legislation we approve is intended to help someone, in some way – and how a majority of the bills introduced (and passed) are more about common-sense adjustments to existing law and not about establishing major new policies.

That said, the legislation passed by the Senate recently covered a real mix of issues, including some high-visibility topics. Here are a few examples.

State prisons: Our Senate Law and Justice Committee spent a lot of time in 2016 looking into the scandal involving the state Department of Corrections and its early release of prisoners, which led to the deaths of at least two innocent people.

Not surprisingly, the investigation led to legislation that won unanimous approval last week.

Senate Bill 5294 would adopt a list of recommendations resulting from the committee’s work. It would include an audit of the departments at DOC involved in keeping track of inmates’ release dates and several other actions intended to prevent a similar public-safety fiasco from happening again.

Clean up the state tax code: It’s important that references within state laws (and the legislation that becomes law) be accurate. I regularly introduce bills about clarifying, updating and correcting the language of our laws, and Senate Bill 5358 is aimed at the tax code. It passed unanimously.

Upgrading driver’s licenses: Beginning in 2018, the federal Transportation Security Administration will no longer allow people to use a standard Washington driver’s license as identification for domestic travel.

This stems from the passage of the federal REAL ID rules following Sept. 11, 2001. Passports and our state’s enhanced driver’s license comply with the REAL ID standards, but obtaining them can be time-consuming and costly. Senate Bill 5008, which would reduce the cost of obtaining an enhanced driver’s license and was approved by the Senate with a 45-4 vote.

Protecting those who protect us: A series of deadly attacks against law-enforcement officers in 2016 put the issue of violence against police into the national spotlight, and inspired Senate Bill 5280, which passed 35-14 this week.

Under the measure, threatening a law-enforcement officer because of his or her occupation would be designated a hate crime.

Also, third-degree assault involving a law enforcement officer would be added to the crimes that may constitute harassment.