Legislative Commentary: March 21, 2019

Dear Friends,

To get a good sense of how the priorities differ this year between the left side of the Senate aisle and our conservative side, let’s look at what happened Wednesday. That was the “house of origin cutoff” day, meaning bills that originated in the Senate had to be voted over to the House – and vice versa – by 5 p.m., or they would be considered “dead” for the year.

There were several worthwhile bipartisan bills on our voting calendar, like SB 5589, my legislation to clearly prohibit local governments from imposing a jobs tax (similar to what Seattle tried to do last summer). Another was SB 5104, to prohibit local governments from imposing vehicle tolls (on downtown Seattle streets, for example). Instead, the Democrat majority used up a good amount of time having the Senate vote on several gubernatorial appointments – which is something we could do any other day.

As 5 p.m. approached, our leadership team decided that yet another important proposal, SB 5299, deserved to be sent across to the House. After we made a motion to that effect I stood and suggested that taking action to protect the public by clamping down on repeat DUI offenders should be more important from confirming appointments made by the governor. But the majority Democrats voted to let this reasonable, bipartisan bill die.

Instead, the Senate spent its final hour-plus of the day debating and voting on a Democrat bill to provide “a pathway to establish a universal health care system.” That means a work group will come back with recommendations, in the event that a future federal government moves toward socialized health care. I like Canada just fine, but how good can their socialized health care be when so many Canadians come down to Spokane for medical treatment?

Yesterday we resumed our work at the committee level, looking at bills sent over by the House. The change of gears also gave me time to start meeting with folks again. I was pleased to have Lewiston Tribune publisher Nathan Alford and his family drop in today; Fran Amend, owner of Chipman & Taylor in Pullman, was in yesterday, when the auto dealers came to the Capitol, along with representatives from the McCurley Dealerships in Pasco; so were John Marshall, Adams County commissioner; local members of the Service Employees International Union; and Kelly Fukai from Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories in Pullman. Others on the calendar included the director of the state Ecology department, WSU’s faculty representative to the Legislature, officials from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and leaders from the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs.

I don’t know if the bill we passed Tuesday in favor of permanent daylight savings time (SB 5139) will get through the House, but I’ll enjoy the extended daylight on my drive home to Adams County later today!

School-tax proposal fails; constitutional taxpayer protection stays

I understand why school districts would like a lower threshold for passing bond issues. Some districts fail time after time to get the required supermajority (60%) approval. And after the state constitution was amended a dozen years ago to require only a simple majority to pass regular school levies, we knew it was only a matter of time before there would be a push to have the same standard for bond issues.

On the other hand, it shouldn’t be easy to raise taxes, and that’s what a bond issue is – a tax increase, usually lasting decades longer than a regular school levy.

I’d be willing to look at lowering the approval requirement to 55% if it included some cost controls. Our side proposed that Tuesday, when the proposed constitutional amendment (SJR 8201) was brought to a vote, but the answer from the other side was no. We then voted to keep the 60% standard in place.

While we’re on the subject of school construction, my bill to let school districts create depreciation accounts didn’t make it to a full Senate vote. I saw SB 5590 as a way to help districts handle maintenance concerns that really don’t belong in a bond-issue package. But the bill will be available for the Senate to consider again in 2020.

Standing up for crime victims

In 1993, following my first session as a legislator, the voters of Washington approved an initiative known as “Three Strikes,” and two years later followed with another initiative known as “Hard Time for Armed Crime.”

This year the Senate’s Democratic majority changed the name of the Human Services and Corrections committee, dropping the “Corrections” in favor of “Reentry and Rehabilitation.” Sure enough, we’ve seen several bills that take a softer approach to criminal justice, and on Wednesday a bill from that committee’s chair to narrow the list of “three strikes” offenses was approved by the majority.

We were told that removing second-degree robbery from the “strike” list (SB 5288) has support among prosecutors in our state, but I voted against the change out of respect for crime victims and the people who created the three-strikes law.

Session’s spotlight heading toward budgets

The first revenue forecast of the year will be out Wednesday, giving budget writers in the Senate and House an updated set of numbers to plug into their balance sheets. We expect the House majority will release its budget proposal within several days of the forecast, and the Senate’s should be on the table not much later.

As I’ve noted in previous commentaries, state government is in good financial condition – better than I’ve seen it when the Legislature is working on a new state budget. There is absolutely no need to raise taxes on hardworking families and employers, and risk slowing the state’s economic momentum.

But there is plenty of pressure from outside interests to increase spending beyond the billions in surplus revenue, and the governor’s policy proposals – tied to his presidential campaign – have huge price tags. The fiscal conservatives in the Legislature will have our work cut out for us.