Letter: State Supreme Court makes right decision on two-thirds majority for taxes initiative

March 15, 2013 

Striking down the two-thirds majority provision for imposing new taxes is a wise decision on the part of the state Supreme Court.

While it may be popular with the citizenry, it is clearly unconstitutional. Once again, being popular doesn't make an idea constitutional. I would also point out that both Republican House candidates for the 8th District, Larry Haler and Brad Klippert, supported this unconstitutional two-thirds majority concept. The Democratic candidates, Jay Clough and I, opposed it.

While this idea should go no further, I'm sure its backers will come at it again as a constitutional amendment in the future. The merits of a two-thirds majority constitutional requirement should then be debated. One should quickly see that the math doesn't work. With 147 legislators, it would only take 17 senators to block action on a needed tax increase. With the McCleary school funding decision staring them in the face, the tyranny of this minority could prevent the Legislature from meeting its constitutionally required duty to provide a good education to our children.

And that would be the shame of a two-third majority requirement.

RICHARD REUTHER, Richland

Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service