Require Voting— but Eliminate Tax Advisories?
It looks like active undermining because it likely is.
Few things irritate me more than elected officials actively working to undermine the voices of the People, government action that contradicts the People’s desires, and taxes. It turns out that we can hit all three topics pretty quickly during the legislative session.
We’re going to look at two Senate Bills:
SB 5082 would eliminate Advisory Votes on tax increases adopted by the legislature. [PDF, Original Bill]
SB 5209 would make voting a compulsory duty, require registration of all 18+, and require ballot distribution by mail. [PDF, Original Bill]
SB 5082 and Advisory Votes.
What’s my issue with the bill? It directly undermines the will of the People and eliminates a recorded vote of the People.
Some context: mandatory advisory votes (for tax increases approved by the legislature) were imposed in 2007 by Initiative 960. This initiative had many other requirements that were challenged and overturned by the State Supreme Court, but the requirement for tax advisory votes remained in place.
Remember— An initiative is a citizen’s bill we petition for and vote on without the legislature’s involvement. We demanded advisory votes and imposed this requirement, and now the Legislature may undo it.
I wonder if this has anything to do with 75% of these tax advisory votes coming back “REJECTED” by the voters. Yes— 75% rejected. Only 10 of the 40 were approved. Most of those were slim margins, but sales taxes on marijuana products and e-cig/vaping products were approved by 58.7% and 66.9%, respectively.
SB 5209 and “Mandatory” Voting.
What’s my issue with the bill? It doesn’t address the causes of low voter turnout, isn’t prudent, and is grossly hypocritical.
On the one hand, I appreciate the idea of having everyone vote. On the other, I know it’s impossible to force people to participate in a system they believe is broken and pitted against them. I’m not convinced we should ask people to cast a vote if they don’t care about the consequences. The lack of voting is widely due to a lack of motivation — a lack of care — not a lack of access. Ironically, actions like this by our representatives demotivate and demoralize people even further.
So what’s my big issue in all of this?
Senator Hunt is a sponsor of both bills. Imagine advocating to eliminate a vote because it is non-binding while wanting to pass another bill that “requires” you to vote— but doesn’t have any enforcement mechanism and is non-binding to the people. This is logically inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.
Together, these bills tell a story. I believe there is a legitimate desire for higher voter turnout— but what about genuinely wanting to know where voters stand on all issues? You can’t maintain integrity while claiming to care about increasing the voice of voters while simultaneously trying to take parts away. Declaring something “mandatory” will certainly compel more people to vote through the appeal to authority— but what happens when all of those people vote on those annoying advisory votes? It’s one thing when only 40% of the registered voters cast a vote and 70% reject a tax.
But what if 80% of the registered voters cast a vote and 70% rejected the tax? That would be about 56% of the registered voters of the State. That seems like solid ground to argue a tax in court regarding the consent of the governed— a State Constitution topic. Suddenly, the “non-binding” vote could have serious weight in a courtroom if more than 50% of the registered voters were on record rejecting it. Eliminating that risk might be a good idea for those wanting more taxes. 🤷🏼♂️
Remember: our government does everything with the presumption of our consent. Those in power operate without objection until our consent is irrefutably denied. Even then, we’ve seen our state's courts, executives, and legislature continue their course of action despite our votes. $30 car tabs, anybody?
Washington State Constitution Article 1§1:
All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
I can’t help but wonder: is eliminating the advisory vote really about cleaning up the ballots, saving time, and not giving people an option over something they can’t decide? Perhaps this is more about keeping the reigns on excessive taxation that voters clearly disapprove of while they keep piling more on for us to fork out. Eliminate the recorded vote for things overwhelmingly rejected, increase voter turnout in people who don’t care otherwise, and keep trucking. Yuk!