We have to follow the law?

Joe Turner of the Tacoma News Tribune has the details on a curious exchange on the Senate floor today concerning tax increases and whether or not they require a 2/3 vote and if that is constitutional:

"The Senate and House are both 'committing news' at the same time, so I'm playing catch-up. (I'm trying to listen to the House debate a financing plan for the Highway 520 bridge, and Brad Owen, Senate president, issued a crucial ruling.)

Owen sided with Tim Eyman and Initiative 960 supporters by ruling that a bill to raise state liquor taxes would require a supermajority vote -- that is, 33 of 49 votes -- instead of a simple 25-vote majority to pass. That was for Senate Bill 6931.

Consequently, even though the vote was 25-21, the effort to raise the liquor tax for more State Patrol drunken driving crackdowns and drug and alcohol treatment failed."

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown blamed I-960 for the tax increase failing, but the 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases has been on the books since I-601 passed in 1993. In fact, legislators could have removed this requirement from current law at any point over the past few years when they amended I-601, but they chose only to “suspend” or leave it in place. Based on the concerns expressed today by some lawmakers that the 2/3 provision for tax increases is unconstitutional, one is left wondering why they reaffirmed it with each of their amendments to I-601 by leaving it on the books.

Perhaps their real frustration is that with I-960’s passage lawmakers have to get a 2/3 vote to once again “suspend” the 2/3 vote requirement instead of using the simple majority vote they've grown accustomed to without having to actually remove the 2/3 vote requirement from the law (man that’s a mouthful).

Of course, why take a politically risky vote to “suspend” or overturn the will of the voters when you can try to get a court to do it for you?