Simple Majority Vote
for the Approval of School Bonds and Levies

The Issue
Changing the state constitution by allowing school levies and bonds to be approved by a simple majority of those voting (50% + 1). This would replace the current constitutional requirements: (1) a 40% turn-out (of those voting in the previous general election) and (2) 60% approval (of those voting).

The Process
The Constitution can only be amended by the people, but any proposed amendments must first be approved by the State Legislature - by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate - and then by the voters (ironically, by a simple majority vote).

• First: to persuade state legislators to allow the issue to be decided by the people.
• Second: to persuade voters to approve the constitutional change.

What is the history of this issue?
The Washington State Constitution requires that authorization for "excess" property taxes, for any purpose, must receive 60% voter approval whenever the aggregate of state and local "regular" property taxes exceeds 1% of the assessed value of the property in that county. This equates to $10.00 per one thousand dollars of assessed property valuations.

The 60% requirement was placed into the Constitution by a vote of the people in 1944. For 12 years prior to that, similar stipulations were part of temporary laws in Washington until the decision was made to make this a constitutional provision.

Why was this imposed originally?
Evidence indicates several reasons why the "super-majority" requirement was popular in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

First was the belief that non-property owners should not be allowed to raise the taxes of property owners - at least not easily. In fact much of the property was then owned by large timber and railroad companies.

Second, the 1930’s were especially difficult economics times, and all citizens were concerned about their own fiscal well-being, perhaps more so than about their citizenship obligations to public education.

Third, the citizens of the West have always tended to be populists, with an apprehensive concern about "big government" (or big business, big labor, etc.) and how it could affect personal lives.

Fourth, the 1930’s and 1940’s were times of massive school district consolidation. There were well over 2,000 school districts in Washington in the 1930’s (there are now 296). Many citizens likely did not even know which school district they paid taxes for, much less know when the many and various district elections were being held. Again, the issue was fear of others voting to raise "my" property taxes - perhaps without "my" knowledge, much less approval. This is one reason why the Constitution also requires a "validation" of these elections. Currently, it requires that 40% of those voting in an immediately previous general election (November) must vote in an excess levy election in order to authorize the levy or bond (with 60% of those voting "aye").

Aren’t those reasons still valid today?
To some degree, yes. But times have changed, and so have the needs of schools.

Privately-owned lands are no longer the monopoly of a few large corporations. When property taxes are imposed, land owners increase fees on renters. Senior citizens and low-income persons can be exempted from property taxes. Further, election laws now require broad and specific public notice of elections. It is virtually impossible for citizens to be unaware of elections, especially with the dramatic increase of "permanent absentee voters" and vote-by-mail elections, wherein citizens are automatically sent ballots. Elections should not be invalidated due to citizens’ conscious decisions not to vote.

It seems as though school elections are always being held...
That too was recently changed. Formerly a school district could offer a second election, if the first one failed, on any date it chose, within a calendar year. Now, school elections can only be held on one of six specific statutory election dates: in February, March, April, May or the primary or general elections in September and November.

What exactly is the proposal?
We are proposing that the State Legislature allow the citizens of Washington to vote to change their own constitution, and thereby allow school levies or bonds to be approved by a simple majority of those voting (50%+1) at any election held on any of the six authorized election dates.

In Washington state our constitution cannot be changed by a citizens’ initiative. Constitutional amendments must be proposed first by the State Legislature. The state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both the State House of Representatives and the State Senate just to place the proposal before the people; then, ironically, a simple majority vote of the citizens would amend their own constitution. We are only asking that the Legislature allow Washington voters to address this issue.

Hasn’t this been rejected several times?
No. This proposal has not been before the voters since its original enactment in 1944.

It has been proposed for several years in the Legislature, but without success. In 1994, the proposal passed the House by a vote of 80-17, but it lacked the two-thirds requirement in the Senate by 2-3 votes.

Why have legislators rejected this?
Several reasons... some political, some philosophical and some valid.

Some legislators have felt that passage of this proposal would make school levies and bonds too easy to pass, or would raise property taxes too much, possibly resulting in a "voter backlash" or tax revolt. In fact, the size of school levies are already limited by law. This proposal, with few exceptions, would not result in increased property taxes. Nearly 98% of total school levies are approved today, if only on a second election. This proposal would likely result in most school levies being approved on the first attempt, thus saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in second election expenses. With regard to bonds (a larger percentage of which are often defeated) this could increase property taxes . . . now, rather than later. With population growth, the schools must be built and/or remodeled . . . sooner or later. Proper planning anticipates growth and builds new facilities now, rather than later when construction costs (and therefore property taxes) are higher.

Some legislators fear that they will be labeled as "supporting higher property taxes" just by voting to place this proposal on the ballot.

Other legislators believe that any method to approve local school levies more readily will result in the state relying increasingly on local levies for basic school support . . . rather than providing the proper funding from the state. While that is a valid concern, the law requires the state to fund Basic Education. The Legislature cannot shirk that constitutional responsibility regardless of the method of approving local excess levies or bonds.

Many legislators believe that a proposal to tax property should properly require a higher approval standard, since non-property owners can tax those who do own property. Still other legislators believe that schools are properly funded today and don’t need the additional support.

Many legislators have stated support for various "compromise" proposals, but none of those alternatives has ever garnered the necessary two-thirds vote either.

And what are those "compromise" proposals?
There have been several:

1. One would allow simple majority approval (versus the 60%) but only when all school elections are held at the November general election, with no opportunity for a second try.
2. Another would allow a simple majority approval, but only when school elections are conducted entirely by mail-in ballots.
3. Another would allow school levies (for basic school operations) to be approved by a simple majority, but school bond issues (for capital construction) would still require a 60% approval.
4. Still another proposal would lower the approval requirement from 60% to 55%.
5. And many varieties combining the above features.

What’s wrong with these "compromise" proposals?
Basically, it’s a question of fairness and priorities. It has been difficult to ascertain which "compromise" could actually gain the required two-thirds vote in the Legislature, much less the citizens’ approval in a subsequent election. Ballot issues have traditionally failed when they become too complex, yet the "simple" proposals have failed to receive the necessary legislative approval. We prefer the "simple" approach: the majority rules.

Our State Constitution declares the state’s "paramount duty" to be the provision for public schools. However, several state laws have been enacted over the years that allow other local governments the ability to raise revenues (for operations or capital purposes) by less onerous methods than those required of the schools. We believe that to be not only unfair, but possibly unconstitutional.

Some local governments can utilize their "regular" property taxes for these purposes, without any public vote at all - much less with a 60% requirement. Schools no longer have a "regular property tax." That revenue source was transferred to the state 25 years ago. Many county treasurers still refer to this as the "state school tax," since the revenues - a maximum of $3.60/$1,000 of assessed valuation - are statutorily earmarked for schools. But this money goes into the State General Fund. It is appropriated by the Legislature.

Other local governments can access other revenue sources (a percentage of the sales tax, for example) that are also not available to schools. Because these revenues are not subject to the constitutional 60% requirement on property taxes, cities or counties may build libraries, jails or sports stadiums with a simple majority voter approval - if any vote is taken at all. A few years ago, Pierce County asked voter approval for a new jail - to be financed by property taxes; it failed due to the lack of 60% excess levy requirement (40.5%). Their elected officials then asked voter approval of the same project, to be financed by a sales tax; it passed with 64.5% support. Again, this option is not available to schools.

In the Spring of 1997, the Legislature approved a ballot issue to authorize the construction of a football stadium in King County, to be financed by a series of tax deferrals and "user fees." This issue was decided by a special election in June (not one of the six regular election dates, much less the November general election) and required only a simple majority approval.

We think it’s a matter of fairness, equity and priorities.

• Football stadiums don’t have to be determined at a general election vote in November.
• Jails don’t have to be determined by a vote-by-mail election.
• Museums apparently don’t have to be approved by a public vote at all, 55% or 60%.

Why should legislators demand the imposition of these strict electoral methods only for schools, the state’s constitutional "paramount duty?"

What are the fiscal implications . . . the cost?
The answer to that is rather complicated and highly speculative.

Washington voters authorize nearly a billion dollars per year for local excess school levies ($838,604,584 in 1998). Only $15 million in levies were finally defeated for that same collection period. Most, if not all, of that $15 million would have been approved had the standard been 50% rather than 60%. This would have been a 2% increase above what was actually approved.

Some school districts might ask for a larger levy than they currently run, should 50% become the threshold. But most larger districts in the state already request the legally-allowable maximum levy - so any increase in requested excess levies should be negligible.

Capital bonds are more complicated. Voter-approved bonds have been as high as $984 million (in 1994) and as low as $117 million (in 1995). Bonds are normally paid over a 20-year period. Historically, voters authorize 30-40% of the districts’ total bond requests in any given year. Most of the bond "losses" receive over 50% of the vote, so this proposal likely would increase property taxes substantially for school construction – at least initially. Most school bonds are eventually approved, since school repairs and student enrollment growth cannot be ignored forever. The longer it takes to obtain voter approval, the higher the cost of construction (due to inflation, if nothing else). Therefore, the immediate approval of school bonds at a 50% threshold should not substantially increase long-term taxes, since the bonds normally are approved – eventually – but at a higher cost when construction is delayed.

The taxpayers of the school districts would not have to pay for the costs of running a second election (school districts must pay the county auditors for election costs) if school levies and bonds were to pass on the first election attempt (at 50%). Those additional election costs will allow taxpayers’ money to be spent on their local schools, rather than on the costs of another election. These "second elections" can cost as much as $75,000 per district . . . and in 1998 over 40 school districts had to offer levies at a second election. The "simple majority" would likely have allowed those levies to be approved the first time, thus saving those added election costs. Only one of the 40 districts running a "second-chance" levy received less than 50% "yes" vote on the first election.

Every year there are perhaps 20-50 school districts which "lose" their first levy elections, but only 2 or 3 of those receive less than 50% "yes" vote. Every year when those 20-50 districts run their levies a second time, all but 5-10 are approved. Why run a costly second election when the over- whelming majority will pass eventually anyway?

What about the "validation" issue?
The Washington State Constitution also requires that an excess levy or bond election be "validated." To validate an election, 40% of those who voted in the most recent general election must also vote in this "special" election. Otherwise the vote is invalid.

In recent years the use of "permanent absentee ballots" and "vote by mail" elections has made this almost a moot issue. But many legislators remain concerned about the possibility of raising property taxes in an election when relatively few voters participate. Many of those legislators may support the "simple majority" proposal, but only with stipulations designed to assure large voter turn-out; i.e., only at general elections or only when elections are conducted entirely by mail.

While these concerns are real, we believe they are overly cautious . . . and can also be unfair. These added stipulations are not required of other local governments when voters are asked to approve jails, libraries, museums or stadiums. Why schools? Further, there have been organized election campaigns (in opposition to school levies and bonds) which simply tell voters to "stay home" and thereby defeat the proposal. Voters who choose not to vote should not have a greater voice than those who exercise their voting franchise.

Are school directors willing to "compromise"?
School board members adopted a permanent position in 1989 which supports amending the state constitution to allow school levies and bonds to be approved by a simple majority of those voting. Period. Every year since, board members attending WSSDA’s Legislative Assembly rate this as one of their highest priorities.

However, the discussion continues as to the best means by which to accomplish this goal. The principle is clear; the method to implement that principle is a question of political strategy. The dilemma is that amending the constitution is a two-part process: it first requires two-thirds approval by the Legislature, and then (simple) approval by the state’s voters. Legislators tend to like detailed and complex measures, while the general voters prefer simple questions.

This issue embodies one of the very principles of our nation’s creation: the rule of the majority... with protections for the minority.