Opinion ID: 2576137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature of I-601's Budget Cap and Supermajority Requirement

Text: ¶ 52 Before beginning the referendum exception analysis, it is important to understand the two relevant provisions of I-601 affected by this legislation. The majority refers to I-601 as shorthand for the supermajority requirement to raise taxes contained in that initiative, which was suspended by section 2 of this act. Laws of 2005, ch. 72, § 2. ¶ 53 I-601 also had a state budget spending cap and supporting formulas that were changed in sections 3-6 of this legislation. It will be further noted below that this part of I-601 (the spending cap) is the only section referred to in the legislature's intent. That section (section 1) does not even mention suspending the supermajority for tax increases, which is argued here as the emergency. ¶ 54 Ironically, I-601 was itself adopted in 1992 by a majority of the people through an initiative, the first power reserved by the people by the 7th Amendment. ¶ 55 The suspended provision of I-601 provides that taxes may be raised only if approved by a two-thirds supermajority vote of legislators. In this respect, I-601 is a rule of legislative procedure a precondition to raising taxes. ¶ 56 This supermajority serves as a procedural check to balance the power of the majority party and force compromise, especially when raising taxes. The supermajority requirement doesn't mean that any specific legislation will pass or fail. Indeed, in the decade since the people passed I-601, prior legislatures have adopted budgets with the provision in place.