Eyman's I-1053 May Bring State Transportation to a Screeching Halt

Tim Eyman filing I-1053 (Photo: Office of the Washington Secretary of State)

All our big road projects--the 520 bridge replacement, the deep-bore tunnel for SR 99--now routinely use tolls to fill in funding gaps. But yesterday, PublicCola reports, Tim Eyman was testifying in front of the Washington Transportation Commission that his I-1053 would require the legislature to drum up a supermajority to toll 520.

This would be news to WSDOT, who promise tolling will begin in spring 2011, with tolls ranging from $3.50 to $5 each way. Eyman also argued that the state can't even raise ferry fares (a planned 2.5 percent) without legislative approval. 

I-1053 co-sponsor Sen. Pam Roach has asked Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna to weigh in on how broadly the initiative can be interpreted. While many people may have thought I-1053 applied mainly to taxes, it also said that "new or increased fees require majority legislative approval." Certainly the intent of the initiative backers was that it apply to precisely this sort of thing. That broad application was one of the reasons Sightline opposed the I-1053: Now even tax loopholes can't be closed without a supermajority.

If McKenna supports Eyman's view, it throws all the funding plans for our major transportation projects out the window. After all, tolling is supposed to pay for some $400 million of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project, a project that did not have supermajority support in the House.

Longer term, of course, you have to worry about (or cheer, depending upon your inability to evaluate logical consequences) a crippling gridlock as the legislature votes on every single tax and fee increase across the scope of government--with the supermajority requirement dictating that if 17 senators don't go for the package, it doesn't happen. [CLARIFICATION: Increases in fees, as tolls may be considered, require a simple majority under I-1053.]

Again, you have to ask, Is a clearly unconstitutional initiative worth all this? Or, even more troublingly, are unconstitutional initiatives something our State Supreme Court is cool with?