|
Save the use of emergency
clauses for real emergencies
By
Rep.
Barbara Bailey
Download Rep. Barbara
Bailey's photo here:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/bailey_photo_download.htm
When is an emergency an
emergency? This is a question legislators should more clearly define
when applying emergency clauses to legislation.
Webster’s Dictionary
defines “emergency” as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or
the resulting state that calls for immediate action.”
In the Legislature, an
emergency clause added to a bill allows the measure to become law
immediately after the governor signs it. Other bills signed by the
governor but lacking the clause must wait until 90 days after the
legislative session ends.
The state constitution
defines the use of an emergency clause as legislation “necessary for the
immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety, support of
state government and its existing public institutions.” In other words,
a real EMERGENCY.
An emergency clause also
exempts a bill from the referendum process. It is this power that most
concerns me because of its potential abuse by lawmakers who may apply
the emergency clause to a bill not to respond to an emergency, but to
prevent citizens from changing legislation.
During the 2005 and 2006
sessions, lawmakers attached emergency clauses to 447 bills. One which
contained an emergency clause was a bill that eliminated, until June
2007, the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes and instead gave
lawmakers the ability to raise taxes with only a simple majority. The
two-thirds requirement had been contained in Initiative 601 which was a
voter-approved measure. Since there was no emergency in 2005, one has to
wonder what the real purpose was for attaching the emergency clause to
the bill. Was it a way to prevent voters from repealing that
legislation?
From those two legislative
sessions, 132 bills containing emergency clauses were signed into law.
Did so many emergencies really exist? Or were those clauses applied only
to prevent citizens from responding to those laws at the ballot box?
Since 1912 Washingtonians
have had the cherished right to make and remake their laws through
initiatives and referenda. This process guarantees Washington’s
electorate the right to legislate. No one, not the governor, the
Legislature, nor the Supreme Court should deny this freedom from our
citizens. It is a fundamental process of a government of, for and by the
people.
When government powers are
abused, all citizens suffer. That’s why I have introduced legislation
seeking to prevent abuse of the emergency clause. The measure I have
proposed, House Joint Resolution 4218, would require 60 percent approval
from the Legislature before an emergency clause could be attached to a
bill.
Because use of the
emergency clause is written into the state’s constitution, it requires a
vote of the people to make a change. If approved by the Legislature,
Washington’s voters would get the final say this November on
strengthening the legitimate use of the emergency clause.
Let’s ensure that
emergency clauses are used for EMERGENCIES and not as a means to shut
out the will of the people.
# # #
Editor’s Note: Rep. Barbara Bailey, R-Oak
Harbor, is serving her third term in the House of Representatives from
the 10th Legislative District.
For more information, contact: John
Sattgast, Information Officer: (360) 786-7257
|