Opinion: Protect taxpayers by putting supermajority for tax increase requirements in state constitution

If there’s one thing Americans can still agree on it’s that tax policy is one of the most consequential decisions our government makes that impacts our economy and family budgets.


Jason Mercier believes more can be done to help provide taxpayers the peace of mind that tax increases will always be the last resort when budgeting

Jason Mericer
Mountain States Policy Center

If there’s one thing Americans can still agree on it’s that tax policy is one of the most consequential decisions our government makes that impacts our economy and family budgets.

Jason Mercier, Mountain States Policy Center
Jason Mercier, Mountain States Policy Center

With the exception of Washington state, policymakers in the Mountain States (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) have been very active the last few years prioritizing tax relief for citizens while making fiscally conservative budget investments. While this ongoing tax relief effort is to be commended, more can be done to help provide taxpayers the peace of mind that tax increases will always be the last resort when budgeting.

One way to do this is by adding requirements to a state’s constitution that require a supermajority vote or voter approval to raise taxes. Now you may say that the current makeup of the legislatures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are already sufficient to avoid tax increases. While that may be true today, it may not be tomorrow as experienced by taxpayers in Washington state.

Consider the fact Washington voters over the years passed ballot measures requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes not once, twice, or thrice, but six separate times. Yet today this taxpayer protection does not exist in Washington because it was not added to the state constitution. Instead, Washington taxpayers now face tax increases on an annual basis without this protection.

Rather than leave certain taxpayer protections subject to changing political winds, lawmakers in Texas have acted in recent years instead to forward voters constitutional amendments on various tax restrictions. As noted by the Tax Policy Center in a recent blog post:

“Texas Proposition 3 would amend the state’s constitution to prohibit legislators from enacting a wealth tax. No one in Texas is proposing a wealth tax. But no one in Texas was proposing an income tax in 2019, and that didn’t stop three-quarters of Texans from amending the constitution that year to keep the income tax permanently out of the Lone Star State.”

Although wealth and income tax prohibitions are different policies than supermajority requirements, these efforts demonstrate Texas policymakers acting to provide voters the opportunity to make sure the tax climate in the state remains stable.

According to the Washington Policy Center, there are currently 17 states with supermajority for tax increase requirements. These restrictions range from needing a 3/5 vote in Oregon, to a 2/3 vote in Florida, to needing voter approval for all tax increases in Colorado.

Along with providing constitutional tax increase protections, several states (like Oregon and Colorado) also require automatic tax rebates when revenues grow above a certain level. For example:

Oregonian: “Oregon taxpayers are set to receive their biggest kicker tax rebate on record when they file their taxes next spring – a $5.6 billion refund, according to near-final forecasts issued Wednesday. That works out to $980 for the median taxpayer.”

CPR News: “Colorado is set to pay out more than $3.5 billion in TABOR refunds next spring – one of the largest paybacks that the state has ever had to return to taxpayers. In fact, the state is in the middle of what could be a record-busting string of revenue years. For the first time ever, the state government could be forced to pay refunds for six straight years, stretching from 2022 through 2027 or longer. Those refunds are expected to average more than $2 billion per year – a level never before seen in Colorado, even accounting for inflation.”

Proactively acting to protect taxpayers by sending voters a supermajority for tax increases constitutional amendment is a prudent thing for policymakers to do. As occurs in Oregon and Colorado, this type of policy could also be coupled with automatic tax rebate triggers based on revenue growth to help avoid the temptation of overheating a state budget and increasing the pressure for tax increases.

Whether requiring voter approval for all tax increases like in Colorado or needing a 2/3 legislative threshold as occurs in Florida, increasing the tax burden imposed on families and businesses should first secure a broad consensus and always be the last resort when budgeting.

Jason Mercier is vice president and director of Research of Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.

This version of Mercier’s column was first published by The Center Square Washington.


Also read:

2 Comments

  1. Margaret

    In WA, taxing entities like school districts, fire districts, library districts and local governments schedule votes for tax increases for a tax levy lid lift or tax hikes for a bond to borrow money etc during “special ” elections. Instead of putting all tax district tax hike propositions info existing primary or general elections, which would save money in election costs, each district may choose their own special elections, which have lower voter turn out.
    Voters aren’t faced with all the tax hikes for the year at once, but little by little are asked for tax levy lid lifts, and approval of borrowing money via bonds for the wish lists of taxing districts, one bite at a time.
    Furthermore, taxing districts and local government hire PR firms and consultants to sell their propositions to the public, at taxpayer expense. Slick websites, and multiple color mailers are sent to convince voters to vote YES, to higher taxes. A recent Camas School levy “renewal” was really a tax rate increase, not a renewal at the existing rate. Meanwhile, citizens who want to expose elaborate spending plans are left to fund , and pay for a website or mailers to share a more complete picture of the tax increase proposal. The supermajority requirement of 60% to raise taxes is needed to overcome the tremendous advantages government has to grow their districts, salaries, and benefits for their employees at the expense of local residents and businesses..

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *