|
Bailey seeks removal of emergency clauses on
non-urgent bills
Oak Harbor
lawmaker wants to protect citizens' right of referenda
With dozens of bills
containing emergency clauses coming to the House floor for a vote,
Rep.
Barbara Bailey wants to know whether so many emergencies exist,
or if the clause is an attempt to thwart citizens' right to challenge
the issues through referenda.
Bailey is investigating
bills that contain an emergency clause, and if it appears there's no
emergency, she's proposing amendments on the House floor to remove the
clause. Nearly 40 bills are on her list for emergency clause removal.
"The emergency clause
allows bills to become effective immediately after signed by the
governor if 'necessary for the immediate preservation of public
peace, health or safety, support of state government and its existing
public institutions.' In other words, if there's a real emergency,"
said Bailey, R-Oak Harbor. "But when an emergency clause is attached to
a bill, it prevents the people of the state from exercising their
constitutional right to refer the bill to themselves for their approval
or rejection. We have to ask ourselves, 'Do so many legitimate
emergencies exist?' Or are lawmakers abusing this clause so they don't
have to be held accountable for the bills that pass from this chamber?"
Bailey's amendments to
remove emergency clauses are already having some effect. Majority
Democrats have agreed to drop emergency clauses from several bills.
However, Democrats held
firm Friday night, refusing to remove an emergency clause from a bill
that would allow labor unions to spend nonmembers' bargaining fees on
political causes without first getting their permission. The issue,
which involves the Washington Education Association, is pending before
the U.S. Supreme Court. House Republicans believe the emergency clause
on the bill may be an attempt to pre-empt a possible ruling from the
U.S. Supreme Court which majority Democrats won't like.
"This is an issue of
transparency and trust with the citizens of the state who have sent us
here to represent them. During the past two sessions, 447 emergency
clauses were attached to legislation. Does anybody truly believe there
were so many emergencies?," asked Bailey. "This session, it is very
disturbing that we are heading in that direction again with emergency
clauses on bills ranging from those that would add new taxes and fees to
changing how political contributions are made. When government powers
are abused, all citizens suffer."
Earlier in the session,
Bailey had introduced
House Joint Resolution 4218, a measure that proposed to amend the state constitution to
require that 60 percent of the Legislature agree before an emergency
clause could be added to a bill. Although the bill received a courtesy
hearing in the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee, the
committee chair did not allow the measure to move forward.
"If we are to hold the
people's trust, we need to justify the need for these emergency clauses.
If we can't get a bill that would have us vote to justify emergency
clauses, the next best thing is to offer amendments on the House floor
to remove these clauses, which will hold lawmakers accountable by
requiring them to take that vote," said Bailey.
"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. The government should not deny this
freedom from our citizens. It is a fundamental process of a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people," added Bailey.
"Hopefully, by making lawmakers take the vote on my amendments, the
emergency clauses on these bills will be more closely scrutinized before
they are allowed to move forward."
# # #
For more information, contact:
John
Sattgast, Public Information Officer: (360) 786-7257
|