| |
Why amend the constitution
without a compelling reason?
By Rep. Bill Hinkle
It’s not often the
Legislature attempts to amend the state’s Constitution. Unlike other
bills, those that change the Constitution require a two-thirds vote of
the Legislature, plus voter approval, before they are enacted. Our
state’s founders took changing the fundamental law of the land very
seriously – and I agree.
Recently the House of Representatives voted on House Joint Resolution
4204, a constitutional amendment that would make it easier to raise your
property taxes by allowing school maintenance and operation levies to
pass with 50 percent approval, rather than the current 60 percent
requirement.
As it stands now, the Constitution requires any property tax levy
causing your total tax rate to exceed $10 per $1,000 valuation must be
approved by a 60 percent majority. These are called “excess levies.”
Most school levies, because they produce a total tax rate exceeding the
$10 limit, fall into this category.
This threshold is in place to ensure that voters who own little or no
property do not impose a tax that would be paid almost entirely by
others. That’s what the Constitution is for – to protect the rights of
small numbers of individuals from being infringed upon by the majority.
On its face, changing the election requirements might seem like a good
idea. Who doesn’t want to properly fund education? But I have several
concerns about making this change.
First, the 60 percent threshold applies not only to school levies, but
to all levies pushing property taxes over the $10 per $1,000 valuation
limit – fire districts, libraries, local government, etc. If we change
the 60 percent requirement for schools, shouldn’t we also change it for
funding fire districts? If not, why not? Fire protection is a matter of
vital public safety. So is the police protection that cities provide.
Hospital districts are important, too. Even if we draw the line now at
making the change only for education, it’s not likely to stay there.
Second, taxpayers have been demanding more constraint on tax increases,
not less. Many of you have told me your family’s overall tax load is
just too high. Voters sent that message loud and clear when they
approved I-747 to limit property taxes. HJR 4204 goes in the opposite
direction. It lowers the threshold of accountability by making it
substantially easier to raise taxes. It’s also harder on families with
less income. Property taxes are unique because they bear no relationship
to the taxpayer’s ability to afford them. They are based solely on the
value of their property, over which they have little or no control. That
can squeeze families – sometimes even out of their homes.
Third, if we’re considering doing something as important as changing the
Constitution, it should be in response to an urgent need. Supporters of
HJR 4204 claim this Constitutional change is necessary because school
districts cannot achieve 60 percent support to enact property tax
increases for school levies. But the facts simply don’t bear that out.
Consider what’s happened in just the past four years:
-
In 2003, 275 school
districts passed levies. Just four attempted, but failed, to pass a
levy.
-
In 2002, 274 school
districts passed levies. Just five failed.
-
In 2001, 275 school
districts passed levies. Just four failed.
-
In 2000, 269 school
districts passed levies. Just four failed.
The numbers just don’t
seem to indicate a problem big enough to warrant changing a key part of
our Constitution that exists to protect taxpayers.
I recognize and appreciate the importance of funding education to the
fullest extent possible. I have two kids in school myself, and I voted
in favor of my district’s last school levy. I know the value smaller
classes and extra funding can bring. But I am also responsible for
protecting even the most vulnerable taxpayers in the 13th District.
So when HJR 4204 came before the Legislature, several House Republicans
proposed amendments that would have met supporters somewhere in the
middle. Our plan would have lowered the approval rate for renewing
existing operating levies to 50 percent, but kept the 60 percent
approval requirement in place when schools were asking for more money.
We also wanted to protect taxpayers by limiting levy elections to
general election ballots.
Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected by the House majority
party. And, given the concerns I have outlined here, I felt compelled to
vote against the bill. Nevertheless, it passed in the House and is now
being considered by the Senate.
I know this is an issue that people care deeply about, and I have
appreciated your calls, e-mails and letters. Like our state’s founders,
I also know it is a matter of imminent importance. That’s why I believe
the case has not yet been made to make the change.
# # #
For more information, contact:
John Handy, Assistant
Communications Director - (360) 786-5758
|
|