Seattle Times blasts Brown v. Owen ruling
It’s good to be king lieutenant governor. That’s the conclusion from a Seattle Times editorial about last week’s ruling in Brown v. Owen.
Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, as president of the state Senate, refused to rule that the state’s two-thirds vote threshold for tax increases was unconstitutional. Sen. Lisa Brown took the question to the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere in what it called an “intrahouse dispute.”
The Seattle Times editorial says that the Supreme Court’s deferral places too much power in Owen's parliamentary role. “That's heady authority in a year when the lawmakers are talking about raising taxes to help close an $8 billion budget deficit.”
This editorial may exaggerate the lieutenant governor’s power. As Justice Fairhurst pointed out, any senator who disagrees with the president’s ruling on a point of order may appeal, and the members of the Senate can overturn the ruling with a simple majority vote. Furthermore, the legislature can—and has on several occasions—suspend the two-thirds requirement. Ultimately, the legislature can repeal the barrier to tax increases with a simple majority vote.
I agree that our checks-and-balances system requires the courts to police legislative abuses, and courts shouldn’t act as legislative rubberstamp committees. But this particular act of judicial restraint, in my opinion, was appropriate. (Note: Publishers of this blog filed an amicus brief in support of the two-thirds requirement.)
