As expected, a lawsuit has been filed in King County Superior Court questioning the constitutionality of I-1366. Voters approved the initiative earlier this month (51.5 percent to 48.5 percent).

Generally voters are allowed to vote on initiatives, even if there's a strong chance the initiative will be declared unconstitutional later. In a pre-election lawsuit, a King County Superior Court judge ruled that the initiative could be on the ballot, but that “the fundamental, stated and overriding purpose of I-1366 is to amend the Constitution.” He said it was therefore unconstitutional.

The lawsuit went to the state Supreme Court, which allowed I-1366 to be on the ballot, largely because it is unclear whether the "fundamental and overriding purpose" of the initiative is to reduce the sales tax or to amend the constitution. The Court said that if the fundamental purpose was to amend the constitution, it would "clearly be outside the scope of the people's initiative power," but it didn't give an opinion as to the "general constitutionality of I-1366."

The new lawsuit argues that I-1366 is unconstitutional because

1. It would amend the constitution, which is beyond the scope of the initiative power (Article II);
2. It violates Article XXIII, which lays out the constitutional amendment process; and
3. Contra Article II, Section 19, I-1366 contains multiple subjects.

On the third reason, the lawsuit identifies three subjects:

• The requirement that the Legislature refer a constitutional amendment to voters regarding the type of majority required to raise taxes;
• The requirement that the Legislature refer a constitutional amendment regarding legislative approval for fee increases; and
• A reduction in the state sales tax.

The lawsuit asserts that

When an initiative embodies two (or more) unrelated subjects, it is impossible for the court to assess whether each subject would have received majority support if voted on separately. Consequently, the entire initiative must be voided.

To be sure, one voter may have voted to approve I-1366 because of the possibility of an amendment, while another could have voted to approve based on the possibility of a sales tax cut.

One point that I found interesting, because of its relation to the McCleary decision:

Further, no bill, whether enacted by the legislature or by initiative, may bind a future legislature or otherwise limit its power to act. But I-1366 requires the legislature to choose between two undesirable choices, thus restricting the 2016 legislature’s plenary law-making power.

As a result, I-1366 improperly binds the 2016 legislature and abridges its power to act, in violation of Article II, sec. 1.

(Citation omitted.) The concept that no future legislatures may be bound by current legislatures or initiatives has also been brought up in the context of McCleary. If the Court can fine the Legislature for not providing a plan to meet the 2018 McCleary deadline (and ostensibly binding a future Legislature), I'm not sure how much weight this argument that I-1366 improperly binds the 2016 Legislature will carry.

Finally, the lawsuit also refers to McCleary while raising the issue of the budget impacts that could potentially result from I-1366:

Where the legislature has already been held in contempt for failing to fully fund public education, the impacts of such a significant reduction in state revenue will be particularly devastating on essential state programs, infrastructure and services, including basic education.

If the initiative survives this challenge, and if legislators opt to let the sales tax cut go into effect, it would affect the budget outlook — exactly how remains to be seen.