On a 6-3 vote, the state Supreme Court ruled that the supermajority requirement for tax increases imposed by Initiative 1053 is unconsititional. Here’s the opinion and dissents. The decision has been highly anticipated.

I expected they’d scrap it years ago, writing in a December 2007 column:

…most members of the court, possibly all except Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders, think the initiative’s restraints on legislative authority are unconstitutional. With passage of I-960, which raises similar issues, they’ll get another chance to weigh in. Expect the initiative’s restrictions on legislative tax-raising authority to fall.

Right too early is pretty much the same thing as wrong. The make-up of the court has changed. Sanders is gone. James Johnson vigorously dissented in today’s decision. But the decision stands and will be much discussed in the coming hours and days. We’ll be joining the discussion.

WashACE has this:

The supermajority requirement has assured that tax increases would require bipartisan support. Today’s decision will most likely widen the fiscal and partisan divide that separates the Democratic majority in the state House and the Coalition Majority led by Republicans in the Senate.

…To its credit, the 2/3rds vote requirement has forced lawmakers to look more closely at government efficiencies and more sustainable state budgets. That focus must continue, in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Because Washington state employers pay the majority of taxes in the state, we caution lawmakers to be mindful of the impact tax policies have on employers’ ability to create jobs and remain competitive in our national and global marketplace.

Right.