State Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Brown v. Owen

The State Supreme Court just concluded hearing oral arguments in Brown v. Owen. I watched on TVW. The case challenged the constitutionality of the Initiative 601 supermajority requirement for certain tax increases. As I've written here, I think the majority of the court believes the requirement fails to pass constitutional muster. But critics still seem to struggle to bring the right set of facts before the Court.

And it may be that Sen. Brown's challenge of Lt. Governor Owen's ruling that a tax hike requires a supermajority may stumble on procedural grounds. Over at the Washington Policy Center blog, Jason Mercier thinks the Court will decline the invitation to get involved.

Regardless, lawmakers can amend the law to provide for a simple majority vote at any time. Mercier urges a constitutional spending cap , something much more difficult to accomplish in Washington than in Oregon or California, which provide for constitutional amendment by initiative. Here, the legislature would have to put the amendment before the voters - and do it by passing the amendment by a supermajority.

Not likely given the state's looming budget shortfall.

UPDATE Jonathon Bechtle has more at the Liberty Live blog, with a useful link to court documents.

ALSO AWB's Kris Tefft, whose amicus brief for AWB sparked Justice Stephens first question, has more here.