The Fine Art of Legislative Compromise

So, Senator Brent Hill (R-Rexburg), chairman of the Local Government Committee has come out against the idea of a local option sales tax Constitutional Amendment by looking towards the future:

The main debate in the Legislature has turned to whether to grant this authority through statute or by amending the state Constitution, which would require a two-thirds vote from both the House and the Senate, then go before the people in a general election. All agree that a constitutional amendment is not required, but by placing the provision in the Constitution, future legislatures will find it very difficult to ever rescind the local-option taxing authority or change the requirements for its implementation. Idaho’s 2009 Legislature can thereby ensure that its preferences and priorities are binding on all legislatures in the future. However, the notion that today’s lawmakers are better equipped to make responsible decisions than future legislators is unwarranted.

With no sure way to predict Idaho’s future circumstances and needs, locking the provisions of a local-option tax in the Constitution could result in unforeseen consequences. To illustrate, let’s project ourselves, for a moment, 30 years into Idaho’s future, and consider a few scenarios:

Imagine the Treasure Valley with more than 2 million residents. Rapid growth has left the Valley’s highway system extremely inadequate. Instead of raising property taxes to fund road improvements, the people of Ada and Canyon counties vote by a 90 percent majority to implement a half-cent-per-gallon local-option fuel tax so that visitors to the area will help pay for the roads they are using. (This is already being done in neighboring states such as Nevada and Oregon.) Can’t do it. The constitutional amendment provides only for local option sales tax – it never anticipated the changing times and circumstances. The 2039 Legislature is powerless to provide an exception unless it keeps modifying our state Constitution.

Imagine that McCall is the tourist capital of Idaho in 2039. Out-of-state investors have pushed local real estate values beyond reason and the citizens would like to pass a local-option sales tax strictly designated to reduce property taxes. The Legislature would like to permit qualifying communities to pass a 1 percent sales tax by a 60 percent supermajority, on condition that the sales tax provide direct property tax relief to the residents. Can’t do it. The constitutional amendment calls for a two-thirds supermajority no matter what other restrictions may apply – even if it is used to immediately reduce property taxes.

I appreciate forward thinking, usually, but in this case, I’ll make an exception. The most likely thing to occur (other than us having flying cars rendering the discussion moot) is that by 2039, we still won’t have a local option. 

There are two modes of a good legislator: “On this hill I die,” and “Let’s work together to get something done.” Being able to distinguish the right time for both attitudes is key to being a good legislator. 

The reason we don’t have a local option remains the “all or nothing attitude” of those who push the Local Option. Rep. Branden Durst’s Bill (H. 17) is a key example of this.

The Durst bill would allow 60% of voters to pass a local option tax at a November election held in even-numbered years and 66% at all other times with no limitation whatsoever on what a Local Option Tax district must be composed of.

What does this mean? It means that a lightly-publicized election could be held in February to create a  local option tax and all of Ada and Canyon County could be subject to the tax, based on big turnout in Boise’s North End, lower turnout throughout the valley by voters who will pay the tax but had no clue an election was being held in February, and big money spent by business interests that will benefit from the local option tax. 

The proponents of the local option tax have little empathy for the concerns of rural Idahoans who fear being drafted into tax districts that don’t want or need and that mainly benefit larger counties through elections called at odd times of the year when voters don’t even know what’s going on. 

Even a reasonable bill that’s passed gives an inch to proponents of the local option tax fuels fears that they’ll take a mile. Passing a bill granting limited local option authority that strictly defines jurisdiction as within a single state or county and limits the time for voting to even-numbered election years and requires a 2/3 vote ultimately opens the door for local option tax proponents to come back the next year and the next year, and the next year after demanding broader authority. If proponents get an inch, local option tax opponents fear they’ll take a mile. 

The Statesman can rant and rave all it wants, it can paint good legislative candidates who fail to jump on the local option bandwagon as out of touch and unqualified, but at the end of the day if proponents of the local option tax choose not to address the concerns of opponents with meaningful compromise, you will not see any local option tax passed. Proponents are out of touch with reality if they think otherwise.