The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.
The Northwest Progressive Institute, a liberal group, thinks Washington voters would support having their Legislature in session all year.
That would be a good thing, Andrew Villeneuve, the institute’s executive director, suggested in a recent column promoting the change. Washington is a large and complicated state with many issues and problems that can’t always be solved in 60- or 105-day sessions, he said.
The Washington Policy Center, a conservative group, thinks this is a bad idea. Mark Harmsworth, the group’s director of its Small Business Center, questioned the cost and the basis for the institute’s claim of public support.
While it’s not surprising that the groups come down on opposite sides — it’s hard to think of an issue on which they agree — the arguments aren’t new. They are similar to the debate in 1979, when voters faced a constitutional amendment to move the regularly scheduled sessions from 60 days every other year to the current system of 105 days in odd years and 60 days in even years.
In the ensuing 45 years, the idea of a full-time Legislature has been floated from time to time, although it usually sinks quickly. This one probably will, too.
The institute is basing its support on a recently conducted poll that asked slightly more than 600 voters if they would support amending the constitution to create year-round sessions instead of the current system, “which means state lawmakers can only consider bills from January until either March or April.”
In response, 59 percent offered either strong or somewhat agreement, while only 18 percent were either in strong or somewhat disagreement. Another 22 percent were unsure.
Harmsworth is correct in saying the survey question is a bit loaded with the word “only.” The Legislature can, and frequently does, get called into special session by the governor when the need arises or when they fail to finish in the time allotted for the regular session.
While the cost would go up — not necessarily trebling as Harmsworth suggests, but there would be some increases — the center seems to have missed the key problem with a year-round session.
It would remove the one thing that forces the Legislature to complete its No. 1 job — passing a budget. Like most of us, legislators often put things off as long as possible, which is why the state’s main spending plan, the operating budget, is usually approved on the final day of the session.
If there is no final day, the Legislature could become like Congress, never passing a real budget but approving the state version of continuing resolutions. In the previous decade, when multiple special sessions were needed to pass a budget, we saw an inclination to do just that.
Harmsworth points out that even with current time limits, the Legislature still manages to take up issues that might be deemed nonessential, and suggests there are better solutions than a year-round session.
He suggests that term limits would be better at improving the Legislature than full-time sessions, and bemoans the fact that a 2021 resolution on that change “gained no traction and was never voted on.”
Like a change to a full-time Legislature, term limits would require a constitutional amendment and thus super majorities in each chamber. Perhaps the resolution gained no traction because it had no co-sponsors and received a mixed reception at its committee hearing.
Besides, Washington already has a basic form of term limits. They’re called elections.
When the 1979 amendment for yearly sessions was sent to the ballot, it had bipartisan support and opposition. Perhaps 105 days one year and 60 the other year seemed like a bargain, because 60 percent of voters said yes. Since that time, the Legislature has gone through periods where lawmakers needed extra days, weeks — or in the mid-2010s, months — to get things done. But for the past six years, they’ve managed to get out on time, which might make it hard for the institute to convince lawmakers and voters of the need for year-round sessions.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
