Washington Democrats Legacy of Indecision: Special Sessions

OVER the past decade, Democrats in Olympia have imparted a tragic legacy of delay and inaction in Washington state. The Legislature is once again headed into
another costly special session, which demonstrates that our new governor, state
senators and representatives were unable to fulfill their sworn responsibilities as outlined in the state’s constitution. The problem is that the special session has become so commonplace since 2000, being called more than 50 percent of the time, there is nothing special about it. The reliance on extra time at public expense displays a sincere lack of urgency by Democrats to arrive at viable solutions, and they must be replaced.

For those who don’t regularly follow the tribulations in Olympia, some background may help. The length of legislative sessions alternate annually between 60 and 105 days. Even-year sessions are 60 days long. Odd years, such as this one, last
105 days. Extra sessions cost the state an estimated $10,000 to $18,000 per
day, giving a 30-day session a price tag potentially in excess of $500,000. In 2012, the Legislature was given 60 days to construct and agree on a budget. It failed to do so in the allotted time and required two additional sessions totaling 31
days at a cost of nearly $560,000. This year, the Legislature had 90 days to create a budget and has again failed to deliver in a timely way. The state
House and Senate will again go into special session starting May 13.

Some may question the audacity of pinning responsibility on Democrats, as one might assume an inability to reach a budget must be the result of gridlock between both parties. History proves otherwise. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the Democratic Party controlled the governor’s office, the Senate and the House by such comfortable margins there could be no formidable opposition on any legislation mounted by Republicans. Democrats could have passed budgets strictly along party lines. In those three years combined, the legislature spent a total of 92 days in extra sessions, with an additional cost to voters of $1.7 million. Sensing the voter’s lack of patience with this absurdity, late in the 2012 special session, three courageous Senate Democrats acted against stubborn party leadership and reached across the political aisle. They joined with Republicans to finally pass a bipartisan budget and close out the session. Dubbed the Roadkill Caucus because those who stand in the middle of the road get run over, they were rewarded in their solution-oriented action with censure from the Democratic Party.

Reasonable people will disagree on the size and scope of government. But state programs and services require a balanced budget. This dictates that the operating budget (funding education with the first dollars) followed by safety and infrastructure allocations, should be addressed as the highest priorities. Proof that
cooperation can work, in 2002, Republicans and Democrats united on the Priorities of Government Budget model and reached an agreement without a special session. 

The Democratic Party further places too much energy on special-interest bills that please their political base but clog the legislative process. We can do better than
this sort of posturing and undisciplined direction, and we must. The 2012 collaboration between Republicans  and the Roadkill Democrats demonstrated that the differences between earnest legislators of different ideologies can be bridged for the common good. 

And while no cure-all, Republican Senator Andy Hill’s Senate Bill 5910 proposes a solution whereby the periodic revenue forecast must be made available to lawmakers 30 days earlier. If passed, this bill would allow lawmakers to begin budget work sooner. More proposals of this kind, not special interest legislation, are needed in Olympia.

Sadly, former Governor Gary Locke’s bipartisan example of setting priorities -- now more than a decade ago -- is lost on this generation of Democratic leaders. The legislature needs to be liberated of people that do not take their leadership duties seriously and lack the motivation to solve problems outside of a partisan
context. They should be exchanged for solution-oriented leaders who respect
their duties to the voters and the timelines to accomplish them.