Spokane-area voters should support an expansion of the Spokane County Board of Commissioners and reject state Initiative 1366, which at its essence is about requiring a supermajority vote for all new state taxes and tax increases.

I-1366 might have gained favor if structured differently, but before delving into that, let’s review the proposal to expand the number of county commissioners.

In July, the Journal editorial board used this space to encourage the county commissioners to place a measure on the ballot that would enable voters to determine whether the board would be expanded to five commissioners from three. At that time, we said that the idea of expansion merited consideration, if it could be accomplished in a manner that would minimize cost and fairly split districts so that each included a mix of urban and rural areas. 

The arguments for expansion are pragmatic. A three-person board is more prone to run afoul of public meeting laws. At the same time, it also is more likely to have occasional issues in assembling a quorum for a regularly scheduled meeting. 

Expansion disperses power and takes away the possibility of developing a two-against-one dynamic. And in a county with a total population that’s approaching 500,000, citizens and businesses could have somewhat more personal representation. 

The most serious concern with government expansion is, of course, the increased cost to taxpayers. Total cost of a commissioner position, not included the hiring of an assistant, is about $125,000. Current Commissioners Todd Mielke and Shelly O’Quinn, who back the plan, say they’d propose expanding the board without hiring any new assistants, but rather having five commissioners share three staffers. If the cost of expansion truly is around $250,000, which is less than 1 percent of the total county budget, and it leads to a more efficient and representative government, then it’s money voters should invest in their county.

I-1366 is a little trickier. The initiative, backed by Tim Eyman, would reduce the state sales tax by a full percentage point if the Washington state Legislature doesn’t put in front of voters a constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority—or two-thirds—vote in the legislature to create new taxes or raise existing taxes. 

Independently, lowering the state sales tax might be an idea worth discussing, and on its own, putting in front of voters a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes is worthy of debate. In coupling the two ideas, however, initiative proponents essentially are trying to coerce the Legislature into proposing a supermajority requirement. An amendment to the state constitution can’t be accomplished through an initiative, so backers are trying to issue an ultimatum via initiative: Either put the amendment in front of voters or lose more than $1 billion. 

The debate over whether a supermajority should be required to raise taxes should continue, but this isn’t a healthy way to effect that change.