State Measures - Senate Joint Resolution No. 8200
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment concerning legislative powers in times of emergency.
https://voter.votewa.gov/GenericVoterGuide.aspx?e=566&c=15#/measure/4237
Measure Text
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment concerning legislative powers in times of emergency. This measure would add "catastrophic incidents" to the specified times of emergency that the legislature may take certain immediate actions to ensure continuity of state and local governmental operations.
Should this constitutional amendment be:
• Approved
• Rejected
This one is pretty straightforward. The State Constitution did not foresee the crazy kinds of things that are happening these days. They did not include who had the power to decide that we were in a state of emergency and what we would do about that.
To quote from The Columbian: Senate Joint Resolution 8200 would amend the state constitution to reflect current realities. It would allow the executive branch and the Legislature to take necessary measures to keep government running in the event of a catastrophic event. If government is incapacitated, the amendment would give lawmakers the power to move the state capital or a county seat, pass bills and fill vacancies in state or county offices. It also would allow the Legislature to fill an open governor’s seat if all people in line for succession were unavailable.
Under the existing law, passed by voters in 1962, the Legislature can act only in the event of an “enemy attack.” Back then, the public was more concerned about falling bombs than shaking earth; now, the biggest threat to a functioning government is more likely to be a massive earthquake or some other natural disaster. Senate Joint Resolution 8200 is a response to that altered perception.
Critics argue that the amendment would give too much power to the Legislature and the executive branch to upend state government. They warn that “catastrophic incident” is too vague and that a rogue governor could abuse newfound powers. State statutes already define “catastrophic incident” as any natural or human-caused event — including terrorism — with mass casualties and high levels of damage or disruption.
~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~
I agree that we do not amend the constitution lightly. This amendment is a reasonable response to an unfortunately likely possibility. One more piece of preparedness.
I’ll be voting APPROVED on SJR 8200.
Hi Marianne,
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky one for me. I want our government to keep functioning when The Big One hits. I don't like that the phrase "catastrophic incident" is not defined directly in the amendment.
It may seem obvious to us now that the amendment is implicitly contingent upon a definition in a statute, but that may not be so obvious 100 years from now. Yes, constitutions are supposed to flex with changing times, but they are not supposed to be as flexible as statutes nor the whims of a Governor who says, "Well, the constitution doesn't say to use the statute as a definition, so *my* definition is..."
Also, while it may seem ludicrous to think we'd ever elect a governor who would seize power for less than the noblest reasons, we have to remember that such things have happened in democracies before.
I don't understand why these extra powers are necessary, anyhow. Other states don't have these sorts of provisions.
If Olympia were to fall into a crevasse tomorrow, our governor and legislature would continue work elsewhere and not worry about the legal niceties of doing so. Nobody will question the constitutionality of it.
The only power I see this amendment giving cover for is appointment of unelected representatives, and I haven't seen a good argument for why that's needed. Is the thinking that legislative votes require a "quorum" and with mass casualties that might not be possible? If so, couldn't there be a narrower law which addresses just that?