Why wait until 2027, instead of making it effective immediately?

dragonwriter 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because Washington has a Constitutional provision requiring that no law shall take effect sooner than 90 days after the end of the session in which it is adopted [0] unless it is an emergency law passed with a 2/3 vote, and the common convention for most normal laws is to set the first January 1 certain to come after the 90-day period of the current session as the effective date so that "new law day" for non-emergency laws is consistent.

[0] Each state is different here, but a "90 days after end of session", or "90 days after passage" rule for the soonest a passed bill can go into effect, with exceptions for emergency bills with special rules including a supermajority requirement, are pretty common, as are conventions of setting a January 1 effective date in the legislation itself when the minimum is X days from end of session or passage.

	▲	bombcar 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		One of those is even enshrined as an amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-27/

▲

SilverElfin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Especially when WA’s ruling party regularly uses false ‘emergency’ declarations to make new laws become effective immediately and because this lets them make new legislation immune to voter referendums (yes they abuse this loophole all the time). They could do the same here. If they don’t, it’s a choice made on purpose.

▲

dragonwriter 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Washington has a 2/3 threshold in both houses of the legislature to pass emergency legislation, and the majority party is short of a 2/3 supermajority in both houses, so it is actually impossible for them to unilaterally pass emergency bills. Also, emergency laws in Washington are not immune to initiative (repeal or amendment by subsequent laws passed by the voters), but are immune to referendum (popular veto by the voters before going into effect).

▲

SilverElfin 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Where are you seeing that emergency clauses need a 2/3 majority in each house? I thought they require a simple majority.

Regardless, the ruling party has pretty close to a supermajority - over 60% in each house. And also keep in mind, some of the members of the other party are opposition in name only due to the districts where they compete. The share doesn’t really matter - the main issue is that it is overused. There shouldn’t be a hundred emergency clauses in each legislative session.

As for the voters’ constitutional right to repeal - I’ve updated the terminology. From https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/time-to...

> Despite the name, the real reason for these supposed emergencies is not that the state faces some immediate threat. Legislation that includes an emergency clause can only be repealed using an initiative, which requires twice as many signatures as a referendum to put on the ballot for the voters to keep or reject. Referenda also face fewer legal challenges because they consist of a simple up or down vote on a piece of legislation.

It doesn’t change the fact that the abuse of these emergency clauses is anti democratic and an abuse of power

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]