The proposed constitutional amendment concerning local option taxation wishes to leave the decision to the voters. On its face, this seems to be a democratic (small “d” democratic, not the political party) initiative that follows on the ideal of intrinsic equality of individuals within the population.

The problem with this proposal, from a democratic standpoint, is the requirement for a “supermajority” to pass any local option tax. The need for a supermajority for a policy proposal is anti-democratic based upon the assumption of equal intrinsic worth.

Democracy, and variations of pure democracy including representative democracy in large nation states, is premised on the assumption of equal intrinsic worth. This is the principle that no adult, except in a few circumstances, is fundamentally superior to any other adult in determining what is in the best interests of that particular individual. In other words, each of us knows best what is in our own best interests.

This is the basis for democracy itself and without acknowledgment of this belief democracy is not the logical process for governance. This principle is the foundation of our nation: It is the foundation of the Declaration of Independence itself.

The requirement for a supermajority is anti-democratic on its face, based upon the assumption of equal intrinsic worth. A supermajority requirement constitutes rule by the minority. Some citizens’ votes are worth more than others. A majority will be living under policies that they do not desire. Also, supermajorities privilege the status quo. Why should one alternative be given preference over another?

What makes the constitutional amendment especially incoherent is that a simple majority will, through ratification of the amendment, impose a supermajority requirement for a policy decision. Why should a simply majority be able to change the rules to create the need for a greater-than-a-majority decision to make policies?

Robert Dahl notes in his writings, following Mill and others, that democracy is instrumental to many benefits of society. Democracy is instrumental to freedom, human development and the protection of personal interest. It is this last notion that is the basis for the supermajority in the amendment. One must be able to participate in the decision making process of society in order to protect one’s interest, most importantly, according to Locke, one’s property.

Some have argued, on this basis, that it should be harder to raise taxes than implementing other policies. But, why should it be harder to raise local option taxes than property taxes or income taxes? Not only is a supermajority not needed for such decisions but these decisions are not even placed before the voters. Why is the additional portion of the sales tax more onerous than the rest of the sales tax that was raised by the state legislature, many of whom now support only a direct supermajority vote by the people?

Supermajority requirements should be reserved for changes to the fundamental freedoms and protections of the people from the government. If this is to be extended to taxes, it should at least be done in a consistent manner.

Go Yotes.

Dr. Jasper M. LiCalzi
Professor
Department of Political Economy
The College of Idaho