The passing of Initiative 960 has some wondering whether the end result will be as beneficial as proponents believe.

Full-time initiative promoter Tim Eyman has worked hard to lower taxes in the past. His efforts to reduce car tabs and property taxes were successful and tremendously popular. For this election, Eyman addressed legislative spending with Initiative 960.

The measure requires two-thirds legislative or voter approval for tax increases, as well as legislative approval of fee increases. It also inhibits lawmakers from tacking an "emergency clause" onto tax bills by requiring an advisory vote.

Opponents say it wastes time and money by implementing more red tape on state government, but these are exactly the kinds of hoops Eyman wants lawmakers to jump through.

"We are saying that the Legislature has to hold themselves to the same standards that we hold ourselves," he explained. "They have to abide by the law."

Eyman is referring to I-601, an initiative passed into law in 1993. It imposed a limit to what some felt was excessive government spending. Since then, lawmakers have found several ways to avoid curbing their budget. They authorized state agencies to adopt some administrative fee increases, and used an emergency clause to fund the construction of Safeco and Qwest fields and to assist distressed or rural counties.

Eyman believes that the measure works to make lawmakers more accountable.

"People always say: 'We elect the officials. Let them do what they need to, and if we don't like it we can vote them out of office,'" he said. "That whole system breaks down when you have state agencies making decisions about whether we should have higher fees. I-960 is saying we should have the elected people make the decision, record a vote and go through the legislative process. Constituent feedback is called checks and balances."

Before the initiative was even approved to appear on the ballot, an environmental group and a union group sued. They claimed that requiring a two-thirds vote violates the constitution, which only calls for a majority. They also said placing a measure up for vote that would effectively change the language of the state constitution was outside the scope of an initiative.

Eyman claimed in a June open letter to voters in the Tacoma News Tribune that the suing groups were ignoring voters and attempting to "end democracy."

The Supreme Court said they would rule on the constitutionality of the measure if and when voters approved it.

"It's not the way taxation is supposed to work in this state," said Keith Scully, legal director of Futurewise, the suing environmental group.

He said that placing these kinds of restrictions on government spending would make it much more difficult to fund health care, environmental groups and public road projects, among other things. When asked who would benefit from I-960.

"Anybody who wants to lower taxes and doesn't care about funding government services. Unfortunately, if you're an anti-tax person, but you also care about roads, you're out of luck," Scully said.

Scully's group is one of more than a hundred that oppose the initiative, including state firefighters, policemen, nurses, the Children's Alliance, Washington Education Association and the Washington State Labor Council. They fear that a legislature in gridlock would emaciate funding for important public groups and projects. They are also wary that the onslaught of information that goes along with the measure (proposed tax increases would be included in the ballot, and sent out in e-mail updates) will cause voters to be distracted from the important issues.

Eyman doesn't think that this measure deserved the kind of controversy it's received.

"I've promoted some initiatives that have really pushed the boundaries," Eyman said, "but this one is simple."

For Eyman, what's simple is what makes government more complicated. For opponents, complications mean delays, and that is something they can ill afford.

[Reach reporter Sarah Anderson at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]