We’ve all heard of the boy who cried “wolf,” but did you hear the one about the legislator who cried “emergency”?

The word “emergency” usually brings to mind something very serious, such as a family tragedy, a natural disaster, or an economic collapse—just to give a few examples. Yet emergencies have taken strange, often less than intuitive forms, in the Washington State Legislature.

The Legislature has the ability to attach what is called an “emergency clause” to bills working their way through the legislative process. Adding an emergency clause to a bill functions as a declaration of the Legislature’s belief the specific bill is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” Using this constitutionally-created declaration means the bill goes into effect immediately, and prevents citizens from exercising their constitutional right to run a referendum on the bill.

No one will argue that true emergencies requiring quick and decisive actions don’t exist. And for these instances, there are strong arguments in favor of using an emergency clause. But it’s the other uses—the one’s that give you pause because you just can’t imagine a scenario in which an emergency clause would be called for—it’s these uses that highlight the need for reform.

There have been a number of these types of emergency clause uses over the years.  A famous example was when the Legislature tagged an emergency clause at the end of Senate Bill 6049, a bill providing funding for the Seattle Mariners’ stadium—hmmm, doesn’t sound like an emergency.

The legislative session of 2007 brought the people of Washington a number of courageous uses of the emergency clause. These were necessary for the proper handling of public dangers such as the lack of horse race broadcasts (SB 5389), unorganized genetic cross-breeding of canola seeds (HB 1888) and an outdoor recreation committee that needed a new name (HB 1813).

In 2011 we’ve seen a number of the emergency clause so far. Some questionable examples include companion bills HB 1550/SB 5598 regulating the production, distribution and sale of cannabis. Both bills carried an emergency clause—though neither made it out of committee in their respective houses of origin. And the original version of SB 5649 and HB 1755—which prescribe the appropriate method and duration of tethering one’s dog—each carried an emergency clause as well.

Emergency clause abuses in our state have ebbed and flowed each year, but always rear their ugly faces. The only lasting recourse is a constitutional fix. Rep. Barbara Bailey (R-Oak Harbor) is the prime sponsor of just such a fix, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 4200, which would amend the state Constitution to require that emergency clauses only be allowed as an amendment to a bill after the approval of a supermajority (60 percent) vote in each house.

It’s time to put an end to emergency clause abuses. Unfortunately HJR 4200 never made it out of committee, but it’s never too late to implement a good idea. A constitutional fix would bring meaning back to the word “emergency” and would ensure citizens their right to run a referendum in all but the most dire of circumstances.

More 105 Days suggestions can be found HERE