The legislature often uses the tactic of introducing bills with very broad titles, like “An act relating to finance” with a one-sentence section that says something like, “This bill shall be known as the Washington Finance Act” and no other details. These bills are used as vehicles for legislators to make changes to existing law that become necessary as a result of the final budget negotiations. The bills are commonly referred to as “Title Only Bills” or “T.O. Bills.”
While pretty much anything can be exempted from the legislature’s self-imposed deadlines, title only bills, along with any bill deemed “Necessary to implement the budget” or “NTIB,” are routinely exempted – they may be introduced late in session, heard in committee with little notice, passed after the otherwise requisite cut-offs, on so on. Article 2, Section 36 of the state constitution states, however, that “No bill shall be considered in either house unless the time of its introduction shall have been at least ten days before the final adjournment of the legislature…”
It’s an option that hasn’t been limited in its use by one party. Whoever is writing the budget may want to leave such options open, and whoever is not writing the budget may want to use the lack of transparency as a talking point. They are so common, they have their own section in the Bills by Topic index on the legislative web site.
Last session, House Finance Committee Chair Gael Tarleton, introduced House Bill 2167, relating to tax revenue, on April 10. The only section in the original bill said, “The legislature intends to enact legislation concerning tax revenue.” On April 26, that bill was scheduled for a hearing and executive action, at which time an amendment that imposed an additional 1.2 percent business and occupation tax on large out-of-state banks. The amended bill passed out of committee and was passed by the House on the same day. The Senate heard the bill in committee and passed it out on April 27. They passed it off the Senate floor on April 28, and it was delivered to the governor on the same day. That tax amounts to over $200,000,000 per biennium and was used to help balance that year’s budget.
No one likes to be surprised by a hit from a title only bill, but that $200,000,000 was big enough that, this time, someone sued. The Washington Bankers Association and the American Bankers Association filed suit in King County Superior Court, alleging the legislature’s actions violated both the state (the bill was introduced within ten days of adjournment) and federal (commerce clause) constitutions. The title only bill was introduced more than ten days from adjournment, but the substance wasn’t added until a couple of days before the legislature was set to adjourn sine die.
On February 13, the King County Superior Court judge ruled against the banks on the state constitutional issue, apparently agreeing with the Attorney General that the legislature’s action is beyond judicial review. The commerce clause argument survived and will be heard later this year. More likely than not, the state Supreme Court will be the next stop for this legislation.
