Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:36:10.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do States Circumvent Constitutional Supermajority Voting Requirements to Raise Taxes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Soomi Lee Open the ORCID record for Soomi Lee [Opens in a new window]
Soomi Lee*
Affiliation:
University of La Verne, La Verne, CA, USA
*
Soomi Lee, Department of Public and Health Administration, University of La Verne, 1950 Third Street, CBPM 120, La Verne, CA 91750, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To constrain legislative taxing power, 16 U.S. state constitutions require a supermajority in both chambers to increase or impose taxes. Both supporters and opponents of the requirement argue that its effect fades away because states circumvent it in various ways, especially by raising fees that are not subject to the requirement. Existing literature, however, offers little and inconsistent evidence on whether the effect decays over time and whether the decay results from fee hikes. This article documents legal cases to show the ways in which states have responded to the requirement, estimates whether the effects of the requirement decay over time, and tests whether states raise fees instead of taxes after adopting such a requirement. Using state-level panel data, I find that the initial effectiveness of the requirement on tax burden does decay approximately a decade after enactment and that the decay is not the result of fee increases.

Keywords

supermajority vote requirementsupermajoritysupermajority ruleTELstate financefiscal institutionsbudget institutionsbudget processtax limit
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 417 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 by The Modern Language Association of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atrostic, B. K., and Nunns, James R.. 1991. “Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective.” In Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference in Income and Wealth, eds. Berndt, Ernst R., and Triplett, Jack E.. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 343–420.Google Scholar
Berry, Christopher R. 2015. “Direct versus Representative Democracy: Reassessing the Fiscal Effects.” Working Paper..Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 2003. “Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 41 (1): 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Cheryl D. 2008. “Budget Gimmicks.” In Fiscal Challenges: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy, eds. Garett, Elizabeth, Graddy, Elizabeth A., and Jackson, Howell E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, John Charles, and Johnson, Joseph M.. 2006. “Do Supermajority Rules Limit or Enhance Majority Tyranny? Evidence from the US States, 1960-1997.” Public Choice 127:437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James M.. 1977. “Towards a Tax Constitution for Leviathan.” Journal of Public Economics 8:255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James M.. 1980. The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James M.. 1985. The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James, and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
California Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, et al., 43 ELR 20249 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2013).Google Scholar
Crain, W. Mark, and Miller, James C.. 1990. “Budget Processes and Spending Growth.” William & Mary Law Review 31:1021–1046.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash, Grossman, Gene M., and Gul, Faruk. 2000. “The Dynamics of Political Compromise.” Journal of Political Economy 108 (3): 531–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnahue, Alan S. 1947. “Measuring State Tax Burden.” Journal of Political Economy 55 (3): 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fording, Richard C. 2015. “Updated Measures of Citizen and Government Ideology.”.Google Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth. 1999. “A Fiscal Constitution with Supermajority Voting Rules.” William & Mary Law Review 40 (2): 471–504.Google Scholar
Guinn v. Legislature of Nevada, 71 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2003).Google Scholar
Heckelman, Jac C., and Dougherty, Keith L.. 2010. “Majority Rule versus Supermajority Rules: Their Effects on Narrow and Broad Taxes.” Public Finance Review 38 (6): 738–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, Roderick, and Szakaly, Kristin. 1996. “Constitutional Limitations on Borrowing: An Analysis of State Bonded Indebtedness.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 12 (1): 62–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kioko, Sharon N. 2011. “Structure of State-Level Tax and Expenditure Limits.” Public Budgeting & Finance 31 (Summer): 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Brian. 2000. “Supermajority Voting Requirements for Tax Increases: Evidence from the States.” Journal of Public Economics 76:47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leachman, Michael, Johnson, Nicholas, and Grundman, Dylan. 2012. Six Reasons Why Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes Are a Bad Idea. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Google Scholar
League of Educ. Voters v. State, 295 P.3d 743, 753 (Wash. 2013).Google Scholar
Lee, Dongwon, Borcherding, Thomas E., and Kang, Youngho. 2014. “Public Spending and the Paradox of Supermajority Rule.” Southern Economic Journal 80 (3): 614–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Soomi. 2014. “The Effect of Supermajority Vote Requirements for Tax Increases in California: A Synthetic Control Method Approach.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14 (4): 414–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Colin H., and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 2014. “Cheating on Their Taxes: When Are Tax Limitations Effective at Limiting State Taxes, Expenditures, and Budgets.” Tax Law Review 67:507–542.Google Scholar
McGinnis, John O., and Rappaport, Michael B.. 1995. “The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense.” Yale Law Journal 105 (2): 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Theresa J., and Rueben, Kim S.. 2006. “The Colorado Revenue Limit: The Economic Effects of TABOR.” Briefing Paper. Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2000. “Tax Burdens: Alternative Measures.” In OECD Tax Policy Studies. Paris: Author. doi:10.1787/9789264181588-en.Google Scholar
Poterba, James M. 1994. “State Responses to Fiscal Crisis: The Effects of Budgetary Institutions and Politics.” Journal of Political Economy 102 (4): 799–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, David. 2006. “Stop Us before We Spend Again: Institutional Constraints on Government Spending.” Economics & Politics 18 (3): 269–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansel, Dean. 1998. Supermajority: A Super Idea. Washington, DC: CATO Institute.Google Scholar
Stark, Kirk J. 2014. “Commentary, the Operation of Tax Limitation Initiatives in the Face of Conflicting Voter Preferences for Tax and Spending Levels.” Tax Law Review 67 (4): 543–554.Google Scholar
TABOR Foundation v. Colorado Bridge Enterprise, 2014 COA 106, 2014 WL 3955600 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).Google Scholar
Temple, Judy A., and Nannenhorn, Edward J.. 1997. “State Supermajority Requirements for Tax or Revenue Increases: An Overview.” Proceedings of Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association 90:464–470.Google Scholar
Wasylenko, Michael. 1997. “Taxation and Economic Development: The State of the Economic Literature.” New England Economic Review (March/April): 37–52.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar