Supermajorities Make the Votes of Some Worth More than the Votes of Others
Most states are trying to restrict educational costs by placing limits on school expenditures or on taxes levied to support schools. These taxing and spending limits can make it very difficult for schools to improve or expand programs, boost teacher salaries, or even maintain existing offerings.
Laws in many states, however, provide local communities a way around the limitations of taxing or spending caps through the “override” process. In such cases, local voters can choose to spend more than the law permits, or tax themselves at a rate higher than the state tax lid, if 50% or more of voters approve the override.
But some states require a so-called supermajority, in which the override depends on 60% of voters, sometimes even higher margins, to approve the override. This requirement compounds the problems that poor communities face in raising revenues for their schools.
The Problem of Supermajorities
Supermajority overrides in effect make some people’s vote worth more than others. They create “premium” voters and “discount” voters. Say for example, that 60% approval is required to override a lid. That means six votes are needed to achieve the same effect that five would have in a simple majority election. The votes of those who support the override are effectively discounted by one-sixth, or about 17%. On the other hand, the votes of those who oppose the override are inflated by one-fourth—four votes have the same power as five would have in a simple majority election, a 25% premium.
The combination of lids and overrides, especially supermajority overrides, have a tendency to lock in place or even widen whatever funding disparities exist between local districts under the funding formula. Usually, it is wealthier communities that can muster support for the lid override. Poorer communities tend to lag behind under the lids, because the wealthy few in those communities have a much better chance of prevailing when they only have to garner a minority of votes.
The issue of supermajorities was debated by the delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, which recognized the value of requiring supermajorities where rare and extremely grave decisions lay in the balance—impeachment of the president, approval of treaties, overriding a presidential veto, amending the Constitution.
But on matters of the ordinary enactment of legislation, and on matters involving the votes of citizens rather than elected representatives, the delegates listened to James Madison’s wise counsel against supermajorities. Later, in urging voters in the 13 states to adopt the Constitution, Madison wrote that with supermajorities, “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority." And he cautioned, a privileged minority of premium voters would be able to “screen themselves from equitable sacrifices” and “extort unreasonable indulgences."
You don’t have to look very deep into the property tax protest movement to imagine those motives.
Share your reactions to this commentary, or your experiences with supermajority requirements, here on Rural Matters by clicking the "comment" button below and following the simple instructions.
Comments
This sort of activity is hardly democratic. There are far too few politicians who really understand rural communities and education. It's hard to look beyond the problems that exist within the city limits.
Posted by: Bentleysmama | June 26, 2007 10:08 AM