Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Thresholds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. McFarland urges two‑thirds House threshold for new state taxes
Summary
Representative McFarland told the Ways and Means committee his constitutional amendment (CACR10) would require a two‑thirds vote in the House to originate or finally adopt new state taxes or increases, framing the change as a protection of citizens’ consent. Members pressed on technical language and practical effects, including whether fees and tax cuts would be affected.
Representative McFarland introduced CACR10 to the committee as a proposed constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority in the House to originate or finally adopt any new state tax or increase in an existing tax. "Plainly put, taxation is theft legalized only by consent," McFarland said, arguing the broader the consent the more legitimate the tax and urging the committee to support the measure with his clarifying amendment.
Why it matters: McFarland framed the change as a protection for families and small districts, saying taxes touch "every family in our state, every business, and every town" and that a bare majority should not be enough to raise revenue. He pointed to other supermajority rules for bond authorizations and constitutional amendments as precedent for treating taxation differently.
Key committee questions and clarifications: Representatives pressed McFarland on operational effects. Members asked whether the amendment would block taxes created as part of larger bills (for example, a tax provision folded into a separate budget bill) and whether a supermajority would be required to add a tax on emergent devices that were previously untaxed. McFarland said his intent is to require a supermajority for any genuine new tax and that fees are not his intent: "it specifically says any new state tax or increasing any state tax and so I think it is clear from that that it does not apply to fees," he told the panel.
Other issues raised included whether the change would require the same threshold to reduce taxes (it would not), how the rule would function where House floor attendance produces fewer than three‑fifths of members present, and whether the requirement would apply only to the House and not the Senate (McFarland said that was his intent, citing the House's role as the chamber closest to voters).
What comes next: The committee discussed technical edits and the language of origin-versus-adoption steps McFarland proposed to fix a drafting defect. The public hearing closed with no additional witnesses. The amendment will move forward through the committee process, where members and staff will weigh whether the clarification suggested by McFarland addresses drafting and interpretive concerns.
