The governor and lawmakers face a dilemma in our state. Voters send them to Olympia to make the “tough” decisions. Then when they do, people circulate initiative and referendum petitions to overturn those actions.

Such is the case with I-912, the ballot measure which repeals the multi-year 9.5 cent per gallon gas tax.

In just 32 days, supporters gathered 420,518 signatures, more than twice the required number without paid signature gatherers or large contributions. Whether or not one agrees with the backers on the initiative, it was an amazing grassroots effort and a strong indicator of high citizen frustration.

So what’s the answer?

If people generally recognize that more money is needed to relieve traffic congestion, fix dangerous roads and bridges, and replace mega structures like the Alaska Way Viaduct, why reject the hard fought legislative compromise which took months to negotiate? After all, pundits chastise the Legislature for “whimping out” and then when they take bold action, folks back home blast them.

First, part of the I-921 answer is timing. With gas prices at record levels, motorists are reeling from $2.50 a gallon costs to fill up and drive to work.

Second, Seattle’s monorail debacle erodes public confidence in the way their tax dollars are spent. People scratch their heads wondering why a $3 billion project suddenly ballooned to $11 billion.

Third, the need is so great and the required funding is so large that people are not sure that any amount of money will actually fix the problem.

Finally, voters are ticked off because legislators abused the use of emergency clauses last session. They attached it to 98 bills between January and May.

For example, they declared an emergency to exempt canning, preserving and dehydrating of fruits and vegetables from the B&O tax, to create a state potato commission, and adopt California’s vehicle emission standards which don’t go into effect until 2009. They also added an emergency clause to transportation funding plan hoping to dissuade voters from circulating a petition overturning it. Emergency clauses prevent referendums, which require about half the signatures of an initiative.

Legislators gutted the I-601, the state’s spending limits imposed by the voters in 1994, and lowered the threshold to increase taxes from two-thirds vote to a simple majority. They attached an emergency clause to make the changes immediately effective and then approved $500 million in new taxes to fund the state’s operating budget for the next two years. That led to reinstating the inheritance or death tax tossed out by the state’s Supreme Court in January and increases in cigarette and alcohol taxes.

Our state’s Constitution allows lawmakers to fix emergency clauses on legislation “necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety, support of state government and its existing public institutions.” While that is a broad statement which can be interpreted many ways, the intent was to allow government to move quickly when terrorists, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires or tsunami suddenly strikes.

Applying it as it was intended is the first step to restoring public confidence in the Legislature. Hopefully, then our state’s voters will revert to allowing lawmakers to act in the public interest and measured on their worth at election time.