News Eyman Initiative Will Be on the Ballot
posted by on September 7 at 15:28 PM
Tim Eyman’s latest initiative, I-960, which would require a super majority vote of the legislature to pass tax increases and require those tax increases to go before a vote of the people—withstood a joint legal challenge from the Service Employees International Union and environmentalists at Futurewise.
The state Supreme Court refused (unanimously) today to toss the initiative before it gets its chance at the ballot this November.
There were two legal arguments against Eyman’s initiative.
First, the plaintiffs argued that I-960’s requirement for a legislative super majority to pass any tax increase is a de facto amendment to the state Constitution. “Editing the Constitution by initiative is beyond the scope of the initiative process,” envionmental attorney Knoll Lowney says. Indeed, you cannot amend the Constitution by the initiative process.
The Constitution already specifies when legislative action requires more than a simple majority. Most tax increases are not on that list.
Second, the anti-Eyman folks argued that I-960’s requirement that all tax increases passed by the legislature must automatically go to a vote of the people also takes the red pen to the state Constitution. Requiring a vote of the people, circumvents the referendum process as spelled out in the state Constitution. You cannot file a referendum without first collecting signatures. To change that guideline, you’d have to change the Constitution—which, again, you cannot do by initiative.
The court didn’t reject the central claim that I-960 may be unconstitutional, but they rejected the idea that I-960 would literally change the language of the constitution. For example, it may be unconstitutional to pass an initiative saying people cannot protest on Wednesdays, but that initiative wouldn’t change the language of the constitution. However, if and when it passed, it could be thrown out for violating the constitution.
And so, since I-960 wasn’t setting out to change the language of the constitution, the Court held that the initiative did not fall outside the scope of the initiative process.
As to I-960s constitutionality, they would be happy to rule on that after the election.
The Court wrote:
At issue is whether this court should review the validity of the challenged provisions of I-960 prior to the November 2007 general election. Preelection review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. The fundamental reason is that “the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state’s history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government.”Appellants challenge the constitutionality of I-960. Such a challenge is not subject to preelection review. While the disputed sections of the initiative may be subject to constitutional challenge, if passed, the initiative does not exceed the scope of the legislative power. The initiative therefore may be placed on the general election ballot.
Wait, so they won't throw it out until AFTER tax dollars are spent on an election? What a fucking waste of time.
Thanks Eyman, you douchebag.
@1, or thank you fellow Washingtonians for falling for this shitbag's antics every god damn time.
WTF??
Oh well, they gotta toss a bone to the right every once in a while . . .. They'll toss it if it passes.
Initiatives HURT democracy, not help it.
A super majority for taxes? Then approval by the people?
OF COURSE EVERYONE WILL VOTE FOR THIS.
Followed by people never approving tax increases. Who the fuck is going to vote to do that?
Damn fuck shit
@4
What I mean with the part about initiatives hurting capital 'D' Democracy is that uninformed and non-deliberative voters will approve this stuff on impulse.
Eyman's initiatives are consistently ruled unconstitutional. I used to think it was because he was clueless or arrogant. After consideration, I now think this is leading toward some sort of political move based on reigning in "activist" (constitutionally aware) judges. Or maybe it's just to attract attention.
it doesn't matter either way to eyman. the initiative process pays his bills, constitutional or not. as long as there are clueless republicans willing to donate to his cause du jour, he will be with us.
@4 - Nonsense. Eyman has successfully passed exactly one tax cut (the motor vehicle one) out of more than a dozen attempts. His track record is actually piss-poor.
@6, Eyman might once have considered himself a crusader. But now he's just a money grubbing opportunist. He has tuned the initiative process into a cash cow. He makes his entire income by sponsoring initiatives. He has to file an initiative or two every year just to make a living. I'm not sure if he even cares all that much about what the initiative is or whether it passes, as long as he can make money on the initiative drive and campaign.
I disagree with the judge.
If there was some sort of check on the constitutional viability of an initiative before it went on the ballot, it would save millions of tax dollars wasted on votes on initiatives that eventually get tossed out in court.
Also, it would force the people who write initiatives to do a bit of research first. Voters could have some confidence that if they voted for an initiative, it might actually stick, as opposed to voting for something that who knows if it will actually stand up as law.
The initiative process, as currently operated in WA state is fatally flawed and a waste of tax money. It needs to either be drastically revised to work better, or abandoned.
And Tim Eyman needs to get a real job and quit wasting voters' time, year after year.
Retards have to eat too. Other retards recognize that, and sign his initiatives. It makes them feel important.
Besides, every retard knows that they pay too much in taxes.
Will someone please give Tim Eyman a blowjob so we can impeach him already?
People complaining about wasted election expense are tossing around "millions," but given that we're having an election that day anyway, is it really that much?
Any Stranger staffers know whom to ask what the incremental cost of adding a measure to the ballot is?
From: Tim Eyman, I-960 co-sponsor
I-960's opponents "obviously" don't know what they're talking about
Since day one, opponents have mischaracterized all aspects of I-960:
its provisions, our campaign, recent court rulings, the law, and the Constitution. And repeatedly, they've used the word "obviously".
During the signature gathering phase, opponents said "obviously" it's a waste of time for voters to sign I-960's petitions because "obviously" we weren't going to turn in enough signatures. Our campaign turned in over 314,000 signatures, nearly 100,000 more than was required, from voters who voluntarily signed I-960's petitions from February through June.
Before we turned in our signatures, opponents said "obviously" it's a waste of time to check the validity of I-960's signatures because our initiatives always have a huge number of invalid signatures. Our invalid rate was 17.1% which is less than average (19.4%) -- with such an overwhelming number of voter signatures turned in, the initiative easily qualified for the ballot.
Around this time, opponents said "obviously" it's a waste of time to certify I-960 for the ballot because "obviously" a King County Superior Court judge would agree with their reading of law, the Constitution, and I-960's provisions and delete I-960 from the ballot. In July, Judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee, identified numerous areas where opponents mischaracterized I-960 and recent court rulings and ruled their arguments had no merit and dismissed their lawsuit.
After their defeat in King County Superior Court, opponents said "obviously" it's a waste of time to have pro and con arguments for the voters pamphlet because "obviously" the state supreme court was going to prohibit a vote on I-960 because the law and Constitution "obviously" made the placement of I-960 on the ballot improper. This morning, the state supreme court ruled unanimously that their arguments had no merit and dismissed their lawsuit.
Despite being proven wrong time and again about their view of the law, the Constitution, and I-960's provisions, the opponents now say it's "obviously" a waste of time for voters to approve I-960 because "obviously"
opponents are going to be successful after the election voiding I-960 because I-960's provisions are "obviously unconstitutional."
Hmmmm. "Obviously unconstitutional?" Obvious to whom? Obvious to opponents, of course, but they're not the ones who will decide. And it should be clear to everyone by now that opponents' view of the law, the Constitution, and I-960's provisions are not correct.
But let's highlight a few things that are obvious:
* Opponents of I-601 said during the 1993 campaign that "obviously" the
courts would find its provisions unconstitutional. I-601 survived all legal challenges. I-960 simply closes loopholes the Legislature has put in I-601 over the years and requires much more public disclosure and cost analysis on bills increasing taxes.
* Governor Gregoire and the Legislature have promised their huge
increases in spending in recent years won't require tax increases.
Presumably, that's why Governor Gregoire said I-960 is "unnecessary" and its "extra handcuffs aren't needed." So I-960's provisions relating to tax increases (two-thirds, public votes, advisory votes, 10-year cost projections, etc.) won't come into play.
We're going to work very hard over the next eight weeks correcting opponents' repeated mischaracterizations about I-960. But we're confident that once voters know what I-960 does and doesn't do, they'll overwhelmingly support it in November.
To read the text of I-960, go to our website: http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
The Washington Policy Center has done a three-part series and policy analysis of I-960 and they highlight and correct the many, many mischaracterizations made by opponents — here’s their website:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org
When I moved to Seattle in '98, my license tabs cost me over $600. This was not an inconsequential sum at the time. After Eyman's initiative, the price dropped below $100. Say what you will about Tim Eyman, but he's done more to save me money on taxes than any politician in this state or with the feds.
That gives him more credibility on taxes that no other politician can match. Too bad he's a homophobic bigot.
The car tabs on my dad's truck, pre-Tim Eyman, were about $17. So fuck you Tim Eyman, and fuck you people who gobble up the shit that drips out of his ass every year.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).