Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« It's Official: Olympia Sincerely Ha… | Is Nancy Pearl Jumping Independent… »

Friday, January 6, 2012

Olympia Gregoire to Ask Court for Ruling on I-1053's (Clearly Unconstitutional) Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement

Posted by Goldy on Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Oh man, I can't wait to see the Seattle Times editorial board twist itself into knots over this one:

Gov. Chris Gregoire said Thursday she plans to bypass the state Attorney General's Office and seek court guidance on the constitutionality of a law limiting tax increases.

Gregoire, who is technically listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, said she is working with outside counsel to petition the courts for a ruling on Initiative 1053, which requires lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.

Voters widely approved that measure in 2010, essentially removing taxes as an option for balancing the budget.

Voters have repeatedly approved the two-thirds supermajority requirement, sometimes by wide margins, sometimes just barely. But that's not the point. It's clearly unconstitutional. And it's about time that somebody pushed the state Supreme Court to finally rule on the underlying issue.

It'll be interesting to see if their relentless cheerleading for overriding the twice-approved provisions of labor-sponsored I-1163 manages to mute the Blethen Gang's knee-jerk instinct to blast Gov. Gregoire for ignoring the "will of the people." I'm guessing not.

FacebookShare

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

We really need a "like" button (or at least an "I heartily concur" one) here on Slog. I'd like the hell out this!

Posted by Duvall-ite on January 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I'd be two Likes up on this too.

Then again, I was kind of hoping for a 2/3 Public Vote Reauthorization for all Tax Giveaways (Stadiums, free roads, etc) and Tax Exemptions (where your tax dollars are going to give free limo rides on tolled roads to millionaires and billionaires who avoid paying taxes).

Posted by Will in Seattle

on January 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

While he can barely feed himself, there is no question that Goldy is a respected authority on constitutional law.

Posted by Slam Dunk on January 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I read a while back that the State Supreme Court gave the Legislature an out several years ago by saying that the Court would not interfere with internal procedural matters. That is to say, all the House and Senate have to do is say that, as a matter of procedure, "majority" means a simple majority of members present unless the state constitution explicitly requires a different number of votes.

But, not surprisingly, Speaker Frank Chopp and President Pro Tem Margarita Prentice are far too cowardly to take even that basic step: if measures like I-1053 could be ignored so easily, then their corporate masters would heartily disapprove.

Posted by TechBear on January 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

What kind of dimwit wants to pay more tax to a state Government that is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on January 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM

@5: dimwits who want to protect TANF, public schools, and mental health services. and have paved roads.

Posted by Max Solomon on January 6, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Totally agree, Goldy. I just love the folks on the right that scream "will of the PEOPLE!" up to the point where they disagree (1163, COLAs for teachers, minimum wage, etc.). I don't mind people having opposite views, just be consistent.

Supreme @ 5: If the leadership is bad, then how does 1053 help? If you don't like your representation, then change it. Don't expect different results by electing the same people.

Posted by Teslick on January 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM

#6

Fine, then pass HB2100...a tax on assets.

But see, rich Liberals don't actually want to tax themselves...they want to tax middle class people working 65 hours a week.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on January 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Ah, I see @5 is part of the self-fulfilling prophecy crowd: "We don't like to spend money on the things we expect the State to fund, but it's totally their fault they can't fund the things we want without the money we don't want to spend."

Posted by COMTE

on January 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM

@8 how do you think goods from farm communities reach the job-creating and tax-creating port cities that finance your tax-subsidized roads, nimnuts?

Posted by Will in Seattle

on January 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Why do politicians become awesome only at the last second?

Posted by Why are there cars? on January 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM

@11: no shit. The pattern always repeats.

Posted by gnossos on January 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM

@8: Asset tax is wack, since you need to pay the tax with cash, so you're repeatedly taxed on the same thing, year after year.

What we should do is abolish property tax and institute an income tax. If you have assets and sell them, count that as income. Income is much easier to quantify. The "value of assets" is not...until you sell them.

Posted by tiktok on January 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Asset tax, schmasset tax. I'm not in the legislature and can't pass ANY tax. But the state contitution says that bills are to be passed with a majority of the votes, and if the constitution hasn't been changed, that's just the bottom line.

Get that fixed, and THEN let's discuss which taxes to impose/raise without all the ad hominem garbage.

Posted by Daddy Love on January 6, 2012 at 2:50 PM

@8: Perhaps you haven't heard of the property tax?

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on January 6, 2012 at 9:32 PM

If Gregoire wanted to do this, why didn't she do it last year? The legislative session starts in 2 days.

I think a lawsuit has already been filed. But it won't wend its way to the Supreme Court for some time (years, even), and until then, no matter what anyone (including the Governor) thinks, 1053 won't be unconstitutional. That status is only defined by an appeals court.

Posted by sarah70 on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM