Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Stranger's "Micro-Neighborhood"… | Man Bludgeoned by Spiked Bat »

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Olympia State Supreme Court Will Consider the Constitutionality of Tim Eyman's 2/3 Majority Requirement

Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Back in May, King County Superior Court Judge Bruce E. Heller declared Tim Eyman's budget-breaking 2/3 majority requirement to be unconstitutional.

Immediately afterward, Attorney General Rob McKenna asked the Washington State Supreme Court to stay Heller's ruling and decide the issue itself, once and for all.

Today, the court agreed to hear arguments on Eyman's 2/3 majority requirement but declined to stay Judge Heller's ruling—meaning the requirement remains unconstitutional, for now.

Oral arguments in the case will be set for this fall, and state Representative Jamie Pedersen, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says the court appears to be on track for a decision before the 2013 legislative session.

FacebookShare

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Crappy, crappy lawyer strikes out again.

Posted by Pope Peabrain on July 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Meanwhile, another Eyman 2/3rds initiative is headed our way, utilizing the novel 'Candyman' theory of constitutionality.

Posted by sloegin on July 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I can't wait to see what happens to Eyman's industry if the State Supreme Court shuts down the 2/3 requirement. It will de facto be gone forever under Washington State law then, correct?

Will he be reduced to running really specific tax cuts and measures, like the $30 tabs then?

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on July 12, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I fully support taking this BS law to court, but with the Dems too timid to make the case aggressively for the need for taxes/revenue/public services, it could be a legal win and a political nightmare. They could win the case, but end up losing the Legislature because they've just handed the Republicans awesome faux-populist talking points. Not a reason good enough not to do it, but a reason to go hard on the Good Government messaging after (hopefully) the Court strikes Eyman's law down.

Posted by SamClemens on July 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Oh God I can't afford more and higher taxes while schools fall apart, millionaires get public money to build sports palaces and pay young men millions to play in them, and law makers get richer every year because of inside knowledge or similar privileged information. But I suspect I'll just have to smile and pay more while getting less.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn on July 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If it's declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it will be gone, but Eyman won't. He isn't a one-issue cottage industry.

Posted by sarah70 on July 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

If I were the Governor (hah!), and if the case hasn't been decided by then, I'd call the Legislature into special session at 8:01pm on November 6, and get them to pass some real revenue enhancement legislation.

I can't imagine that the Supremes could request briefs, schedule oral argument, and decide the case before Election Day.

Posted by N in Seattle