Slog
News & ArtsThursday, February 28, 2013
Breaking News / Olympia Washington State Supreme Court Strikes Down Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement. Finally!
Posted by Goldy on Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:35 AM
The opinion is not up on the court website yet, but crack Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Eli Sanders managed to snag a copy from super secret sources. Just started reading it, but here's the first money quote:
We affirm the trial court in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court's decision regarding the justiciability and the constitutionality of the Supermajority Requirement. Article II, section 22 states that "[n]o bill shall become a law unless ... a majority of the members elected to each house" vote in its favor. The plain language, constitutional history, and weight of persuasive authority support reading this provision as setting both a minimum and a maximum voting requirement. Therefore, the Supermajority Requirement violates article II, section 22 by requiring certain legislation to receive a two-thirds vote. However, we reverse the trial court's decision that the Referendum Requirement presents a justiciable controversy. Because the Referendum Requirement is not justiciable, we make no determination as to its constitutionality.
UPDATE: The opinion is now online (PDF): 6-3, with Justices Owens writing for the majority and justices Chambers, Fairhurst, Madsen, Wiggins, and Gonzalez concurring. Justice Johnson, of course, wrote the dissent. Justice C. Johnson wrote a dissent signed on by Justices Stephens and J.Johnson, while Justice J.Johnson also wrote a separate dissent.
UPDATE, UPDATE: Rather than continue to update this post, I'm just going to read through the opinion and dissent at my leisure, and follow up with analysis in a separate post. That said, via Twitter, Eli is rightly pointing out the significance of the King County vote in recent judicial elections: This decision might have looked very different without Justices Wiggins and Gonzalez.
4
Clarification, Goldy -
Charles Johnson wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Stephens and Jim Johnson.
Jim Johnson wrote his own dissent.
Personally, the big surprise to me was Chief Justice Madsen getting past the justiciability issue.
Still - great result! Just imagine if Richard Sanders was still on the bench - it would have been 5-4, and possibly flipped if Madsen could have been brought over to the other side.
Charles Johnson wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Stephens and Jim Johnson.
Jim Johnson wrote his own dissent.
Personally, the big surprise to me was Chief Justice Madsen getting past the justiciability issue.
Still - great result! Just imagine if Richard Sanders was still on the bench - it would have been 5-4, and possibly flipped if Madsen could have been brought over to the other side.
7
But what does this mean? This ruling is on a past 2/3 majority initiative right? does this mean that the more recent attempts at this are also struck down?
11
Publicola was first out of the gate with the news. SLOG second. KUOW third.
From the Seattle Times: Zippo.
That firewall sure is going to pay off.
From the Seattle Times: Zippo.
That firewall sure is going to pay off.
12
Get ready for a drive for a constitutional amendment to enshrine the 2/3 requirement.
This battle isn't over, sadly.
This battle isn't over, sadly.
15
"Can we raise some fucking revenue now?"
Who wants to bet a testicle we'll never get an income tax? Anyone?
Who wants to bet a testicle we'll never get an income tax? Anyone?
17
Cue the self-serving tears and rending of garments from our resident attention whore, Tim Eyman. Go cry, emo kid.
21
Seattle Times headline on the main page: "High court makes it easier for lawmakers to raise taxes"
Their demise can't come quickly enough. Fuck them, and fuck Tim Eyman.
Their demise can't come quickly enough. Fuck them, and fuck Tim Eyman.
24
This seems like some of the best news I've ever read in the Stranger. More democracy and a government that has more tools to actually govern in the public interest. Beautiful!
25
@12, a constitutional amendment can't be introduced via voter initiative. It has to be introduced in one of the legislative branches, then it would have to be passed by 2/3 majority (ha! brilliant) in the legislature, then go before a public vote and pass with a simple majority. I don't see the legislature approving this as an amendment anytime soon.
@18, I believe you're looking for "oligarhy" - that's the version used by the paranoid crazies.
@18, I believe you're looking for "oligarhy" - that's the version used by the paranoid crazies.
26
Thus proving that all along the democrats in the state legislature who were afraid to officially challenge it were in fact cowardly pieces of shit who only cared about their own jobs prospects.
Lets see if Inslee follows the history of the governorship and pushes to pass an amendment for 2/3s cause its "what the voters wanted"
I think its hilarious when sloggers believe Olympia gives a shit about you.
Lets see if Inslee follows the history of the governorship and pushes to pass an amendment for 2/3s cause its "what the voters wanted"
I think its hilarious when sloggers believe Olympia gives a shit about you.
28
Would the Stranger and its readers be so happy if the state Supreme Court found something in the constitution that invalidated the pot legalization initiative?
29
Really great news, had hoped it would happen for a while, really glad to see the coverage of it on here, thanks guys, Tim Eyeman is a horse's ass and I wish he'd leave the state. Maybe he'll find his antics more profitable in another state, worst joke in state political history I tell ya. I don't see how you can support a guy who regularly circumvents our republic for personal gain. If you hate the constitution of our state so much fight to change it like a real political person, exploiting the voters to get your way should not be tolerated.
30
@28
It would depend on the clause, but I'm open to suggestion. Considering the lack of "don't use drugs" in our state constitution I wish you luck in your fantasy land.
It would depend on the clause, but I'm open to suggestion. Considering the lack of "don't use drugs" in our state constitution I wish you luck in your fantasy land.
32
@25: I agree with you regarding the process. What I think that means, however, is that the Republicans will use this issue as a big stick to go after Democratic candidates for and incumbents presently in the state legislature, in order to have the bodies, through a combination of electoral victories and intimidation, that they need for a state constitutional amendment.
It doesn't mean we can't defeat this new level of fearmongering - and in some ways this is where the real battle needs to take place - but it will require a better effort at educating the voters that we aren't paying for, and need to pay for, the services we want. We shouldn't expect it to be a cakewalk, at least for the first few electoral cycles. As with many victories of late, we can't afford to rest on our laurels.
It doesn't mean we can't defeat this new level of fearmongering - and in some ways this is where the real battle needs to take place - but it will require a better effort at educating the voters that we aren't paying for, and need to pay for, the services we want. We shouldn't expect it to be a cakewalk, at least for the first few electoral cycles. As with many victories of late, we can't afford to rest on our laurels.
34
@17 "Tym Eyman Sucks Dick"
As a Dicked-American, let me tell you that the sensations I get from Tim Eyman are not only totally dissimilar from usual suction, but are localized to other portions of my anatomy.
As a Dicked-American, let me tell you that the sensations I get from Tim Eyman are not only totally dissimilar from usual suction, but are localized to other portions of my anatomy.
37
Time for Tim Eyman and his fellow travelers to move to a state, like Idaho, that supports his brand of socialism.
The Constitution is fairly clear on how to do a Constitutional Amendment. You either need a lot of votes in the House and Senate and a majority of the People, or you need a lot of votes (which he never got) from the People and a majority in the House and the Senate.
The Constitution is fairly clear on how to do a Constitutional Amendment. You either need a lot of votes in the House and Senate and a majority of the People, or you need a lot of votes (which he never got) from the People and a majority in the House and the Senate.
40
So, when are you going to start asking the senators what their plans are? Are you going to criticize them for attempting to pass regressive taxes, or are we still going with the any taxes are good taxes meme that has fucked over the poor in this state for so long?
43
@19: Don't mix your apples and oranges. Don't mix legislative majorities with voter approval majorities.
@27: The term is perfectly appropriate given the road we're heading down.
@27: The term is perfectly appropriate given the road we're heading down.
45
@43- I'll bite. What the high holy hell does a having a simple majority vote to pass tax laws (like we had for most of the state's history) have to do with oligarchy?
46
@45 I finally decoded Pheeble's "logic:" Because THE MAJORITY of the judges (elected by A MAJORITY of the voters) is comprised of only six people, that makes them an oligarchy, because six is a minority of the citizens of the state. Similarly, THE MAJORITY of the legislators (elected by A MAJORITY of the voters) would also be a minority of the citizens of the state.
So, any decision in a democratic republic not taken by a direct election is OLIGARCHY!!!11! DUHHR SOCIALIST KENYAN MUSLIM MEXICAN BIRTH CERTIFKAT SHARIA!!!!!!!
Unless, of course, the majority of the legislators are Republicans. Then it would NOT be oligarchy.
Now my brain hurts.
So, any decision in a democratic republic not taken by a direct election is OLIGARCHY!!!11! DUHHR SOCIALIST KENYAN MUSLIM MEXICAN BIRTH CERTIFKAT SHARIA!!!!!!!
Unless, of course, the majority of the legislators are Republicans. Then it would NOT be oligarchy.
Now my brain hurts.
47
@40 -- they are still going with the meme. The Senate committee has already voted to pass a constitutional amendment, requiring a 2/3rds vote to increase taxes (or a majority vote, with a confirming vote by the people). Someone (can't recall who now) tried for an amendment saying -- fine, if that is how you feel, let's go for 2/3rds on everything! It of course lost.
Fortunately, there is still another half of the legislature -- and the Governor's possible veto. But we are a LOOOONG way from done with tax stupidity in this state.
Fortunately, there is still another half of the legislature -- and the Governor's possible veto. But we are a LOOOONG way from done with tax stupidity in this state.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (47) RSS