The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld the legislature's phoney-baloney declaration of "emergency" in order to shield its evisceration of the voter mandated I-601 budgeting limits from a referendum:
The standard of review of a legislative declaration of an emergency is well established in our cases. In CLEAN v. State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 928 P.2d 1054 (1996), we examined whether an emergency clause included in the Stadium Act, which provided the means for financing construction of SAFECO Field, violated citizens' constitutionally protected right to referendum. We focused our inquiry on whether the Stadium Act was necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. In our review of legislative declarations of emergency, we give substantial deference to the legislature.Which effectively erases the citizens' constitutionally protected right to referendum. Justices C. Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Fairhurst, Chief Injustice Alexander and Dispsomaniac Justice Bridge were in the majority. Justices J. Johnson, Sanders and Chambers dissented.
Shawn Newman called this correctly back in May
I suspect Justices Sanders and Johnson would want to revisit that decision but, unless there's more, it will be an uphill battle. Just another illustration on how the Supreme Court eliminated the people's check and balance on legislative power since an emergency clause eliminates the people's right to referendum on the particular legislation.Chief Injustice Alexander and Justice Owens are up for re-election in 2006, when they should be denied another turn at eviscerating our constitutional rights from the bench. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 14, 2005 04:07 PM | Email This
With the right to stand up to an oppressive government under attack in this state by elected officials, the courts, and the MSM, can an all-out assault on the Bill of Rights not be close at hand?
Posted by: L. H. Smith on July 14, 2005 04:19 PMIn a 9-0 ruling, this same court invented a new precedent to allow major developers to subvert state law and build massive urban developments in the rural area - imposing massive road and infrastructure costs on the taxpayers. The ruling stated that even illegal or invalid subdivision applications can vest land in the rural area as "characterized by urban growth", even if the land is forestland without anything on it but trees.
The truly amazing thing is that the same subdivision application that was used to allow the development, had been challenged in court all the way to the State Supreme Court, but at every level, the courts, including the supremes, refused to rule on the application. They knew the consequences to this special interest and showed who they really work for. It ain't us!!
No one should be surprised at anything this court does. They are politicians elected to make law from the highest court in the state. Their priorities are:
1) defend government
2) help the friends of government and government officials.
They are as beholding to the special interests as any other elected official, and no more honest or uncorruptable than any other weak or selfish politician.
Most of you will have to be victimized by them to believe it, but for those who have already been victimized directly or indirectly by this court, you already know that no court in this state can be trusted on matters of significance when powerful special interests or governments are involved in wrongdoing.
A judicial system that is based on election of judges that rule on major issues is the most dangerous thing any system can have.
Posted by: Mike on July 14, 2005 04:41 PMForget about Constituional rights.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on July 14, 2005 04:46 PMChief Injustice Alexander and Justice Owens are up for re-election in 2006, when they should be denied another turn at eviscerating our constitutional rights from the bench.
is relevant. But I somehow suspect they'll not even get opposing candidates.
Posted by: doug on July 14, 2005 04:52 PMHow could building a stadium be an emergency?
Off-topic at hand but still the same, but how could condemning property and then starting work on a sporting arena before the court case is heard be considered an emergency?
Posted by: swatter on July 14, 2005 05:01 PMSo, as long as the legislature can keep a straight face when declaring an "emergency", there is absolutely nothing the people can do about it.
The legislature could decide to increase spending by 30%, declare and emergency, raise taxes 40% and it would "legal".
Well, I guess our Constitutional right to a Referendum is about dead. Now there are politicians that are trying to find ways of removing our Constitutional right to the Initiative as well.
Anyone have a spare Soviet dictionary and book of phrases so that I can brush up on my "politically correct Socialist, government controls everything" speech?
How does that saying go? "Incompetance on your part does not constitue an emergency on my part" - or something to that effect.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 14, 2005 05:24 PMAnd, of course, having done so, do you think the current court would respect the new language?
(Some of you will recognize that I am borrowing an argument from William Buckley. Can you guess which case inspired him to make a similar argument?)
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 14, 2005 05:57 PMA few years ago, I believe the people passed a bill whereby a judge's judicial decisions would be published when they ran for re-election. Since we have not seen this in the voters pamphlet, I assume they got it thrown out.
Posted by: dl on July 14, 2005 07:28 PMIf they're good judges, you'll be one of the only ones voting against them.
If they're bogus judges, you'll be helping to vote them out.
Posted by: Larry on July 14, 2005 07:30 PMSeems the only way these thick headed legislators will realise we mean business is to A) Vote their sorry backsides out of office or B) Shove an initiative at them at every emergency clause.
I think A) would be the easiest way. Are you listening Toby? Mary Margaret? Harriet? Hankins? Hinkle?
Finkbiner? Swecker? Et al?
Rossi did the right thing in not going to those goons!
We'll remember them next elect, which I deem will be an "Emergency election"!
Posted by: GS on July 14, 2005 10:15 PMMaybe you should read and comprehend my post before jumping all over it.
I'm not defending the court at all. I think they are a purely special interest driven cabal of activists working to defend government and special interest wrongdoing. I've seen it and been personally victimized by this system in at least a half dozens instances in jurisdictions including 4 counties, appellate, supreme and federal court. They're all the same. Government protection comes first, special interests second, and the public if it doesn't hurt government or special interests are at the bottom of the list.
I wonder these days if the law ever matters, except when the special interests write the laws and their puppets in government adopt them? When the law gets in the way, there is always a judge or a court prepared to rewrite it to screw citizens.
Posted by: Mike on July 14, 2005 10:40 PMWish we could be sure to vote them out in 2006, but...who's counting the ballots?
Posted by: dl on July 14, 2005 10:49 PMDon't expect to read about it in the news or see it on Robert Maks Up-Front...but people of all walks of life - in this state - are p*ssed off and are beginning to question and research more about our State Constitution, WAC and RCW's and how these laws and policies are being trashed or re-written without our (the people's) input or vote!
People will *Remember in November!*
Posted by: Deborah on July 14, 2005 11:19 PMIt will be the uninformed voters, a right wing conspiracy.
I for one am happy to see the liberals spend away more millions trying to scare people into voting against I912.
The people are bright and getting brighter all the time.
Spend and waste your millions!
This Gas Tax is going down down down!
Posted by: GS on July 14, 2005 11:40 PMThe rest made sense.
Posted by: swatter on July 15, 2005 06:35 AMPut this list on your fridge. When you see one of these names on the ballot vote for someone else. Deny these arrogant anti-democratic ivory tower judges re-election.
Posted by: JCM on July 15, 2005 06:37 AMNO INCUMBENTS GET ELECTED. THROW THE BASTARDS OUT.
Posted by: JCM on July 15, 2005 08:34 AMHer official bio says she was last elected in 2002, so I assume she up in 2008.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 15, 2005 08:44 AMAs an aside, I remember reading a lot of cases in business school where a ruling turned on the plain, ordinary, common use and meaning of a word. The Judge would state that principle, and then look up the ordinary usage and meaning of a word if that case or major issue turned on a word.
Why is that logic not applied here? "Emergency" is pretty clear to me as a layman. Volcanoes, yes--real estate licenses, no. We have now diluted "emergencies." Just like terrorists are now "insurgents," illegal aliens are "undocumented" and other spinspeak.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 15, 2005 10:24 AM
Yep, that is correct. She filled in for Phil Talmadge, when he resigned in 1999. (Too bad Talmadge didn't run for Attorney General in 2000, like lots of folks thought he would.)
I was confused, because Talmadge was first elected in 1994, and Supreme Court serves a six year term. But Talmadge was running in 1994 for the two years remaining on someone else's term, so he stood for a full six years in 1996 (apparently without any opposition), and the next normal election would be in 2002. Obviously, when Bridge stood for election in 2000 (for only two years), it was confusing if someone remembered Talmadge being first elected in a highly contested race back in 1994.
I would assume Bridge was arrested for DWI sometime after the 2002 election -- or at least after filing season. Otherwise, she surely would have drawn a lot of opposition.
Focusing on Alexander and Owens for the 2006 election would be correct. The other justice up in 2006 is Tom Chambers, a strong supporter of referendum rights. He was a dissenter in yesterday's ruling.
The groups that were defeated in yesterday's ruling all have lotsa money to throw into a Supreme Court race, as well as large memberships which can be extremely influential in these nonpartisan contests. So we will see ...
By the way, it's "Dipsomaniac", not "Dispsomaniac" :)
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 15, 2005 10:30 AMYou also need to strip the administrative roadblocks out of the referendum process.
Roadblock # 1: The SOS will not accept a referendum proposal until the Governor has signed the bill. This cuts out up to 24 days out of the 90 days to get signatures, since the Governor usually has 20 days (not including Sundays) to sign or veto a bill. Incidentally, there is nothing to prohibit having a referendum on a bill that the Governor vetoes. If enough signatures are gathered, and the people approve it, the bill should become law in spite of the veto. The Legislature can order a referendum for any reason, which often includes avoiding the Governor's veto.
Roadblock # 2: The ballot title and challenge provisions of Chapter 29A.72 RCW. These can take 21 days or more from the 90 days to circulate referendum petitions, since the law prohibits circulation of the same until a ballot title is issued by the AG and challenges have been disposed of in court. Maybe longer if the court doesn't act promptly.
Last year, I tried filing referenda against the party ballot "Montana" primary system. A combination of the above two roadblocks limited the time to circulate petitions from 90 days to 44 days. Due to the limited time available, potential financial backers decided this was not the most viable option to achieve the desired policy results.
You might want to look at proposed Referenda 61 & 62, pertaining to the gasoline tax increase. The SOS rejected all of Will Knedlik's Referendum 61 and most of my Referendum 62. Knedlik is suing the SOS in the Supreme Court and I will be filing suit in Thurston County Superior Court very shortly.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/referendum2.aspx
My lawsuit will include a request for permanent declaratory and injunctive relief against Roadblock # 1 and # 2 above, and also against administrative rejection for alleged emergency clauses. Unlike Knedlik and your clients (i.e. Referenda 59 & 60 on the I-601 gutting), my lawsuit is going to be in superior court, and can consider all issues and provide all remedies in all cases. The writ of mandamus remedy in the Supreme Court is discouraging, since it gets shot down once the justices decide the emergency clause was appropriate.
I think Knedlik's proposed referendum (which only deals with the future increases starting in July 1, 2006), and even more so my proposed referendum (the rejected portions of which -- not publicized on the SOS website -- also seek to address the July 1, 2005 increase) are major reasons why the State Finance Committee isn't selling bonds based on the new gas tax revenue.
So long as my proposed referendum was offered to the SOS on the whole bill, and until such time there is a judicial decision saying that the emergency is genuine, the State of Washington cannot bond these tax revenues in good faith. Same thing held up the construction of the two sports palaces here in Seattle for more than a year in each case, due to the bonding disclosure and rating requirements (they could have sold junk bonds at higher rates, but didn't want to).
Of course, 420,000 signatures on I-912 are a lot more political powerful than a couple of two-bit political troublemakers such as Knedlik and myself. It is a lot easier to state the bonding of gas tax revenues is being deferred pending verification of I-912, and then a vote on the same if verified.
I think we should approach all issues with a multi-pronged attack. Referendums, initiatives law suits, etc...How can they deny the obvious will of the majority? And - as the PI is learning...even the media can't spin in favor of the liberal machine without losing their shirts!
Posted by: Deborah on July 15, 2005 11:02 PMRestore the Connecticut Compromise.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.