The Washington Supreme Court has just ruled for the WEA on the question whether the union may use the involuntary representation fees of non-members for political purposes. The court concluded that RCW 42.17.760 is unconstitutional.
The EFF, which brought the initial complaint on behalf of teachers who didn't want their non-member "agency shop fees" used for objectionable political activity, says of today's 6-3 ruling "State Supreme Court "turns First Amendment on its head!", placing the statutory rights of Big Labor ahead of the Constitutional rights of individuals.
Justice Sanders's dissent opens with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."Sinful and tyrannical" are pretty apt descriptions for a quite a few of the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 16, 2006 09:42 AM | Email This
This too will backfire. If Unions have to cling to tricks like this to keep their power, it won't be long before they lose more members.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 16, 2006 09:58 AMIt's like those spammers who send you email saying they are putting you on their mailing list unless you respond saying you don't want to be on it.
Posted by: Palouse on March 16, 2006 10:09 AMThe state Supreme Court. Can't live with 'em. Pass the beer nuts.
Posted by: jimg on March 16, 2006 10:30 AMBut how can you do that when the elections system itself is rigged and corrupt? How can you use the broken system to fix the broken system? As long as there is a group of people in power who will cheat to keep that same group in power, how can it ever change? It matters not how "Conservative" the Republican party becomes if you have lousy, cheating 'Rats in control of the electoral process. Just look at how they gamed the '04 election to see how it will play out.
The only way to do it is to "think outside the box". It looks like things in WA state are hauntingly similar to what our forefathers faced a couple of hundred years ago. They kept trying to work within the system to effect change and all they got for their trouble was more insult and injury. It continued on that way until the patriots starting shooting at people on a bridge in Concord. I hope it doesn't come to that but you never know, if enough people feel marginalized and disenfranchised by "the system", then eventually a breaking point is reached. The feds may have to step in at some point and clean out enough of the rot to avoid a blow-up.
The other outcome is to have the whole crooked, lousy system collapse under the weight of its own corruption. But that is undesirable because of the dislocation and suffering that will result and continue until a replacement system (perhaps as bad or worse) is installed.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 16, 2006 10:31 AMI said it before, and I will say it again (after the guy that originally said it)
"There comes a time in every man's life when he must spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats"
~HL Mencken~
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Postmaster General
James Farley
1936
WEA argues that the Hudson process satisfies the requirement of affirmative
authorization because it provides each individual nonmember the opportunity
to object, to obtain a refund, and to prevent fees from being used by WEA,
even temporarily, for political purposes.
Okay. Sound like you should be able to tell the union not to spend your $ on politics. But wait...
The voters pamphlet's only
reference to the current sec.760 is the comment that under I-134, "agency
shop fees could not be used for political purposes without individual
authorization." This bare description does not indicate what form the
authorization should take or whether the Hudson process satisfies the
requirement of affirmative authorization.
Only an idiot would conclude that the pamphlet means something other than what it says. But then again, we have idiots on the WASC.
And it gets better:
Those declarations of intent indicate that the principal
thrust of I-134 was to protect the integrity of the election process from
the perception that elected officials are improperly influenced by monetary
contributions and the perception that individuals have an insignificant
role to play. Wash. State Republican Party v. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure
Comm'n, 141 Wn.2d 245, 293, 4 P.3d 808 (2000) (Talmadge, J., dissenting).
Thus, the intent of the statute is to protect the public, not individual
employees.
Read that last bolded sentence. This is why WA state dems are socialists to the core.
Because these jerks can't read, they feel their powers now extend to striking down the law:
Where a statute is ambiguous and this court is able to construe it in a
manner which renders it constitutional, the court is obliged to do so.
State v. Dixon, 78 Wn.2d 796, 804, 479 P.2d 931 (1971). However, having
construed the statute as requiring more than a nonresponse to a Hudson
packet, we must next examine the constitutionality of sec.760.
And thus their analysis reads:
The freedom to associate encompasses the freedom to contribute financially
to an organization for the purpose of spreading a political message.
Okay, but then they say
The [Supreme Court of the US] held, however, that compulsory union dues may not be used to
support political causes if the member disagrees with those causes. On the
other hand, "the majority also has an interest in stating its views without
being silenced by the dissenters." Id. at 773.
So you have the right to not give up cash for donations, but the USSC says you can't force the union not to donate at all.
Now note this section carefully. I'll bold it:
The Court stated that the appropriate remedy must reconcile the majority
and dissenting interests in the area of political expression, protecting
both interests "to the maximum extent possible without undue impingement of
one on the other," and taking into account the administrative difficulty of
accommodating each group. Id. Any remedies, however, would properly be
granted only to those employees who had made known to the union that they
did not desire their funds to be used for political causes to which they
object. "{D}issent is not to be presumed--it must affirmatively be made
known to the union by the dissenting employee." Id. at 774.
This goes against all the crapola they cite before. Now the union can *assume* (wink, wink) you want all your dues to go to Queen Christine's election campaign.
So to sum up
The Court
affirmed that the burden is on the employee to make his objection known.
What a bunch of asses. It goes downhill from there:
With these principles in mind, we consider the constitutionality of the
restriction imposed by sec.760 on the political speech of the union, its
members, and its nonmembers.
Notice how it's now a Constitution issue as it applies to the UNION'S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS? democrats at their finest. Argue for an hour about the definition of "is", decide it means the opposite of what it says in the dictionary, then proceed to shaft somebody. I want to throw up.
And thus the final whammy:
We conclude
that the union's expressive activity is significantly burdened by sec.760's
opt-in requirement. We also conclude that any compelling state interest in
protecting dissenters' rights, could be met by less restrictive means other
than the sec.760 opt-in procedure. The union's Hudson procedures amount to
a constitutionally permissible alternative that adequately protects both
the union and dissenters. Because RCW 42.17.760 is not narrowly tailored,
we hold that the statute is unconstitutional.
Got to give them credit, though. They managed to weave in a non-sequitur about the Boy Scouts as lame justification for this ruling. Never mind that the Boy Scouts is a completely voluntary organization, whereas the WEA is compulsary.
I wish I were that optimistic. The unions who have employed 'tricks like this' (mandatory extraction of political slush funds) are all public employees, organized AGAINST THE PUBLIC for their own benefit. There's practically no way they could lose members, unless there was some real competition for members in the same line of work. Obviously they have the power of the State working for them.
It's sort of like mandatory extraction of auto license fees to punish drivers and reward the grossly bloated and mendacious public transit cabals.
How to right these wrongs, other than back up, take a deep breath and organize a statewide campaign to wrest the public interest away from from the clutches of public employees unions?
Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 16, 2006 10:57 AMAlso http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm
does NOT work in Mozilla Firefox
Oh, wait, this law was instituted by initiative, not the legislature! Well, the Court doesn't need to listen to the people, what do they know?
Of course, it's ok for non-members to have to go through the hurdles of getting a partial refund for the money that the unions stole from them, but having the Union going through hoops to get consent is an "undue burden."
God forbid the unions have to actually do any work...but then again, not working is what unions do best.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on March 16, 2006 11:00 AMhttp://www.stratofuture.com/
Posted by: John on March 16, 2006 11:03 AMThat sounds like a great slogan to attract tourists. The sin seems to work for Vegas.
Posted by: dan on March 16, 2006 11:15 AMhttp://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContribServlet?candidate=BECKER%20MARY%20KAY&sort1=amount%20-%20descending
Check out the first 25 or so (the biggies). Democratic party groups (state and local), and WEA and other unions predominate. The sitting justices want what Becker got in 2004.
Very plain, very simple.
Posted by: grabowski on March 16, 2006 11:40 AMYeah, grabowski, I see that too.
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 16, 2006 11:48 AMOops, there was....
Never mind.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 16, 2006 11:58 AMOLYMPIA – Attorney General Rob McKenna today issued the following statement on the state Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Public Disclosure Commission v. Washington Education Ass'n, et al.
The case concerned the right of the Washington Education Association to decide how to spend compulsory fees paid by educational employees who are not union members and who did not give prior permission for those fees to be used for political purposes. In today's 6-3 decision, the State Supreme Court struck down a 1992 state law enacted by voters as part of Initiative 134 on campaign finance reform, finding the law unconstitutional.
The law required labor organizations to obtain the affirmative authorization of non-members before the organization may spend their fees for the union's political contributions and expenditures to influence an election or to operate a political committee.
“We are disappointed in the outcome of this case. When individuals are compelled to pay fees to a union, the union should be required to obtain prior permission before spending that money for the union’s political purposes,” McKenna said. “We are reviewing our options and, in consultation with our client, the Public Disclosure Commission, we will make a decision on our course of action in the coming weeks.”
Really, Rich? And how is it that you know this little "fact"?
Posted by: Palouse on March 16, 2006 12:10 PMyou have a really warped sense of what "justice" is. But I see you're a shill for the WEA so I'm not surprised.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 16, 2006 12:11 PMPlease show me where in the constitution it states;
"compulsory fees paid by educational employees who are not union members".
As far as I know, the constitution does not support "compulsory fees" of any kind.
So maybe Rich can explain to all of us (since he is so sure that justice prevailed) how non-response to some brochure that the union sends out is "affirmative authorization" to use those dues for political purposes.
Posted by: Palouse on March 16, 2006 12:21 PMWEA wins major Supreme Court victory
For the third time in recent years, the state Supreme Court has ruled in favor of educators and against the anti-public education Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
EFF has failed once again to convice the courts to be used to carry out its anti-union, anti-schools agenda.
Supreme Court rules in favor of WEA, educators' rights
The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that a controversial state campaign-finance law violates the U.S. Constitution and is an undue burden on union members' rights, a major victory for the Washington Education Association's 80,000 members and a defeat for the right-wing political group behind the case.
It is the third time in recent years that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of WEA and against the right-wing Evergreen Freedom Foundation. WEA represents teachers, school support professionals and higher education faculty members. EFF is funded by wealthy out-of-state foundations that oppose unions and public education.
The case dates back to 2001. Acting on a complaint by EFF, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor ruled that WEA intentionally used fees from non-members (agency fee payers) for political purposes without authorization. In 2003, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two overturned Tabor's decision and said the law violated the U.S. Constitution and was an undue burden on union members' rights.
In its most recent ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision, 6-3.
"...there is no indication or argument that WEA is compelling non-members to support political activities or preventing non-members from asserting their First Amendment rights," the Court ruled (page 10).
WEA President Charles Hasse said WEA does not use non-members' fees for political purposes, and he criticized EFF for using the court system to attack educators' political rights.
"This decision from the high court is yet another reaffirmation of educators' political rights," Hasse said. "It is also further evidence that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's allegations against teachers are without a basis in law. The EFF simply seeks to exploit the legal system for political gain."
Hasse said WEA has consistently sought to fully comply with all state and federal regulations, and he said EFF used an unclear, flawed state law to attack WEA through the Public Disclosure Commission. Hasse noted that the state law in question was enacted through an initiative that was written and promoted by EFF President Bob Williams. In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that dismissed EFF's argument that WEA was a political action committee. In 2003, the Supreme Court refused to hear EFF's appeal of a related case WEA won in Appeals Court. Since 1998, WEA has prevailed in every court challenge filed by the EFF.
"The practice of persons banding together to make their political voices heard is deeply embedded in the American political process," the Court wrote (page 7).
Posted by: WEA release on March 16, 2006 12:33 PMThere is no relief in Washington through the judicial branch for issues of politics. The "left" dominates the courts and cares little about the law as they legislate from the bench.
Posted by: MJC on March 16, 2006 01:19 PMFlat out wrong. The WEA ADMITTED to "multiple violations" of the law.
Trial Court decision, top of page 3:
http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/tabor_opinion.pdf
They also lie about what parties before them are arguing:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=74290&page=75
This decision is so wrong, it is hard to concede even the possibility that it is the result of a good faith effort to evenhandedly apply apply the constitution and constitutional precedent.
Justice Sanders got it right. The position taken by the majority is not only wrong, but borders on the frivolous.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on March 16, 2006 01:57 PM
What is unclear about this law?:
"A labor organization may not use agency shop fees paid by an individual who is not a member of the organization to make contributions or expenditures to influence an election or to operate a political committee, unless affirmatively authorized by the individual."
It is amazing how in just over 200 years, "highly educated" people can not seem to remember why this nation was first formed.
The US Constitution was written about this very issue. When the average citizen no longer has the ablilty to keep the government (and now the unions) out of his or her back pocket. They rose up and formed this nation.
If I was part of the NEA and/or the Democratic party, I would take this lesson to heart. I don't think that it is out of the realm of possiblities, that this issue becomes the focus of the next Civil War.
Maybe for the Seattle version of the Boston Tea Party, the people will throw copies of the WASL into Elliot Bay.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=742685DI1
Must be that Twilight Zone thing again.
Posted by: TB on March 16, 2006 03:59 PMJustices Faith Ireland, Barbara A. Madsen, Bobbe J Bridge, Charles W. Johnson, Susan Owens, Tom Chambers can kiss their cushy job goodbye and should start looking for alternate employment opportunities.
most voters have good intentions but do not keep a shyt list; come elections, they want a zip-zip & go-home election; no thinking; I'm like you--my little list of issue/policy/voting record pyss-offs against me comes out; remember "Badda-Bing Bridge" and her little car issues? you & I would still be in jail; time to vote without apathy; the alternative is having these monkeys run your life at even the smallest level;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on March 16, 2006 10:13 PMFrom the taxpayers' wallets to the school teachers to the union's coffers. A direct siphon line sucking the life forces from all.
Freedom is an amazing thing to experience, it is ashame so little of it is left.
Property rights - gone
Right of Association - gone
Right to Work - gone
Voting Intergrity - gone
Freedom of Speech - leaving soon
Religious Presence - gone
Exactly what is left?
Posted by: Snuffy on March 17, 2006 08:35 AMSnuffy it doesn't get any farther left than right here in Washington.
What I really don't understand is if three lefts make a right, and the executive, legislative, and judicial branch are all demonstrated lefties, why do they insist on getting together to take away our rights?
Punny huh?
Posted by: Dan on March 17, 2006 11:45 AM