KING-5 reports that "Judge strikes down property tax I-747"
Washington State Initiative 747 has been struck down by the Washington State Supreme Court. The measure generally limits increases to State and local property tax levies to 1 percent per year.I'm confused by the reference to the State Supreme Court. The linked ruling was issued by King County Superior Court Judge Mary Roberts.
I should let the legal minds weigh in here, but it appears that the main argument is that the text of the initiative (which had to have been reviewed by the Code Reviser and AG's office before it went to the voters) did not contain the entire text of the statute that was to be amended, so voters would have been misled that they were changing the cap on property tax increases from 2% to 1% when in fact the previously approved reduction from 6% to 2% had been recently voided by the courts and the reduction was from 6% to 1%. In the grand scheme of things, our state courts seem to believe that it's impermissible to omit inconsequential information from a ballot measure to lower taxes even if the end result is clear, but it's fine and dandy to conceal as much criticial information that one wants to conceal when the goal is to raise taxes.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 13, 2006 03:15 PM | Email ThisRight after this passed, I went to hear the Seattle Symphony at Benaroya Hall. While in line to get my coat after the concert, a couple of guys behind me were talking about 747. I didn't recoginize them, but apparently they were local politicos.
One asked the other if he was going to run for some office. (I didn't catch it because I wasn't paying much attention until I heard that) The other man said no because I-747 took all the fun out of it.
I just wanted to slap that guy! What arrogance!
I don't know who he was, but I'm feeling sorry for the folks from wherever he's from. It's obvious it is now fun again!
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker on June 13, 2006 03:41 PMHer reasoning hinges on the authors of I-747's efforts to compensate for I-722 defects. Essentialy, the very efforts to adapt to the courts position on 722 rendered 747 unconstitutional. Of course if 747 had failed to incorporate the 722 ruling it would also then have been unconstitutional.
Her test as to what misleads the voters is new, and rather difficult to meet. Given that the measure clearly stated the outcome and that the ballot title and summary were written by Attorney General Gregoire's office. Further 747 was drafted at a time when 722 was still on the books. We have now a problem: amending a statutute in response to a court ruling could render the final statute unconstitutional. This test could render an unknown number of laws aopted by the legislature invalid.
Roberts makes a significant, but common, error when she writes that property tax increases were limited to 6% prior to I-747. In fact each taxing district's budget was allowed to increase by 6% plus a factor considering new construction.
The total tax bill was then divided amongst property owners based on the valuation of their property.
You will note that each person's home falls within several taxing districts (PUD, FIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY, COUNTY etc.). Together this allowed a rather greater than 6% increase in property taxes.
Posted by: Alex Hays on June 13, 2006 03:45 PMThat said, I-747 is unconstitutional of another reason.
Posted by: Don on June 13, 2006 03:59 PMA very slight change could have fixed that, but by that time it was far too late to do anything about it.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 13, 2006 04:01 PMSo, we have I-722 and I-747 that wanted to reign in property tax increases and the courts have declared both attempts to be unconstitutional.
Translation: The PEOPLE have NO say in how, nor how much, they are taxed.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 13, 2006 04:13 PMAny news on whether there will be an appeal?
Your point is accurate, but it is never the less both new and difficult to comply with.
Given that 747 was a direct effort to make constitutional 722 how could an author comply with Judge Roberts' test?
Consider a law adopted by the legislature. It amends a statute that is at that time being challenged in court, essentialy trying to accomodate a possible ruling against the state. Under this opinion that subsequent constitutional law would be struck down, precisely because it was an effort to make the law constitutional.
This is my point. The ruling is difficult to accomodate and may well provide grounds for an unknown number of state laws to me challenged.
Posted by: Alex Hays on June 13, 2006 04:30 PMPretty clever how the politicos can create a boogeyman out of Eyman causing lefties to run around and foam at the mouth fighting every initive he brings forth.
Just don't forget this woman named Roberts who calls herself a judge come next time she's up for election.
Posted by: tax-poor richard on June 13, 2006 04:50 PMCan you post who was behind ths decision? That would be an interesting question. Also, what are the political preferences of the Judge?
Posted by: timman on June 13, 2006 04:52 PMI would suggest the following for an initiative to file in 2007, which could only affect property taxes starting in 2008:
1. The dollar amount of 2008 property taxes shall be 107% of the dollar amount levied in 2001, plus any voter approved increases since 2001, MINUS an adjustment amount as figured in Paragraph 2
2. The adjustment amount shall be the amount (if any) by which the dollar amount of 2007 property taxes exceed (106% of the dollar amount levied in 2001 plus any voter approved increases since 2001)
3. Property taxes levied in 2009 shall be equal to the dollar amount calculated in Paragraph 1, unless a higher dollar amount is approved by the voters in a general election
4. Property taxes levied in 2010 and later years shall be equal to the dollar amount levied in the previous calendar year, unless a higher dollar amount is approved by the voters in a general election
5. All elections to increase the dollar amount of property taxes shall be held on the November general election date only
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 13, 2006 04:55 PMNo argument from me. I still think the ruling is ridiculous, just less so now that I know when I-722 was struck down.
As for the political leanings of Mary Roberts, if she's the same Mary E Roberts that used to work for Frank Rosen Freed, then she once contributed to Greg Nickels. Surprise, surprise.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 13, 2006 05:40 PMText: The tax rate on real property shall be reduced to 0 (zero), in perpetuity.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 13, 2006 08:33 PMLook at whose coughed up dough for FAIRPAC so far. It's how the payoffs go down.
Posted by: pier sunist on June 13, 2006 09:00 PMIn November of 2001, the PEOPLE voted for I-747 to decrease the cap on annual property tax increases to 1%.
The PEOPLE wanted only 1% annual property tax increases, unless government came to them and placed larger increases on the ballot.
In September of 2001, the State Supreme Court ruled I-722 unconstitutional because it "contained more than one subject".
In June of 2006, a King County judge ruled I-747 unconstitutional because it was based on I-722 and I-722 was ruled unconstitutional 90 days after I-747 was placed on the ballot.
So far, I don't think the courts have actually said that an annual cap of 1% on property tax increases is unconstitutional.
Irrespective of the courts, the PEOPLE of this state voted TWICE saying that they did NOT want annual property tax increases to be 6%.
The government sued the PEOPLE and has made sure to take as much advantage of increasing the property taxes as they could for the last few years. They ignored the very clear INTENT of the PEOPLE of the state - reduce tax increases; reduce spending.
The news is reporting it as a blow to Eyman. Get real. Eyman had the idea. He convinced a huge amount of voters to get the measure on the ballot. The PEOPLE had the final say and THEY voted for the initiatives. These court rulings are a blow to all of the voters that wanted these restrictions placed on our legislators.
Why? Because they WON'T listen to US - the PEOPLE. That's the real burn.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 13, 2006 09:25 PMTo: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state (cc'd to the media)
From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, I-747 co-sponsors, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com
RE: We're confident the High Court will overturn Judge Mary Robert's I-747 ruling ...
No taxpayer is complaining that their property tax bill didn't increase enough. No taxpayer wants their property tax increase to be six times higher. But that's what taxpayers are facing because of King County Superior Court judge Mary Roberts' ruling today on I-747.
We're confident the High Court will overturn Mary Robert's ruling on I-747, just like they overturned Mary Yu's ruling on I-776 (in March, 2002, Mary Yu said no to I-776 on six counts, but in Oct, 2003, a 6-3 majority said she got it wrong).
The voters were never misled about voter-approved I-747, as Judge Mary Roberts claims. Voters had full notice as to the policies of I-747 and they overwhelmingly approved it 58% - 42% five years ago. State, counties, cities, and other local governments have adapted to I-747's 1% limit and adjusted to the voters' decision.
The ballot title for I-747, written by the Attorney General and affirmed by Thurston County Judge Richard Hicks, read: Initiative Measure No. 747 concerns limiting property tax increases. This measure would require state and local governments to limit property tax levy increases to 1% per year, unless an increase greater than this limit is approved by the voters at an election. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes ___ No ____
Voters knew they were voting for a 1% limit; they knew exactly what they were voting for.
The voters pamphlet arguments written by us read (in part):
----------------------------------------------------
... Consider property taxes. For decades, numerous taxing districts have increased property taxes 6% per year. That means state government has jacked them up, counties, cities, fire districts, library districts, special districts, and ports have all dramatically jacked them up. Property taxes are skyrocketing in Washington. Currently, property taxes double every 7 to 9 years. We need I-747 to defuse Washington's "property tax time bomb" so working class families and senior citizens, and not just rich people, can afford to buy and own homes.
I-747 LIMITS PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS FOR EACH TAXING DISTRICT -- OUR COURTS HAVE OK'S THIS APPROACH
Numerous efforts have been made to limit property tax increases but they've either been struck down by courts or contained huge loopholes. I-747 carefully follows recent court rulings and closes previous loopholes. 1% ought to be enough for any taxing district (and if it's not, I-747 allows voter approval for higher increases).
-------------------------------------------------
On the same page of the voters' pamphlet, the Attorney General wrote a section called "The law as it presently exists" and they explained the limit was 6% and said that I-722 (with the 2% limit) was on appeal.
Our attorney, now State Supreme Court justice Jim Johnson, and the code revisor's office agreed that drafting this measure was very easy and straightforward. And standard statutory construction required us to draft the measure reflecting the law as it existed at the time the initiative was filed. We filed I-747 in January; the State Supreme Court didn't strike down I-722 until September. We followed the proper rules.
There's a reason that Initiative 747's opponents waited 5 years to challenge it -- because nobody believed that there was a judge on the planet that would rule their way. That's why the big law firms like Foster, Pepper and Preston, Gates couldn't muster the money from any government to challenge I-747.
Again, the High Court rejected Mary Yu's ruling on I-776, and we're confident they'll do the same with Mary Robert's ruling on I-747.
Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, I-747 co-sponsors, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com
Worthwhile government projects that can be funded by the City of Seattle property tax increase:
1. Tunnel to replace Alaskan Way Viaduct -- i.e. the $2 to 3 billion or more of additional funding that is needed to finish the project beyond what the state allocated
2. Extend Sound Transit light rail from downtown Seattle-ish to Northgate (all of this is within the City of Seattle) -- $1 billion or more
3. Build a state-of-the-art monorail system all throughout the City of Seattle ($2 billion for the original project, but fund it for $4 billion so a more extensive system can be built)
4. Replace the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (i.e. the $500 million or more that isn't being covered by state funding)
5. Build a brand new, practically rent-free, arena for the Seattle Sonics (at least $200 million)
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 14, 2006 12:02 AMA given section of the RCW is often the result of 5, 10, 15, 20 or more different acts of the legislature amending the law. For example, RCW 84.52.010, an important law regarding levying property taxes, is the product of about 24 different acts which have been adopted over the last 113 years, to establish and amend its provisions:
2005 c 122 § 2. Prior: 2004 c 129 § 21; 2004 c 80 § 3; 2003 c 83 § 310; prior: 2002 c 248 § 15; 2002 c 88 § 7; 1995 2nd sp.s. c 13 § 4; 1995 c 99 § 2; 1994 c 124 § 36; 1993 c 337 § 4; 1990 c 234 § 4; 1988 c 274 § 7; 1987 c 255 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 101; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 146; 1971 ex.s. c 243 § 6; 1970 ex.s. c 92 § 4; 1961 c 15 § 84.52.010; prior: 1947 c 270 § 1; 1925 ex.s. c 130 § 74; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 11235; prior: 1920 ex.s. c 3 § 1; 1897 c 71 § 62; 1893 c 124 § 63
So, if you want to invalidate all property taxes in the State of Washington, you can start by going to the law library, and dusting off the old volumes that contain the text of each year's legislative acts (i.e. session laws).
Look at every single one of the 24 session laws upon which RCW 84.52.010 is based, and examine it carefully.
First of all, make sure that the existing law is accurately quoted each time it is amended. And also that the amendment makes clear which text is being added and which text is being deleted. If not, you have a violation of Wash. Const. art. 2, § 37 (the same basis that Judge Roberts struck down I-747), which provides:
"No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length."
Second, make sure that the title of each session law accurately reflects the overall subject of the session law (i.e. there are usually numerous sections of the RCW being created, amended, or repealed), and that the session law in question does not embrace more than one subject.
If not, you have a violation of the single subject rule in Wash. Const. art. 2, § 19 (the same basis that the state Supreme Court struck down I-722) which provides:
"No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
So if any of the numerous session laws upon which a given section of the RCW is based can be invalidated under either Wash. Const. art. 2, § 19 or Wash. Const. art. 2, § 37, then the entire RCW section is invalid with respect to any changes after that point in time -- at least according to Judge Roberts' logic.
Once you do something unconstitutional, you break the entire chain. You can't amend the RCW section any further after something is done unconstitutionally to change it, since it is unconstitutional to use the unconstitutionally changed language in legislation amending the RCW section.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 14, 2006 12:53 AMBIG props to you for this astute observation:
"our state courts seem to believe that it's impermissible to omit inconsequential information from a ballot measure to lower taxes even if the end result is clear, but it's fine and dandy to conceal as much criticial information that one wants to conceal when the goal is to raise taxes."
That is correct to a point - truly what is going on is the judges (and Supreme Court Justices) who rule in favor of taxing authority and eminent domain authority can be assured that democrat interests will pour money into their campaign coffers (via PACs and directly) should their seats on the bench be challenged. It is the carrot of future campaign contribution payoffs that motivates the justices and judges -- and lots of rich future contributors make huge money off of unfettered taxing authority by governments.
Taxpayers get screwed by the Washington State judiciary.
"Another King County judicial activist ruling. The legislature has the power to overturn this wrong decision - right ? I could have predicted it before it happened. Now its time for the people to speak in November and vote out these tax-happy Demorats in both the State House and Senate and break up the Real culture of corruption in Olympia..
Posted by KS at June 13, 2006 09:25 PM"
What were they going to do put ten thousand Daily Kos fans in jail for not paying the tax?
Meanwhile the right merrily keeps whiping out its wallet to pay every last penny that our out of control government demands. Isn't it past time for a little bit more incivility toward 'our' 'government'?
Posted by: Jericho on June 14, 2006 12:36 PMI might agree with that statement if "retaking Olympia" meant retaking it with people who support the types of laws these Eyman initiatives promoted!
OLYMPIA…Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced plans to appeal King County Superior Judge Mary Roberts’ June 13 ruling that Initiative 747 is unconstitutional.
“This ruling is disturbing in two ways,” McKenna said. “First, because it overturns the will of the people in approving property tax relief through Initiative 747 and second, because it sets an impossible hurdle for
those seeking to exercise their constitutional right to initiative.”
Roberts ruled I-747 was unconstitutional because it amended I-722, a law that was declared unconstitutional in September 2001, long after I-747 had been filed and circulated and just two months before it was approved by voters.
Initiative 747 was filed in January 2001 and approved in November 2001 by 57 percent of the people.
The state argued that the constitution does not require initiative drafters to predict that the underlying law might be invalidated when they file their initiative and begin collecting signatures.
“While we respect Judge Roberts, we will vigorously defend our arguments in this case and urge the Washington State Supreme Court to review the case directly,” McKenna said. “This ruling puts initiative drafters in an impossible box whenever they seek to amend a law which might be changed after their initiative has already been drafted and filed, but before the election. The Constitution does not create this box.
“Penalizing voters because the initiative drafters failed to predict whether or not I-722 would be upheld is bad public policy that severely damages the people’s power of initiative,” McKenna said.
The Attorney General’s Office plans to file its direct appeal later this week.
The Democraps are digging their own grave in this state, and it is way way more than 6 feet deep at this point! Vote them out!
Remember Judge Mary Roberts when you see her name running as a judge. She is a Major Nicolssss (Taxaholic) donater......
Posted by: GS on June 15, 2006 12:09 AMYou write: "they kicked him [McKenna] off the Board for bringing up the many flaws in assumptions and budgets that continue to plague the agency today"
Exactly what "flaws in assumptions and budgets" are you referring to that McKenna SUPPOSEDLY objected to and that still are a problem at Sound Transit? You have NO facts to back up those assumptions.
Posted by: resputin on June 16, 2006 08:41 AM