Chief Justice Gerry Alexander holds a commanding lead over challenger John Groen. As the Seattle Times put it the other day:
The court's most important job is to limit the overreaching of the executive and legislative branches of government, particularly when it damages the rights of the people. In our view, the court has been too deferential to those in authority ... and [Alexander] offers stability and continuity to the institution.Alexander's re-election is a sad event for anybody who looks to the court to defend the people's rights from the excesses of the other branches of government.
Justice Tom Chambers appears to have been re-elected. Stephen Johnson and incumbent Susan Owens appear to be headed for a November run-off. Electing Stephen Johnson is a top priority this November.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 20, 2006 09:50 AM | Email ThisWhen your votes are cancelled out by a liberal supermajority, backed by a rigged election system that now counts all votes and controls all voting without the bother of having to have a physical presence at polling stations, why bother to contest effort after losing effort?
Remember the days of the Dixiecrats, when the majority of offices in the South were retained by the Dems in uncontested "elections"? It appears that that situation obtains now in the Evergreen State, which is, I remind you, the home of Evergreen State College. Your tax dollars at work. Q.E.D.
Posted by: Rey Smith on September 20, 2006 10:00 AMThis Supreme Court is not about to let citizens win lawsuits that would cost governments money.
If the governments win, then the unions representing public employees will fill the incumbents' campaign coffers.
Adjudicate a case fairly so citizens prevail? That'd ENSURE some challenger wins the seat at the next election.
I too admire your efforts and those who post here. But as Rey Smith points out, the state judiciary races have now become very partisan. And I would lay the cause of that at the door of conservatives who have spent enormous amounts of money running scurrilous ad campaigns demonizing those who do not agree with them.
Gerry Alexander is by no means a Democrat or a liberal. But conservatives have made him the target of one of the most vicious ad campaigns I have ever seen. Not because he was deserving of such abuse, but merely because they felt his seat on the court was vulnerable and they had a more amenable candidate in their pocket. Shame on them, and shame on you for supporting it.
I am relieved and encouraged that a majority of the voters of this election felt the same way.
I think Groen should seriously consider one more try at this. He could make it the second time around.
Posted by: Michele on September 20, 2006 10:17 AMAs far as I'm concerned you can just shut your mouth if you are offended by this state's supreme court rulungs but were too busy to vote yesterday....
Posted by: Jaybo on September 20, 2006 10:28 AMState Senate Stephen Johnson, on the other hand, has a record of activism protecting property owners from losing safeguards over education levies - saying, “The argument against the simple majority is not about hurting schools; it’s about keeping property taxes under control.” Remember that when the time comes, Washington State.
A vote for Stephen Johnson is a vote against the educational industrial complex! And against the WEA, which wants to file suit on us taxpayers...
Posted by: SVC Alumnus Blogger on September 20, 2006 10:55 AMThose payoffs from the public employee unions would have been made to FairPAC/Citizens to Uphold whether or not ANY contributions came in to the challengers from builder groups. Public sector unions basically don't care about what the builders care about. What SEIU and WEA do care about is one main thing: the Supreme Court validating government overreaching at the expense of citizens. Less public oversight of governments? Bloated tax revenue streams? Excessive condemnation authority? Deceptive ballot measures sponsored by governments? All those means one thing to public employee unions - more union dues flowing to them.
It's all about the money, Unkl. That's why these incumbents are so valuable to groups like SEIU and WEA.
Posted by: Allen Smithie on September 20, 2006 10:56 AMit's always been filled with knock-down mudslinging, today as in the 1860's; true, we should all strive for civility and truth, but these are public figures who voluntarily want the light; fair game to me;
people are intelligent enough to sort out the hyperbole from the truth or truly concerning issues--you should place more faith in the people to discern. perhaps you do. but--many just lazily vote an incumbent--research is too hard for them;
sooner or later human nature will encourage some to dig up past dirt; in what historical election was dirt not used? it's an ideal (and unrealistic) election that's devoid of ANY dirty tactics. true, it would be nice to have none, but, like diseases, they will always be there;
if MoveOn or the left or liberals dig up dirt & demonize it's ok?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 20, 2006 10:57 AMYou are absolutely correct.
I too believe (MJohnson) will comeback to bite Owens in November.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on September 20, 2006 12:27 PMThat's how much faith I have in KCE. We should all do the same for the November election. I see them doing whatever is needed to put Cantwell over the top.
Posted by: Andy on September 20, 2006 12:59 PMSo that's the standard Owens holds governments to when deciding if they are violating citizens' rights? She'll only stop what a government is doing if it is "insane?"
That's setting the bar WAY too low.
Posted by: Bowline on September 20, 2006 04:29 PMRegards,
Jeff Thomas
And Wayne is right. I figured out the benefit of all those other candidates earlier today. I think they kept Stephen Johnson in this race. and I really like his chances for the general.
Posted by: Michele on September 20, 2006 10:00 PMActually, Rey Smith is right....
The "machine" has continued it's efforts to close any loopholes that would expose their fraud and corruption. They've become downright savy at it!
There is only one thing that has ever worked to slow down and stop the machine...and even cause it to back track..... That "thing" is public exposure - LOUD public exposure! Now of curse, the machine usually has the media in it's pocket. This helps to avoid the embarrassing public exposure thing....But once in a while - someone comes along and just turns on the lights and it catches all of the machine cockroaches by surprise! Suddenly - public opinion,(something the machine usually cares nothing about) means everything! Polls are taken, PR firms are hired! The machine goes into high gear to save their corruption! They eventually retreat and regroup to try and recapture whatever progress was lost in their corruption...(phony new taxes, candidates, policies, oppressive laws, etc..)
We need to stop thinking of this group as people..and start seeing them as the "machine" they are. Machines require maintenence and parts....and tax dollars to survive... They can be broken.
Here's to that "someone" who eventually turns on the light in Washington State!
Posted by: Deborah on September 20, 2006 10:46 PM
The primary claim in the Sheehan lawsuit was that Sound Transit and Seattle Monorail Project both misconstrued what kind of taxing authority the legislature gave them. The reason the case was brought was that the two statutes at issue can be read as authorizing a completely different type of tax than an MVET.
We disagree with the Court's analysis. For one thing, the majority read the term "motor vehicle" in each of the statutes as describing what the tax was to be "on." It construed the statutes as authorizing "an excise tax . . . of every motor vehicle" (ST) and "a special excise tax . . . on the value of every motor vehicle" (SMP). Try reading the statutes that way - it turns what's left of both into gibberish.
We argued the term "motor vehicle" in both statutes should instead be read as part of the tax limiting language. Read that way, a different kind of excise tax was authorized. An example would be a tax based on the amount the vehicle was used each year. That kind of excise tax would have a per-vehicle upper limit (the percentages of vehicle value specified in the statutes).
The kind of tax we argued the statutes can be read as authorizing would have been much more favorable to taxpayers. As I am sure you are aware, tax grant statutes must be read narrowly, and in favor of taxpayers.
Do you see any reason these two statutes can not be read as authorizing taxes based on the amount of vehicle use?
The majority did not address this argument before dismissing the case. The briefing repeatedly asserts a different kind of tax could have been put before the voters, but the opinion fails to even mention that claim. Do you want to speculate about why that might be?
================================
ST's Statutory Tax Grant Language:
Cities that operate transit systems, county transportation authorities, metropolitan municipal corporations, public transportation benefit areas, and regional transit authorities may submit an authorizing proposition to the voters, and if approved, may levy and collect an excise tax, at a rate approved by the voters, but not exceeding eighty one-hundredths of one percent on the value, under chapter 82.44 RCW, of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of the taxing district, solely for the purpose of providing high capacity transportation service.
(Former) RCW 81.104.160(1)
SMP's Statutory Tax Grant Language:
Every authority has the power to levy and collect a special excise tax not exceeding two and one-half percent on the value of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of the authority area for the privilege of using a motor vehicle.
RCW 35.95A.080(1)
That's a strong statement, pseudonym. What do you mean the grounds of this case are not solid?
Most of the taxpayers' briefing to the Supreme Court related to a single argument. The claim was that ST and SMP implemented the wrong kind of tax. This kind of claim is made with some regularity to courts.
Comments from anyone about this are welcome:
--- The two statutes ST and SMP rely on can be construed to authorize only one kind of tax. The type of tax ST and SMP were required to put before the voters - given what their statutes say - is a tax based on the amount of actual vehicle use. We know that because of how the Supreme Court unanimously construed and then applied the tax grant statute at issue in the Arborwood Idaho case in 2004. These two tab taxes are legally identical to the one struck down in that opinion, and the statutes have comparable material features.
This is not addressed in the opinion.