So says today's Wall Street Journal "Paycheck Protection End Run"
[Mrs.] Gregoire pulled a fast one last Friday when she quietly signed a bill that guts a state paycheck protection law currently being debated in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.Go figure.
...
What's driving Big Labor's vehement opposition to paycheck protection is obvious. A year after Washington implemented its law, voluntary teacher contributions to the WEA's political action committee dropped by 85%.
Meanwhile, The Olympian's Adam Wilson asked Gregoire why she didn't veto the emergency clause on that bill even though she vetoed other emergency clauses:
"Because they asked me specifically that it not be vetoed because they continue to take money in and this will relieve the cloud, with the emergency clause in place," she said. "Rather than wait until some later date when from here 'till there will be a cloud over what use they can make with the money."Translation: she wanted to protect the WEA from a referendum. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 17, 2007 11:17 AM | Email This
The WEA last week filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying they no longer believe the law to be unconstitutional. This was only possible, of course, if they could protect it from referendum. The hope is that the Supreme Court will not rule on the case, since the WEA is essentially dropping its original suit that caused all this in the first place.
So it seems that this is actually an attempt to prevent the Supreme Court from issuing a ruling at all.
Lots of info on http://www.teachers-vs-union.blogspot.com/.
Posted by: pudge on May 17, 2007 12:06 PMThis is nothing new.
Posted by: Hinton on May 17, 2007 12:34 PMThink they'll buy the referendum/emergency clause.
If it is in the Supremes, won't they continue to act on it?
Posted by: swatter on May 17, 2007 12:59 PMGood idea. We also need to make this a right to work state by abolishing union slavery.
Posted by: AP on May 17, 2007 01:16 PMWould or could the US Supremes tackle the emergency clause aspect of this and try to tie up the WA legislative directive? Could they say, "this is no emergency" and act on that?
I know the State Supremes didn't want to touch the 'emergency clause' with a 10-foot pole, but could the US Supremes do it if they wanted?
Posted by: swatter on May 17, 2007 01:54 PMBTW, the link to the WSJ article opens in a blank window for me; no text.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 17, 2007 01:56 PMAnd the emergency clause is not really important to their supplemental brief here, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, anyway: the only reason it matters is that if there was a chance the law could be overturned, then the WEA would not have been able to say they no longer have a problem with it, because it very well might be overturned by the voters.
If the EFF wanted to take this piece of legislation to court, it is my opinion that a court would defer to the legislative/executive branches of government to determine if the emergency clause was valid to any given piece of legislation.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 17, 2007 02:04 PMI think the Emergency Clause is overdue for some serious modification. Completely doing away with it is probably going too far--after all, sometime in the future we might actually face a genuine emergency. (No, really, it could actually happen!)
But I could really live with a constitutional requirement that any law passed by means of an emergency clause will automatically sunset, in its entirety (i.e. NO severability), one year after it it passed, and may not have any other continuing effects (i.e. it can't create any longer-term financing vehicles, taxing districts, etc.)
Tim Eyman, where are you???
Posted by: Kirk Parker on May 17, 2007 04:11 PMThe WEA didn't do well at all this legislative session. The repeal of gainsharing is a billion-dollar hit, the health insurance subsidy will be less than the increase in the cost, only the math and science WASLs were delayed, the Rule of 90 we've pursued for years now didn't go anywhere, class size language remained unchanged, the increase in I728 money was less than hoped, etc, etc.
Lowering the minimum retirement age to 62 is OK, and the 3.4% COLA is nice, but if the Governor was truly a WEA lapdog you'd expect to see a lot, lot more.
Posted by: Ryan on May 17, 2007 05:41 PMHaving said all of the above, I also agree with Kirk @ 18: There are and will continue to be legitimate emergencies where waiting 90 days after end of session for a statute to take effect would clearly not be tenable. I'm not sure off the top what the best restrictive language would be, but whatever it is, it needs to be strong and we need it bad.
SIDEBAR: If (when, I sure hope) Dino runs against the Gov again in 2008, I trust his campaign will make this one of the key issues to beat up on her with at EVERY stop: While it may not be the most important issue facing WA, its gotta be one of the most egregious cases of a Gov dissing the average citizen in favor of her political friends that I have come across in a LONG time.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 17, 2007 05:45 PMGregoire robs from everone in the state, rich and poor, and then takes a raise that is twice that of any of her pawns, spends like a drunken sailer (with some apoligies to all drunken sailors) then hands out money to everyone who will take it.
She totally pissed away the surplus we all paid in, and walks away wanting more.
The elections this fall - Just say hell no!
"The WEA didn't do well at all this legislative session. The repeal of gainsharing is a billion-dollar hit, the health insurance subsidy will be less than the increase in the cost, only the math and science WASLs were delayed, the Rule of 90 we've pursued for years now didn't go anywhere, class size language remained unchanged, the increase in I728 money was less than hoped, etc, etc."
"Lowering the minimum retirement age to 62 is OK, and the 3.4% COLA is nice, but if the Governor was truly a WEA lapdog you'd expect to see a lot, lot more.
Posted by Ryan at May 17, 2007 05:41 PM
How was the increase in 728 money "less than hoped"? It was the amount generated by law, which was $239 million, or about 38%. Not following you there. Don't know what's meant by "class size language remains unchanged," either.
No, they didn't get Rule of 90, but there was no serious chance Rule of 90 would get adopted this year. It's just too expensive, especially in light of the rapidly increasing costs of funding the pension system. What they did get, though, is hardly chopped liver. It is a benefit enhancement that costs $2.3 billion over the next 25 years, and that's heavily tilted toward just the kind of people who make up the WEA hierarchy -- Plan 2 members with a lot of service credit.
"Only" the math and science WASLs were delayed? That's quite a bit of "only." No, she didn't go entirely into the tank for them on the WASL, but the reaction from the business community she's also depending on for her re-election would have been fierce if she had.
I'd note the WEA got $45m in salary increases on top of $379 million in I-732 raises. Plus extra paid "professional development" days for a lot of them. Plus they got their long-sought "simple majority" bill making it easier for them to raise all our property taxes, and in a particularly extreme form.
So beg to differ. The WEA's appetite, like a shark's, is never satisfied, but I'd say they had a very good session.
Posted by: stu on May 17, 2007 08:22 PMThese Gregoire legal machinations and end-runs reminds me of the Clinton Administration. The motto of such Democrats should be "Whatever we can legally get away with..."
I agree. Chris Gregoire, Union Lapdog.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 17, 2007 11:41 PMThe second would be criminal action for any legislator or Governor who knowingly signed a bill that they believed or had reason to believe to be unconstitutional. The anti-initiative bills are a good example. This one is a GREAT example. Knowingly passing unconstitutional bills would be punishable for up to a year in jail and an automatic $10,000 fine for each occurance. You think the legislators would think twice before acting in clearly illegal ways with such a law in place.
Posted by: drw on May 18, 2007 08:50 AMThe second is unworkable. How can you prove they "knew" it was unconstitutional, rather than merely disagreeing about proper constitutional interpretation?
Think about it the other way: what if Governor Rossi signed a bill that established that homosexuals do not get special antidiscrimination protection, and the liberal Supreme Court he inherited decided that law was unconstitutional? Should Rossi go to jail for that?
EVERY POLITICIAN REGARDLESS OF PARTY SHOULD GO TO JAIL, ACTUALLY PRISON IS MORE LIKE IT.... THEY HAVE SCAMMED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THIS STATES VOTERS LONG ENOUGH. GET RID OF EM ALL