Tim Eyman e-mails that I-960 survived a bogus legal challenge today:
[King County Superior Judge Catherine Shaffer] rejected arguments by opponents of I-960 who sought to prohibit a vote of the people on the measure. Futurewise and SEIU argued that since they receive a lot of tax money from state government, they'd be harmed by I-960 because it may limit the flow of revenue to them. They also argued that if I-960 were on the ballot, they'd be "forced" to spend money to oppose it.Now these whiny taxeaters have to convince the taxpayers that Taxpayer Protection is a bad idea.
Attorney General Rob McKenna, whose office defended the state in this matter, explains:
The court's decision re-emphasizes that I-960 is within the scope of initiative power and the voters should be permitted to cast their vote on the matter.Ouch.
Also this week, the EFF prevailed in its suit to obtain public records regarding state collective bargaining agreements.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 13, 2007 05:10 PM | Email ThisGregorie's 33% increase in budget spending is absurd.
Posted by: gs on July 13, 2007 05:42 PMHere's what we sent to supporters and the media today (provides some good information from the hearing):
I-960's opponents must be saying to themselves: "Ah, crap, now we've gotta convince the voters" -- judge delivers a devastating defeat to opponents of I-960 - people's right to vote affirmed by King County Superior Court judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee -- Secretary of State confirms raw signature count for I-960: 314,504.
STATEMENT BY TIM EYMAN WHO ATTENDED TODAY'S HEARING:
I-960 is a smart, balanced, reasonable proposal that closes loopholes the Legislature has put in I-601 over the years and ensures better public disclosure and cost analysis of bills proposing higher taxes.
Who says Friday the 13th is unlucky? Justice occurred in King County today when Superior Court judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee, rejected arguments by opponents of I-960 who sought to prohibit a vote of the people on the measure. Futurewise and SEIU argued that since they receive a lot of tax money from state government, they'd be harmed by I-960 because it may limit the flow of revenue to them. They also argued that if I-960 were on the ballot, they'd be "forced" to spend money to oppose it.
We're very excited that the initiative process survived the King County court system for a change. Opponents were originally assigned a different judge, got that one kicked off, and were reassigned to Judge Shaffer. So despite their attempted judicial manipulation and judge-shopping, opponents faced a devastating defeat today. They were counting on blocking a public vote on I-960 because they don't think the voters agree with them on this.
Before announcing her decision, Judge Shaffer quoted extensively from our state Constitution saying "The first power reserved to the people is the initiative" and from a 2005 unanimous Supreme Court ruling that said the people have First Amendment rights that should not be infringed upon by the courts. She said the people have a right to vote and she wasn't going to take that right to vote away.
During the hearing, Judge Shaffer contradicted opponents claim that I-960 introduces a "new" requirement of two-thirds legislative approval for tax increases. She pointed out the two-thirds requirement was instituted by voter-approved I-601 in 1993 and so it wasn't new. Attorney Knoll Lowney responded "With all due respect, judge, it is new because the Legislature isn't following that now." Amazing. After that, she focused on the two aspects of I-960 that are new: the requirement to do a cost analysis of bills proposing higher taxes and the advisory vote provisions.
She asked the Attorney General and Knoll Lowney "Could the Legislature pass a law requiring an advisory vote on revenue increases in order to get constituent feedback?" Lowney said no, the Attorney General said "sure they could." The judge's point was the people have equal legislative power and if the Legislature could pass such a requirement, so could the people. And the judge is exactly right that this requirement is about giving legislators feedback from the people when Olympia takes more of the people's money.
The Secretary of State's office just emailed us the following (we originally reported 314,566 signatures on 18,167 sheets):
From: Glidden, Teresa [mailto:tglidden@secstate.wa.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:38 PM
To: tim eyman
Subject: Initiative Measure No. 960
Mr. Eyman,
We have finished the page and signature count on I-960.
We have 18,182 petitions sheets, and 314,504 signatures.
To certify the Initiative for the ballot, we will be verifying 3% (about 9,435 signatures) with our random check.
Sincerely,
Teresa Glidden
Initiatives Supervisor, Elections Division
Office of the Secretary of State
520 Union Ave SE
Olympia, WA 98504
360-725-5780
Tglidden@secstate.wa.gov
-- END --
Based on the percentage of "good signatures" from previous campaigns, any number higher than 275,000 signatures guarantees I-960 will be on the ballot. So with 314,504 signatures confirmed, it's certain that I-960 will be on the ballot in November.
1.6 billion in new raises, and a 33% increase in spending is something that must be stopped.
Posted by: GS on July 13, 2007 09:01 PMI didn't read the decision but am just reading between the lines from the articles and the posts.BTW in your piecee you said all these issues were resolved in prior cases. How did prior cases deal with the argument that you can't pass a law requiring a 2/3 vote on a subject (like tax increases) because the constitution says laws are by majority vote, therefore this would be a constitutional amendment?
Not arguing, just curious. That was an interesting legal argument I thought, would like to hear the brief response.
be good--
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 14, 2007 06:15 AMI hope the next time Pope pretends to be a Republican, the party can toss him out on his horse's ass.
Posted by: pudge on July 14, 2007 07:43 AMI just read Knoll Lowney's editorial in the P-I, which violates a cardinal rule of journalism by not noting the fact that Lowney is paid by Futurewise and the SEIU to represent them in this case. I sent a letter to readerrep@seattlepi.com; I doubt they will fix the error.
As to the claim that I-960 is unconstitutional, I don't know either way; however, it is hypocrisy for Futurewise and the SEIU and Democrats to complain that this harms the rights of citizens, when I-960 was brought about by their efforts to undermine the clearly expressed will of the people in I-601. If they work to reenact the provisions of I-601, I will begin care what they think about this issue.
Posted by: pudge on July 14, 2007 07:55 AMRichard Pope said I-960 was unconstitutional prior to reading its text. After his earlier post, I sent him I-960's language and after reviewing it, I don't think he's got the same position but I'm eager to hear his thoughts now that he's read it.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on July 14, 2007 08:05 AMOpponents of I-601 in 1993 said the same things they're saying about I-960 today. They said the Legislature couldn't function under it; they said they couldn't adopt a budget under it; they said it wouldn't withstand court challenges; they said it would destroy representative democracy.
None of those things happened; none of those things were true. I-601 survived all court challenges, the Legislature adopted a budget in 1994 under I-601's provisions and have continued to do so over 13 years.
This year, I-960's opponents tried a new approach by going to court to block a public vote on I-960 based on the fact that it contains policies in I-601 which are current law. Didn't work. The judge recognized that the two-thirds for tax increases requirement is current law. She neglected to mention that the Legislature reenacted that two-thirds requirement in 1998 and again in 2005. Remember 2005? That was Gregoire and majority Democrats. So they set the two-thirds standard for themselves. All I-960 does is helps them abide by the rules they've set for themselves.
Opponents keep asking everyone "Look what happened in California/Colorado/Alaska when they adopted something similar to I-960." But we don't need to look at "similar", we can look at the exact same. What happened after the passage of I-601 is what matters. Voter-approved I-601 has been on the books for 13 years and it's worked very well and provided reasonable limits on state government's fiscal policies. I-960 simply closes the loopholes the Legislature has put in I-601 in recent years.
But I-960 goes much further by ensuring greater public disclosure and public accountability with Olympia's annual tax grab every session. Every single bill that proposes higher taxes or higher fees must receive a thorough cost analysis by the state budget office. They've got to put out a public press release identifying the legislators who are co-sponsoring these bills along with their phone numbers and email addresses and the bill's 10-year cost to taxpayers. When there is a committee hearing a new press release identifying members of the committee, contact info, and time/date/location of the hearing. When they vote on these bills, a new press release with legislators listed who voted yes and no and their contact info and the bill's 10-year cost. I-960 provides a 21st century way for the people and the press receive progress reports on efforts in Olympia to increase the taxpayers' burden.
And I-960 greatly deters the Legislature's reckless overuse/abuse of the "emergency clause" through greater public disclosure of the legislators who are doing so. I-960 is a smart, reasonable, balanced proposal.
"Wahhhhh! WAhhhh! wahhhhh.....All that tax money belongs to us!!! Wahhhh waaaaahhhhhh!"
Posted by: Michele on July 14, 2007 09:00 AMAlso, does Fascistrise really receive public money? If so, from where?
Posted by: AP on July 14, 2007 09:05 AMThe preposterous argument by Futurewise and SEIU that I-960 should not be allowed to go a vote of the people because then they would be ''forced'' to spend money to oppose it is a great poster-child for how far some have gone down the socialist road in WA. Note they don't seem to have the slightest concern that we the people would be forced to continue wasting our precious tax dollars supporting their leftist agenda if I-960 is NOT approved.
And for those fans of ''big government knows best'' who are still hoping I-960 will not qualify: Stop dreaming:
From SOS website initiative info:
''Initiatives to the people or to the Legislature require 224,880 valid signatures.''
The 314,504 sigs the SOS acknowledged for I-960 gives it a huge 40 percent cushion over the required number of valid sigs. That is a WAY more than a comfortable margin; it's a lock for the ballot. Remember to urge all your friends and neighbors to vote for it.
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 14, 2007 11:06 AMAs for the substance, you seems to forget that the people of this state voted in our politicians and gave the dems a huge victory. The anti-tax wave of the late 90's appears to be over and Eyman has not had a successful anti-tax iniative in a while.
Not to mention that having an advisory vote every time parking fees increase at state parks is quite silly.
You did indirectly address it by noting that 601 had a 2/3 requirement......and this was enacted by the leg...so I guess if I then ASSUME it was challenged in court then I can ASSUME the court rejected the challenge and then I coul dASSUME that YES, THERE IS A COURT RULING ON POINT SAYING THAT CHANGING THE 50%+ SIMPLE MAJORITY REQUIREMENT IN THE LEG. FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF LAW IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL THUS REQUIRING YOU TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION RATHER THAQN ACIEE THIS THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.
Sory don't mean to yell, just want to make sude the oint is clear.
But I would rather not ASSUME. I believe you would likely know the answer to my question so if there is a court ruling on point I'd be very interested in your sayin so and what case is it in.
Because if righties can change the constitutional requirement that laws be passed by siml majority, so could lefties. PERsonally I don't think it would be a cool thing to pass a law that said "okay from now on, any bill restricting health care provided by our new socialist government has to be passed by 68% [hell why not more? 75%] of the voters in an inititittive or of the legislators in the house and senate respectively."
Because if you Tim eyman support chaning it legislatively then you have to agree that yes the above pro-health benefits law would be constituttional.
I guess I reallly do think there's something wrong with going away from the 50+ requirement.....any one is fre to difer but you know, the rule is going to be what is sauce for the gose is sauce for the gander, it's not going to me "laws favored by conservatives can have a supemajjroity requirement, laws favored by anyone else can't."
I like the one man one vote principle behind the 50+% requirement and personally, I think when you allow 1/3 ofg the electorate to vetoe something that 2/3-one wants, THAT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC. It is minority rule. But I digress into the principles behind these issues. I get it that you guys will ssay the growth of govt. is so dangerous, has so many advantages, etc. etc. a new tax law should have a 2/3 requirement.....I really just felt you avoided or missed my question so I really want to know:
has a court ruled on the main issue yet, which is cwhether or not if you pass a law changing the part of the constitution that says laws are passed by simple majority in the leg. or by the people, why isn't that a constitutional amndment??
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 14, 2007 04:37 PMFor fee increases, I-960 doesn't require 2/3's and doesn't require an advisory vote. It simply says that unelected bureaucrats can't increase fees, only our elected representatives can. It's totally against the principles of representative democracy or direct democracy to allow unelected bureaucrats to take more of the people's money because if the people don't like it, they are powerless -- they can't vote a bureaucrat out of office. I-960 simply requires legislators to take a recorded vote on fee increases (with a majority vote).
As for the advisory vote provisions, the Legislature has overused/abused their power by declaring bills to be "emergencies." When they do, they block the people's constitutionally guaranteed right to referendum. The advisory vote allows the people to learn how legislators voted on these 'emergency' tax increases, identifying legislators by name and including their phone numbers and email addresses in the following general election voters pamphlet. Providing voters with a two-page report in the voters pamphlet every time Olympia stifles our constitutionally guaranteed rights is totally reasonable and proper response.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 14, 2007 07:17 PMsorry, i said Giffy #18 in my last post -- i meant to type Giffy #17.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 14, 2007 07:27 PM
Your email address is cleve206@aol.com. That was the monorail board campaign email address for attorney Cleve Stockmeyer. If that's you, then you should just list your own legal pedigree (B.A., Oberlin College; master's degree, Columbia University; J.D., New York University School of Law) and then simply tell everyone I-601's legal history. If you don't know, you should just call your law partner, wacko-lefty-activist-judge, almost-Governor Phil Talmadge; you'd sure think he'd know about it.
As my previous post reported, I-601 survived all legal challenges and its policies have been on the books for 13 years. The Legislature reenacted the 2/3's for tax increases requirement in 1998 and again in 2005. I-960 simply helps them abide by the requirement they imposed on themselves.
Why isn't that a good thing? Stop hiding in shadows and answer that question.
http://www.munileague.org/cec/2003/report/mono/StockmeyerC.htm
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 14, 2007 07:53 PM
Not really. Delegation is a pretty established legal concept. Might as well require the city council to vote every time the library wants ot increase late fees. And people aren't powerless, the legislature is free at anytime to overrule an agency.
I am also not a big fan of force feeding people who are to lazy to pay attention. Votes are public records easily obtainable for anyone in the state. Same with contact information. Its not hard and spending more tax payer dollars to disseminate the info is, in my opinion, wasteful and a bit nanny statish.
Posted by: Giffy on July 14, 2007 10:46 PMMust you moronically copy and paste liberal talking points? The intiative will qualify. Wanna make a wager on it? C'mon you smarmy liberal, let's do it.
Thought so.
Posted by: pbj on July 14, 2007 10:48 PMHahahah! BUSTED! "Seattle Democrat" has been outed. Hey Cleve, where is all that money you liberals wasted on the Monorail??
Posted by: pbj on July 14, 2007 10:52 PMYou said: "And people aren't powerless, the legislature is free at anytime to overrule an agency."
Again, the people ARE powerless when unelected bureaucrats jack up fees. Sure, the Legislature can overrule the agency's decision but they won't because they love unelected bureaucrats confiscating the taxpayers' money because it allows the politicians to spend the money without taking the heat for the increase. It removes public accountability; I-960 restores accountability.
Lobbyists for special interest groups are spoon-fed legislative info. The press and the people are not. I-960 requires the state budget office to email (no paper, no expenditure of tax dollars) an all-in-one, easy-to-read cost info and legislative sponsorship and votes on bills increasing taxes and fees to folks in the press and regular citizens. The Office of Financial Management sets up an email listserver and anyone who signs up to receive the emailed info on an ongoing basis will receive emails automatically onto their computers. This is exactly what happens when the state supreme court issues rulings; people on a listserver automatically receive an emailed version of the court's opinions. If the courts can do it, so can the state budget office.
If politicians know that every tax hike and fee increase bill they sponsor and vote for will be widely reported to the media and the people, along with their long-term costs and legislators' phone numbers and email addresses, they'll be thinking of the taxpayers more than they do now. They won't just be influenced by the lobbyists for the special interest groups, they'll consider what the voters think. How's that anything other than a good thing?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 15, 2007 11:49 AMThe Secretary of State confirms the I-960 campaign turned in 314,504 raw voter signatures. 224,880 valid signatures are needed. So any percentage of 'bad signatures' lower than 28% guarantees I-960 will qualify. Here's our track record:
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2006's I-917: 17.61%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2005's I-900: 16.69%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2004's I-892: 21.58%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2002's I-776: 20.63%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2001's I-747: 17.31%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2000's I-745: 20.57%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 2000's I-722: 18.88%
Percentage of 'bad sigs' for 1999's I-695: 22.87%
Average percentage of 'bad sigs' for all measures (29 total) that qualified for the ballot in the past 8 years (1999 - 2006): 19.4%
Giffy, you'll lose a lot of money betting against us.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 15, 2007 12:12 PM
Delegation is a pretty established legal concept. Might as well require the city council to vote every time the library wants ot increase late fees. And people aren't powerless, the legislature is free at anytime to overrule an agency.
And the people are also free to forbid the legislature from delegating ...
I am also not a big fan of force feeding people who are to lazy to pay attention. Votes are public records easily obtainable for anyone in the state.
Yes, and? You could say the same thing about almost any government information, yet I don't consider it "laziness" if I don't spend many hours a week while the legislature is in session trying to find all that information. The fact is it is not readily available to most people, and our media does a poor job of informing us, and if the people want the government to help them by making it easier, that, too, is their right, and one I support strongly.
It's a far better use of government funds than most of what our money is spent on.
Posted by: pudge on July 16, 2007 11:17 AMyou wrote: "It's a far better use of government funds than most of what our money is spent on."
devastating point. YOU DA MAN!
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 16, 2007 05:04 PM