Another Eyman Initiative ruled unconstitutional

Via Slog:

Tim Eyman’s 2/3 majority requirement for raising new state revenue is unconstitutional, according to King County Superior Court Judge Bruce E. Heller.

The law enacted through Initiative 1053 is ruled unconstitutional; it directly contradicts the Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 22:

No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

Of course, the ruling will be appealed and, ultimately, settled by the Supreme Court. With any luck, the Supreme Court won’t be able to weasel its way out of a substantive ruling this time….

The next question: If I-1053 is unconstitutional, what should be the fate of its latest incarnation, I-1185, should it get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot? Will AG Rob McKenna sue Eyman to keep an unconstitutional initiative off the ballot?

You know, like AG Christine Gregoire did with Goldy’s Horses’ Ass initiative.


  1. 1

    Politically Incorrect - who has been banned over at spews:

    You usual suspects don’t care for the initiative process much, do ya?

  2. 2

    Michael spews:

    We’re fine with the initiative process, it’s Tim Eyman that we can’t stand. Do you think an unconstitutional law should be left on the books?

  3. 3

    dorky dorkman spews:

    Speaking of ‘politically incorrect’, here’s some information that may enlighten you as to why you were banned at unSP:

    Paul Krugman picks up on a trend that’s quietly becoming more common: “right-wing political correctness.” As Krugman explained it, the goal is “to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”

    Thus, even talking about “the wealthy” brings angry denunciations; we’re supposed to call them “job creators.” Even talking about inequality is “class warfare.”


    Over Memorial Day weekend, MSNBC host Chris Hayes ignited a little firestorm with his comments and questions about the use of the word “hero” to describe those American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who die in our wars.

    Conservative bloggers led the charge in denouncing Hayes. They shouldn’t have. Hayes wasn’t attacking the war dead. He wasn’t even concluding that we shouldn’t use the word “hero” to describe them. He was using his feelings — discomfort rooted in concern that the label applies a positive pressure towards U.S. entry into more wars — to open a discussion.

    Conservatives express shock and horror over political correctness, which they roughly define as the Orwellian suppression of any frank discussion about issues that liberals hold dear. But conservatives practice their own PC, too. “Freedom fries,” anyone?

    A few days later, Michigan’s Mackinac Center, a conservative think tank, issued a broad public records request to labor studies centers at Wayne State University, the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. The request seeks any emails dealing with the collective bargaining situation in Wisconsin – including oddly the surname of liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow – an inclusion that Maddow says caught her completely by surprise. She wasn’t alone.

  4. 4

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Good! This won’t be over until the state supreme court makes a final disposition of the issue, but the trial court’s (correct) ruling is a step in the right direction. Sorry, Eyman, the state constitution says what it says.

  5. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @1 And you don’t care for democracy very much, do you? In what country besides Syria does 1/3 of the people get to tell 2/3 of the people what to do?

  6. 7

    dorky dorkman spews:

    re 5: “How are Freedom Fries political correctness? The French were arming Saddam around the UN Sanctions? Did you forget that FACT?”

    The Russians are arming the Syrians. We should call vodka Kanadian Kool Aid.

  7. 8

    ArtFart spews:

    “Michigan’s Mackinac Center, a conservative think tank”

    …perchance based on “Horseshit Island”?

  8. 9

    Politically Incorrect - who has been banned over at spews:


    You don’t know anythng about me, rodent, so just shut the fuck up and die.

  9. 10

    Politically Incorrect - who has been banned over at spews:


    I don’t understand the ban – I don’t comment on rich people over at SP. They just don’t like any one saying anything against them.

    Possibly I’m banned because I told Tim Eyman he would be useful in the campaign to legalize cannabis. Maybe that’s why they don’t like what I had to say. Guess Tim’s not too keen on allowing people to enjoy a naturally occuring herb.

  10. 11

    dorky dorkman spews:

    re 10: Tim might point out that hemlock occurs naturally, as well. Go ahead and enjoy a glass!

  11. 12

    Liberal Scientist is a slut who occasionally wears a hoodie spews:

    I’m banned from pudge’s posts – if I post something he comes along and ‘disappears’ my post.
    Since it’s not rules-based, there’s none of this:

    5. Puddybud spews:

    [Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]

    Rather, your post is just gone, *POOF*. This has the comic effect of messing up the post numbering scheme, leaving behind traces of what happened.

    One difference from here is the obvious arbitrary and autocratic nature of what they’re doing, like I said, not rules-based. Rather more like thugs showing up in the night and making you disappear. And you might never know why.

    Kind a microcosm of right-wing rule, little fascists playing at having some power.

    Someone around here has also mentioned that Stefan ‘outs’ people who post things he doesn’t like – I’ve seen that happen recently, with ‘Tensor’ I think – they used his real name to get him to stop saying reasonable things.

    All in all a nasty bunch of thuggish little fascists with a propensity for Ayn Rand-derived pseudonyms. Not really worth the time to try to converse.

  12. 13

    uptown spews:


    – The Initiative process cannot be use to change the State Constitution.

    – If you want to require the legislature to have a 2/3’s majority to pass taxes, then the voters should have to come up with a 2/3’s majority (and it should also be of all registered voters).

  13. 15

    Bert Chadick spews:

    Vote suppression and supermajority requirements prove the Rethuglicans know their party is fading thanks to the generational drift and demographic rebalance.

  14. 16

    Kim Jong Chillin spews:

    generational drift and demographic rebalance.

    05/31/2012 AT 7:11 PM

    I suppose you are right: the demographic is shifting towards more and more lazy fucks and those who think they “deserve free stuff” – perfect democratic party voters.