De-eymanization begins?

A couple of months ago some prescient political analyst filthy liberal blogger suggested a way to provoke a constitutional test of the I-1053 two-thirds majority:

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

And look at what just happened (via Publicola):

Late last night, the state house Democrats forced a floor vote on Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27, Tacoma) bill to repeal an $83 million bank loophole and shift the money to K-3 class size reductions. While the Democrats needed a two-thirds majority and only got 52 votes (it was 52-42 in a straight party line vote), the losing vote wasn’t just a symbolic effort to embarrass Republicans for voting against kids and for banks.

PubliCola has confirmed that the Democrats took the vote to set up a formal court challenge to I-1053, the rule that requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.

As Publicola explains, the Democrats followed some procedures required by the state Supreme court in their dismissal of I-960. In other words, the Dems removed one important way for the Supreme court to weasel out of making a decision on the constitutionality of such initiatives.

I-1053 may well get its day in court. Who knew the House Dems had it in ‘em?

Comments

  1. 1

    Kevin Ryan spews:

    So the vote of the people for 1053 be dammed, you know what is best for the state. Why have elections.

  2. 2

    spews:

    Kevin Ryan,

    So the constitution be damned. You “know” what is and what isn’t constitutional? Why have a Constitution, Supreme court?

  3. 5

    Lauramae spews:

    Good for them. 1053 was a stupid initiative. Clearly the public has absolutely no idea what it takes to run the state.

    If the minority of representatives can hold the rest of the legislature hostage then what is the point of having representatives? That is a far more important issue than “wah but I voted in favor of that half-assed initiative.”

  4. 9

    BeerNotWar spews:

    Nice try, Darryl, but we all know that Washington State Democrats don’t have the balls to challenge an Eyman initiative that the public voted for. No doubt Gregoire will step in to ensure that this challenge never happens.

  5. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @1 Well, if you really feel that way, then you should have said back in 2000, “The Electoral College be damned, Al Gore got more votes, so he should be president.”

    And you should also be against Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming having the same number of U.S. senators as New York, California, and Illinois; and you should be against 1 boss being able to outvote 10,000 workers on issues like wages, work schedules, and working conditions.

  6. 11

    TT spews:

    Did they challenge it based on the “paramount duty” clause as suggested above? The Publicola article seems to say they are challenging it simply based on requiring a 2/3rds vote is unconstitutional period.

  7. 12

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    A Wisconsin Republican is someone who thinks you should be forced to show a photo ID to vote but not to buy a gun.

  8. 13

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    If it takes a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, then it should also take a two-thirds vote to start a war.

  9. 14

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Remember the election in which voters approved two education spending initiatives and defeated the tax to pay for them? On the same ballot?

    You can get voters to vote for free public services every time.

  10. 16

    spews:

    TT,

    “Did they challenge it based on the “paramount duty” clause as suggested above? The Publicola article seems to say they are challenging it simply based on requiring a 2/3rds vote is unconstitutional period.”

    It would be challenged on the 2/3s majority law, which contradicts the state Constitution. The “paramount duty,” issue simply provides a politically acceptable, coherent rationale to ignore the 2/3s law to eliminate tax preferences.

  11. 18

    proud leftist spews:

    Damn, it’s good to see the Ds showing some backbone. When do we get to deport Timmy to Oklahoma? He can’t do much damage down there as that state is already whacked out.

  12. 20

    spews:

    @1 Right wingers/Teabaggers for mob rule. Who knew?

    Good news. It’d be really, really cool if Eyman went the way of Tom McCabe.

    His resentment driven politics have been nothing but a disaster for this State.

  13. 21

    Chris spews:

    @5 1053 is not a half assed initiative.The opposition always focuses on the 2/3 part. If that was the only part of the initative then it would be half assed. But the initiative has another part and therfore is not half assed since it has another half. PEOPLE can vote for any tax increase that fails to meet the 2/3 requirement and therefore this initiave INCREASES democratic. Therefore this is a full assed initiative and full assed is better than half assed. Afterall, if you walked around with half an ass, that would likely be a serious medical problem!

  14. 23

    Puddybud, identifying rujaxdipshithead as dumber than yelling lost boy which is very dumb! spews:

    Well, if you really feel that way, then you should have said back in 2000, “The Electoral College be damned, Al Gore got more votes, so he should be president.”

    It’s called the Electoral College Roger Dumb Rabbit!

    It’s interesting how the will of the people on I-1053 never matters to DUMMOCRAPTS. Gotta have my money. Doesn’t matter that Gregoire kept saying there is no budget shortfall looming so she could be reerected. So therefore all the libtardos who voted for Queen Chrissy should open their wallets and pay dem extra taxes.

  15. 24

    uptown spews:

    @23

    If I-1053 had been passed by 2/3’s of the voters, you might have an argument, but it wasn’t. It only had 63.75% of the votes.

    Then there’s that whole State Constitution thing.

  16. 25

    Puddybud, identifying rujaxdipshithead as dumber than yelling lost boy which is very dumb! spews:

    uptown,

    Okay it won by 63.75%. That means King County voters were clueless as always. So they should gladly open their wallets and pay more taxes.