Over on his blog, Postman asks “What really doomed Senate vote on school bill?” — and while he presents an interesting exploration of the politics that led to its failure, the simple answer is: Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-Seattle).
As a constitutional amendment the bill requires 33 votes to pass. (It would then need to be approved by a simple majority of voters at the polls.) The bill failed 30-17 after Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) shifted her vote in a procedural move that enables her to recall the measure for a later vote.
Sure, the Republicans reneged on a deal that would have assured passage, but the only vote that really matters now is that of Sen. Jacobsen. A careful observer will notice that only 48 votes were cast, with Sen. Paull Shin (D-Edmonds) absent on a trip to Korea. One can reasonably expect that should the measure come up a second time, both Senators Shin and Brown will vote for the bill. Assuming no other senator switches sides, that leaves Sen. Jacobsen with the deciding vote.
Jacobsen says he’s holding out for a measure giving Seattle schools an extra $30 million, and no question I hope he gets what he’s asking for. But I’m not willing to scuttle our best shot at removing our ridiculous 60-percent supermajority requirement for school levies. And hopefully, when push comes to shove, neither is Sen. Jacobsen.
Time to start pushing and shoving.
This over simplifies how things work. If Ken voted yes and the R’s still did not wish to help this pass, they would simply pull a vote and the bill would still come up short.
To illistrate this point, one need only look at how this recent vote went down. With Lisa Brown, voting yes, the bill was going to fail by one vote. She changed her vote to be on the prevailing side in order that she could make a motion to reconsider at a later point. And as soon as she did this an R changed from no to yes, leaving the bill one vote short. So the key to this passing is the D’s having all members present and voting and the GOP letting those in its caucus vote how they wish.
The domestic partnership bill just passed the Senate.
I haven’t followed this real closely, but my understanding is there was no “deal” as such; rather, by making some concessions that Republicans wanted, the Democrats got some Republican votes but not enough.
I have said many times before that we should not have to rely on local levies to fund public schools. The state constitution requires local levies must be approved by 60% of the voters.
My proposal — outlaw local levies. The statutory authority for local levies can simply be eliminated. Raise the state property tax (or other state revenues) sufficiently to adequately fund public education for all school districts.
This proposal simply requires 50 representatives, 25 senators, and the signature of the Governor. If the Democrats were really serious about public education funding, they could accomplish this without a single Republican in the legislature having to vote for this, and without the people having to vote on this in November. In fact, all schools could be adequately and equitably funded in September 2007, when they open their doors for another school year.
Agreed: local levies are inherently discriminatory.
So let me see if I get what you’re saying straight Richard:
You want the cities around Puget Sound (notably Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, Renton, and Issaquah) to pay dramatically higher taxes so that money can be funneled out to all the parts of the state where the property values are lower.
At that point, all schools will get the same amount of money per head (regardless of the fact that land costs, labor costs, etc. are slightly higher in Bellevue than they are in Ephrata).
Other than defecating in your own back yard, is there a purpose to this?
Ill tell you what, I will agree to eliminate the 60% rule if you guys will agree that only owners of property may vote on land taxation issues OR put the tax on the person that OCCUPIES said property.
Goofed again, you know, big hands big…never mind not polite to brag
Um, big ass? Big ego?
Let’s just say big gloves.
Chuck:
if you guys will agree that only owners of property may vote on land taxation issues OR put the tax on the person that OCCUPIES said property.
Who do you think pays those taxes now Chuck?
Do you think landlords pay property taxes out of their own pockets because they are sweet and lovable people?
You obviously don’t rent out property or know anyone who does.
A big swinging schlong does no good without a brain to drive it mon ami. Get working on the other half of the equation, or give my apologies to your SO.
jsa on commercial drive says@10
You obviously know nothing of me, I am a landlord.
.