If the state Transportation Commission approves new tolls for the 520 floating bridge or any other roadway, in flagrant violation of I-1053’s supermajority requirement on raising taxes and fees, and initiative profiteer Tim Eyman doesn’t sue to uphold the letter and spirit of his recently passed measure… well, I will.
Because honestly, this might just be our best shot ever at forcing the state Supreme Court to finally rule on the constitutionality of this clearly unconstitutional provision.
It’s not like others haven’t attempted to challenge the constitutionality of previous two-thirds measures, but the popularly elected members of the Supreme Court have so far managed to avoid invalidating a popularly approved initiative by ruling that the issue simply wasn’t ripe, or that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring suit. And since the absence of a tax for fee increase at best raises a hypothetical harm, how does one sue over something lawmakers haven’t done? At least, that has been our Court’s cowardly approach thus far.
And since multiple legislatures and governors have never had the balls to affirmatively violate the two-thirds provision, we’ve never had the opportunity to put its constitutionality to the test.
But if the appointed members of the Transportation Commission were to simply ignore Eyman’s objections, and impose tolls on the 520 bridge and/or other structures without legislative approval, there’s your test case, for once I’m forced to pay this toll, well, I obviously enjoy standing as a “harmed” party, and the issue instantly becomes ripe.
Of course, the Supremes might still try to wiggle out of the underlying constitutional issue by somehow ruling that the Commission’s toll-setting authority falls outside the restrictions imposed by I-1053—get a bunch of clever lawyers in a room together, and anything can happen—but, well, you take the opportunities that come your way. And Eyman’s arrogant bluster over this issue is an opportunity his opponents would be stupid to ignore.
Me too, and I’d add the Narrows toll which is about to be raised again.
And Goldy’s also spot on re the cowardice of the leg. According to this I posted yesterday on Lee’s open thread (Alan Durning quoting Hugh Spitzer):
http://daily.sightline.org/dai.....urn-i-1053
The leg would have to commit some civil disobedience, i.e., pass new taxes or repeal tax breaks with a majority vote. Then someone would need to sue.
The problem is well known dickhead and horse’s ass, Sir(!?) Brad Owen would refuse to go along.
Another possible work around (after some payback cuts to levy equalization, etc.) is for the leg to do a referendum consisting of tax break repeals — there’s about 15 BILLION to pick thru, lots of which are egregiously bad on their face — like the 100 MILION sales tax exemption “rugged individualist” idiots like Didier get to spray poison on our food. If chosen carefully and aggressively messaged, I’d estimate at least a quick billion or two that would be widely approved by the voters.
“And since the absence of a tax for fee increase at best raises a hypothetical harm, how does one sue over something lawmakers haven’t done? At least, that has been our Court’s cowardly approach thus far.”
If in fact the “harm” is hypothetical there is no justiciable controversy and the court lacks jurisdiction. This isn’t cowardly. It’s a crucial check on judicial power. Courts don’t render advisory opinions or decide hypothetical cases, period. And you don’t want them to.
As for whether you, as an individual, have standing to sue … that’s a different, and separate, issue.
@1 “If chosen carefully and aggressively messaged, I’d estimate at least a quick billion or two that would be widely approved by the voters.”
I’m not so sure. Irrationality in politics has reach fever pitch. Right now voters are extremely upset over a bank bailout that cost them nothing and prevented another Great Depression, and at Obama for keeping unemployment from soaring to 20% and making sure they have health care. Oh, and by the way, keep your cotton-pickin’ hands off Medicare while they’re repealing FICA taxes and you dare increase the deficit while they’re boosting spending and passing tax cuts! America is nuts.
Zotz, it’s not just the lege that’s a bunch of cowards. Put the Supreme Court in the same category.
I mean, it takes some kind of conflict-avoidance cowardice to rule that the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t have standing to sue over what constitutes a legitimate vote-result in the Senate.
correction: “and don’t you dare increase the deficit”
@3
A bit off topic, but isn’t the bank bailout part of what’s keeping savings accounts, CD and the like at nearly zero percent? Thats costing lots of folks plenty.
Goldy,
If you could only be this thoughtful when it comes to the treatment of working class people…
Rodger @2,
Surely you’re not suggesting that one can write an unconstitutional initiative whose constitutionality can never be challenged as long as lawmakers follow it?
I can see I-1053 being upheld as constitutional.
The voters have the power by initiative to pass a law saying that no taxes will ever be increased. Or even that a tax increase would require a 90% vote or unanimous vote of the legislature. The legislature could overrule that initiative by a two-thirds vote during the first two years, and by a simple majority vote after that.
Instead, I-1053 says that taxes will be increased by only a 2/3 vote of the legislature, or by a referendum vote of the people. I-1053 does not take away the constitutional power of the legislature to repeal or amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote within the first two years, or by a majority vote after that.
Keep in mind that the constitution is interpreted in light of popular culture. For example, the first amendment today protects blasphemy, whereas 100 or 200 years ago, popular sentiments would have gotten a different interpretation. In the same vein, the continued passage of these initiative measures will have some effect on judicial thoughts and actions regarding the interplay of initiative power on the legislature’s law-making ability.
Goldy @ 7
“Rodger @2”
I can’t believe you mispelled Rogger Rabit’s name!
@8: Except that 1053 directly conflicts with the constitution, let alone that ballot measures (thankfully) cannot change the constitution (which 1053 effectively does).
N is right too. That the judges have stated the leg does not have standing to sue is pretty cowardly and stupid to boot.
These are dire times that call for desperate measures. After the leg (hopefully) fucks the holy shit out of E WA and republican rural W WA with DEEEP targeted cuts, then doing everything we can to raise revenue is not just a nicety — it’s a necessity. We’re now staring at an almost 6 BILLION gap (after already heartbreaking cuts).
I don’t care if any road anywhere in WA is ever built, improved or maintained by state money.
We’ll get along just fine. The wingnuts can deal with their potholes on their own thank you very much.
Goldy: Another potential standing to sue?
The family of someone who dies because they’re denied or cut off from Basic Health?
We could legalize pot and save a ton of money (even if it wasn’t taxed):
http://www.aclu-wa.org/library.....erbert.pdf
You may not have to wait Goldy , State Parks met on Friday , it was on their agenda to jack up the rates on tent campsites among other fees .
Unfortunately the fee issue has nothing to do with the 2/3rds requirement. I-1053 requires the Legislature to only approve fees with the constitutional simple majority. Whether that prevents storeowners from raising prices thereby raising sales tax is the question.
@14
The state parks are already charging so much that no one can use them! Jack up the cost even more and you might see revenue going down do to lack of use.
@15-RIGHT!
Goody keeps getting this wrong. 1053 does not require a supermajority to raise fees. Ferry fares and tolling are not taxes. There is no 2/3 case here.
TT @17,
Well, if I have it wrong, than so does Eyman.
@17-18: So the goal isn’t to avoid the toll per se, but to get the SC to rule on I-1053. It would be nice not to have vote on this every election in any case.
Since the bridge is about ready to sink into the lake, I hope Eyman is willing to take one for team, make the kind of sacrifice he calls for to keep taxes low in WA state, by being on it when it does. Let’s see how committed he really is to smaller government.
Goldy, the section of 1053 dealing with fees says they must be set by the legislature. Interestingly it exempts various ag and timber commissions. But it does not require a 2/3 majority for those fees.
David @ 18
For a guy who presumes to advise other members of the media, your fact checking is pretty sloppy. Eyman doesn’t have it wrong; you do. Please see as follows:
http://www.yeson1053.com/about1053
You would be well advised to delete this post.
@6 I don’t see the connection between the bank bailout and rock-bottom interest rates. The low rates are a result of Fed policy.
@7 It’s not unconstitutional until a court says it is, and before a court can get that far, someone has to file a lawsuit that meets the requirements of standing and actual controversy.
@12 I don’t think that’ll fly.
Goldy–
Oink Oink..focus the pork.
Force the Union Contracts to open up and benefits & salaries reduced…plus layoffs.
Get State Government back to where it belongs…infrastructure, public safety and basic services required by Constitution.
And that’s it.
Oink Oink.
Actually, Goldy is 100% off on his test case. As far as FEES go — such as a bridge toll — I-1053 simply requires that the legislature set or approve all fees by law — a regular majority vote of each house. This is clearly within the constitutional authority of the legislature. Laws can be passed to either set specific fees by statue, or to delegate responsibility to agencies. I-1053 basically puts the legislature in charge of this.
As for the Transportation Commission, it is established by statute, not by the constitution. Its powers and duties have been changed by statute over the years. So if an initiative reduces the powers of the Transportation Commission, that is not a constitutional issue.
@25
Well, according to the state constitution education is one of the requirements and when you look at infrastructure, public safety, & education that’s most of the budget right there.
@25
And there’s a big chunk of the budget that are federal pass through dollars that the state can’t really touch at all. So, your big savings come from where?
Privatize jails, ferry’s, liquor stores.
Eliminate Dept of Ecology.
Rollback regulations and dump regulators.
Eliminate Dept of Education.
Open Union Contracts and raise employees share of Health Care to 50%.
Decrease Pension Benefits.
Across the Board 10% salary cut.
The issue here is whether the leg has to set fees (a majority vote) or the Trans Commission already enabled by legislation to set fees, which was NOT repealed by 1053.
IANAL, but there is definitely a cause here if who’s empowered to raise fees becomes an issue which Eyman himself indicates he wants to pursue.
From a just good policy standpoint, why have a commission. It’s stupid, leaving aside inefficient and non transparent, to have the leg set fees. They’ve got lots more important, value added things to do.
Eyman and 1053 are fucked up. And should be sued. While he’s being sued, a clever lawyer could perhaps raise the constitutionality of the measure itself. Of course all the “complexities” of dealing in the legal system, the whims of judges, etc. apply.
And we’ll have a new, better justice soon.
@24: But it would make for great politics…
@29
All ready been done plenty of places. All they got out of it was crappy service, lawsuits, and bills.
They don’t make money and can’t. What would happen if we just got rid of them?
Liquor stores are revenue positive. You don’t save money by cutting out things that make money. Don’t worry the Democrats are confused on that one too.
DOE protects the citizens of Washington, our land and our interests. You’re just grinding axes on that one.
‘Cause that work so well when the Bush folks did it with the banking sector! See DOE.
See the state constitution and you’re grinding that axe again.
Union Contracts, yes. 50% of healthcare? Who the fuck pays 50% of their healthcare costs? I don’t.
That might not be legal and it sure is mean spirited. Don’t know if it would save much if anything out the the general fund. I know teachers have their own dedicated fund retirement fund.
I’d be shocked if this one isn’t in the works.
You forgot to mention my favorite ones:
Buyouts. Get the higher paid folks that are ready to retire out of the system early and give the job to a younger person who needs the work and will cost less.
End Double Dipping!
@20
I thought it did the same for the oil companies as well.
@1
Photo tolling would only effect people who don’t have a good to go pass and choose to not go though the toll booth. It will cost $7.
Ferry rates will be going up on Jan. 1.
http://www.wstc.wa.gov/Rates/F.....Tables.pdf
Cynny,
Privatize prisons? Really? The justice system is fundamentally a governmental function. That you fucks don’t recognize that shows how little you know about what America is about. I know that privatizing prisons has been done in places like Arizona, but it hasn’t worked for anyone but the corporations that profit from it. You guys are working up to privatizing courts, which your corporate masters are already pushing with contractually-required arbitrations in employment, for instance. Why do you fuckers hate democracy so much?
HA!
Michael–
Review the EFF 105 ways to cut budget from 2009-
http://www.effwa.org/files/pdf/105days.pdf
It is going to be painful for some.
There is no painless way to save the Tax-and-Squander left in Washington State from the consequences of their overspending actions during the real estate bubble. Gregoire & the Dems spent like drunken sailors. You seem to want to retain “bubble-level” spending. It was never realistic. Roll back to 2006 levels.
You can pooh-pooh suggestions all you want. There is no money Michael.
What would you do if this were your own personal financial dilemma.
The Boss says no raise…in fact, you were overpaid in the past. You MUST make adjustments to support your New Reality.
Tax RICH FOLKS more does have serious consequences re: private sector job creation.
Hopefully you can at least acknowledge that Michael.
Furlough Days are a joke created by the Union Bosses to give an image of helping taxpayers…but benefits are still paid in full.
Many folks in the Private Sector pay 50% of their health care…many have zero.
Plus the State Plan is a Cadillac…when we can only afford a used clunker.
This is the only way to reform government and get it under control…take away the money.
Now…good luck.
Lots of ideas.
Start with 10% across the board salary cuts and 25% benefit cuts for ALL employees.
Get rid of the Dept. of Ecology.
Get rid of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Office.
No action has been taken and it gets worse daily.
Gregoire & the Dems did this to us..not a recession that anyone with a brain could see coming.
Actually, I don’t. What I’ve never seen and still don’t is a workable plan from the folks that scream “shrink the government,” that would actually shrink the government.
We’re in a longterm contraction and moving into an era (not a year or two, an era) where there will be less cash around. We need to manage that contraction to avoid collapse.
The Democrats are doing better than the Republicans, but that ‘ain’t saying much.
The EFF’s a joke.
@38:
Spot on. And I think one can draw a reasonable conclusion from the recent election that voters said:
but wanted people with some semblance of compassion (i.e., the Ds) to do the cutting as the Rs are idiotic, heartless bastards — the lot of them.
Richard Pope @8; I-1053 could be constitutional? I could see the state supreme court falling into your line of thinking, but it would be a huge dose of Judicial Activism if it did so — reading something into Art. 2, Sec. 22, of the State Constitution, reading something into that language that just plain isn’t there.
I thought that conservatives like Eyman didn’t approve of Judicial Activism? Oh, except when it benefits THEIR political goals.
if you favor WSDOT setting the toll in violation of 1053…and they do…and you pay it…and if you support the toll, and are not objecting to it, you don’t have standing to sue …..because you are not harmed .
Someone who objects to the toll would have standing to sue and would argue “hey they violated 1053!”.
IOW you nailed ripeness but missed that little old thing called….”harm.”
Now, if they don’t set a toll because 1053 prevents it, ….and you are a 520 user who wants to pay it, …..and you claim you’re not getting a new 520 because they are not tolling due to 1053, …then you have alleged harm and you might have standing to sue.
Mr Cynical @ 29
Impressive list. Which reminds me:
In your libertarian utopia, who pays for the administration of our elections and courts?