HorsesAss.Org

Over at my alma mater Slog, there’s a guest post up by Dave Hoover, a Colorado police sergeant and uncle of Aurora theater shooting victim A.J. Boik, urging support for Washington’s Initiative 594:

In Colorado, we responded to the unacceptable reality of gun violence by requiring background checks on private sales. It’s the best thing we could have done to honor the lives of our loved ones. Washington has an incredible opportunity this year to prevent future acts of gun violence by passing Initiative 594’s common sense background checks.

Since 2013, Colorado’s background checks on private sales have worked well for everyone in our community. Ninety-eight percent of the over 11,000 private sale background checks performed have been approved while 227 prohibited purchasers were stopped from purchasing firearms. I have personally used the system twice: once to purchase firearms and once to sell them. It’s a simple and convenient system that keeps firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them—felons, abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill.

It’s a moving and thoughtful piece. Read the whole thing.

(Presumably up next on Slog, following the equal time doctrine they adopted on the minimum wage debate in the immediate wake of my departure, will be an anti-594 guest post from a potentially disenfranchised mass shooter.)

Holy fuck, Virginia Republicans are crazy:

– The Northgate bike/walk bridge designs are stunning, could be a neighborhood icon

– Are you as excited as me about the new parking rates in Seattle? (“excited as me” means vaguely interested, and glad that we’re using data)

– Are you as excited as me for a Broadway Streetcar design open house? (I’m genuinely somewhat excited about that)

– Seattle shouldn’t settle for LGBT-friendliest city in America. What about LGBT-friendliest city in the universe?

– Yes, I realize that was 4 Seattle specific links in a row. Here’s something about Spokane: Looks like it’s Street Music Week in Spokane.

– Now that Obama can release prisoners from Gitmo, I guess he can release prisoners from Gitmo.

– I could stare at these grocery store maps for hours.

One of the cruel ironies of the minimum wage battle is that some of the people most responsible for winning a $15 minimum wage aren’t benefiting from the victory. It is fair to argue that without the SeaTac $15 minimum wage initiative helping to define the terms of the debate, Kshama Sawant might never have won her $15-fueled run for Seattle city council. And had not both the SeaTac initiative and Sawant won in November, the mayor and the council would not have felt nearly as much pressure to pass a $15 ordinance so quickly, if at all.

Yet thanks to a post-election ruling from a King County Superior Court judge, thousands of Sea-Tac Airport workers have not been delivered the wages and workplace protections the initiative promised.

Plaintiffs argued, and the judge agreed, that RCW 14.08.330 grants the port “exclusive jurisdiction” over airport operations. And the plain language of that statute certainly appears to support that interpretation. But an amicus brief (pdf) filed by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson says not so fast.

Ferguson argues that the apparently plain language of RCW 14.08.330 must be interpreted in conjunction with conflicting statutes, specifically RCW 49.46.120, which allows local minimum wage laws that are more favorable to workers to supersede state and federal minimum wage laws. Ferguson’s argument is a clever one. Yes, RCW 14.08.330 grants the port “exclusive jurisdiction,” but only “subject to federal and state laws, rules, and regulations.” RCW 49.46.120 is a state law, and one that grants minimum wage jurisdiction to local governments. Connect the dots, reasons Ferguson, and RCW 14.08.330 grants minimum wage jurisdiction to the City of SeaTac via RCW 49.46.120.

Ferguson argues that since the statutes conflict, “the Court has to look to the legislative intent in passing RCW 14.08.330 to discern the precise scope of the Port’s ‘exclusive jurisdiction:'”

Here, this Court has already explained the Legislature’s intent in enacting RCW 14.08.330. Shortly after the law passed, this Court held: “The effect of this section, when read in the light of the entire Revised Airports Act, is merely to preclude [other local governments] from interfering with respect to the operation of the Seattle-Tacoma airport.” King Cnty. v. Port of Seattle, 37 Wn.2d 338, 348, 223 P.2d 834 4 (1950).

Under Ferguson’s reading, unless SeaTac’s minimum wage ordinance interferes with the operation of the airport, it is permissible. Which brings us to Ferguson’s second—and I think more persuasive—argument: that without jurisdiction there can be no “exclusive” jurisdiction.

For years, port commissioners had insisted that they had no legal authority to set a minimum wage at the airport, so sorry, there was nothing they could do about the horrendous wages and job conditions of airport workers. It was only after the SeaTac initiative passed that the port reversed itself, not only arguing that it, not the City of SeaTac, had jurisdiction over minimum wages at the airport, but joining Alaska Airlines and the other plaintiffs in arguing that such jurisdiction needn’t be considered at all.

The judge agreed, ruling that RCW 14.08.330 gave the port exclusive jurisdiction while leaving unsettled whether the port had the legal authority to set a minimum wage.

Citing both prior case law and, well, logic, Ferguson calls bullshit on that:

If the Port has no jurisdiction over such wages, it cannot as a matter of logic have exclusive jurisdiction over them. And as a matter of legislative intent, if the Legislature gave the Port no authority over this topic, it is hard to imagine that the Legislature intended to oust the authority of other local governments recognized in RCW 49.46.120.

[…] In interpreting the Port’s powers, it is important to remember that: “The Port, as a municipal corporation, is limited in its powers to those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and also those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation. If there is a doubt as to whether the power is granted, it must be denied.” Port of Seattle v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm’n 92 Wn.2d 789, 597 P.2d 383 (1979).

In essence, Ferguson argues that for the court to rule the port has “exclusive” jurisdiction over setting a minimum wage at the airport, the court must first rule that the port has any jurisdiction over setting a minimum wage at all. And nothing in state statute explicitly grants the port such power. Therefore, says Ferguson, the limited scope of the port’s “exclusive jurisdiction” leaves jurisdiction over the minimum wage in the hands of the City of SeaTac.

Clever, clever.

Of course, I’ve only summarized the major points of Ferguson’s 17-page brief. There’s a lot more to it. So read it for yourself.

As for the plaintiffs, their reply (pdf) is perhaps telling:

Neither of the arguments made by the Attorney General was raised by any party to this appeal.  This Court does not consider arguments that are raised only by amici curiae.

The plaintiffs go on to insist that the two statutes should not be read together, and that the scope of the port’s employment regulation authority is not at issue in the appeal. It is largely a procedural defense against some very compelling arguments.

So, how will the court rule? Initiative sponsors seem pretty confident that they will prevail on appeal. Put a gun to my head and I’d have to agree. But this isn’t a slam dunk case.

Oral arguments will be held before the court on June 26, with a decision expected later this year.

By a 5-4 vote yesterday afternoon, the King County Council voted to adopt a Metro funding plan that would implement the first round of scheduled cuts in September, but would defer adopting further cuts in the hope that increased sales tax revenues, higher fares, transfers from capital funds, and additional savings could close the gap. King County Executive Dow Constantine immediately vetoed the plan:

“We need a reliable way to pay for bus service – but until then, we shouldn’t spend money we don’t have, we shouldn’t use one-time money to pay ongoing expenses, and decisions to save or cut service should be based on objective criteria and data, not on politics,” said Executive Constantine. “This ordinance falls short on all counts. I must respectfully veto this legislation, and ask that the Council keep working on a solution that is responsible and sustainable.”

Council member Rod Dembowski spearheaded the plan along with the four suburban Republicans, and no doubt his intentions are pure. His objective is to avoid unnecessary pain. The problem is, without substantial additional revenue, much of the pain will be unavoidable. And by putting off the decision as long as possible, we risk lulling voters and Metro riders into a state of complacency.

The anti-Prop 1 folks like to promote this meme that new revenue is unnecessary—that if Metro just tightens its belt a bit, everything will be okay. For example, yesterday the Seattle Times editorial board urged Metro to “begin the hard work of reforming the agency,” once again ignoring the fact that in response to collapsing revenue and a state performance audit, Metro has implemented substantial reforms that achieved hundreds of millions of dollars in long term cost savings.

The Demobowski plan, unfortunately, just feeds into this fiction that Metro has a spending problem, not a revenue one.

The other Democrats on the council proposed an alternative plan that would have adopted the proposed cuts, phased in over the next year and a half or so, but would have also given Constantine the flexibility to delay cuts if revenues rebound or cost savings materialize. That seems like a more responsible approach to long term planning, and a more realistic presentation to the public of what most likely lies in store.

Tuesday comes with a big bunch of primary or run-off elections in Arkansas, Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina and Virginia. The races seem less competitive and consequential than the pile we had last week, but there may be some interesting surprises.

In any case, join us tonight for an evening of electoral politics over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet tonight and every Tuesday at the Roanoke Park Place Tavern, 2409 10th Ave E, Seattle. The starting time is 8:00 pm, but some folks show up before that for dinner.

Can’t make it to Seattle? Check out another Washington state chapter of Drinking Liberally over the next week. The Tri-Cities, Vancouver, WA, and Redmond chapters also meet on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the Bellingham chapter meets. The Bremerton chapter meets on Thursday. And next Monday, the Aberdeen, Yakima and Olympia chapters meet.

With 207 chapters of Living Liberally, including nineteen in Washington state, four in Oregon, and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter meeting somewhere near you.

A Lee County, Florida man shot and killed his wife and three daughters—ages 10, 6, and 2—over the weekend, before turning the gun on himself. Sheriff Mike Scott called it the single-largest mass shooting in Lee County history.

“This is everyday USA behind me,” Scott said on Sunday as he was standing front of the crime scene. “Something snapped, something went terribly wrong. And we’ll never know the answer to why.”

No, probably not. But we do know the answer how: He had a gun. Whatever it was that set the shooter off—alcohol, mental illness, a domestic dispute—it was the immediate availability of the gun (which he no doubt kept to protect his family) that made his awful impulse so deadly.

To emphasize that point, a neighbor, Karen Downare, is quoted remembering the shooter as a “kind, gentle, loving dad.”

“If you would have told me that it was possible for him to ever do this, I would have told you you’re a liar,” she insisted. “That it was not possible for that man to do that to his family.”

Tragically, yes, it was possible, Karen. With a gun.

 

Various parties representing Seattle’s taxi and for-hire industry will be filing suit today in King County Superior Court seeking to block a referendum submitted by the so-called “ride-share” companies Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar. The referendum seeks to overturn Seattle’s recently passed ordinance that would legalize these app-based “transportation network companies,” but subject them to regulation and caps. The taxi industry argues that the referendum is outside the scope of the initiative process.

And they have a pretty damn strong case.

To win the relief they seek, the plaintiffs need to prevail on two points: that pre-election review of local initiatives and referenda is both proper and ripe, and that this referendum is outside the scope of local initiative powers.

The first point is a no-brainer. As Tim Eyman knows, local initiatives are blocked all the time. And since simply certifying the TNC’s referendum for the ballot blocks the ordinance from going into effect, there is no question about ripeness. Further, there is plenty of legal precedent for challenging a measure on scope once the ballot title has been assigned. Ripeness is an easy win for the plaintiffs.

On the second point, the plaintiffs make two arguments, one stronger than the other. The first is that in granting authority directly to the council, the state legislature has superseded the people’s right of initiative. That was the argument that killed Eyman’s local red light camera initiatives. But in the red light camera case, that exclusive authority was granted explicitly to local legislative bodies, where as the plaintiffs in this case argue that the exclusive authority is implicit based on the sort of administrative powers granted. There is legal precedent for this sort of implicit exclusivity, but it’s not an open and shut case.

But the second argument is much stronger. Initiatives and referenda are limited to subjects that are legislative only, whereas the recently passed taxi and for-hire ordinance is clearly administrative, seeking to carry out policy already enacted by the legislature and the city. In Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. City of Seattle, the court laid out the following test:

The power to be exercised is legislative in its nature if it prescribes a new policy or plan, whereas, it is administrative in its nature if it merely pursues a plan already adopted by the legislative body itself, or some power superior to it.

Both the state and the city had already adopted the policy to regulate the taxi and for-hire industry. Inspection, licensing, insurance, and caps are all currently in place. Indeed, under existing law, TNC operators are clearly defined as for-hire drivers. So there is little question that the recently passed ordinance seeks to administer existing policy rather than define a new one.

I’ve spent a lot of time covering such scope challenges (including that of my own “Horse’s Ass” initiative). The plaintiffs here have a very compelling case. If I had to bet money, I’d say the plaintiffs prevail.

And that’s something that Mayor Ed Murray and the city council should consider before caving in to TNC demands. Right now they are negotiating a compromise with the TNCs under threat of a referendum that would upend the entire ordinance. But if the referendum is outside the scope, then the TNCs have no leverage.

As for how the city should deal with the TNCs continued refusal to obey the law, well, Miami has an interesting solution….

 

– Steve Scher’s resignation from KUOW seems pretty quick, but I guess it had been in the works for a while.

– An open letter to the SPU gunman (h/t to a family member on Facebook)

– This opinion from the AG that people with felonies in other countries can’t get a gun permit in Washington seems like common sense (Daily O Link), but I’m not sure his opponent would have done the same.

– And speaking of an Attorney General,* Eric Holder looking at domestic terrorism is apparently a problem for some of the right wing. Because of course.

– Capitol Hill stand-off mercifully ends not-tragically and also fuck gun violence

– I’ve mentioned before that you should check out the Cascadia Exists tag over at Olympia Time, and you should also check out the editable version of the book that Emmett posted.

[Read more…]

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was Killeen, TX.

This week’s is a random location in the Google Maps 45 degree views, good luck!

Proverbs 21:19
It’s better to live alone in the desert than with a quarrelsome, complaining wife.

Discuss.

Thom: The Vast Right-wing conspiracy.

Mental Floss: 83 old slang phrases that we should bring back.

Ann Telnaes: This is what Speech is and isn’t.

Hatein’ On an American POW?!?

• Mark Fiore: Bowe Bergdahl…Army of Wha’!?.
• Sam Seder: FAUX News’ Bergdahl psychobabble
• David Pakman: Republicans lose it over Bergdahl
• Thom: “Leave no man behind” comes with Conservative strings attached.
• Obama: “We do not leave anyone wearing the American uniform behind”:

  
  

• Young Turks: Sleeay politicians change their tweeks
• Chris Hayes: FAUX full scale beard attack
• Bergdhal and four other memorable prisoner swaps
• Last Word: The GOP’s prosecution of Bowe Bergdahl
• Liberal Viewer: POW vs. Terrorism—CNN anchor, House intel chair can’t tell difference?
• Ed: FAUX’s “bearded Bob Bergdahl”
• David Pakman: Conservatives despicable on Bowe Bergdahl release
• Matt Binder: Republicans attack freed American POW Bowe Bergdahl

A reverend’s evolution on gay rights.

David Pakman: “American Spring” is back, as 10 people assemble and yell ‘Benghazi’ at White House.

John Oliver reveals what he hates about Last Week Tonight.

Michael Brooks & Cliff Schecter: WIll McConnell’s career of lies finally catch up with him?.

Stephen takes on Amazon.

Thom: Will we see a constitutional amendment on Citizens United?.

Tiananmen Square After 25 Years:

• Tiananmen Square: 25 years later.
• Ann Telnaes: Hiding the truth about Tiananmen Square.
• Sam Seder: Republicans deleting their praise of US POW Bowe Bergdahl’s release

Young Turks: Why Stephen Colbert should be proud and the media ashamed.

David Pakman: The five craziest bills passed by Republicans last month.

White House: West Wing Week.

Gun in the News…Again:

• Young Turks: NRA bows to the big huge guns everywhere lobby
• Jon: How stupid open carry is.
• Michael Brooks & Cliff Schechter: Guns keep harming Americs
• Young Turks: Gunman kills one at Seattle University.
• David Pakman: Joe the Plumber, “Guns are for hunting down politicians”

Zina Saunders: Save our bees:

Thom takes apart Dinesh D’Souza.

Stephen: On the Clinton conspiracy theories.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Next year when the wage increases start to kick in in Seattle, large employers, including fast food franchises (if their lawsuit doesn’t pan out) will be paying more than the mom and pop places. And there will be a tip penalty at those places, so the employees at McDonalds or Chipotle will probably be making more than at a greasy spoon or a local Thai place, at least for a few years.

Now, I already eat a fair amount of fast food, so it’s not like this has been driving my decisions on that level. But now I’ll know that I’m not contributing to poverty wages, so that will be a plus. Or maybe I should eat what I have a hankering to eat and not worry about this since $15 is coming for everyone?

So is the initiative going to change anyone’s eating habits?

For all the hoo-hah over threatened challenges to Seattle’s historic $15 minimum wage ordinance, there will be no minimum wage measures on the ballot this fall. Nada. Bubkes. Zilch.

Shortly after a group of local business owners calling themselves “Forward Seattle” announced a proposed charter amendment to instead raise the city’s minimum wage to $12.50 over five years, City Attorney Pete Holmes let it be known that voter-proposed charter amendments can only be run in odd-numbered years. Holmes is out of town and unavailable for comment, but a quick perusal of the city charter and the Revised Code of Washington suggests he’s right. Article XX, Section 2 of the charter states that amendments proposed by voters are to be ratified at “the next general municipal election,” while RCW 29A.04.330 clearly says that city general elections are to be held in “odd-numbered years.” And in case you think the intent is vague, Article XX, Section 1 makes a clear distinction from council-proposed amendments, which are to be ratified in the “next general state or municipal election.” There’s really no other way to read this language.

Which is really pretty amusing given how Forward Seattle’s home page makes a point of boasting: “We’ve met with experts, we’ve hired consultants, and we’re ready to make this happen.” Sounds like their experts and consultants owe them a refund.

Of course, I suppose this is also embarrassing for 15Now.org, which has been gathering signatures for its own impossible minimum wage charter amendment—but no more embarrassing than it is to all the political and business insiders who allowed $15 Now to bully them into compromise by holding an empty gun to their heads. A couple weeks ago the chatter in City Hall was that $15 Now would go to the ballot almost regardless of what the council passed. Didn’t anybody bother to read the charter and make sure the socialists had their ducks in a row?

I didn’t. But I’m just some dumb blogger, not one of the high priced consultants and attorneys that helped broker this deal.

Why Holmes never bothered to tell $15 Now that its charter amendment would have to wait until 2015, I don’t know. But with yesterday’s statement he kinda did $15 Now a favor. While Kshama Sawant and the rest of $15 Now’s leadership has already declared victory, there remains a lot of pressure from within the rank and and file of the organization to continue to the 2014 ballot with their more sweeping measure. But now we know that’s impossible. Divisive debate averted.

And in case you’re wondering, yes, it would be virtually impossible at this late date to go through all the procedural hurdles to file a city initiative and gather enough signatures to qualify for the November 2014 ballot without the implicit cooperation of the city council. Which nobody would get. So there will be no minimum wage ballot measures this fall.

As for yesterday’s other “news,” that HA namesake Tim Eyman has filed an initiative to the legislature seeking to preempt municipal minimum wage laws, well, who the fuck cares? Eyman files dozens of initiatives a year trolling for financial backers, and this one is weak even by his spindly standards.

The minimum wage is hugely popular statewide, last passing by a two-to-one margin in 1998, winning all 39 counties. So who would put money behind this dog? Not the Washington Restaurant Association, which I’m told tacitly agreed not the challenge Seattle’s ordinance in exchange for the longer phase-in and temporary tip credit. Longtime Eyman sugar daddy Michael Dunmire is dead. This isn’t part of Kemper Freman Jr.’s trains = communism obsession. AWB has been quietly advising members to distance themselves from Eyman’s antics.

Eyman is nothing without other people’s money, and his funding sources have been drying up. 2014 will be the first year without an Eyman initiative on the ballot since 2006. He’s a paper tiger. Good riddance.