Exactly what is it that the Seattle Times editorial board doesn’t get about the Constitution?
Recent high-profile rulings should make Washington uneasy, as the court eases restrictions on state authority and gives itself unprecedented authority to dictate government actions.
In 2012, for example, the court threw out the two-thirds-for-taxes rule, wildly popular with voters, which made it harder for the Legislature to vote for tax hikes.
The two-thirds rule may very well have been wildly popular with voters, but it was also wildly unconstitutional. Are the editors seriously suggesting that the justices should have deferred to election results rather than the very clear and unambiguous letter and spirit of the law? Because that would have been malpractice.
Some states—like California—permit voters to amend the constitution via initiative. Washington’s constitution does not. I’d argue, wisely. Are the editors arguing that Washington should be more like the California? If so they should advocate for amending the state constitution as such instead of cowardly casting aspersions at our justices for doing their job.
But to suggest, as the editors do, that the justices basing their ruling on the constitution rather than popular opinion “should make Washington uneasy,” just makes the Seattle Times look stupid.
Right!
This editorial is even worse than that. It endorses the four incumbent justices seeking reelection, but only because no one else is running except a disbarred attorney that even the Times acknowledges probably couldn’t hold office if elected.
Remember this editorial the next time the Seattle Times editorial board complains about “populism run amok” or something to that effect. Shorter STEB: when we agree with it, it’s “the will of the people;” when we disagree, it’s the tempestuous passions of the rabble. (See: $15/hr.)
I’m sure the Times would be fine if we were more like Arizona too.
http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona.....%281992%29
The Arizona Two-thirds For Taxes Amendment, also known as Proposition 108, was on the November 3, 1992 in Arizona as a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. It was approved.
This amendment to Article IX required a two-thirds vote of the legislature for passage and three-fourths vote to override a governor’s veto of any legislation increasing state revenue through taxation.
Unfortunately, Judges do this kind of thing all the time. I know everyone here was supposed to I – 747 (it was an Eyman initiative after all, and in case you don’t remember it was the 2001 1% cap on property taxes). However, Judge Mary Roberts gave what has to be one of the worst excuses for overturning an initiative. She said voters were misled to believe they were amending an initiative from the year before, making them think they were lowering the property tax by an amount less than they actually were. I don’t think anyone can honestly believe the average voter was thinking about an initiative from the year before when they were voting on that years ballot. I mean seriously, the average voter barely knows what they’re voting on from the current years ballot.