At last, I have vindication, and oddly enough I somewhat have Tim Eyman to thank for it. Back in 2003 Assistant State Attorney General Jim Pharris priggishly and selectively brought a scope challenge against I-831, my initiative to officially proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass, and got an equally priggish Thurston County Superior Court judge to unconstitutionally bar me from delivering petitions to the Secretary of State. Pharris assumed that I would lack the financial resources to appeal the case, and he was right.
But this morning, in unanimously rejecting a pre-ballot review of Eyman’s clearly unconstitutional I-960, the Washington State Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that it would have rejected the lower court’s “unwarranted judicial meddling” and allowed the people to decide on Eyman’s well-documented horse’s assedness.
Preelection review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. The fundamental reason is that “the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state’s history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government.” Given the preeminence of the initiative right, pre-election challenges to the substantive validity of initiatives are particularly disallowed. Such review, if engaged in, would involve the court in rendering advisory opinions, would violate ripeness requirements, would undermine the policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions, and would constitute unwarranted judicial meddling with the legislative process.
That Pharris would selectively and vindictively prosecute a scope challenge against I-831, and then argue the reverse a few years later in defending I-960, just shows what an ethically rudderless, stick-up-his-ass hypocrite he really is. But then, he’s a lawyer, so that’s his job. The Seattle Times editorial board on the other hand has no such excuse for their blatant hypocrisy. They smugly urged I-831 be tossed out, and then bemoaned a similar challenge to I-960. I expect an apology any day now.
Don’t hold your breath.
I’d say start up another I-831, but Tim Eyman’s day has passed.
Perhaps a new initiative proclaiming Jim Pharris “an ethically rudderless, stick-up-his-ass hypocrite” is in order.
@3
That’s a really good idea. If he fights it, he proves its validity.
Or …
why not bring back the initial initiative? I thought there was a consensus that Eynman is an ass?
or …
how about requiring individuals who are paid to organize initiative campaigns to be licenced?
Actually has blogdom used the initiative mechanism yet? It would not be hard to come up with something that would pass but would be idiotic.
How about:
Declaring the 787 the State Bird?
Declaring that Goldy not have to pay taxes.
Declaring that all kids successfully complete school.
Declaring that any profession atheletics team that void its contract can not conduct any business in or with Washington State.
more??
C’mon, Goldy, there has to be some provision in the RCW that you could revise in order to have the state officially recognize TE’s horses-assedness.
N @6,
Oh, I could have come back with a version that modified the RCW, but that wasn’t really the point. The pre-ballot review of I-831 was selective and illegal, and while I thank Eyman and the AG’s office for keeping the story before the press about six weeks longer than it otherwise would have, I’m still a bit angry at the way I was singled out.
Pharris was wrong. First he attempted to intimidate me, and then he abused his office to punish me simply because I offended his delicate sensibilities. Had I the financial and/or legal resources, I not only would have appealed Judge Tabor’s decision, I would have filed suit against the state in Federal court alleging a due process violation. But of course, had I the financial and/or legal resources, Pharris never would have had the gall to seek a pre-ballot review, because he knows he ultimately would have lost on appeal.
This was an abuse of power, pure and simple.
I-960’s opponents “obviously” don’t know what they’re talking about.
Since day one, opponents have mischaracterized all aspects of I-960: its provisions, our campaign, recent court rulings, the law, and the Constitution. And repeatedly, they’ve used the word “obviously”.
During the signature gathering phase, opponents said “obviously” it’s a waste of time for voters to sign I-960’s petitions because “obviously” we weren’t going to turn in enough signatures. Our campaign turned in over 314,000 signatures, nearly 100,000 more than was required, from voters who voluntarily signed I-960’s petitions from February through June.
Before we turned in our signatures, opponents said “obviously” it’s a waste of time to check the validity of I-960’s signatures because our initiatives always have a huge number of invalid signatures. Our invalid rate was 17.1% which is less than average (19.4%) — with such an overwhelming number of voter signatures turned in, the initiative easily qualified for the ballot.
Around this time, opponents said “obviously” it’s a waste of time to certify I-960 for the ballot because “obviously” a King County Superior Court judge would agree with their reading of law, the Constitution, and I-960’s provisions and delete I-960 from the ballot. In July, Judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee, identified numerous areas where opponents mischaracterized I-960 and recent court rulings and ruled their arguments had no merit and dismissed their lawsuit.
After their defeat in King County Superior Court, opponents said “obviously” it’s a waste of time to have pro and con arguments for the voters pamphlet because “obviously” the state supreme court was going to prohibit a vote on I-960 because the law and Constitution “obviously” made the placement of I-960 on the ballot improper. This morning, the state supreme court ruled unanimously that their arguments had no merit and dismissed their lawsuit.
Despite being proven wrong time and again about their view of the law, the Constitution, and I-960’s provisions, the opponents now say it’s “obviously” a waste of time for voters to approve I-960 because “obviously” opponents are going to be successful after the election voiding I-960 because I-960’s provisions are “obviously unconstitutional.”
Hmmmm. “Obviously unconstitutional?” Obvious to whom? Obvious to opponents, of course, but they’re not the ones who will decide. And it should be clear to everyone by now that opponents’ view of the law, the Constitution, and I-960’s provisions are not correct.
But let’s highlight a few things that are obvious:
* Opponents of I-601 said during the 1993 campaign that “obviously” the courts would find its provisions unconstitutional. I-601 survived all legal challenges. I-960 simply closes loopholes the Legislature has put in I-601 over the years and requires much more public disclosure and cost analysis on bills increasing taxes.
* Governor Gregoire and the Legislature have promised their huge increases in spending in recent years won’t require tax increases. Presumably, that’s why Governor Gregoire said I-960 is “unnecessary” and its “extra handcuffs aren’t needed.” So I-960’s provisions relating to tax increases (two-thirds, public votes, advisory votes, 10-year cost projections, etc.) won’t come into play.
We’re going to work very hard over the next eight weeks correcting opponents’ repeated mischaracterizations about I-960. But we’re confident that once voters know what I-960 does and doesn’t do, they’ll overwhelmingly support it in November.
To read the text of I-960, go to our website: http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Hey Tim: You’re a horse’s ASS!
‘Obviously’!
Aw, geeze. Now do we have to fumigate in here, or will simple disinfectant do?
@8: Here’s something obvious, Tim: your initiatives are bad for the state of Washington and you should Just Fucking Stop.
-OM
Goldy — isn’t it time to revive your initiative? Now that we have settled law on the issue of pre-ballot judicial review, we can put Eyman’s horsesassedness to a vote.
You might want to update your initiative by adding some more names, though. E.g., Jane Hague, Dino Lossi, Stefan the Waitress Killer, Jane Balogh, et al. The whole lot of them are horses asses, so why give Eyman special privileges?
@8 Geez, Eyman, can you post something here besides a canned press release? We all know your level of cognitive functioning is a on par with Terri Schiavo’s, but if you want to run an ad, buy ad space.
@11 Nothing short of burning the place down will get rid of the stench.
What I don’t understand is why Eyman stopped at requiring a supermajority for any tax or fee increase. The logical extension of Tim’s reasoning is that every citizen should have veto power over any tax that government seeks to impose on him. Thus, all taxes would be voluntary. Since that’s what you really want, Timmy, why don’t you just say so?
@15
Well, he LOOKS like Terri Schiavo….or is that off-topic????
In the old days, the king told the nobles to “collect taxes” from the populace, and if some yahoo tried to put it to a public vote, the king had him killed. Then reformers came along who thought majority rule was a big improvement over autocratic monarchy, and after several centuries of warfare, we got rid of the kings. Now anarchists like Eyman want to get rid of government altogether, so we can revert to living like apes.
To: Roger Rabbit at #17
You’ve obviously been reading the Seattle PI (Editor’s note: This story has been changed since it was first published. A two-thirds vote of the legislature or a public vote is not required for fee increases as the earlier version indicated.)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....man03.html
Current law requires 2/3’s for tax increases, not fee increases.
In answer to your comment: The logical extension of Tim’s reasoning is that every citizen should have veto power over any tax that government seeks to impose on him. Thus, all taxes would be voluntary. Since that’s what you really want, Timmy, why don’t you just say so?
Voters did just that in 1999. I-695 required voter approval for every tax and fee increase and the courts said “nope” despite the fact that voters overwhelmingly said “yes”. So we’ve already tried the “every citizen should have veto power over any tax that government seeks to impose on him.” So in response, we’ve proposed I-960 which simply requires the Legislature to follow the law and follow the state Constitution when raising taxes. Without I-960, they will continue to violate the law and violate the Constitution and we don’t think voters appreciate the Legislature doing that.
Goldy,
Just how many taxpayers dollars would your initiative cost?
It does cost money to put things on the ballot. So how much?
to: Wow at #21 (previous post)
gregoire and the legislature have promised that their huge increase in spending won’t require tax increases. so if that’s true, then I-960 won’t cost the taxpayers anything.
for more info on I-960, go to our website:
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Tim Eyman? Is that horse’s ass still around?
Hey, Goldy! Why do you give him all of the free advertising for his initiative business?
Voters did just that in 1999. I-695 required voter approval for every tax and fee increase and the courts said “nope” despite the fact that voters overwhelmingly said “yes”. So we’ve already tried the “every citizen should have veto power over any tax that government seeks to impose on him.”
My fire district has 2 stations. It runs an engine and an aid car out of one station, and an engine out of the other. All three are fully staffed, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Do you think that we should have to public vote every single year to keep these existing service levels in place? If so, why am I bothering to elect fire commissioners every few years?
To: Bax (previous post)
Voters OK’d I-695 because they want every government that increases taxes to be required to justify themselves to the taxpayers. If government can justify its tax increases to the folks that pay all the bills, the people, then there’s no problem. If government can’t justify its tax increase, then the people expect them to prioritize their spending with existing revenues.
One of the reasons I-900 (allows state auditor Sonntag to do performance audits on state and local governments) is/was so popular is because of the taxpayers’ passionate desire to have government be accountable to the taxpayers who pay all the bills.
http://www.sao.wa.gov/Performa.....eports.htm
The performance audit of Sound Transit is due to be released in early October. Talk about a rogue government agency in desperate need of accountability and oversight.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
How about you answer the question? Sound Transit has nothing to do with a fire district.
Do you think that we should have to public vote every single year to keep these existing service levels in place? If so, why am I bothering to elect fire commissioners every few years?
Hold on there !!!
The question was posed to Goldy!!! How much does it cost to put onto the Ballot that proclaim someone is a horses behind?
I want to know how my tax dollars are being spent, so how much?
David, you’re being disingenuous blaming the challenge to I-831 on Jim Pharris. Jim could not possibly have initiated that action on his own. You know full well that the blame for that action must fall on the attorney general at the time. And that attorney general was Christine Gregoire. Our state supreme court just told us the Attorney General Christine Gregoire was wrong to attack your initiative. Can’t bring yourself to be critical of the person who was actually responsible, eh? Perhaps if the attorney general in 2003 had been as intelligent and ethical as our current attorney general and done the right thing in defending the people’s right to vote on a qualified initiative, you would have made the “Horse’s Ass” label actually stick to Mr. Eyman back then.
Care to try again now that precedent is on your side?
And why just pass a resolution like I-831 when you can codify it as state law? Something like this:
I’m sure you can come up with a creative Intent section.
If you start right now, there’s plenty of time to circulate it as an initiative to the legislature; the petitions don’t have to be turned in until January 4. Surely your friends in Olympia will schedule hearings and bring it to the floor for a vote! I’d much rather they spend time on things like this (or impeachment resolutions) than on what they might otherwise spend the time doing.
Toby, it was Jim Pharris who initially refused to give I-831 a ballot title, who attempted to intimidate me into dropping the initiative, who then gave it a nonsensical ballot title and used my ballot title challenge to seek pre-ballot review. It was Jim Pharris who suggested that if I were to appeal the ruling, he might seek to recover legal costs. Yes, it was Christine Gregoire’s office, and I suppose she could have intervened, but if Jim Pharris had just decided to treat I-831 like he treated every other initiative — including several that year that were not even complete sentences — I would have had the same opportunity to qualify my bullshit initiative for the ballot as Tim is given to qualify his.
As for amending the RCW, well, that just proves how silly Pharris’s technical objection was. In fact I drew up a Tim Eyman is a Horse’s Ass Day initiative that would have overcome that objection, but really, the joke was getting rather old.
In our dealings over I-831, Jim Pharris was, quite bluntly, a humorless, sanctimonious prick, with no respect for the law. He abused the power of his office because he could (and the equally sanctimonious pricks at the Seattle Times cheered him on.) After today’s ruling, he owes me an apology.
To: Toby Nixon #29
You are exactly correct. Jim Pharris works for whoever is in office and not a single decision in the initiative process/ballot title process/appeal process gets made by him that hasn’t been given to him by his boss. Anyone who suggests otherwise doesn’t have a clue how the AG’s office works in Olympia. Delusions of persecution seem apparent here. But if the grand conspiracy was initiated by anyone, it was Christine — the decision to do this was made by Gregoire, that’s just the way things works in their office (and obviously the final decision was made by a Thurston County Superior Court judge who may or may not have been ‘in on’ the conspiracy).
Toby, sorry the KC Dem’s blocked accountability in the elections office until after the 2008 election by kicking I-25 to the 2009 cycle. Only one news outlet noted that their delay cost the county elections budget millions of dollars. Obviously, there’s tons of extra money in their budget for their priorities (delaying accountability).
Eyman
Why is there so many miss informed people in this state.
I-960 will pass thanks to you. keep up the good work.
Eyman only exists in his current form to make a commission off of every signature his paid petition-panhandlers manage to coerce out of registered voters. His company is not about voters, but about marketing sophist initiatives designed to make Tim rich.
He should go back to hawking cheap watches to frat boys.
#34
Thanks for backing up what I said. “Why is there so many miss informed people in this state”.including you.
You government hacks get paid why shouldn’t Tim Eyman. He has done more for the taxpayer pocketbooks than any one of you ever has! He deserves to be paid and paid well.
To: greg at #34
Jack, Mike, and I receive compensation from those supporters who voluntarily choose to donate to our separate, stand-alone compensation fund called Help Us Help Taxpayers. We don’t get anything ‘per signature’ or ‘per initiative’ — we simply ask our supporters to contribute to our fund to compensate us for our effective political efforts. Only people who support our efforts are choosing to compensate us. We’re very, very pleased, proud, and humbled that thousands of people choose to voluntarily donate to our compensation fund each year so that we can continue to offer voters public policy choices at the ballot box. And since 7 of the 9 measures we’ve qualified for the ballot have been approved by the voters (I-960 will be the 8th) and the amount of tax savings from our various initiatives is $9.1 billion so far, we’d contend that they’re contributing because they appreciate our effort and are pleased with our results.