In the comment threads, Tim Eyman claims that “I-960’s policies have strong voter support,” but a recent KING-5/SurveyUSA poll suggests the initiative itself does not:
Initiative 960 is defeated 2:1 in a vote today. Women and greater Seattle voters oppose by 3:1. Those who have already voted oppose 2:1. A third of voters are Not Certain how they will vote on 960. If all of them vote Yes, the outcome could be close. Otherwise, the measure will be defeated.
Of course I take this and all pre-election polls with a lump of salt. I-960 has a very favorable ballot title (written by Timmy’s personal attorney, Jim Pharris,) and that’s always worth a few extra points at the polls. Still, if I were initiative financier Michael Dunmire, I’d start worrying about having flushed yet another half million dollars down Timmy’s gold-plated toilet.
It is interesting to note that Eyman’s success at the polls appears inversely related to the personal effort he puts into getting his initiatives on the ballot. While he’s never invested much money in promoting his measures, there was a time when the bulk of his signatures were gathered by volunteers, and the bulk of his money came from an army of small contributors… efforts that required real grassroots outreach and mobilization. But in lazily relying on lump-sum payments from Dunmire to buy his way onto the ballot, Tim has abandoned the grassroots campaigning that once generated the buzz and support that carried his initiatives to victory. Long past are the days when Tim can send out an email and instantly generate a crowd of supporters for some publicity stunt or another; now it’s pretty much Tim, Dunmire, the Fagins and a rented costume.
I-960 could still pass; it’s got an appealing ballot title, and nobody likes taxes. But if it fails, Tim only has himself to blame.
TANGENTIAL ASIDE:
Do you think Tim recognizes the irony that he has been reduced to commenting in the threads of a blog named after an initiative to proclaim him a horse’s ass?
If this fails by less than 2/3 will TE claim it actually passed?
Do you think Tim recognizes the irony that he has been reduced to commenting in the threads of a blog named after an initiative to proclaim him a horse’s ass?
Generally, people who attempt to pass initiatives that aim to constrain the people who those same voters are putting in government tend not to be the kinds of people who get irony.
Do you think he really cares if it passes? This gig beats selling counterfeit watches all to hell.
Tim refused to answer my question, which was if he’s so hot to legislate, why doesn’t he run for office? He accused me of being against the First Amendment. Because I think he abuses our initiative process for a paycheck? Hah! I accuse him of being a horse’s behind, and I dare him to deny my right to say it!
And sorry to be off-topic a little, but this is a reminder for Goldy to remember that Katie’s soccer games are supposed to be fun for the kids, and not to be taken too seriously by the adults:
to: all
Elway’s latest poll shows the support for I-960 at 56% voter support. His question polled the ballot title WHICH ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE POLICIES CONTAINED IN I-960.
The question in the KING 5 poll asks how they voted on I-960 WITHOUT TELLING THEM WHAT POLICIES ARE IN I-960 (it informs them that it concerns ‘state taxes’).
It doesn’t take a political genius to recognize that asking voters their opinion on an initiative without telling them what the initiative ACTUALLY DOES tends to create a large undecided total.
Elway, that wacky, zany, goofball pollster decided to read I-960’s ballot title to the folks he was polling and asked them whether they supported it or not. 56% supported it.
I-960’s ballot title simply tells voters what policies are in I-960. If the policies have strong voter support, and the ballot title tells voters the policies in I-960, ergo, I-960 has strong voter support.
What boosts the support for I-960 is when voters don’t just learn what’s in the initiative but why they’re there:
* 2/3’s legislative approval for tax increases IS CURRENT LAW. I-960 just gets the Legislature to follow the law that they imposed on themselves. I-960’s ballot title doesn’t make that clear but once voters know it’s already the law, and that the Legislature has repeatedly circumvented their own law, then support goes even higher.
* advisory votes on tax increases OCCUR WHEN OLYMPIA DECLARES AN ‘EMERGENCY’ AND TAKES AWAY THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO REFERENDUM. I-960 and Elway’s poll question only asks about advisory votes and never mentions the reason for them: the Legislature’s repeated abuse of the emergency clause. when voters know why I-960 requires advisory votes on ‘blocked’ tax increases, then support goes even higher.
* requiring public disclosure and tranparency is a central policy in I-960 but the ballot title deemphasizes that aspect.
The more voters know about I-960, the more they support it. When they’re asked what they think about an initiative that concerns ‘state taxes’, then that’s tough. Fortunately, our ballots and voters pamphlet contain INFORMATION and POLICIES so that voters know what’s in the initiative. And when voters know the policies, they support the measure.
We’ll debate the policies in I-960 wherever folks are discussing it. Correcting all the misinformation put out by opponents is a full time effort.
Tim: Just run for fucking office already, wouldya? Look at Richard Pope, even he has the stones to run for office!
But Pope is human. Eyeman is, in VERY large part, equine.
Sez Tlazolteotl:
So too does the Tim Eyman of Oregon. Bill Sizemore ran for governor in 1998 (it didn’t quite go his way).
But Eyman doesn’t have the cojones of a Bill Sizemore, or a Richard Pope. He’d rather just suck at the money-tit of Michael Dunmire.
@4…T…
Go back and read the Washington State Constitution…I&R are foundational rights of the people; the people specifically reserved to themselves the right to self-legislate as a check on vested interests and their control of the legislature. In the 19th-Century, it was railroad interests. Today it’s big government interests.
The people are sovereign, not the government.
Don’t you trust democracy?
The Piper
@6…T…
Why don’t you? Or couldn’t you count on even your mother’s vote?
Eyman is effective articulating the people’s desires and advocating their interests via our constitutionally expressed right of I&R. Through those processes, we are legislators, and it was so intended that we be legislators by the authors of the Washington State Constitution.
If there wouldn’t be so much abuse in Olympia, there wouldn’t be so much Eyman in your face.
The Piper
Timmy doesn’t care if his crappy initiatives win or lose – as long as he can skim the cream off the top served up by his sugar daddy.
He’s only in it for the money!
@8…N in Seattle…
Don’t confuse courage with delusion. What’s courageous is doing what it takes despite scorn and ridicule and being effective at getting results.
It isn’t courageous to engage in vanity runs for office after office after office after office…think 11 of these. That’s not courage, it’s vain delusion.
Speaking of courage…when will Richard XI (soon to be XII) be receiving your generous contribution to the maximum extent allowed by law?
And you, Tlazolteotl? How about you? When will His Popiness receive your $$$? With all your blather about “rights,” where’s the dough to back up your big show?
PITA that he is, at least Chad T. ponied up $100.
What have you birds given besides cheap lip service?
The Piper
According to this (The Olympian) poll, the support isn’t so much “strong”:
Now, R-67’s support…that’s “strong.” Heh.
-OM
@11…YLB…
He’s in it for the money all right…the money he’ll save you in taxes! Money you can then spend, save, invest, squander, put towards a condo in Lahaina or towards your kids’ education rather than having it bled from you by Countess Gregoire the Impaler.
BTW…what will you do with the money you’ll not be sending to Olympia?
The Piper
to: Tlazolteotl #4 and N in Seattle #8
Why is it only opponents want me to become just another snake in the snakepit? Our supporters don’t want that, and neither do I. Jack, Mike, and I work very hard with a team of very heroic, very courageous, very principled supporters who want to give the voters the chance to give the average taxpayer an equal voice in the process. Based on the amazing number of measures the voters have supported over the years, they clearly like what we’re doing.
What sticks in your collective craw is that the majority of voters disagree with you and your compatriots. That the clear majority of voters want some reasonable limits on legislators and, in the case of I-960, its completely reasonable to expect the Legislature to follow the laws they’ve imposed on themselves, respect our constitutional rights, and keep us informed on efforts to take more of the people’s money.
Rather than throwing a childish temper tantrum and name-calling, why don’t you just maturely accept that voters want some accountability and don’t support your give-politicians-a-blank-check attitude?
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, and why don’t you admit that you are a pathetic clown who is nothing but a fraud? And please don’t ever go away, makes it much easier when voting to immediately dismiss any Initiative that has your name attached to it.
to: RobK1967 #16
Your constructive criticism has inspired me to become a better person. Thanks so much.
but again, it shows we’ve won the policy debate over I-960 when intellectually bankrupt opponents attack the messenger. There simply is no good public policy objection to our measure.
There is no counterargument to I-960’s policies – how can anyone:
* be against the Legislature following the law?
* be opposed to Olympia abiding by the Constitution?
* be against keeping the people and the press informed?
* be opposed to accountability?
That’s why everyone keeps attacking the messenger. Is it that everyone here lacks the intellectual capacity to make a substantive argument?
Come on, not even one substantive point … not one?
Sounds like Goldy’s usual extreme jealously of good buddy Timmy. Maybe because love his ideas/proposals or hate them, Tim actually DOES instead of merely just one-sided blogging, and filing ridiculously stupid initiatives to call someone a name, which is both immature and juvenile. The poll I saw last showed I-960 passing. What will Goldy do if it does?!
Now for the next 100 posts of Roger Rodent’s delusional rants…..stay tuned….
Nice try Timmy, but there is no hope for you to ever be a better person, you are and always will be a pathetic clown. Please keep dancing for our amusement, it is the one thing you are good at.
to: Mark1
made me laugh with that one. :)
Don’t you trust democracy?
Sure, Pip, but I don’t trust you to tell me what democracy is.
@15: That’s exactly the same mush of talking points you posted yesterday, Tim, but it doesn’t answer my question. If you want to make legislation, why don’t you run for office so we can hold you accountable? You have never ever addressed this, you just keep re-posting campaign literature.
Straight from the horse’s ass … what a build-up! What a let down!
I thought, silly me, that Goldstein was getting us pumped for an ex cathedra Goldstein pronouncement. Ex cathedra, from the chair or from the throne, the 1.6-gallon model that Goldycrats and Gorecrats compelled us to use to save the planet. The 1.6-gallon throne that you have to flush and flush and flush and flush again to dispel the Rabbit pellets that went down the old Rabbit holes with only one pull of the lever.
@11, I think he doesn’t care whether they are even legal in the first place. Hell the subsequent lawsuits just get his sugar daddy all the more fired up.
@21…Tlazolteotl…
In a democracy, the highest office is citizen. In the State of Washington, a citizen can be a legislator; it’s in the Constitution, and you can look it up.
So…Eyman has already done what you urge.
Your power to hold him accountable is the same you constantly flog to oppose him: the ballot box.
If you don’t like his measures, don’t vote for them. Just that simple.
Do I take it that you simply don’t like I&R as a matter of course? That you want them abolished? If so, may I quote you next time some liberal hoo-hah makes it on the ballot.
The Piper
to: Piper Scott #24
You’re decimating the other side with logic, facts, and the Constitution.
It’s like swatting flys with a sledgehammer.
Isn’t there one of you that can come up with a substantive point why voters should vote against I-960? Something that has to do with I-960’s policies. Is everyone here really that brain-dead?
Just one substantive objection … just one. waiting …
@25…TE…
In answer to your last question: In a word, yes.
The Piper
timmy and piper, would you two get a room to continue your fawning over each other? And timmy, sorry but I see no reason to answer your question because you are and always will be irrelevant.
He’s in it for the money all right…the money he’ll save you in taxes!
Bullshit! He’s a con-man who’s in it for the money he can stuff in his pocket. First from his gullible followers and next from his whacko sugar daddy Dunmire who has more money than sense.
If he gets any modest tax benefit – that’s just more sugar in the frosting.
Isn’t there one of you that can come up with a substantive point why voters should vote against I-960?
Yes – you’re a fraud and a confidence man.
We have a dysfunctional tax system in this state that puts most of the burden on the poor and the middle class instead of distributing it fairly among the haves and the havenots. You’ve shamelessly used this state of affairs as an opportunity TO LINE YOUR POCKETS!!!
The voters of this state want their government to WORK FOR THEM! YOU on the other other hand want to shamelessly exploit and fan the flames of resentment!
YOU.ARE.A.FRAUD!!!!
Glad to say I already voted. This issue was easy to vote on since it came from Eyman. Usually, anything with his name attached tends to be bad news for the citizens of Washington state. So I am proud to once again cast my ballot against his short-sighted money-grubbing plan.
We a pantheon of greats here today:
Pooper Scott: delusional tape recorder and playback of neo-con talking points. You see a post, there’s the tape playing yet again.
Mark1: ugly, vicious, right-wing misogynist who’s just a tad obsessed with one of our most astute commenters – Roger Rabbit.
Timmeh Eyman: fraud, liar, con-man, hustler. Yeah he’s SUCH AN ASS!
VOTE NO ON I-960!!!
The point is that the virtues, and there are many, of Mr. Eyman’s initiatives, and there are many, are not the point. Tim Eyman’s the point, the focus, of every Eyman initiative.
That’s a problem that goes beyond the problem of a cult of personality, mostly becuase Eyman’s personality is cloying and annoying. There’s another problem: Not all lies are created equal. Most lies die. Eyman’s never will as long as Eyman lives. Blue Dress Bill outlived a lie; tawdry Tim Eyman won’t.
I actually favor the legislature interpreting the emergency-out clause of their two-thirds requirement as broadly as is needed. What we don’t need is a tyrannical minority of anti-government ideologues telling people in Puget Sound what government services and infrastructure investments they are and are not entitled to.
I-960 would lead to all sorts of bizarre inefficiencies in state government. Do I really need my state legislators voting on whether or not to increase the cost of a replacement driver’s license? The entire point of having administrative agencies is to take care of the stuff that legislatures have neither the time nor expertise to deal with.
This is just another right-wing attempt to muck up government. Conservatives like to point out how ineffective government is, but the truth is that they’re the ones usually responsible for messing it up in the first place.
@5 It appears Tim is now reduced to hoping voters actually read initiatives and know what’s in them.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
So tell us, 34, in what substantive or meaningful way our legislature’s emergency-out differs from George Bush’s mechanism for ‘outing’ himself from onerous legislation? Isn’t emergency-out directly analogous to the executive signing statement?
Tangential Aside:
Do you think that my rabbi, Roger, Roger Rabbi, recognizes the indignity of being reduced to relieving himself in public? Oh, wait … that’s what big-eared rat-like rodents do all the time. HAR HAR HAR …
I see in today’s news that Congress sent a bill to Bush extending the moratorium against taxing internet transactions.
Although banning the state from collecting sales tax on internet sales is viscerally popular, it makes our sales tax doubly regressive.
Not only do high income households skate because they spend a lower percentage of their income, when they do spend they’re more likely to buy electronics, books, and other items readily available on the internet, resulting in a lower percentage of their consumption being exposed to the sales tax.
The sales tax not only is profoundly unfair to low income taxpayers, it also hampers state and local governments in raising money for needed programs and projects.
It’s time to dump Washington’s archaic, patchwork, Rube-Goldberg tax system and adopt the tax system used by 45 other states: A combination of property, sales, and income taxes set at moderate rates.
Washington is still plodding down the road in a mule-drawn cart while everyone else is zooming by in cars and trucks.
If Tim Eyman was one-tenth the populist he claims to be, he’d be out there gathering signatures for an initiative to adopt the Gates Commission recommendations: Repeal the B&O and state portion of the sales taxes, and replace them with a state income tax. That would distribute the state and local tax burden more fairly — away from overtaxed low income households and small businesses to undertaxed high income households.
How about it, Tim? Are you a populist or a pretender?
Of course, he and his army of volunteers would have to WORK to get that one on the ballot, because I don’t imagine his buddy Mikie D. will drop a cool half million to raise HIS taxes.
@37 If the city parks department wanted rabbits to use restrooms, they would have put the door handles low enough for us to reach them.
Since Timmie has chosen to grace us with his presence, let’s ask him if he’s going to vote for the pro-consumer R-67, or vote with the insurance companies who are screwing us.
How about it, Tim? Is your populist streak itchy today, or asleep?
@9 “Today it’s big government interests.”
Are you referring to Boeing sucking $3 billion of extortion money from a gullible legislature and governor? Yes, Boeing likes big government, the bigger the better. They want government to pay for expensive highway improvements that will get Boeing workers to their plants on time and move engines and fuselage parts quickly and inefficiently between plant locations, airports, and docks. They want government to pay for training their workers. They want government to pay for various other infrastructure improvements that benefit their business.
And they don’t want to pay taxes for any of it.
Having lived in the best of both worlds (Montana, income tax and no sales tax; Washington, sales and no income) I prefer WA’s regressive reactionary plodding mule-drawn regime. Here I’d need to spend 4 – 5 times my net income to approach or equal the level of taxation that was extracted or extorted by Montana’s progressive and confiscatory income tax.
Anecdotal, I know, but a sales-tax state gains revenue from tourism that is foregone to an income-tax-intensive state with many tourists, such as MT.
And, anecdotally, I lived in New Hampshire when it had neither an income tax nor a sales tax. That’s the model that the rest of plodding gouging America should emulate.
quickly and efficiently
@10 Funny how the much-abused public keeps electing the people allegedly abusing us.
Timmy @5,
I actually thought of that, as the SurveyUSA poll question is kinda weak. But then I looked at the crosstabs and saw that the folks who said they had already voted rejected I-960 58% to 29%. That can’t be too comforting for you.
@12 “Don’t confuse courage with delusion. What’s courageous is … being effective at getting results.”
In other words, Tim Eyman (along with every modern Republican candidate in Washington) is delusional. I thought so.
One reason for voting against I-960 is that it is likely unconstitutional. This has been a problem for many of Tim’s initiatives.
It seems to cover more than one subject, the flaw that tripped up I-695. It deals with how to pass tax and fee increases, subsequent votes, what can be in the voter’s pamphlet and the emergency clause, etc. I suspect the proponents will claim it deals with the single subject of taxation. However, the court has defined “subject” more narrowly than that in the past.
It may also conflict with the state constitution by changing how tax bills are enacted.
to: all
As i suspected, not a single substantive objection to I-960’s policies. The reason the policies in I-960 have such strong voter support is because most voters want there to be some reasonable limits on government’s power. And under I-960, we’re simply telling them to follow the laws, abide by the Constitution, and keep the people informed with better, more accessible public disclosure.
When opponents attack-the-messenger, it’s obvious to everyone that we’ve won the policy debate. So is the case with I-960.
oh, and wayne at #49, everything you’ve said was said about I-601 in 1993 and I-601 survived all legal challenges. And I-960 is even more focused than I-601 ever was – I-960 doesn’t get into emergency reserve funds, and spending limit formulas, it simply gives voters the chance to reinforce I-601’s reasonable taxation policies.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
As suspected Timmy seems to think his crap doesn’t stink.
@50 We already have reasonable limits on government’s power. It’s called “elections.” In addition, we have:
Checks and balances
Power of judicial review
Gubernatorial veto power
Existing lids on tax increases
Ability to repeal individual tax increases via initiative (you should know about this, Tim)
What we don’t need is adding another layer of bureaucracy to state government to figure out how to pay for roads, schools, police, etc. without paying taxes.
to: Roger Rabbit
you didn’t mention referendum power – and the reason you didn’t is because the Legislature has effectively repealed the right to challenge laws by referendum by abuse of the emergency clause which makes bills “referendum proof.” Our state Constitution guarantees the people that right and Gregoire and the Legislature have taken that right away 205 times.
I-960 addresses that problem with greater public disclosure, transparency, and information, deterring Olympia’s use of the emergency clause.
The people want all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, not just those the Legislature allows.
If Olympia wasn’t abusing the emergency clause, then that provision in I-960 would not have been necessary.
Oh for fuck’s sake, how is 14% of all bills passed (YOUR numbers) “abuse of the emergency clause”?
How is it that none of the issues raised in this thread rises to your standards of “specific issues” with I-960?
As usual, you’re a big bag of wind. You want to frame the debate to your advantage but the public and the courts see you for what your are.
But timmy, you would have found some other phoney issue to use to line your pockets at the expense of those who actually think you have scruples.
to: OneMan #54
205 “emergencies”? that’s not abuse? 205 times our elected representatives took away the citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights?
Our state Constitution guarantees the people the right to challenge any Legislature approved law. But slapping an emergency clause on a bill negates the people’s right.
Here’s a word-for-word transcript of a hearing on the emergency clause (a poster child example of emergency clause abuse):
Senate Labor, Commerce, Research and Development Committee
January 27, 2005, 10:00 a.m. hearing
SB 5097 re: apprenticeship utilization
Senator Keiser offered an amendment to add an emergency clause to the bill.
Senator Honeyford: If it’s already in existence, then what is the emergency? I see nothing here that’s for the public health, safety, peace, support of state government. It’s already in existence, so. . . . I think we abuse the emergency clause thing, and I think this is another example.
. . .
Senator Keiser: It’s unfortunate, but the legislative intent has been several times revoked by actions following the legislature’s adjournment through various devices that are now available. I think if we don’t have an emergency clause on controversial bills like this, that we will find the same kind of practice being utilized and I think we need to make as a legislature our intent not only clear, but effective.
. . .
Senator Honeyford: With that discussion, it seems like then that this emergency clause is to abrogate, I guess, the rights of citizens to bring some further actions if they’re opposing this. . . and I think that is wrong when we shut out the citizens from the process.
The amendment was adopted and the bill passed out of committee.
@17 “I”-man:
Jeezus! If RonK’s constructive criticism has made you a better person, what the hell did you start with????
Praising Piper Scott for his alliance is damning yourself with faint praise for starters, but also is acknowledging here that you are a gasbag of proportions even exceeding your feckless initiatives, of which you have politically way too many and personally far too few. But you do make a lovely pair, equally dissonant, performing on your respective instruments: Piper on dead sheep, you on Dunmire.
If you don’t like his measures, don’t vote for them. Just that simple.
I’ve already stated I would always vote NO on any of Timmy’s initiatives, just on general principle.
Do I take it that you simply don’t like I&R as a matter of course? That you want them abolished? If so, may I quote you next time some liberal hoo-hah makes it on the ballot.
Well, I’ve never stated that, so you are just putting words in my mouth, you dishonest POS.
@58…Tlazolteotl…
Easy, big fella!
I asked questions, but I didn’t put words in your mouth.
While I’m in the asking mode…Do you restrict your outrage to only initiatives with which you disagree, or is it equally expressed toward liberal measures?
I mean, if you won’t agree that you dislike I&R, then you must either like I&R or have no feelings one way or the other. Since you’ve expressed strong feelings here, it must be that you do like I&R…but only when it favors you.
How quaint…and typical of your specie.
The Piper
@57…Chad T….
Why is I-960 feckless?
Have to tell you…Tim waxed the regulars here who had nothing better to throw at him other than the usual cliches and bombast.
Tlazolteotl’s facile and sophomoric goading really showed him up as a Johnny One Note. Now he’s stuck not being willing to admit he doesn’t like I&R (he refused to say that was his opinion), which means he must like it, but that begs the question: to what extent? Whose?
He zigged when he should have zagged.
The Piper
@60 “careless and irresponsible” should cover it. Adding more overhead to the already encumbered legislative process and enabling a minority to block needed legislation. It is a Republican essential that that all taxes are vile and that “only the little people pay taxes”, which certainly DOES NOT include members of the Republican elite. Allows a 40% Republican fraction to defeat any needed (tax) legislation.
You, of course, who considers himself one of the Elite, would support it no matter what the cost to the people of the state, so it’s a total waste of time to answer you.
Piper @ 59: “Do you restrict your outrage to only initiatives with which you disagree, or is it equally expressed toward liberal measures?”
Let me jump in and respond to your query. I would say that initiatives don’t typically cause me “outrage.” But, my default position with regard to initiatives is to vote no, no matter who is pushing the initiative. My standard of proof for voting for an initiative is something along the lines of requiring clear and convincing evidence, not just a preponderance of evidence. There is a reason our political forbears favored representative democracy over direct democracy (and don’t play your man of the people tune here–it doesn’t become you). Initiatives and referendums should be rare and only address issues of fundamental values, not budgetary concerns best left to our legislators. We have seen far too many initiatives and referendums over the last several years. Moreover, when we see paid signature gatherers and an interest group like the insurance industry throwing over $11,000,000 at a referendum, it is really hard to sincerely claim that initiatives and referendums are a means of empowering the citizenry. Indeed, I believe that claim is complete rot. You would see it that way, too, if you were to be honest.
@62…PL…
Unfortunately, the drafters of Washington’s constitution didn’t share your POV.
The people’s right to act as a super and supra-legislature was specifically detailed in the State constitution. How often and on what issues the people exercise their specifically reserved right is absolutely up to them.
Sure, we’ve had some goofy ones. But we’ve had some great ones, too, and I offer Linda Smith’s I-601 as Exhibit A.
I&R serve as a check against either an unresponsive or unrestrained legislature. That the legislature of the last sentance specifically used “emergency clause” provisions ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THWARTING THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF REFERENDUM speaks for itself. A more explicit example of cynical elitism cannot be found.
Will I-960 pass? Beats me. But I’m here to tell you, I’m on board because, like you on voting “no,” I’ll support any measure that makes it harder for the legislature to raise taxes, and I’m all for hampering its silly exercises in vanity and profligacy.
Don’t flog the paid signature gatherer straw man. Both sides use them. There’s nothing inherently pure about a signature gatherer’s amateur status; this ain’t the Olympic Games, and they’re not Jim Thorpe.
The Piper
@61…Chad T….
Elite? Me? According to Proud Leftist in @62, I’m a man of the people. I trust the right of the people to make decisions then live with the consequences of their decisions.
Do you?
The Piper
Piper: “Don’t flog the paid signature gatherer straw man. Both sides use them. There’s nothing inherently pure about a signature gatherer’s amateur status; this ain’t the Olympic Games, and they’re not Jim Thorpe.”
I agree this ain’t the Olympic Games. Rather, the initiative and referendum process has become a game for professional opinion twisters (witness Timmy’s ill-gotten gains, though he lied about them). And, if you’d read what I said above, you’d note that I really don’t give a damn who is pushing an initiative, I don’t like them. So, “both sides” (there are actually many more concerns than just two sides) using paid signature gatherers simply proves my point. I recognize that Washington’s constitution provides for this process, so we’re stuck with it in the absence of an attempt to amend the constitution, which I would favor. In the meantime, I cannot believe those folks that drafted our fine state’s constitution foresaw what would become of the initiative and referendum provision. All it is now is a means for special interest groups to push their agendas–again, take a look at the money behind R-67.,
Tim’s track record on the constitutionality of initiatives is not very good. I-601 was different than 960 and the specific challenges I listed may not have even been made in court concerning I-601.
Substantive problems with I-960:
It’s not necessary.
Non-binding votes are a waste of time and money.
Passing it would only serve as encouragement to Tim.
Rejecting it might convince Dunmire his money would be better spent on lotto tickets, three card monte, or he could send it to that nice Nigerian man who promised to send him $15 million.
to: proud leftist
I don’t think our founders ever conceived of a citizen legislature so arrogant and condescending that they’d slap emergency clauses on bills willy nilly (205 times in 3 years) for the express purpose of making them “referendum proof”, thus depriving the people of their constitutionally guaranteed right to challenge any law passed by the Legislature.
Since Gregoire’s been Governor, she’s signed 1437 bills into law. During that same time frame, voters have approved 3 initiatives — one of them I-900 requiring performance audits of state and local governments (when I-960 passes, it’ll be 4).
So 1437 legislatively imposed at the state level (likely thousands imposed by local governments during that same time frame), 3 or 4 imposed by the people.
You said most decisions should be made by the ‘experts’ who we elect. Well, goal achieved, they’ve made 99.999% of the decisions. But you’ve got your panties in a bunch over the prospect of 3 or 4 over a 4 year period.
In our entire state history, the Legislature has imposed tens of thousands of laws and yet there’s only been 67 referendums FILED during that time, 35 got on the ballot, and voters approved 30 (meaning voters repealed 30 laws passed by the Legislature during our entire state history).
Again, not quite the great Armageddon of direct democracy you and your compatriots are constantly trying to scare people into believing.
But even winning 99.99999% of the time is too many for the Legislature – they want to win 100% by ensuring the people don’t have the right to referendum by slapping emergency clauses on bills just to make them ‘unchallengeable’.
I-960 addresses this abuse with more public disclosure, transparency and information – if the Legislature doesn’t cheat, there won’t be anything to report.
Yo Tim!
Why don’t YOU run for Governor?
to: wayne #66
I-601 was much more expansive and far-reaching than I-960 is. so the fact that I-601 survived all legal challenges makes your predictions unconvincing. In fact, we’ve had 13 years of experience with I-601 and the Legislature has proven they can function just fine under I-601’s policies. So another lawsuit like one of those against I-601 saying that the Legislature simply can’t adopt a budget under its requirements would be tossed out even faster than one of the previous ones filed against I-601.
Even Keith Scully for Futurewise, who’s lawsuit against I-960 was rejected unanimously by the state supreme court, pointed out the difficulty on the legal front.
fast forward through this link to 18:00 through 18:45 to listen to him:
http://www.tvw.org/media/media.....9DD44BEB25
to: Josef 4 Rossi
Our supporters like Jack, Mike, and I working on giving voters additional options at the ballot box. They like giving the voters a voice, a chance to make a difference, the opportunity to push the state’s public policy in a more pro-taxpayer, pro-common sense, pro-accountability direction. We’re gratified to be offering voters these reforms and ideas.
We view every initiative as a success because we’re highlighting issues and concerns that legislators would never discuss if not for our efforts.
We don’t just complain about how things are, we offer voters a chance to change how things are, and even when we don’t hit the ball, at least we’re willing to swing the bat.
Tim Eyeman:
Most of your initiatives are unconstitutional. We elect representatives to make choices and vote for us (if you don’t like it vote them out – that is called a representative democracy). A two thirds majority is not in our state constitution, period. If you want to abuse the initiative process in the name of populism – go ahead – but don’t expect the voters of this state to be fooled again by you. You promote bad government by the intitative process and make money off of it – I dare you to deny that you make money off of it!
Your track record is clear – phony initiatives with false wording designed to attract the feeble-minded anti-tax crowd (and also you are an admitted liar from your previous “I made no money on this initiative” statements – while later admitting making money off of the initiative). Some day your conscience – if you actually have one – is going to rise up and bite you in the ….I agree with goldy on this – he makes sense and you do not. Your track record is dishonesty and bad government. Why would anyone ever vote for something you are for?
Tim,
Was it a mistake to only exempt the requirements of I-960 specifically in the event of a “natural disaster”?
Eyman @50 sez:
Actually, Tim, this very ‘blog has been discussing your initiative quite a bit. There have been many different views expressed and debated. YOU MISSED IT.
You missed whatever chance you had to bend public opinion on this ‘blog. That’s why it’s laughable that you think you can come and demand a discussion of what’s already been thoroughly discussed already.
Instead of dressing up like Darth Vader, spend your time talking to your critics, and see what you learn.
Apologies if this appears as a duplicate.
Eyman @50 sez:
Actually, Tim, this very ‘blog has been discussing your initiative quite a bit. There have been many different views expressed and debated. YOU MISSED IT.
You missed whatever chance you had to bend public opinion on this ‘blog. That’s why it’s laughable that you think you can come and demand a discussion of what’s already been thoroughly discussed already.
Instead of dressing up like Darth Vader, spend your time talking to your critics, and see what you learn.
To: ESP #72
Thanks to the sports stadium ruling by the state supreme court on the emergency clause (when they said it qualified as a legitimate use of the emergency powers of government), that provision in I-601 has no effect. So anything can be an emergency whether I-960 passes or not. That statute is current law and has been since 1993 but two years later the High Court essentially ruled that anything the Legislature thinks is an emergency is an emergency.
Under I-960, if the Legislature jacks up a tax and then slaps an emergency clause on it and takes away our right to referendum, our right to a binding vote guaranteed by our state Constitution, we get to learn how legislators voted on the “emergency” tax increase and we also get to express our opinion on it with a nonbinding advisory vote.
Even opponents acknowledge the Legislature regularly abuses the emergency clause and I-960 provides an effective way to deter its overuse with greater public disclosure and transparency.