Creating the opportunity for a potentially precedent setting decision, the Washington State Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutional “scope” of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 6 at 1:30PM, and a decision would presumably come before ballots go to press for the November election.
Futurewise and SEIU 775 had filed suit in King County Superior Court arguing that I-960 should be blocked from the ballot because it is outside the constitutional scope of the initiative process, and Eyman publicly gloated when the judge refused to act on their request. Hmm. I wonder if Tim’s gloating now?
Courts are reluctant to hear challenges to initiatives prior to the ballot, but the fact that the Supremes have agreed to hear the appeal — and on such an expedited basis — indicates that a number of justices believe the case raises points of law that at least merit consideration. Such scope challenges are not without precedent, the most recent being 2003’s Goldstein v. Gregoire, in which a Thurston County Superior Court judge selectively (and unconstitutionally) barred me from submitting petitions for I-831, my initiative to officially proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass. At the time, my attorney cogently argued:
Many initiatives are presented to the people that are arguably unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the legislative power. For example, Tim Eyman’s Sound Transit Initiative would prevent Sound Transit from spending money on a “Link Light Rail” system. This proposed initiative is clearly beyond the scope of legislative power under Ruano v. Spellman and other cases holding that initiatives cannot seek to prohibit administrative actions. The Attorney General has done nothing to prevent Mr. Eyman from going forward with his initiative. Proposed Initiative 824 is a statement. The Attorney General has taken the position in the present case that statements are not legislative, yet nothing has been done to prevent Initiative 824 from going forward.
Allowing the Attorney General discretion to select initiatives for challenge based on their palatability would violate the First Amendment. If pre-ballot review is to be applied to some initiatives, it should be applied to all initiatives that are arguably unconstitutional or beyond the scope of legislative power.
I still feel that I-831, written in the form of a valid resolution, was barred improperly. But if Goldstein v. Gregoire is ultimately cited in a ruling that blocks I-960 from the ballot, those will have been lumps well worth taking.
Will it affect watch sales?
Will it reduce the power of government?
Their decision is already predictable. They wouldn’t accept the case unless their was something to it, and we know what Timmy’s track record is on writing initiatives that pass constitutioal muster (roughly 1-for-9).
errata
there; constitutional
@2 Why shouldn’t government have the power to do what people want it to do, within the limits of the powers granted to it by the state and federal constitutions?
Libertarians and conservatives are egocentric. They think things should be they way THEY want them, and to hell with the common good, or what the majority wants.
Doesn’t work that way, fellas. I know democracy is inconvenient for those with minority viewpoints, but if you don’t like it here, you have plenty of options in terms of moving to a banana republic run by a rightwing dictator. There’s no shortage of those.
And, of course, the fact I-960 got enough signatures doesn’t mean it’s supported by a majority. It takes only 3.6% of the state’s population to qualify an initiative for the ballot. Whatever its constitionality may be, I-960 is extremely bad policy. By giving a small minority of voters a veto over every tax increase, it would lead to gridlock, and ultimately wreck our state’s economy. Also consider this, as an unintended consequence: It would give the legislature powerful motivation to replace existing taxes with taxes that automatically adjust to inflation and/or increases in income. It might lead to an income tax.
Another thing libertarians and conservatives don’t understand is that our economy rests on a foundation of infrastructure and educational investment the citizens pool their resources to fund through the twin mechanisms of government and taxation.
Our ancestors didn’t invent government and taxes because they like government or taxes. They did it because government and taxes are what underpin civilization and an economy above the hunting-gathering level.
Of course there’s room for debate over how much taxes we should pay and what it should be spent on. For example, Ron Sims has a more expansive concept than I do of what percentage of my income should go for the common good. Ron will never run out of good deeds to perform with my money, no matter how much of it he gets. The trouble with all the conservative bleating about taxes is that, when you look at their track in public office, they don’t actuall spend less money than liberals do. They simply spend it on different stuff. What they do is spend your money on what they want. Keep that in mind when they complain about liberals spending their money on what we want.
Liberals want: Education, economy-supporting infrastructure, consumer safety, medical care, a sustainable environment, and a social safety net.
Conservatives want: Wars, weapons, corporate welfare, and opportunities for private contractors to make fat profits from public services.
You’re going to pay roughly the same taxes either way, so you decide where you want your money to go.
track record in public office
actually
damn it’s hard to type with furry paws
Roger Rabbit has posted 82% of the comments on this thread. If you don’t like it, report me to 1-900-KISS-ROG. All proceeds go directly to the Help Roger Rabbit Live Like A Republican Fund.
Roger said:
“Libertarians and conservatives are egocentric. They think things should be they way THEY want them, and to hell with the common good, or what the majority wants.”
The same thing could be said about the Neo-Socialist Democrats. Remember the tyranny of the majority, Roger. Ayn Rand reminds us that the ultimate minority is the individual.
Roger has posted 82%??
That’s because he’s a worthless asshole with nothing better to do that spew Sixties rhetoric.
You’re out-of-date, fuckhead!!
And Yossarian dates back to “Catch 22”, which was so out of date by the 60s that we studied it as a classic.
Fuck off, Corporal…
re 13: So are the 80’s — Gipper-breath….
How can a conservative argue that ideas and values from the past are “out of date”?
What a maroon!
Don’t quote Adam Smith or Edmund Burke to conservatives. Those ideas, according to the maroon, are out of date.
8 Ah…why waste the public’s money promoting comfort and prosperity when we can get wasted landscapes, bombed out cities and great piles of rotting corpses?
Roger,
One of the best things about you is that like other rabbits you seem very proliferative.
BUT … my faves are when you teach us soemthing. Can you say why you think Tim’s initiative is illegal?
ALSO ..
I may have missed it but I would love either here or at SJ to get your thoughts on the legality of using mail-in ballots for profit. The law you cites is clear, one cannot simply buy and sell votes. What does that elave open? Can I have a party and require a MIB as a ticket? Can I show others how I have voted? (Social pressure plus beer might mean $$).
Help me on this, fun aside, I am concerned that MIB==> a time bomb and would be interested in testing the waters by some demonstration for fun.
If an initiative has qualified for the ballot but has apparent constitutional flaws, the Supreme Court should review the initiative’s constitutionality before the inititiative goes before the voters. Pre-election review saves us from all the blathering an initiative’s proponents spew and permits us to focus on other issues at election time. Pre-election review also precludes, or at least reduces, the court-bashing that inevitably follows a successful initiative that is later deemed unconstitutional.
20 PL
I tend to agree, but the lower court disagreed, and accepted the State’s argument that ONLY the initiaive adherence or lack thereof to the contitution’s defined qualification for initiative reaching the ballot should be considered.
However, even if it is passed, (excerpt from Seattle PI):
“Ayn Rand reminds us that the ultimate minority is the individual.”
Anybody who takes the time to actually study how Ayn ran her personal little kooky cult knows she cared absolutely nothing about “the individual”.
@13 “The same thing could be said about the Neo-Socialist Democrats.”
If you ever find one, kick his ass for me, will ya?
I don’t want no fucking socialists or commies in my party!!
@13 You’re half right … I’m an asshole, but I’m probably worth more than you are.
So much for the wingnut stereotype of liberals as milquetoasts. Bet you fuckers weren’t expecting a furry little rabbit to be an asshole, were ya? Surrrpriiise!!!!
26
You may be an asshole, but you’re our asshole.
@19 Why I think I-960 is illegal doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the state supreme court buys the plaintiffs’ argument, which essentially is:
1) I-960 amends the state constitution; and
2) You can’t amend the state constitution by initiative.
There are two grounds for asserting that I-960 conflicts with the state constitution. First, the constitution specifics that a simple legislative majority is required to pass bills, except for overriding the governor’s veto. And second, the referendum process created by I-960 conflicts with the referendum procedures spelled out in the constitution. Whether this argument succeeds or fails will depend on how the state supreme court interprets I-960.
If, however, the court decides I-960 does amend the constitution, then the argument that you can’t amend the constitution by initiative seems rock-solid. An initiative is nothing more or less than a citizen-enacted statute. The legislature can’t amend the constitution by statute, and neither can the citizens via initiative. Amendment XXIII provides exclusive procedures for amending the constitution, and there are only two ways to do it: (a) either legislative house may initiate an amendment, which if adopted, must be ratified by a citizen vote, or (b) by a constitutional convention called into being by the legislature.
specifies, not specifics
@20 That’s not why courts review initiatives prior to an election. They do it to avoid wasting taxpayer money on a useless election.
@22 It is open to any individual who does not wish to live under the strictures of, and avail himself of the benefits of, civilized society to find himself a patch of unoccupied land under no nation’s jurisdiction and establish himself there.
@27 Damn straight !!!
@19 I don’t know what you mean by “using mail-in ballots for profit.” It is illegal to buy votes or offer to sell your vote, and that should answer your question. What circumstance do you envision that this doesn’t cover?
You can try to persuade someone else to vote for or against a candidate or ballot proposition, or not vote at all, provided the means used are merely promotional or persuasive and not menacing, coercive, or an offer to exchange something of value. You can show your ballot to someone else if you want to. I don’t see anything in the laws that would prevent you from holding a “voting party” where like-minded voters mark their ballots together, perhaps even in a drunken state. So far as I know, no law requires voters to be sober or of sound mind when they mark their ballots, nor do I know of any law that prohibits consuming beer, potato chips, and/or appetizers while marking a mail-in ballot. I believe you could ask a chicken to scratch her feet on the candidates you should vote for, if you wanted to. Nothing in the law prevents you from moistening the envelope sealing strip with whale piss.
Does that answer your question?
Why do currrent day conservatives talk like 1950’s Bircher pamphlets?
It’s too late to impeach Earll Warren, but there is plenty of time for Roberts, Thomas, and Scalito.
Earll Warren was an example of a REAL conservative who interpreted the constitution as a strict constructionist — as opposed to the strict ‘whatever we want it to mean that helps rich people and corporate persons’ constructionist.
@36 “as opposed to the strict ‘whatever we want it to mean that helps rich people and corporate persons’ constructionist”
Those folks are referred to as “revisionists.”
headless
I don’t believe there’s ever been a judicial creature accurately characterized as a “strict constructionist.” Those conservative judges who have grabbed that label over the years have adhered to the strict guidelines of constitutional provision, however we might define such, no more than have more liberal judges. I believe that liberal judges (Brennan, Marshall, Warren at times) exhibit a better sense of what the principles articulated in the Constitution demand. That is a more honest approach to constitutional adjudication than claiming some special insight into the intentions of those who attended the Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, we do not have any true liberals on the Supreme Court at present; Ginsberg sometimes comes close, but she’s no Bill Brennan.
If they could bottle and sell ‘virtual probity’, wingnuts would be lined up in droves to obtain the appearance of it.
@37 “Inflexible literalist” is the same thing as “strict constructionist” but is more descriptive.
They should make Timmy Lieman a violation of the Constitution just for being Timmy Lieman.
Actually, the court has spoken more recently on this issue. In the Coppernoll case in 2005, on the med mal initiative, a virtually identical argument was made- four elements of the measure itself had already been declared unconstitutional by the court, and thus the initiative sought to amend the Constitution by initative- clearly outside the scope of the Constitution. In oral argument, the court seemd to say that nothing short of an initiative that stated on its face that they were amending the Constitution would be struck prior to a vote of the people. The Chief even said, well, you could eliminate the Governor’s office b y striking all RCW references and as along as you did not take it out of the Constitution that would be okay.It was a 9-0 decision. I would not hold my breath on this outcome. I don’t think that many of the court’s members are ready to overturn themselves.
-Tom
Roger THANK YOU!
I am going to copy part of your answer to my blog to begin a thread on why the MIB is a time bomb.
Hope you will look in.
# 27 Yep everyone needs a furry asshole – makes it hard to keep clean when spewing beef related diarrhea :-)