Is there a legal problem joining car tabs and popular vote for tax increases in the same Initiative?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

In trying to get up to speed on this Initiative I have read this site and the one by those against this Initiative. The point was raised that by joining two somewhat unrelated things in one Initiative that this might violate the Washington Constitution and thus be invalid even if it passed in November. I assume there must be some legal position that this would not happen. Can someone help to explain whether there is a danger here and what the state of the law is? I would appreciate any case citations if there have been similar cases brought before the courts previously. Thank you.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), August 03, 1999

Answers

If you look at the detailed text of I-695 you will see that it is an an act to limit taxation. Specifically here is the text:

"AN ACT Relating to limiting taxation by: limiting excessive license tab fees: limiting tax increases by requiring voter approval; repealing existing licensing fees: RCW 46.16.060, 46.16.061, 46/16.650; repealing existing excise taxes: (a long list); adding a new section to chapter 46.16 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.135 RCW; creating a new section; and providing an effective date."

I-695 has just one subject: Limiting taxation. The same scare tactic was used against California's prop 13 which limited taxation by controlling property tax valuation increases and required voter approval for new taxes.

-- RD (M0nte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 03, 1999.


NO. There's no problem.

-- Dean Ekman (deanekman@msn.com), August 04, 1999.

The fact that I said it proves it's so! Oh, so you want empirical proof and logical arguments and all that pretentious academic hoo- hah! Hey, buddy, what do I look like, a %*&#%^*ing map?

-- Ek Deanman (rhetoric@bedamned.duh), August 09, 1999.

I am not 100% sure, but I think the State Constitution only allows one "subject" per Initiative. This one has 2 - one limiting vehicle excise taxes and the other requiring the governing entities in the state hold and election for any tax increase. Bill Fassett

-- Bill Fassett (fredschoen@AOL.COM), August 23, 1999.

Let's not speculate about what the State Constitution says or doesn't say when we can refer to it directly. Hey, it's even available on the internet at the State's WEB site. Article II, Section 1, paragraph (a) grants this power to the people and says: "Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative. Every such petition shall include the full text of the measue so proposed." It continues on as a lenghthy paragraph about procedure, certification and balloting. Only the second sentence quoted above gives any reference to content or structure of the initiative itself. Go read it yourself if you doubt.

-- Steve Phillips (stevephillips@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.


Dear Mr. Phillips, You have an excellent recommendation and I finally did find the web site "www.wa.gov/courts/educate/wacon".

While you are correct in what you said, Article II, Section 19 goes on to add the following: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." So the next question is whether I-695 is a "bill" that is governed by the Constitution? Certainly the quotation you noted uses the word "measure." If I had the proper books and time (and could remember how to do it) it would be fairly easy to see if our Supreme Court has answered this question, but I thought someone on this board might already know so I asked here first.

At this point, however, I was generally persuaded by the first answer that I received which basically said that even if Section 19 applied (although it not been identified as such at that time) there was only one subject and that was tax limitation. Thanks for pointing to the Constitution itself. So many times we forget to actually see what it says on issues and then speculate to our hearts content.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), September 02, 1999.


Mister Vancouver car owner you quote from the constitution: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

Okay, examination should indicate that an 'initiative' is not a 'bill'. But on closer examination you would probably find that the majority of 'bills' proposed by the legislature do NOT fit the Constitutional definition of a correct bill because they usually address more than one subject.

Hmmmm. Could it be that we could get many of these 'laws' overturned because they are really unconstitutional??

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.


A related possible issue, is that several of the fees and charges regulated by I-695 have been ruled to be fees and NOT taxes, by courts. Some are regulatory, and some are charges for services, etc. If I-695 is defined as an initiative to require voter approval of tax increases, and some of what it applies to is not a tax as defined by existing law and the courts, we still get to the "two issue" problem. The initiative expands the definition of things, and then states a simple new rule. The "state", is defined to include not just the state but every form of governmental entity of or within the state of Washington. Does that include the tribal governments? It also defines a tax to include any charge by such a government, even if it is the water bill from the water district, or the rental rates of a housing authority. One writer described that as defining house cats as cougers, and passing a law to ban pet cougers in residential neighborhoods. The ban sounds reasonable until you read the definition. One more reason to be skeptical.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 03, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ