Top 10 Reasons to Vote "No" on I-695 In no particular order Feel free to print these out or e-mail them to your friends and family!!! I-695 will take money away from important state programs.

An early budget analysis shows that I-695 would force the state to cut spending by nearly $1.8 billion immediately. The motor-vehicle excise tax fees bring $2.2 billion every two years. This is money that would be almost completely eliminated.

How would we replace these losses? We wouldnt at first. It could take years of bureaucracy and tax increases to attain a "pre-695" level.

On May 27, 1999, Transportation Secretary Sid Morrison said the plan would take $1.8 billion from the state road fund. House Transportation Co-Chairwoman Ruth Fisher said, "If 695 passes, I'm resigning the next day."

(From Seattle Times, January 13, 1999) "The business community is viewing this latest proposal with skepticism. None of us like to pay taxesbut this is counterproductive to what we want, said Don Brunell, president of the Association of Washington Business and a member of the Washington Transportation Alliance, a coalition of business groups. It would shoot a huge hole in the transportation budget.

I-695 would increase cars, traffic, pollution

This is perhaps the most obvious disadvantage of Initiative 695. With the reduction of license tab fees, more people will be able to afford cars and/or fuel for their cars. This will lead to an increase of cars and traffic on our already overburdened roadways. An increase in traffic obviously leads to an increase in pollution to our environment.

Proponents of I-695 will tell you that their initiative actually helps the environment. This is simply not true. Older, more fuel efficient cars are far better for the environment than gas-hogging SUVs, vans, heavy trucks, and motor homes that I-695 promotes. An increase of heavy vehicles will create even more road problems. Inefficient vehicles coupled with an overall increase in motor vehicle traffic will create environmental problems we do not need.

Washington will not be able to support the growth in traffic. I-695 cut money needed by the state for transportation improvements. Cut the funds, increase the traffic, things will get very ugly, very fast.

According to King County Councilman, Rob McKenna, R-Bellevue, (Seattle Times, July 3, 1999) King County would be forced to cut $100 million dollars from its transportation budget and reduce Metro bus service by 20 percent.

Initiative would undo voter approved Referendum 49.

Referendum 49 was approved by the voters last November. Referendum 49 reduced the car tax by $30 and financed a 2.4 billion dollar highway construction boom that has not yet begun. I-695 would virtually undo all of the positive effects of R-49.

According to David Ammons of the Associated Press, "That plan, which recently allowed lawmakers to adopt a grand $4 billion highway budget - adding about $1 billion...depends on money from the car-tab tax, also called the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET)."

State Senate Minority Leader Dan McDonald (Republican of Bellevue) also opposes the measure, citing its negative effects on R-49. "Eyman has put us in a terrible spot. If it passes, it makes governing very difficult and destroys the common-sense approach of Referendum 49, which showed you didn't need a big gas-tax increase to... attack congestion," he said. McDonald added: "Me personally, I wouldn't vote for it. We pledged that tax money to pay the highway bonds back that the voters said they want." (Associated Press, July 2, 1999.)

Wasted time, more bureaucracy results of I-695. Initiative hurts democracy.

By making every city and county in Washington hold elections to raise even the smallest fee or tax would lead to wasted time and money campaigning for and against everything. Both sides of every issue would be forced to mobilize for the elections.

For instance, if the city of Renton wants to implement a 15-cent fee for photo copies made at the library, that will have to be voted on by the public.

Voters will become increasingly confused, having to make decisions on issues we trust our elected officials to make for us. Voter apathy is at an all time high. Many voters stay home because they are not informed enough to vote. Voting on all tax and fee increases will only create more confusion. This initiative actually hurts Washington State democracy!

State Representative, Jim McIntire, D-43, says "It would be a horrendous experience," noting that up to 50 tax and fee proposals could show up on the ballot on election day. "Everybody'd need their own tax accountant just to go to the polls to try to understand what's going on."

Conservative talk-show host, John Carlson agrees. "Every tax, every fee has to be subject to a vote? So the city of Redmond raises its fees for renting a... park facility. That has to go on the ballot?" Carlson asked. "Micro-managing from a distance can be difficult." (Seattle Times, January 13, 1999.)

Initiative actually reinstates property tax on vehicles

In 1937, when the legislature approved the MVET (motor vehicle excise tax), they opted out of allowing cities and counties to charge property taxes on vehicles. However, I-695 undoes this act, leaving cars, trucks, vans, and motor homes subject once again to property taxes at the state, city, and county level.

"I'm not sure it accomplishes what (Eyman) thinks it does," said Sen. Jim West (R-Spokane). "All personal property is subject to property taxes. When the MVET was approved, it exempted cars from property tax. This guy's so smart, he's repealing the exemption." (Tacoma News Tribune, July 9, 1999.)

Switching back to the system of the 30's will require millions of dollars in retraining staff and reprogramming state institutions. While the taxpayers will be picking up a similar tab, they will be stuck with having to vote on every tax and fee increase, which damages our system of democracy.

I-695 would probably lead to State Income Tax

If Initiative 695 passes, we will probably see a push, in the legislature, to create a state income tax similar to Oregon's personal income tax. Our state would have to find ways to recover the lost income from I-695. As a citizen of Washington state, I am happy to not have to pay a state income tax.

State Chair of the Republican Mainstream Committee, Phil Robins, said his group voted unanimously against endorsing this initiative. "This is not a good move," Robins said. "While everyone would like to pay just $30 per car per year, it would only lead to a raise in some other tax or maybe even a new tax. It's just not realistic. We strongly support tax reductions, but they should be practical."

I-601 already requires voter approval for State tax increases

Passed a few years ago, initiative 601 requires that all State tax increases be approved by Washingtons voters. However, I-695 would make counties and cities hold unnecessary votes to pass the smallest of tax increases to pay for essential services. Even if the city of Auburn wanted to raise the fee to rent a park facility, it would have to go through months of bureaucracy and spend thousands of dollars on a campaign to win the votes. That's just not a good way to run a government.

This initiative unfairly aimed at aiding the wealthy

Simple math is the explanation for this point. Under I-695, if you buy a $70,000 luxury SUV, you will pay the same amount for tabs as a person who buys a 1988 Mazda-GLC. Consequently, while the Mazda owner may save $30-$40, the SUV owners could save over $600! I-695 is unfairly tailored toward helping the rich get richer.

Car dealers are practically salivating at the prospect of I-695 passing so they can sell more cars. It is perhaps not surprising that Martin Rood, the co-sponsor of this initiative is the former president of Rood Nissan/Volvo car dealership. Mr. Rood knows how to sell cars and this is just his latest attempt.

Local criminal-justice programs would lose money

Most people probably think that all of the money from license tabs goes to transportation projects. Not true. If I-695 passes, local criminal justice programs would loose more than $81 million. Large portions of tab fees also go toward school funds and other projects.

From the Seattle Times: (Seattle Times, July 3, 1999) King County Councilman, Rob McKenna, R-Bellevue, estimates that the county would be forced to cut it's criminal-justice budget by 10 percent. They would also be forced to cut the public-health budget by about 5 percent. "It would be a huge hit," McKenna said.

Cutting money for the criminal-justice system would be bad. Local governments would be able to hire less officers. Prisons will not have the money to expand or house prisoners. Some have called I-695 a "get out of jail free card" for many of Washington's offenders. I-695 will mean less jail time for criminals.

Republicans and Democrats agree, I-695 is a bad idea.

On May 27, 1999, the State Republican party and the more moderate, Mainstreem offshoot of the party declined to endorse I-695 (From The Associated Press, May 27, 1999). State GOP chairman, Dale Forman believes this initiative will be bad for state programs. "I didn't think it was in the best interests of sound transportation policy" to endorse the latest initiative, Foreman said in an interview. The measure would hamstring the Legislature and put pressure on other taxes, he said.

However, under intese political pressure from Tim Eyman's political machine, the state GOP party has reversed their opposition to I-695. In a cowardly move, the state Republican party backed down from their previous stance and bowed to special interest pressure.

Phil Robins, chairman of the moderate offshoot of the party, the Mainstream Committee, said his group voted unanimously against endorsement. "This is not a good move," he said of the initiative. "While everyone would like to pay just $30 per car per year, it would only lead to a raise in some other tax or maybe even a new tax. It's just not realistic. "We strongly support tax reductions, but they should be practical."

Check out Republicans Against I-695.

Governor Locke has said he will not support I-695. "Virtually 100 percent of the license-tab revenue goes to our highways, ferries, buses and local criminal justice," Locke told the Associated Press. "Anyone who is sick and tired of sitting in traffic or bouncing over potholes and anyone who wants to make sure local law enforcement has the money it needs to protect families and property owners should think twice about supporting this initiative."

KVI talk-show host, John Carlson now says he will vote for I-695. However, in January, he said I-695 is counterproductive for Washington. Carlson has been quoted criticizing I-695 on his local call-in show.

Here is the growing, bipartisan list of those opposed to I-695: Gary Locke - Governor of Washington Dale Foreman - State GOP Chairman Paul Berendt - State Democratic Party Chairman Phil Robins - Chairman of the Mainstream Republican Party Dan McDonald - State Senate Minority Leader Sid Snyder - State Senate Majority Leader Don Brunell - President of the Association of Washington Businesses. Washington Research Council - An independent/nonprofit tax group Seattle Times Seattle Post-Intelligencer Spokane Spokesman-Review Tacoma News Tribune South County Journal Eastside Journal

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999

Answers

isn't it amazing how people squirm when they sense power being taken from them. What would you expect from goverment agencys that are funded by or benifit from, or people, groups, or companies that would lose the ability to influence, I'm sorry "donate" funds and bring "attention" to state legislators there concerns about certain pieces of legislation( i.e. taxation, loopholes, exemptions...et. al.)

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

"An early budget analysis shows that I-695 would force the state to cut spending by nearly $1.8 billion immediately. The motor-vehicle excise tax fees bring $2.2 billion every two years. This is money that would be almost completely eliminated. " I don't think so. Violation of second law of thermodynamics. It would have to go somewhere, since it is not being created or destroyed. Oh yes, it would go BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS! WHAT A NOVEL IDEA! Letting the taxpayers keep some of THEIR money.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

"Older, more fuel efficient cars are far better for the environment than gas-hogging SUVs, vans, heavy trucks, and motor homes that I-695 promotes. "

Thats not exactly what the Department of Ecology says: Ecology Department plans changes in vehicle-emission checks OLYMPIA - Fewer vehicles in Washington will have to have their emissions checked after Jan. 1, under changes being implemented by the Washington Department of Ecology.

Recent amendments to state law exempt all vehicles up to age five and older than age 25 from mandatory emission checks. The rationale is that newer vehicles rarely violate emission standards. By contrast, emissions from older automobiles often cannot be brought up to standards cost-effectively.

"This change shifts the focus to repairs on middle-aged cars and trucks, where we get the most air-quality benefit," said Mary Burg, who manages Ecologys air-quality program. "However, exempting new and old vehicles cuts into the thin margin by which we now meet clean- air standards."

In the year 2000, only 1976 through 1996 model-year cars and trucks will have to be tested in the urban areas of Clark, King, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane counties (parts of Clark County already have the exemption under a pilot program). Emission checks are required every other year. Even model-year vehicles are tested in even years; odd model-year vehicles get their tests in odd years. The program applies to gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. http://www.wa.gov/ecology/pie/1999news/99-198.html

Now it would appear, ac, that either you are WRONG or the State Department of Ecolgy is INCOMPETENT. Which is it?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

"House Transportation Co-Chairwoman Ruth Fisher said, "If 695 passes, I'm resigning the next day." " This is NOT a reason to vote against I-695. It is practically a stand-alone reason to vote for the initiative. A long time politician threatens to take her ball, and go home, no doubt whining all the way. GOOD RIDDANCE

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

"I-695 would probably lead to State Income Tax

If Initiative 695 passes, we will probably see a push, in the legislature, to create a state income tax similar to Oregon's personal income tax. Our state would have to find ways to recover the lost income from I-695. As a citizen of Washington state, I am happy to not have to pay a state income tax. " Sure it would. As soon as it passed in both chambers, the governor OK'd it, AND ALL THE TAXPAYERS DECIDED IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. And pigs may fly, too, but that isn't the way I'd place the bet. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha- ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Oh ac, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, Stop! Please! My ribs are hurting from laughing at this. At least your spelling is better when you cut and paste other people's nonsense, even if the logic and reason isn't.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

Top 10 reasons to vote yes 10.Monica Lewinsky voted yes and became famous 9.Car tabs should cost $30.00 or less. Just like a good cigar. 8.Bagwan Shree Rashneesh would be able to register his cars in Washington instead of Oregon 7.Washington Research Council doesn't like it 6. Gary Locke will choke 5. You can't surf in Lake Washington 4. It Feels so GOOOOOOOOOD 3. It's the American way 2. What else is there to do in November? 1. It will make the avocado man run around screaming "the sky has fallen. the sky has fallen" como un pollo mojado

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Are there going to be huge budget cuts or are vehicles going to be subject to property taxes? Could you please make up your mind on that one. You conveniently fail to mention that the state has a huge surplus, which will protect society from rushing into drastic cuts. You further insult your fellow citizens by implying we won't approve new taxes and fees over the next several years, thus further insulating the community from drastic.

You talk about congestion. We've been paying the huge MVET for years, and we have the worst congestion. If I'm I going to sit in traffic I might as well be paid to do it, rather than the other way around. By the way, I voted against Referendum 49. I'm more than happy to undo it.

You give us the common drivel that cities will have to ask voters to raise simple fees. Is that your best argument against I-695? There is nothing stopping municipalities from raising minor fees and taxes prior to Jan. 1, 2000.

All in all, you lack optimism and a sense of adventure. With the huge surplus and a strong economy, we can afford to take a chance on I-695.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 07, 1999.

I love this thread!!

I see the same people who are against it making the same claims about why not to Yes on 695!

Come on people! Get some new figures and claims as to why we should have to vote No. Confusion is not working.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

ac

you state " Check out Republicans Against I-695.

Governor Locke has said he will not support I-695. "Virtually 100 percent of the license-tab revenue goes to our highways, ferries, buses and local criminal justice," Locke told the Associated Press. "Anyone who is sick and tired of sitting in traffic or bouncing over potholes and anyone who wants to make sure local law enforcement has the money it needs to protect families and property owners should think twice about supporting this initiative."

Since when did Locke join the Republician Party?

I knew there was a reason I didn't trust them and the Democrats

Ed - voting for Locke as head of RNC

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

"Confusion is not working. "

Sandy- When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Confusion is the only tool that I-695 opponents have. Facts, figures, and rational arguments certainly aren't going to help, they all back up the pro-695 side.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Endorsements from: Here is the growing, bipartisan list of those opposed to I-695: Gary Locke - Governor of Washington Dale Foreman - State GOP Chairman Paul Berendt - State Democratic Party Chairman Phil Robins - Chairman of the Mainstream Republican Party Dan McDonald - State Senate Minority Leader Sid Snyder - State Senate Majority Leader Don Brunell - President of the Association of Washington Businesses. Washington Research Council - An independent/nonprofit tax group Seattle Times Seattle Post-Intelligencer Spokane Spokesman-Review Tacoma News Tribune South County Journal Eastside Journal

Hmm, looks like a fine group of reasons to vote FOR 695.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.

I'm voting "NO" because a 40% cut of all Tranportation funding means I'm out of job. So it sound so good to everyone who's not directly impacted by I-695, but to me it can't be good. You honestly think that the government of Washington is just going to give up all that money their going to lose??? You don't think there's a back end to this? HELLO??? Did we not vote "NO" for a new ballpark??? It's funny that it's there and we're paying for it. Nothing is going to happen that we want, it's not up to us it's up to them. If they all want something real bad they'll make us vote, and either way it will somehow happen. Either way, I-695 passes: We pay more property taxes, personal income tax would follow, traffic would be rediculous from all the people who can't afford $5 a bus ride. If it doesn't pass: So what so we have to go and pay the same for tabs, big deal, if you can afford a $40,000 vehicle you can afford the tabs. If you have a $10,000 vehicle you can afford the $95 tabs. It's only once a year.

-- Michael Jewett (rileymegan@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

If the guy that thinks license tabs on a $10,000.00 vehicle only costs $95.00, he should be out of a job.

-- Jill (harrywho@whidbey.com), October 08, 1999.

Sorry, I forgot to explain my source. I pulled the above article from a website: www.angelfire.com.

I figure if your gonna post entire articles on this site why not some old boring stuff we have already argued over just to fuel the fire.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

ac-

Still think we can offset the first years cuts for I-695 by selling Seattle Light to private industry. Then we can get 2% back annually for the rest of eternity by charging them property taxes. Bet the electric rates come DOWN once we privatize, too. The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 08, 1999.

Craig:

I'd like to see the math on that idea. You want to add a property tax expense to the City Light operating budget sufficient to offset the MVET, and you expect the power rate to go down.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

craig wrote--"Still think we can offset the first years cuts for I-695 by selling Seattle Light to private industry. Then we can get 2% back annually for the rest of eternity by charging them property taxes. Bet the electric rates come DOWN once we privatize, too."

db wrote--"I'd like to see the math on that idea. You want to add a property tax expense to the City Light operating budget sufficient too offset the MVET, and you expect the power rate to go down."

db--YASFDB (yet another strawman from db): the 2% he's talking about is the 2% property tax (is 2% the right amount???) a privatized utility pay would pay on their property. He wasn't talking about the 2% revenue cut from I-695. Furthermore, he neither said nor implied this revenue would offset I-695's MVET cut.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 09, 1999.

Still looking for the math on increasing expenses, and reducing power rates, at the same time.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

There's no such thing as a "privatized electric utility". They're all regulated monopolies. People in the Northwest pay fairly low rates compared to the rest of country. That because of the hydroelectric dams paid for by the taxpayer, not private industry.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.

d-

Sorry. You got into this one kind of late. City Light values it's property at about $1.2 billion. Since most cities don't generate their own electricity, I recommend we sell the whole thing. That generates $1.2 billion from the existing capital. We will get more subsequently because $1.2 billion in real property will be back on the rolls. The new owners will be paying property tax, something the existing owners don't do. If the economics fall as they usually do with privatization, the new owners will operate it at less cost to the customers. A win-win situation.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

Craig:

That looks like an idea that should appeal to the residents of Seattle; and their elected representative, the Mayor and City Council. Has anyone proposed it to them, or have any studies been done? To return this to the subject of this forum, since that is a local issue with the decision in the hands of the local voters and elected officials, and since 695 does nothing about it; why discuss it here instead of with Seattle? Seattle needs to make a judgement about what will be in their long term best interests.

If your pont is that when Seattle feels a funding shortage, they will look for ways to replace the money, and may consider this as a result; you may be right. They may even feel they need to sell for short term reasons, even if it would be a problem long term. Seattle has more options than most cities, and also has some bigger urban problems than anywhere else in the State, except perhaps Tacoma. When some of those cities look around for funding replacements, they may not find a convenient asset to sell.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 10, 1999.

"To return this to the subject of this forum, since that is a local issue with the decision in the hands of the local voters and elected officials, and since 695 does nothing about it; why discuss it here instead of with Seattle?" Since Seattle gets more MVET money than any other municipality, this is relevant to where to take the bulk of the cuts when I-695 passes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

Craig:

But if the loss of MVET is supposed to be covered by the state surplus, as some of the supporters of 695 expect, Seattle will not lose at all. The state will lose the surplus, at least for the first year. After that, the state and local governments will have some adjustments to make; but the current MVET programs are no more likely to be cut than any other programs by the time they get through. I really don't see the relevence of bashing the current MVET programs as a reason to support 695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

Craig:

But if the loss of MVET is supposed to be covered by the state surplus, as some of the supporters of 695 expect, Seattle will not lose at all. The state will lose the surplus, at least for the first year. After that, the state and local governments will have some adjustments to make; but the current MVET recipients are no more likely to be cut than any other programs by the time they get through. I really don't see the relevence of bashing the current MVET programs as a reason to support 695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

what I want to know is that if the tabs give the state that much revenue then how come we may have to pay a toll from a private company and not the state or any help from the state for a New Tacoma Narrows Bridge? That is the primary reason why I want to vote yes on I-695, at least my tabs will only be 30 dollars since I may have to pay to go across the bridge to work everyday

-- (Scoobybuny@aol.com), October 13, 1999.

d-

"But if the loss of MVET is supposed to be covered by the state surplus, as some of the supporters of 695 expect," I have never expected this or wanted it. I believe that the 2% (I know we disagree on that, if you'd rather have 4%, so be it) shortfall can be partially offset by reallocating from programs not funded by MVET. The "partial" is key. As you are by now aware, I believe that we have pushed transit funding well past the point of diminishing returns, and believe that some highly subsidized programs (like transit and the ferries) might be more reasonably funded through increased farebox revenues. Yes, I realize this would take a public vote under I-695.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

To Craig: No, farebox increases would not necessarilt require a vote. I-695 does not prevent transit agencies from raising their fares prior to Jan. 1, 2000. Furthermore, depending how much fares increase, there would be fewer riders, so revenue collection may not increase at all. But there would then be more congestion on the road.

The transit agencies would be wise not to raise their fares until they determine how they can improve service (i.e., offer more non-stop express buses). Then, their revenenue base might improve rather than decline.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 14, 1999.

Matt-

I think it is unwise for any politicians to move pre-emptively to raise taxes to beat the I-695 deadline. If they have a majority willing to support the increase, they don't need to. If they don't have a majority, they will be irritating more than a majority of their constituents. Even people who might have supported the increase will question their motives. I think those municipalities who are raising rates before the election and promising to lower them after the election if I-695 passes are nudging up to extortion. I wonder if you could go after them under RICO laws. Hey lawyers! Anyone want to get rich? Sue the socks off these bozos.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

Sorry- Was interrupted and mispoke when I came back to my post. Should have been:

Matt- I think it is unwise for any politicians to move pre-emptively to raise taxes to beat the I-695 deadline. If they have a majority willing to support the increase, they don't need to. If they don't have a majority, they will be irritating more than a majority of their constituents. Even people who might have supported the increase will question their motives. I think those municipalities who are raising rates before the election and promising to lower them after the election if I-695 DOES NOT PASS are nudging up to extortion. I wonder if you could go after them under RICO laws. Hey lawyers! Anyone want to get rich? Sue the socks off these bozos.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

Sec. 1973i. Prohibited acts  (a) Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of subchapters I-A to I-C of this chapter or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person's vote.  (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a(a), 1973d, 1973f, 1973g, 1973h, or 1973j(e) of this title.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

RCW 29.85.060 Hindering or bribing voter. Any person who uses menace, force, threat, or any unlawful means towards any voter to hinder or deter such a voter from voting, or directly or indirectly offers any bribe, reward, or any thing of value to a voter in exchange for the voter's vote for or against any person or ballot measure, or authorizes any person to do so, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021. [1991 c 81 ' 5; 1965 c 9 ' 29.85.060. Prior: (i) 1911 c 89 ' 1, part; Code 1881 ' 904; 1873 p 204 ' 103; 1854 p 93 ' 94; RRS ' 5386. (ii) 1911 c 89 ' 1, part; 1901 c 142 ' 1; Code 1881 ' 909; 1873 p 205 ' 106; 1865 p 50 ' 1; 1854 p 93 ' 97; RRS ' 5388.] NOTES:

RCW 29.85.070 Influencing voter to withhold vote. Any person who in any way, directly or indirectly, by menace or unlawful means, attempts to influence any person in refusing to give his or her vote in any primary or special or general election is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021. [1991 c 81 ' 6; 1965 c 9 ' 29.85.070. Prior: Code 1881 ' 3140; RRS ' 5389.] NOTES:

Yo lawyers-

Sic 'em

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

To Craig: I did not know that a transit agency raising its fare is the same as a politician raising a tax. You learn something new every day (are you still keeping score?).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 14, 1999.

Matt-

I was referring more to a number of municipalities that HAVE raised taxes, sometimes specifically saying that this was being done pre- emptively to beat I-695, and saying they would lower them back if it failed. But yes, in terms of I-695 they would be the same, and philosophically I don't see a real difference either. I believe they ought to wait and see, then if it passes, comply with it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.