Hi I have a question here. Even if I-695 does pass, are its opponents going to haul it off to court and then take years to decide it? In California a few years ago, we had a very controversial initiative as well which denied state services to illegal immigrants. The people voted for it to pass, but the opponents of it tied it up by taking it to the courts and so that was the end of it as far as I know. That really makes me mad and ticked me off. The American people voted for it, and they deserve to have the initiative enacted into effect! What kind of democracy is this? What's the point of voting then? I sure hope that doesn't happen if I-695 passes!

Winston

-- Winston (WWu777@aol.com), October 14, 1999

Answers

i-695 will be in the courts if it does pass. That is something both sides agree upon. And like in Montana, it will be found unconstitutional.

-- informed washington resident (informed@iswell.com), October 14, 1999.

As long as there are lawyers things will get tied up in courts. And if it gets thrown out, I'd anticipate a taxpayer backlash that would make the bureaucrats and those politicians that still stay in office pray that they could restore it, rather than the next initiative that follows.

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

The real solution to this issue would be an amendment to the state constitution allowing initiatives to amend the constitution. At this point, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is a good thing.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.

If this passes will take the following direstions as far a cour actions are concerned:

1) The Washington government can ignore I-695 and just not implement it and wait for the voters to sue. Then they will claim some kind of constitutional issue that representatives have the constitutional authority to levy taxes.

2) The Washington government could sue the voters over I-695 as Tom Foley did on term limits. He won the suit, but got voted out of office quickly.

If this does goto court (and seems likely), the Washington Supreme court will have to make a constitutional decision (which seems the most likely cause of action). But there's one saving grace. They too will be wanting to be re-elected.

Furthermore, some elected official will have to file the suit. Again, they will have to worry about re-election.

If a private person or organization were to file suit (if they have the authority), then they too will have to worry about boycotts, protests, bad press, and unfortunately some whacked out crazy lunatic that feels like someone in that camp needs to be taken out.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 14, 1999.

STOP TALKING ABOUT ME!!!! PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT ME!!! i HATE IT WHEN THE VOICES TALK ABOUT ME!!!!!

-- (wackedout@lunatic.org), October 14, 1999.

This brings up one of the fundamental reasons why we have a consitutional government in the first place and the reason why it's been able to last so long. The American people certainly do have a right to affect change in their government. But just as the Constitution (both U.S. and Washington State) puts limits on what the government can do, it also puts limits on what the people can do to the government. These limits aren't unchangeable, but justifiably difficult to change. The reason behind this is to protect all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

As an example, if an initiative that banned all gun purchases and confiscated any privately owned firearms passed in this state, should it be enacted just because a majority of the people voted for it? Not particularly, since it does happen to violate the 2nd Amendment.

Someone might say that my example doesn't apply to the 695 debate since that one takes away the rights of citizens while 695 expands a right. Well as I said before, the constitution also puts limits on how the government can be changed. Whether you like the section 2 provision of 695 or not, I think we can all agree that it creates a fundamental change in the way state and local governments do business. And like it or not, when it comes to fundamental changes like this, it is built into the bedrock of our form of government that making such changes are more difficult to do than a simple majority vote of the people. A lot of people here probably have issues with that concept when it comes to 695, but I'm betting they'd be pretty thankful if the fairly popular topic of reducing school levy passage to a simple majority popped up as an initiative.

Of course the task of deciding what is and isn't constitutional falls to the court system to decide. Winston asked what kind of a democracy is this. Well it's the kind in which the judicial branch has been the interpreter of the laws and Constitution for well over 200 years. And despite its flaws, it has worked pretty well over that time. Yes, that system does on occasion reverse the will of the people. But it has maintained a stable and reliable system in which major changes are possible, but only after very careful deliberations. A system, that when compared to the rest of the world during this time, has given us an unparalleled amount of prosperity and tranquility.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

Patrick

"As an example, if an initiative that banned all gun purchases and confiscated any privately owned firearms passed in this state, should it be enacted just because a majority of the people voted for it? Not particularly, since it does happen to violate the 2nd Amendment."

Unfortunately this is happening slowly so that the citizens do not realize it. California signed a new law making an SKS with a detachable magazine a felony. Apparently they said they overlooked it when they last outlawed certain types of firearms. So all of the law abiding citizens will now be wanted felons on Jan 1st unless they turn in what was a legal weapon.

This gun is a semi-automatic that is nothing special (I wouldn't own one) but it happens to have as it major failing point a detachable mag. At least that's the only reason the AG of Cal gave in the commercial I heard tonight.

There is a buy back program for them, but after Jan. 1st your screwed if you still have one.

P.S. according to the Federal Prosecutor in LA gun crimes are such a low priority that they don't even prosecute them. Yet now they want to go after Joe Six Pack, who just happen to buy a legal gun last year.

Ed - every time the government puts restrictions on something, I buy stock in it. Works so far.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

Wait a second here. Someone I talked to just told me that if I-695 passes, only the 2nd part of it having to do with requiring tax increases to be subject to voter approval can be tied up in court. She said that the $30 flat tab fees would be enacted no matter what and could not be hauled to court. Anyone know if that's true?

Thanks, Winston

P.S. By the way, why do they want us to put our full name up there? We don't have to do that do we? I didn't.

-- Winston (WWu777@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

Winston:

See the discussion in "I-695 and court action".

The intitiative has a severability clause, so in theory if part of it is declared unconstitutional the rest stays. Section 2 has some constitutional issues to be resolved; but so do sections 1, 3 and 6. I would guess that someone could make an issue out of 4 and 5 too, if for no other reason than the other challenges could render them moot.

I expect all of it to be in court for a year, or more. What will really be interesting is what the court will rule is to be done while the case is being considered. All, again, assuming the initiative is approved.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 15, 1999.