Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The way I se it, if I-695 passes will take the following direstions as far a court actions are concerned:

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

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 constitutional decisions (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 (since they are the ones that are being damaged). Again, they will have to worry about re-election. The contributors to the No on I-695 will most certainly file friend of the court briefs and help the plaintiff in other ways.

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.

If I was the elected official, I'd rather learn to live with the 2.2% to 7% decrease in my budget because that's what the voters want. Let's hope that they see things that way.

Tom Foley didn't and look what happened to him...

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

Answers

William Sheehan:

I am sure it will end up in court, on a variety if issues. Who files is immaterial. The issues that need to be resolved are problems that, if allowed to be ignored, could produce a variety of interpretation inconsistencies that need to be resolved. Examples of issues are:

1. Is it constitutional to address both taxes and fees in one initiative?

2. Does the effective date in an initiative control, or does the state constitution?

3. Can an initiative define fees and other charges as taxes, when court decisions have ruled that they are not?

4. Can the definitions in an initiative aggregate dissimilar thngs together, and then use those words in the ballot title in a way that makes it look like the initiative will have substantially less of an effect than is actually the case?

5. Can an initiative addressing tax reduction of a limited group of governments (those that benefit from the MVET), be expanded in section 2 to include all governmental entities of or within the state? On this one, the rational given for the voter approval of new taxes, is so that the governments that will lose tax revenue can't replace it without approval. That rational does not apply to all governments.

6. Can an initiative repeal existing law by reference to the RCW number only? The reason this is an issue is to prevent what 695 does. Repeal something by mistake, like the exemption of vehicles from the property tax.

7. Can an initiative remove authority of the legislature, and other elected officials, established by the constitution?

8. Are the provisions of the initiative itself (as opposed to the title mentioned earlier), unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous; such that the voters are unable to know what they are actually voting on?

9. Does the initiative unconstitutionally damage existing contract obligations of the state or local governments, particularly with regard to the debt of those governments?

10. Can the language of a state initiative imply the authority to control governments not just of the state, but also governmental entities within the state that may not be created by the authority of the state?

I am not an attorney, but I have sen references to several of these issues in articles by lawyers concerned about how this initiative was written. Again, you may believe these are not real issues; but to at least some people the answer is not entirely clear and needs a court ruling. In some cases, like the Attorney General or a county prosecutor, the job is to evaluate and consider a challenge to a law (including an initiative) they believe to be either unconstitutional, or unclear.

If you think some kind of political attack against such officials, or the judges that will hear the case, will be appropriate of have any effect, I think you are mistaken.

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

Dear "dbvz" or whatever your name is,

Your correct that you're not a lawyer. Who files is very important as the suit MUST be able to show a damage, or they will not survive summary judgment. Here are my answers by the numbers you placed:

1. Yes it is Constitutional to address taxes and fees in one issue.

2. I don't know. I haven't thought of that one

3. Sure it can.

4. The defenition of an initiative can defign whatever it wants within the scope of the initiative, with a broad scope. As far as the effect of the wording. I don't see any gray areas in this initiative at all. It's very clear as to what it's going to do.

5. What "limited group of government"? This initiative covers any and all governing bodies in the ENTIRE state. It will apply to all equally.

6. Yes. This one as well.

7. That's the $770,000,000 question isn't it...

8. Since I-695 is written in 4th grade level and VERY short (about 10 minutes reading), there is NOTHING vague, ambiguous or unclear about it. This voids you're argument.

9. I-695 may damadge the states ability to pay, but that's not a constitutional issue if the state has an "emergency" cause of action. I-695 and 601 addresses that well enough.

10. You need to be more clear on "imply, governments, state and authority" as to what is implied, which government(s), what is "of the state" and what authority are you speeking of?

I-695 is very clear. Don't expect any valid arguments on that issue alone. However, your best point is #7. If any court action does take place, I'll weigh in my money, support for the fight in favor of I-695 without any pause.

As far as any political attack on elected officials that go against I- 695. I didn't mention any "attack", but if you want to consider a campaign to vot them out of office for that action an attack. OK, it's an attack. It's happend before so how can I be mistaken?

If you don't remember your recient history. Tom Foley sued the voters when we voted for term limits and he won the suit on the grounds that term limits are unconstitutional. Then Eastern Washington waisted no time in reacting by removed him from office the NEXT election.

-- William (Bill) Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 15, 1999.

"If you think some kind of political attack against such officials, or the judges that will hear the case, will be appropriate of have any effect, I think you are mistaken. " I wish you were right d, but I don't think you are. Even the judicial branch responds to public opinion. Look at the incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in the US during WWII. They wouldn't go with incarcerating German-Americans though. This was politics and racism, and the Supreme Court went along. Anybody who thinks the judiciary doesn't have a finger in the wind from time to time is being naive. And recently, that's been the NORMAL posture for politicians.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

db--"If you think some kind of political attack against such officials, or the judges that will hear the case, will be appropriate of have any effect, I think you are mistaken."

Although I agree that political attack will matter little to the justices, I do think it would be an effective tool against politicians who support judicial challenges to the initiative.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by inappropriate. Do you mean it would be an ineffective tool or an unjust tool?

WRT justices, I believe it would be ineffective. WRT politicians, I think it would be effective. In neither case, does it seem to be unjust.

WRT unintended consequences, I wonder what the consequences would be if I-695 passed and the state Supreme Court ruled it partially or totally unconstitutional.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Bill:

If everyone believed the answers are as simple as you state them, it would not go to court. They don't, so it will. I was listing possible agruements, any your responses are not persuasive. If the initiative were not vague and ambiguous for example, none of these questions would exist.

Craig and Brad:

I was commenting on Justices, the Attorney General, and county prosecutors not being subject to much public pressure in the performance of their duties. Some, of course, but not enough to prevent them from trying to do what they believe the constitution and their responsibilities require of them. Among the fraternity of lawyers, reputations are made by standing up for legal principles, not by caving in to pressure. If they get forced out of office, it may be to a higher paying private practice position anyway - as long as they are not seen as a wimp.

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

P.S. I forgot to add that my reference to who files a suit, had to do with the fact that the action would probably be taken as a public act in the performance of the duties of the position. It does not matter to me, and should not matter to anyone, if the county prosecutor who advises the elected county assessor, files a suit to clarify the legal authority and effect of the initiative. They need to know, in order to perform their function; and if they get conflicting legal advice it needs to be resolved by a judge. As for having standing to file, an initiative like this has an effect on every resident of the state, and a suit could be filed as a class action if necessary. Keep that in mind if the government officials don't implement it exactly as you expected. All, again, assuming it is approved November 2.

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

Brad:

Inappropriate, as in unjust to take political action against an official who is just doing the required job. It may be effective in getting someone out of their position, but it would not be right. This could be an example of the tyrany of the majority. Appoint an official to make sure the government is following the law, and then boot them out if they do their job.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 16, 1999.

Mr. No Name dbvz,

They were not doing their jobs... That's why we passed 601 and now 695 is next.

Personally, I hate it when someone is held to a high standard, for just doing their job, just as you have done here. I'll bet that you think Ken Griffy Jr. is a hero...? I got news for you, all so called "sports heros" are paid to do their very best. When they win, they were just doing their job. They are not heros!

A hero is someone who commits a selfless act to help others even if their life is in imminent danger. People who "just are doing their job" as elected officials, are not the kind of elected official I want representing me.

No Name, your standards are so horribly low. You refuse to put your name to what you say, consequently your a mouse, a coward and rather mundain. And if you want to know more about me, go see www.billsheehan.com.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 17, 1999.

William

Went to your web site. Nice truck. Had a few Toyota 4x4's great trucks. Also loved the lawsuit by Wile E. Coyote against ACME

Ed - hopeing just once the coyote would the Road Runner and slap that smile off his face

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 17, 1999.

Billy S.

Once again, I was not proposing that a government official who is doing his job is my hero. He is also not an evil monster that needs to be run out of office, as you seemed to be advocating. My point was that if their job requires that they file a suit to get some clarity on the legal effect of the initiative, they are not necessarily working against the people that voted for it. The initiative has some legal issues that need to be resolved. Expect suits to be filed if it is approved November 2. One may even be filed by supporters, to get a reversal of the Department of Revenue instruction to county assessors that they are to collect property taxes on vehicles as a consequence of the repeal of the exemption by the initiative.

P.S. Your personal attack is exactly why I don't use my full name. Stick to the issues. You get my opinions, and that is all that is necessary on this forum.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 17, 1999.