When I-695 passes, it will apparently be challenged and spend a considerable amount of time in court.

If/when this occurs, will we still be voting on tax issues? Will tabs still be $30, or will the MVET be left in effect?

In other words, will the initiative still be in effect while it's alleged "Unconstitutionality" (is that a word???) is ironed out?

My guess is that, yes, once it passes, it will go into effect and remain so unless it is ruled "Unconstitutional" or whatever. But, since I have never followed ANY initiative this closely, I have no idea what happens when something like this is passed, and then challenged. No flames, please, I honestly want to know more.

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), October 27, 1999

Answers

When the initiative passes, it becomes the "law of the land" until such time as all or part of it is ruled illegal or unconstitutional by the courts. As such, effective Jan 1st, tabs will be $30 until a court says otherwise. Of course, we all know how speedy the courts are, so if (when?) there is a legal challenge, it will take months or years to resolve.

By the way, please make note of the clause in the text of the innitiativce that says a legal challenge to one part of the initiative does not invalidate any other parts. All of the talk about legal challenges have been centered on the new tax votes and not the $30 tab fees. So, even if there is a challenge, the tab fees will remain in place.

So.... relax, enjoy and start thinking about how to improve the economy of WA when you spend that extra few hundred dollars in your pocket.

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

Thanks, that's the way I thought/hoped it worked.

Few extra hundred? I pay for tabs on not one, not three, but FIVE cars. Four of my own, one for my daughter. I am a widowed mom, making do with my own modest salary. I shelled out over $1,500.00 for tabs this year.

I may actually get to take my kids on a "real" vacation this year.

"Sick to death of the holidays, vacations and "Millenium Parties" I'm paying for State employees to enjoy."

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), October 27, 1999.

Actually,

If someone were to file suit to stop I-695 from takeing effect. The first thing they would do is file for a "Motion Seeking A Temporary Restraining Order" ora "Motion for Injunctive Relief". Those can be heard in as little as two weeks.

I don't think that will happen or if it does, or that the judges will grant the motions if requested. But my point is that it can be very quick if it needs to be.

-- Bill Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 27, 1999.

Not to rain on the parade, but there is something called an injunction that can be placed immediately on any law before it goes into effect. This is what happened with all those late term abortion bans that were passed. The day they went into effect someone went in to court, filed a lawsuit, and asked for an injunction to keep the law from going into effect before the legalities were ironed out. This probably wouldn't happen on the $30 tabs side, but has a very good chance at happening on the voter approval side.

And also, the so called "Millenium Party" is not some exclusive party for state employees. It is a fund that goes towards helping local governments pay for municipal celebrations surrounding the turn of the century.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

"This probably wouldn't happen on the $30 tabs side, but has a very good chance at happening on the voter approval side. " Yes, but it would have to be done by someone who has standing to get an injunction, that is, by an elected official who could, absent I-695, raise the tax or fee rate. Now maybe someone who is about to retire would do this, but anyone else would find the people who voted for I- 695 (and defacto, that's a majority statewide if it passes) quite irritated with them at their next re-election campaign. Even in a district where I-695 did NOT pass, that's a huge block of voters to start off against you. But it's possible that the pro-695 people would forgive and forget an elected official who tried to block this. It's possible that Mt. Rainier may erupt this afternoon too, but that's not the way I'd place MY bet.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 27, 1999.

Well Craig, if that's what will let you sleep well at night, then you're welcome to hold that thought. However history shows us just a little different reality. 601, R-49, R-47, term limits, campaign finance reform, and a slew of other initiatives were ALL contested by elected officials, and I can only think of one (Tom Foley) who's defeat can be even slightly attributed to his efforts.

There are literally thousands of taxing districts out there that would be eligible to be an affected party, and you think that there isn't anyone out there that WON'T contest this? Again, you're free to think that way if it makes you feel better, but I'm a little confused. Isn't one of the arguments in support of 695 that politicians have the belief that they know better than the average citizen? That when they vote on something that flies in the face of popular opinion, they are doing so because the citizens just don't know what things are really like? Will all these politicians suddenly realize the errors of their ways and NOT step up to challenge 695 after they figured the citizens didn't fully understand what they were voting on? Whew, that seems like a stretch to me, but sweet dreams!

Oh, and sorry to mess with that theory of yours again, but there are a number of government entities out there that DON'T have elected officials but DO have "monetary charge(s) by government." So even then there are quite a few people who could challenge the taxing provision and not have the slightest worry about facing the wrath of the voters.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

Patrick-

"Well Craig, if that's what will let you sleep well at night, then you're welcome to hold that thought. " - - Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone.

If you have ANY understanding of politics and politicians, you understand that the politicians significantly over-reached on this one. Even if they could eke out a narrow victory and defeat I-695, or have I 695 win and be thrown out in court, it would still fundamentally affect the politics of this state. Win, lose, or draw, I-695 WILL have a "chilling effect" on the more government is better government types in this state. Win, lose, or draw, we WILL see less money going to transit. And you are going to see that not just at every future election, but at every meeting, everytime someone proposes something that's even a little on the margins of necessary government. And, it will give even more courage to the opponents of their policies. This is going to be the Washington State equivalent of the Democrats losing Congress at the federal level. They became aware of their political mortality in a way that they really hadn't been in decades. So download this message and put it on your hard drive. Pull it up in two years, and see whether or not it's correct. This is going to be fun to watch!

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 27, 1999.

Craig:

We discussed the challenge issue before, but just to remind you:

I expect that a challenge could be filed as a class action suit, by individuals who assert they are illegally being deprived of government services by the implementation of a law that violates provisions of the state constitution.

In addition, interpretation issues and constitutional issues need to be resolved in order to know exactly what the legal effect of 695 is. A suit may be filed by the Department of Revenue, the Attorney General, County Assessors, etc, to find out just what the contested provisions mean in specific situations that are in doubt. If they want to follow the law, they need to get a ruling on what the law is.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 27, 1999.

And 695 will also trim the fat off of EVERYONE'S hips and keep your mouth minty fresh.

Whatever lets you dream of little Tim Eymans removing all the pork from politics Craig. It doesn't matter to me that you've got this inflated to Second Coming proportions.

Whatever makes you sleep easy at night...

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.

"Whatever lets you dream of little Tim Eymans removing all the pork from politics Craig. It doesn't matter to me that you've got this inflated to Second Coming proportions. " Second coming? Heck, we're hardly even breathing hard. This is a measly 2% reduction. It doesn't BEGIN to remove the pork from politics. That being said, it's a start, and the public vote feature may decrease the likelihood of FUTURE pork. Anyone ever accuse you of being a good loser, Patrick?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 28, 1999.

I "REEEEALLY", REALY, HATE to agree with comrade Patrick, but I think there will be some idiot who'll test this in court. The judges will probably be happy to accomodate the anti's. The yes and no's are getting so close that politicians against may not be hindered. Besides King county didn't seem to care about a majority against the stadium.

We all need to put the pressure on these judges when it happens. We've all been too lazy to keep tabs on these guys, that's why we're here now. Mousie can't play anymore-the cat's back!

-- Paula (eagleross@pioneernet.net), October 31, 1999.

Pressure the judges? Their function is to dispense impartial justice based on the rule of law. I have noted before that they make their reputations by resisting public pressure, and following the law. There is life after their judicial term, and they do not get the best offers by being pushed around by every wind. Try it if you want to, but it may work against your cause. In court, you win by having a good legal arguement, and a history of similar rulings to support you. 695 will have some problems in both areas.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 31, 1999.