Amendment 7, Washington State Constitution, Legislative Manual, page 194.

"Any measure initiated by the people or referred to the people as herein provided shall take effect and become the law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon"... "Such measure shall be in operation on and after the thirtieth day after the election at which it is approved"

Nowthen I SUGGEST you understand and know exactly what was said there.

Does everone know what the word SHALL means?? Operation and effect do NOT have the same word definition.

Number 1. it became THE LAW when it was approved, INSTANTLY! Number 2. it WILL be in operation 30 days after the election.

Any more arguements??? It is DAMN clear to me, that the bastards in government were NOT to be allowed to do ANYTHING after it became appearant that it would pass the vote of the inhabitants.

-- (antifed@foxinternet.net), November 17, 1999

Answers

The last line of the initiative reads... "Sec. 6. This act takes effect January 1, 2000."

I interpret this to mean that, while the initiative was passed during the November election, the laws within it will not become effective until January 1, 2000. By default, I would assume that the current laws would still be in effect until that time.

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), November 17, 1999.

Approved when the poll results are certified, in operation 30 days after, and effective 1/1/2000 by its own language. If you doubt it, the yes committee can file suit. I believe these are fairly settled issues from decades of initiatives and court challenges, but knock yourself out.

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

Chuck:

If your implication is that local governments should follow the requirements of the initiative now, as it it were in effect now, you missed something in the discussion leading up to the election.

The decisions of governments about whether to put something on the ballot in November to approve any tax increase, was based on the stated provision in the initiative that it would not be in effect until 1/1/2000. Since it is not in effect until 1/1/2000, they retain the power to levy taxes without a vote of the people just as they did before the election date. The same limits on that power exist now, as existed before the election. Local governments made the choice not to propose ballot propositions for November 2, because they understood they would not be needed.

Not all local governments made that choice. Several fire districts across the state proposed lid lift propositions on November 2, because of the possible application of the restrictions of 695 on the property tax levy for collection in 2000. Most interpretations of the initiative said that may not be necessary, but they did it anyway. In addition to removing any ambiguity about whether 695 could be interpreted to apply to a tax levied in 1999 for collection in 2000, those propositions also removed the expectation or implication that those fire district SHOULD NOT levy a tax increase even though the initiative is not yet effective.

Most fire districts did not propose a lid lift, as a precaution in case 695 passed. They relied on the effective date and believed that because it would not be effective for the levy to be collected in 2000, they have until November 2000 to propose to the voters the first lid lift proposition that will allow them to maintain the current staff and service level. Your interpretation of the intent of the initiative, would cause them to make staff and service cuts before they even ask the voters if they are willing to maintain the revenue needed to maintain them.

Fire districts provide fire and EMS services I kept seeing refered to here as the "essential services" that 695 is not intended to cut. The lid lift elections generally passed with wide margins. The other fire districts, that did not proposed a lid lift, may have confidence that their local voters DID NOT intend to reduce services, and would have passed a lid lift proposition if it had been proposed.

The initiative is effective on 1/1/2000. Local governments, and you, will need to live with that.

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

Government State and Federal was only given the power to tax and regulate two areas and that was 1. Corporations and 2. those using the privilege of Commerce.

It is my finding that the word "Any", the very first word in the phrase, "any measure initiated..." does not mean "all" or it would have said "all", it means in law definition(Black's) "some of the many". The "use" by the ordinary citizen in the ordinary course of daily routine and welfare of self and family is NOT commerce and is NOT a stinking privilege, it is a Right and therefor not taxable. Don't forget that everyone is held to the "rules of the road" that they took the exam to show competency in that use or in service for hire(commerce).

Government is 100% law. Law definition is clearly defined in the statute, U.C.C. or if not there in a Black's, Balantines, or Bovier's or equal law dictionary. You would not use a Webster's to define law, any more than you would use a websters to define military terms, Banking terms or medical terms.

-- Chuck Brezina (antifed@foxinternet.net), November 18, 1999.

Chuck:

You can quote any source you want, but the interpretation is all yours. If you believe you are right, file a suit and take it to the Supreme Court. If your interpretation were really the meaning of the law, someone would have done that decades ago and won.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 18, 1999.

Tuff deal, don't care if it's a mistake we made let us learn. It's not our fault that they became very dependant on our income. Prepare for WA state people to actually be happy, they shouldn't get all in a rush, isn't that there job? to worry and take drastic measures to overcome no more revenue from the darn tabs that almost left me flat broke prior to Christmas.it's a good change, it's nice to know that we still are in control.

-- hammons (feh3588@cs.com), November 18, 1999.

Tuf deal, don't care if it's a mistake we made let us learn. It's not our fault that they became very dependant on our income. Prepare for WA state people to actually be happy, they shouldn't get all in a rush, isn't that there job? to worry and take drastic measures to overcome no more revenue from the darn tabs that almost left me flat broke prior to Christmas.it's a good change, it's nice to know that we still are in control.

-- hammond (feh3588@cs.com), November 18, 1999.