Senator Pam Roach has prefiled a bill in the legislature that would amend the state constitution to require voter approval of all tax increases.

Since 695 already does that, it would appear as if Senator Roach believes that there is at least a reasonable chance that this provision will not pass constitutional muster.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999

Answers

Or she wants something that can't be over-ridden by the legislature in two years.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

Although the legislature has the power to alter an initiative (they can do it with a 2/3 vote in the first two years and simple majority after 2 years), the legislature has rarely if ever done such a thing. It's generally considered the kiss of death.

And if that were her concern, then why not just make all of 695 the amendment? Make sure the legislature doesn't attempt to reinstate the MVET too. Probably because the MVET repeal has little chance at getting overturned.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 29, 1999.

Let me make your day, Patrick.

A little bird told me that, in one form or another, EVERY portion of 695 has been prepared to be dropped as individual bills. You know... just in case?

You lost. Get over it.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), December 29, 1999.

Westin writes, in part:

"A little bird told me that, in one form or another, EVERY portion of 695 has been prepared to be dropped as individual bills. You know... just in case?"

And Senator Benton seems to lead the way as of 12/27 (possibly preparing for a re-election campaign?):

SB 6126 - Prioritizing traffic congestion relief projects SB 6128 - Exempting motor vehicles from property tax SB 6129 - Excluding motor vehicles from property or excise taxes SB 6133 - Prohibiting the designation of HOV lanes SJM 8014 - Requesting that states be allowed to spend money under the transportation equity act SJR 8210 - Providing property tax relief

Can this guy jump on a band wagon, or what?

-- Curious George (---@---.---), December 30, 1999.

Poor Senator Benton, getting trashed again in this forum and Patrick isn't here to see.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

Gee, C. George,

Pity you didn't see him on TV in the Portland area endorsing 695 BEFORE the election.

In your case, ignorance is truly bliss.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher-ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), December 30, 1999.

Just posting a conjecture, some facts, and a rhetorical question. No bash intended.

-- C. George (---@---.---), December 30, 1999.

Just in case what? Unless they're in the form of constitutional amendments, they would most likely be moot.

Second of all, at the earliest we could see a Supreme Court decision by, what, May? Session ends in mid-March. That means that they won't even be able to tell WHICH sections they would need to reinstate again, and whether their language would be struck down as well until AFTER they're finished for the year. Yup, rather pointless if you ask me. Makes it kinda look alot like political posturing more than actual legislating.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 31, 1999.

In that case,

"TIM, KEEP THOSE INITIATIVES COMING!"

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.