From todays PI:

Hike ferry fares, let courts decide Wednesday, February 2, 2000 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD State House transportation leaders are taking the Legislature in the wrong direction toward a solution to the impact of Initiative 695. Transportation Committee co-chairwomen Ruth Fisher, D-Tacoma, and Maryann Mitchell, R-Federal Way, are ready to have the Legislature "clarify" I-695 to allow a ferry system fare increase without a public vote, as I-695 calls for on increases in "any monetary charge by government." Under state law, the Legislature can amend an initiative by a two-thirds majority if it acts within two years of the initiative's passage. After two years, it takes only a simple majority. But tinkering with an initiative so soon after its passage is widely regarded as unpopular mucking about with the will of the people. I-695 sponsor Tim Eyman, for example, says of the voters' intent in passing the measure, "We were very clear. You can't take any more money from us without asking." The clarity of the initiative was muddied recently by Attorney General Christine Gregoire's opinion that its passage required a public vote on fare increases for the ferry system but not for transit systems. Fisher asks, "What's the difference between that (transit) and ferries?" Fisher's fix is to change the law by amending the initiative. Even in the unlikely event of two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, I-695 needs far more than "clarification" on fee increases. Its constitutionality needs to be challenged. It would serve the public interest more (and require only a simple majority of both houses) to approve the ferry fare increases without first submitting it to a public vote. That would invite a legal challenge and provide a direct route to the state Supreme Court and a ruling on at least one of the initiative's constitutionally questionable elements. Make no mistake: Flouting the law will hardly be more politically popular than tinkering with it, but it will result in better public policy.

THE QUESTION I would have with the editorial board is whether they think that they cam make populism go away by ignoring it? I personally think that if you are fortunate (?) enough to win in the courtroom an argument that you have already lost at the ballot box, you are likely to set up more and more populist anti-government initiatives.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 02, 2000

Answers

Let me start out by saying that I disagree with the PI's "the legislature should break the law in order to clarify it" stance. Whether or not I like 695, it is part of the law of the land, and it should be respected.

That being said, I do agree with them that this issue is NOT very clear, and needs a court interpretation in order to figure out just how to incorporate it into the rest of the laws. Although the AG's office did offer their advice on what requires a vote and what doesn't, some of their logic (transit fares don't require it, but ferry fares do?) seems a bit faulty. And in reality, the AG's opinion really is just that, an opinion.

For those who believe that every single monetary charge should be included, I remind you that even Tim Eyman disagrees with that. Otherwise, why would the Son of 695 include "The price of goods offered for sale by the state." as not being a tax? And as far as I can tell, since a ferry ticket is considered "goods offered for sale" 'Son' WOULD exempt ferry fares from voter approval. Something to consider for those of you who don't want that to happen.

I-695 NEEDS to be clarified in the courts. Oh, Eyman claims that there is no need. That it is as clear as it needs to be. But the existence of Son of 695 proves that he thinks otherwise. A court review is not necessarily an attack on the will of the people. It is a much needed clarification on a really fuzzy law. The fact does remain though that the PI editorial board needs to come to terms with the fact that there are other, less adversarial ways to do this.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 02, 2000.

You could see this one coming from ten miles out, the old clarification routine. Ruth Fisher and the leaders in Olympia are doing everything they can to defy and compromise the vote of the people with the dissection of Initiative 695. Strange activity coming from a person who resigned their position after the passage of I-695 in November 1999. Did Ms. Fisher not mean what she said or will she clarify that statement too?

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

See the Attorney General Opinion thread, and the Legal Challenge Update thread, for access to what real lawyers think about the clarity (or not) of 695, and the need for a court interpretation. As I said since about July, it is bad law. Since the people approved it anyway, the courts will try to interpret it to conform to the constitution, or will declare some or all of it unconstitutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), February 02, 2000.

-dbvz

I'm afraid your opinion has been skewed or appropriated. Any commentary related to Initiative 695 coming from the Washington state attorney general and associated lawyers should not be considered unbiased opinion either. I-695 has already been interpreted. The initiative process is scrutinized and revised under the state constitution prior to being placed on the ballot for a vote. I-695 was passed by the people and government must enforce the law. It's just that simple. Why is this so difficult to understand? Any further interpretation may follow after the law is implemented, not before.

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

>>The initiative process is scrutinized and revised under the state constitution prior to being placed on the ballot for a vote<<

No it isn't.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

to Craig: I seem to recall during the debate for I-695, I said I wuold vote for it, because the politicians could always amend ("clarify") the initiative if it turned out not to be practical to have an election for various fee increases.

If the Ruth Fisher can convince almost 2/3 of her fellow legislators to approve the "clarification", then I see nothing wrong. Why blame Ruth for the actions of others?

My personal opinion is that there should be popular elections for state-run operations which are essentially monopolies. This includes the ferry system. The ferry system could be turned over to locally-controlled ferry districts, which could then request local approval for any combination of sales, property, and/or gas taxes.

I'm not sure there are any other government services which I would consider a monopoly. In other words, if I want to compete with the government in most areas, I'm allowed to do it. The one exception is the ferry system. Why?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 03, 2000.

"If the Ruth Fisher can convince almost 2/3 of her fellow legislators to approve the "clarification", then I see nothing wrong. Why blame Ruth for the actions of others? "

Re-read the question.

This posting was a criticism of the PI editorial board for trying to win in the courtroom something they campaigned against, clearly made their editorial opinions known, and were subsequently soundly thrashed at the polls.

My contention is that this shows some degree of contempt for populist government, and my assertion is that this is likely to backfire and cause an INCREASE in populist sentiment rather than help their cause.

I made NO effort to "blame" Ms. Fisher or anyone else. The only comments concerning her in this posting are the words of the editorial board itself.

Why are you alleging that I'm somehow attacking Ms. Fisher in this posting?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 03, 2000.

to Craig: Ruth Fisher's proposal to "clarify" I-695 may be interpreted to be going against the will of the people. Which is part of the point of your question. That going against the "will of the people" will backfire, resulting in more "popular revolution". I think if 2/3 of the legislatures vote to "clarify" I-695, then there is no problem. Most of us are estactic to have several hundred dollars back in our pockets, every year. Who cares about fine-tune "clarifications"?

Actually, I agree with the P-I, as I would like to see the courts decide the issue. I would hope that the courts would agree with my point of view, and declare I-695 as applying to government-provided goods and services which are effectively monopolies. And, that the ferry system is indeed such a monopoly.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 03, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>My contention is that this shows some degree of contempt for populist government, and my assertion is that this is likely to backfire and cause an INCREASE in populist sentiment rather than help their cause.<<

Recent history doesn't really support your contention. Back in '92 Initiative 573 was passed that instituted term limits. Eventually it was thrown out by the courts, with politicians themselves filing some of the lawsuits to overturn it. You haven't seen any massive populist groundswell dealing with term limits since then, have you? Many of the legislators who were working then are still working now.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

James Andrews wrote,"I'm afraid your opinion has been skewed or appropriated." I think i said that. I have beleived this is bad law from the beginning. "Any commentary related to Initiative 695 coming from the Washington state attorney general and associated lawyers should not be considered unbiased opinion either." The AG is attempting by interpretation, to make 695 constitutinal, and will fail. "I-695 has already been interpreted. The initiative process is scrutinized and revised under the state constitution prior to being placed on the ballot for a vote." As BB said, no it isn't. "I-695 was passed by the people and government must enforce the law. It's just that simple. Why is this so difficult to understand?" The law itself is difficult to understand, in a way that will allow it to be constitutional. That is the problem. "Any further interpretation may follow after the law is implemented, not before." Which is where we are now, and what will be happening in the next 3 or 4 months.

My note was simply to place the real legal issues that will be before the courts, on this forum. So far, the discussion seems to be more into attack and opinion, than a discussion of the legal issues. Most of the legal issues have already been argued here, so that may be understandable. It must be frustrating for you to realize that all my comments about 695 being bad law and unconstitutional, may be true.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), February 03, 2000.