I-695 ruled unconstitutional

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Of course this is just the first step in a long legal battle, but it isn't exactly a step in Tim Eyman's direction.

URGENT: I-695 Ruled Unconstitutional March 14, 2000

SEATTLE - Initiative 695, which replaces the state car-tab tax with a $30 fee and requires a public vote on all tax and fee increases, violates the state constitution. So ruled a King County Superior Court judge Tuesday.

Judge Robert Alsdorf agreed with plaintiffs, who challenged the initiative on grounds that it violates the constitution's "single-subject rule."

The measure was attacked by several groups, including bus drivers.

Both sides had vowed to appeal the decision, whichever way it went.

Let the complaining begin...

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000

Answers

Maybe now the state representives will construct and pass a common sense reduction of the MVET.. something like 1/10 of one percent with a base of $30.

-- Terry (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

I can think of no better way to mobilize the troops. The real issue (since the Guv has said the MVET isn't coming back anyway) will be the popular vote issue. Since more people were for that then for the tax cut itself, my prediction is that IT'LL BE BACK, no matter what happens on appeal.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 14, 2000.

Here is the good judge's email address and phone number. From now on, how about we just refer to him as Bobby, since a little boy name seems to fit his nature. A man would've stood up for the people's voice!

email:robert.alsdorf@metrokc.gov phone:206-296-9203

-- Martin Yeager (martin.yeager@nordstrom.com), March 14, 2000.


Here is the complete ruling by the judge (Acrobat Reader required) http://www.courts.wa.gov/i695/ruling.pdf

I'd STRONGLY suggest that you do tone it down a little Martin. If your tone on this board is any indication, you've committed a class B felony in threatening the judge which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Of course if you've already sent the message, then you better just hope that he doesn't press charges against you.

And to discuss the issue of what the judge should or shouldn't have done, his primary responsibility is to uphold the constitution. If you read his findings, you'll see that he found so many things contrary to the constitution in I-695 that after 28 pages he just basically got tired of listing them all.

Out of hypothetical curiousity, how many of you would be complaining about a judge declaring an initiative passed by the people unconstitutional if that initiative in some way restricted your 2nd Amendment rights?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.


"If your tone on this board is any indication, you've committed a class B felony in threatening the judge which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Of course if you've already sent the message, then you better just hope that he doesn't press charges against you. "

Get a grip, Patrick! Fat-A**ed certainly isn't complimentary, but it isn't a felony. Nor is showing up in the courtroom with a demand that would be refused in any event (although it may be contempt of court if he were to actually do it). And since the Guv has already said that the MVET is going to go away regardless, this is a pretty hypothetical situation.

Let's be honest Patrick, this was never about the MVET. Even the Democrats don't want to be the ones to re-institute a tax that the majority vehemently oppose. This is about the plebescite on tax increases.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 14, 2000.



Is this ruling really any surprise, since it took place in a courtroom in KING COUNTY, where the majority decided they did like to pay high taxes, and voted against I-695.

Bobby's just doing what he thinks the majority in his county (where his voters live) want him to do. It's time for the taxpayers to stand up to these judges and liberals and everyone else out there that just take, and take, and take. Godfreeze, enough is enough already! I can't afford any more taxes! Do you get it Judge Bobby??? We can't afford any more taxes!!! How many times does it have to be said before it sinks into your thick, elitist skull??? Man oh Man!

-- Martin Yeager (martin.yeager@nordstrom.com), March 14, 2000.


Once again: Here is the good judge's email address and phone number.

email: robert.alsdorf@metrokc.gov

phone: 206-296-9203

-- (martin.yeager@nordstrom.com), March 14, 2000.


Well Craig, seeing as you once predicted that no one would even dare challenge 695 in court, or for that matter, that any judge would overturn it, I'm going to have to take your legal theory that Martin hasn't committed a crime like a grain of salt. That sort of decision is first up to a police officer, then a prosecutor, and ultimately a jury. But seeing as it was made against a judge, if the guy concludes that it was a crime, then there's just a little bit of weight leaning towards it. Personally, if someone that I didn't know sent me an e-mail calling me a name and saying that he might be coming to my work to collect money I don't owe him, I'd consider that a threat, especially since there are some wackos out there that are actually doing it.

Besides, is there something wrong with warning a guy that he's probably crossing the line? Especially since he's basically advocating that others, who might use even harsher language, do the same. Silly me, I thought I might be trying to help convince people to think about the consequences before doing something that they might regret.

Finally, you may be right about it being about tax increases, but as the ruling says (it's a good read if you haven't looked it over yet), the state constitution specifically prohibits two different subjects so the question of what the voters were REALLY voting for doesn't come up. There's an entire section of the ruling dedicated to why this law is a good thing, and how it might have saved a great deal of the ideas contained in I-695. But the question of what I-695 really was all about is academic now. Eyman and Company should have read the constitution better before they drafted the initiative. Now the question will be who's to blame. The judge that found the flaws in the initiative (which were really found a long time ago by other people), or the people who wrote the flawed initiative.

Oh, and the hypothetical question still stands for anyone that cares to provide an answer.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.


"We can't afford any more taxes!!! How many times does it have to be said before it sinks into your thick, elitist skull???"

Judge Alsdorf may have declared I-695 unconstitutional, but he also declared that the $30 license tabs will remain. He didn't raise anyone's taxes with his decision.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.


It always, always amazes me that there are people out there like Patrick who are not only willing, but seem to actually enjoy getting taxed to the hilt. Or am I misinterpreting you Patrick?

-- Martin Yeager (martin.yeager@nordstrom.com), March 14, 2000.


HOORAY!! Because of Judge Alsdorf's decision, I'm moving one step closer to not having ferry boat and bus service cut. I might be able to get home from work at a decent hour! I have a suggestion for those of you complaining about expensive licence tabs- drive a cheaper used car! That is what I do. Or use public transportation- it's good for the air quality.

-- (funkenstein@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

First of all, it's slightly ironic that somebody with a nordstrom email address is whining about taxes. Maybe your taxes wouldn't be so high if Nordstrom didn't demand so much money from local governments. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Secondly, check http://www.kcba.org/JudSurv/survey.pdf to see how the King County Bar Association rated Alsdorf. If he really were a bad judge as some are claiming, don't you think he wouldn't be rated in the top five?

695 is clearly unconstitutional. Any judge with a pulse would have said so; it has nothing to do with politics. Time to deal with that fact and move on with your life.

I gotta say Eyman didn't exactly distinguish himself with his immature theatrics in the courtroom after Alsdorf announced his decision.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.


I have some questions. Since I am not a lawyer, maybe some one out there can help me with some answers. If the judge rules 695 unlawful, can he reinstate the car tax and make everyone who paid 30 dollars, to pay the balance of their old car tax? Gov. Locke says he will not put the tax back on so who is going to do it? It seems whatever elected official who decides to put the car tax back on, has a political career of about 2 minutes after the tax goes on, what elected official has the power and the guts to reinstate this tax? Can the goverment circumvent the will of the people? How long will this be tied up in court before it is settled? I hope tim is writing some new initiatives. I will vote for them. Power to the People!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), March 14, 2000.

Is anyone really suprised by this decision? I'm certainly not. It only makes me more determined than ever....

And Mr. Yeager, Patrick's "focus" is primarily on the spending of your money and the degradation of your individual rights. He wants more Government and more control over you....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.


Despite the flack he is getting from some here, Judge Alsdorf is one of the most intellectually honest and competent judges anywhere. I have never met any practicing attorney who does not respect him. Having read the opinion, I cannot believe he will not be affirmed on appeal.

I was not particularly familiar with the provisions of the State Constitution involved here prior to this battle. Having now read those provisions closely, I find myself wondering how anybody actually expected any other result than the one that Judge Alsdorf reached. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution. Alsdorf's reasoning is correct.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 14, 2000.



"HOORAY!! Because of Judge Alsdorf's decision, I'm moving one step closer to not having ferry boat and bus service cut. I might be able to get home from work at a decent hour! I have a suggestion for those of you complaining about expensive licence tabs- drive a cheaper used car! That is what I do. Or use public transportation- it's good for the air quality."

I have a suggestion for you too....Keep your polluting, gas hog heap off the highway! It's good for the economy and air pollution. Pay full price for your bus and ferry ride, you lazy leech! Your not moving closer to having better ferry service and bus service, your moving closer to socialism, and your too ignorant to know it!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.


Dearest Marsha,

Which causes more pollution- 50 people each driving in their own SUV or 50 people riding in a single bus? What a spoiled country we live in where citizens fight for their right to pay a few hundred dollars less for their already expensive and enviromentally damaging machines. What about fighting for more meaningful issues such as getting the homeless off the streets, funding schools adaquetly, and affordable health care? If this is Socialism, then your labeling me as such is accurate. Thanks for calling me a lazy leech, though I work hard and am glad to pay my fair share of taxes so that we all have the services we need to function as a society. You do not pay any toll on the road to your home and work, and I am happy to pay my taxes so that you can continue to do so. How about doing the same for me? I noticed there is a great deal of name calling in this discussion. How about if we disagree without the name calling- it seems more civilized.

-- (funkenstein@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.


"Well Craig, seeing as you once predicted that no one would even dare challenge 695 in court, or for that matter, that any judge would overturn it, I'm going to have to take your legal theory that Martin hasn't committed a crime like a grain of salt." I look forward to seeing you post the time, place, and circumstances that I said this. Closest I ever recall, was saying that politicians would be reluctant to challenge, once the vote went against them. But if you have the reference, post it, and I'll publically eat crow.

As for your assumption that Martin has committed a crime, we still have the first amendment. His comment was far from fighting talk. The suggestion that it was has about as much merit as the request that zowie be banned from the forum for his comment did.

craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 14, 2000.


"HOORAY!! Because of Judge Alsdorf's decision, I'm moving one step closer to not having ferry boat and bus service cut. I might be able to get home from work at a decent hour! I have a suggestion for those of you complaining about expensive licence tabs- drive a cheaper used car! That is what I do. Or use public transportation- it's good for the air quality.

-- (funkenstein@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000. "

Except it DOESN't reinstate the MVET, and the governor has already said that the MVET is gone for good. So unless HE reneges on that, the same hole is still in the budget except that now there's no doubt that transit and ferry fares CAN be increased without a public vote, if the appeal doesn't overturn this decision. I personally have no problem with you having all the transportation choices that you are willing to pay for, without subsidies from the rest of us.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 14, 2000.


And the roads to your home and work aren't subsidized by "the rest of us"?

-- (funkenstein@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

I-695 is exactly the type of fraud that the constitutional safeguards were intended to protect the public from. The ruling should not be a surprise to anyone who has read the legal arguments against the thing. For example, there's the constitutional provision that if a law is repealed by initiative, the initiative text must quote the full text of the law, not just the title. I-695 repealed 44 state laws by citing merely their section numbers in the Revised Code of Washington -- let alone their titles. People clearly did not know what they were voting for. The counterarguments are rather contrived -- e.g. to call "taxation" a single subject is like calling "government" a single subject. And then there were the famous lies of the campaign, such as "2 percent budget cut," "6th highest taxed state," "$1 billion surplus," and "meaningful tax relief for the little guy."

I-695 was a fraud, promoted by a car salesman and a professional swindler, using ingenious, carefully researched, deliberate attempts to deceive the public. To call it "the will of the people" is like saying that people willingly buy lemons from used car dealers. It's good that the state constitution contains safeguards against such fraud. The unfortunate part is that this ruling is unlikely to help the legislature get through the current session.

While some voters, brainwashed by Eyman's propaganda, may still think that the damage caused by I-695 is the fault of "politicians out to punish the people," others will start opening their eyes and seeing how they were tricked sooner or later. You can't fool all the people all of the time.

Expect to see more sound bites and spindoctoring from Eyman about "judges legislating from the bench" and "overturning the will of the people on a technicality".

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.


Anirudh--"While some voters, brainwashed by Eyman's propaganda, may still think that the damage caused by I-695 is the fault of "politicians out to punish the people," others will start opening their eyes and seeing how they were tricked sooner or later. You can't fool all the people all of the time."

Ummm, what severe damage has I-695 caused? From what I can tell, some ferries were going to be cancelled and ridership programs for the disabled were going to be cut. While unfortunate for those individuals, this is hardly the makings of a disaster.

I'm kind of disheartened the judge didn't like the popular vote on tax increases provision. I couldn't tell if he didn't like it because it didn't fit the one subject arrangement or if the power to tax can't be removed from the legislature. If it's the former, I'd suggest an initiative to allow for public vote on tax increases. If it's the latter. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 14, 2000.


"...Or use public transportation- it's good for the air quality.

-- (funkenstein@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000."

My sister-in-law got the snot beaten out of her by a thug on a Metro bus...in front of her two kids. I think I'll drive.

Greg

-- Gregory Milligan (glmilligan@aol.com), March 14, 2000.


My latest email to "the judge"

Bob -- Can you honestly say there was no conflict of interest in this case? I'll bet you voted against I-695 didn't you? If so, you had and have absolutely no business issuing any kind of ruling on this. It's a question of ethics.

Also, have you read the Washington State Constitution lately? Isn't there something in there about the power of government flowing from the people to the government? Does that mean "in everything but taxes and Bob Alsdorf's courtroom"? Shall we the people continue to be taxed and taxed and taxed? We, the taxpaying public, have had enough. You, the government, take and you take and you take...enough is enough already! We can't afford it anymore. DO YOU GET THAT???

You pulled a major blunder today. You've stolen money from mine and everyone else's wallets and purses today. You've told us today that one man's opinion is more valid than the desire of the majority of voters. You've got some nerve. Must be some power trip, eh Bob, to be a King County Superior Court Judge. Too bad that on this day, you've probably taken your first step toward losing your seat the next time you're up for election.

Martin Yeager

-- Martin Yeager (myeager10@aol.com), March 15, 2000.


What many people, on either side of the I-695 issue, don't realize is that people such as Martin have a legitimate reason for feeling overtaxed -- and yet I-695 is not the solution. While the average state and local tax rate in WA is about the same as the US average, it is not evenly distributed among the population. WA has the NUMBER ONE most regressive tax system in the US -- meaning that the poor are taxed at higher rates than the rich (the rate is about 4% of income for the richest 1%, 10% for the middle and 17% for the poorest 20%.) The poor in WA bear a bigger share of the tax burden than anywhere else. No wonder they feel overtaxed! (The main reason is that WA taxes spending, not income -- most of the revenue is collected through the sales tax, not an income tax, and the poor need to spend a bigger percentage of their incomes on living expenses than the rich do, so... Martin said he has a large family, so he probably spends a high % of his income too, and consequently pays a large amount of tax.)

Consequently when a smooth-talking con man came along with a friendly smile, pretending to bring "tax relief for the little guy," he struck a chord with the "little guys," who trustingly followed him -- and yet I-695 just made the regressive situation worse. Though the license tab fee was a flawed way of collecting revenue, it was one of the few ways the rich paid more than the poor, since rich people do tend to have more expensive cars. No-one's license tabs actually dropped to $30 -- Tim didn't tell you that there's more to the total license tab bill than the MVET which was repealed and the $30 fee. 40% of car owners saved less than $10 per year -- almost an insult.

Moreover, by making it harder to change the tax structure, I-695 guaranteed that the poor would be stuck with their high tax rates for a long time to come.

Eyman's co-sponsor, Marty Rood, is a car dealer! All he wanted was to sell more expensive cars -- to the rich.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.


P.S. Meanwhile, Martin, you don't have to worry about the license tabs on your 1998 minivan; the judge left license tab fees at the post-I-695 rates.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

Why is it a fraud, Arinduh, to not want to pay the equivalent of an extra car payment every 12 months, just so the legislators in Olympia can have extra money to "play" with. Perhaps that's why Judge Robert "Lance Ito" Alsdorf overturned the people's will...he figured if they didn't have our money to play with, they'd end up playing with themselves. Ahem, could be very embarrassing to those who see themselves as such latte-sipping sophisticates out here on the West Coast.

-- Martin Yeager (myeager10@aol.com), March 15, 2000.

"Eyman's co-sponsor, Marty Rood, is a car dealer! All he wanted was to sell more expensive cars -- to the rich. "

Dear Arinduh: Yes, we are all rich out here, living it up to the max. Because I don't want my wife and children to get stuck on a road somewhere with an old vehicle breaking down, I choose to have a newer reliable minivan. Yep, we're really wealthy.

And let's all bow down and kiss Judge Alsdorf's patent leather Nikes for "allowing" us to keep the $30.00 tabs. He did it for one reason, his own sorry skin. He knew that even his King County liberal voters, who keep him in a job, would turn on him in a flash if he suddenly forced them to start paying the old MVET amount again. This judge is on a power trip, but he wants people to like him...especially if you're a King County voter.

I ask again, what kind of spineless Americans are you out there, that prefer to allow your government to spend your money for you, and seem to despise any effort to stop this tax and spend nonsense? Where did your parents go wrong?

-- Martin Yeager (myeager10@aol.com), March 15, 2000.


"Why is it a fraud, Arinduh, to not want to pay ..."

It is a fraud to trick people into believing that it can be done with no negative consequences. Especially, that it can be wiped out in the middle of a budget period with no negative consequences, rather than sensibly and carefully phasing it out over 2 or 3 years to give local governments time to adapt.

Many people voted for I-695 because they took Eyman's "MVET is less than 2% of government spending in the state" to mean "less than 2% of the state government's spending" -- exactly what he was trying to make them think. Newspapers have been full of letters from people quoting that figure. Some people believe in lower taxes at any cost; but most others, if they had understood that the 2% figure was really an ingenious, carefully researched, deliberate attempt to deceive them, would have told Eyman to go to ****.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.


http://www.pulsepoll.com/scripts/mgwms32.dll

what do the people think? See the Herald poll.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.


Sahni is right, and Yeager is wrong. The judge did his job, and evaluated the initiative base on the constitution without regard for the politics of the situation. That is what he is hired to do. I recall pointing out that in legal circles, being true to the requirements of the law is more important that popularity; and even if the judge is voted out of office he will likely be welcomed to a higher paying partnership somewhere because of his reputation and integrity. Instead of being angry at a judge who did what everyone who reviewed the inititiative for constitutionality expected, be angry at Eyman who wasted everone's time and money on a cause that was lost before it started. He made a political statement, but not law. When the Supreme Court rules, you will need to be satisfied with that.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 17, 2000.

to dbvz: The Supreme Court is made up of many people who want to be re-elected. They, collectively, are going to do a hell of a lot better job at finding and building a consensus. They are not going to jump on the tiniest thread and run with it just to be in a hurry to overturn I-695.

It is very likely that they will disagree with the Seattle judge about concerns of logrolling. The initiative attempted to limit TAXES AND FEES via the license tabs.

The only real issue, then, is the automatic generation of referenda without the required 4% signatures. The Supreme Court may decide that there is no case, since no tax or fee has yet been challenged. And, the Supreme Court prefers to rule on a specific application of the initiative.

Then, after allowing the initiative to stand until it is applied, the legislature can choose to "clarify" or amend the initiative. Then, we may end up with a law which can survive a constitutional challenge to a specific application.

Personally, I don't really care that much. If I get a few more tax breaks, then my family will be able to pay the tolls on the Narrows Bridge without impacting our savings rate, too much. I would've preferred paying taxes deductible on my federal income tax, but that's the way the DOT and the people of Tacoma want it, that's the way it'll be.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 18, 2000.


Matt writes:

>>It is very likely that they will disagree with the Seattle judge about concerns of logrolling. The initiative attempted to limit TAXES AND FEES via the license tabs.<<

And what makes you think that it's "very likely" they'll disagree with Alsdorf? Your opinion, or precedent? Because I'm telling you right now precedent isn't on your side.

Seems pretty clear to me that they'll agree with Alsdorf's decision. Wouldn't surprise me to see a unanimous decision, or maybe an 8-1 with Sanders dissenting.

And I have no doubt that none of them worry one bit about threats they won't be re-elected if they rule against 695. They threw out term limits...and nothing happened. They threw out the value averaging provision of Referendum 47...and nothing happened. And now people are agitating and threatening that justices will be voted out of office if they vote against 695. Just like before, after they throw out 695...nothing will happen.

And as dbvz stated, if they do get voted out, they'll just move onto a higher paying job and get more respect in the legal community for making the proper decision. No skin off their back.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.


And the "consensus" the Supreme Court is looking for is among the justices, and their understanding of the requirements of the constitution. THAT IS THEIR JOB. They should be voted out of office if they allow political concerns to push them into a bad decision in conflict with the constitution. That won't happen. I agree this will be an easy decision with a strong majority to uphold the trial judge.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 19, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ