Has anyone read the complete text of the Judge's ruling? I started to read it, but I found his reasoning to be convoluted.

He gave the example of the Supreme Court overruling a referendum banning the lottery, since it took away an important weapon for raising revenue from the arsenal of the legislature. Therefore, the judge concluded that requiring voter approval of future fee and tax increases was a similar infringement upon the legislature.

However, I find this reasoning flawed, since the legislature can easily amend I-695, excluding certain categories of fees and taxes from the initiative. Thus, the legislature can reclaim some, if not most, of the power abrogated by the Initiative. Whereas, banning a lottery is an either-or proposition - there is no middle ground.

Also, the judge reasoned that requiring voter approval of future tax and fee increases is unconstitutional because it bypasses the requirement of a referendum having 4% of the voters' signatures to get on the ballot. He reasoned that tax and fee vetoes can only be exercised through referenda.

But, really, 4% doesn't sound like a major obstacle for an organization like I-695. So, using the judge's logic, we would have a huge plethora of referenda on the ballot, one for each tax or fee increase, if the I-695 folks were able to get the necessary signatures for each referendum. Why would anyone advocate this? It seems to me, I-695 would encourage the lumping of taxes and/or fees onto a handful of ballot items. That way, our voter guides would be in the tens of pages long, rather than in the thousands of pages.

It seems to me, the judge has erred in a variety of ways. Therefore, his overall ruling is suspect.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

Yes, I've read it and I think it is extremely well-reasoned. I find it incredible that the I-695 backers thought this measure could withstand a contitutional challenge--they should be questioning their own advisors. And as the judge also correctly pointed out, you can seek to amend the constitution if you think the way the constitution deals with referenda is too unwieldy. This judge did what the law requires. This will be affirmed on appeal.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 15, 2000.

Thank you Matthew for offering a thoughtful critique of the ruling beyond the pure ranting that has been going on.

First off, even though the legislature could amend 695 to fit the established rules of the constitution, that is not a posibility that the judge could consider. He had to make a ruling on the existing language of the initiative. If the language conflicts with the constitution, he can't leave the initiative in place and tell the legislature to change it.

The case involving the lottery highlighted the differences between referendums and initiatives. Referendums being the way that you approve or disapprove of a recent action by a government body, initiatives being the way you change the law. Referendums also automatically suspend the law in question. At the time when the rules governing referendums were being drafted, Oregon was having problems with their existing referendum laws. Seems a small minority of people were sucessfully blocking the funding of the University of Oregon simply by filing referendums against it. They were always defeated at the polls, but since filing a referendum would block the funding, a small minority was succeeding in blocking the will of the people. With that in mind, the people of Washington wrote our rules to exclude funding laws from referendums. HOWEVER, that does not prohibit the people from eliminating taxes or any other charge imposed by government. You just have to go through the initiative process. And as the judge mentioned, had the MVET provision been an initiative by itself, it would have been completely constitutional.

As for the judge's logic on having to obtain 4% of the voters' signatures to get a referendum on the ballot, it isn't his logic, it's the constitution's logic. Moving past the fact that referendums can't be used on budgetary matters, the constitution clearly states that in order to challenge an act of the legislature, you are required to show proof that a significant portion of the people agree that the act needs to be challenged in the first place. This is basically in place to give the legislature the benefit of the doubt when it passes legislation, but still allows the people to challenge something if they feel the need. The system was not designed with the idea of placing every tax and fee increase on the ballot, so yes, it would be chaotic. But again, this isn't the judge's logic, it is the logic of the constitution.

Before anyone takes issue with what I just said, please remember that this is they way things are not because I or some judge says so, but because the constitution says so. It IS possible to eliminate the MVET, just not the way I-695 had it worded. It IS possible to require a public vote on all tax and fee increases, you just have to amend the part of the constitution that currently says that you can't.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000.

I just wanted to second Patrick's opinion and say thanks to Matt. It's clear that you took the time to actually read (some of) the opinion, instead of simply ranting and raving at the judge for no reason. Patrick's pretty much hit the nail on the head in all his comments, so I'll try not to duplicate what he said.

I would suggest to Matt that he takes the time to read the whole opinion, and then go to access.wa.gov to take a look at the sections of the state constitution that it referenced. I've been fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on your point of view) to read quite a few opinions in my time, and I can say without question that Alsdorf has done a good job of making sure his is very clear and easy to understand. It also appears to me to be spot on and unlikely to be overturned, but I suppose the Supreme Court could surprise me.

Whatever else happens, this case was lost on the merits. It had nothing to do with the judge, despite other people's complaints.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

to Patrick & BB: I still haven't read all of the judge's decision, but I re-read the part I read before, and I disagree with the judge that the initiative consisted of two "unconnected" pieces.

The fact is that the I-695 supporters were trying to remove the cancer of the license tab fees. In order to ensure the cancer would not return, it was necessary to add language prohibiting future tax and fee increases without voter approval. Therefore, the initiative does cover a single topic - permanent removal of a cancerous tax. Therefore, the judge erred when he ruled that the initiative was an example of logrolling.

The judged also reasoned that the initiative sidestepped the constitution because it automatically generates a referendum for tax and fee increases without the necessary 4% signatures. This may be fairly decent reasoning, but I'll have to review the constitution to draw my final conclusion. In any case, this only affects that portion of I-695, and the portion dealing with the license tab fees should have left intact, as sections 1 and 3 of initiative are constitutional.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinskY@msn.com), March 16, 2000.

Whew, I gotta say this thread is a breath of fresh air in a sea of ranting posts.

I can see where you are coming from with regards to the single subject rule, but the judge does have a response to that. In his ruling, he mentioned that had Section 2 just limited itself to taxes or fees that could have been raised to replace the MVET, then that would have been okay since it still related to that specific tax. BUT, Section 2 doesn't limit itself to those taxes, and instead applies to the entire range of government revenue sources. Since items like utility rates or impact fees cannot be used to replace MVET funding, they are not related to the other sections. They all do relate to taxation, but the relation has to be closer than that. Otherwise you could have an initiative that bans child molesters from being day care providers and also requires trigger locks on guns all under the same subject of "safety."

The single subject ruling pretty much outweighs all the other rulings that the judge made on 695. Had that ruling not been made, then the sections removing the MVET would have possibly held up (although there also was the ruling that you can't repeal statutes without explaining which ones you're repealing, so Section 3, which repealed the MVET statute, still would probably have been struck down. But in any event, the single subject ruling was the kicker. It can only have one subject, and since it doesn't (according to the judge), and he also can't pick and choose which one to leave intact, he had to strike down the entire initiative.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000.

to Patrick: No, I disagree. I-695 had to be worded the way it was in order to maximize the effectiveness of PERMANENTLY removing the license tab fee. The fact that it affects user fees unrelated to MVET does not necessarily mean the initiative is not a single issue. That is the judge's conclusion, not mine.

I've also come up with an argument against the judge's claim that the initiative automatically generates referenda. As long as the pro-I-695 folks are willing to accept the condition that all fees and taxes are valid until rejected by the voters, then this does not qualify as a referendum. Because, according to the judge, a referendum automatically suspends the tax or fee until after the vote. Therefore, the judge's conclusion is incorrect, again.

So far, I'm not impressed with the judge's reasoning. It appears biased. He comes across as not believing in or supporting of direct-democracy, and then feebly attempts to buttress his point of view. He should have presented a balanced approach, presenting arguments in favor of both points of view. And, then, he could present detailed reasons why one point of view is superior over the other. He did not do this. Therefore, he is biased.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 16, 2000.

Matt,

Your not changing sides on us are you? ;)

I think your opinion has some merit. Out of curiousity, don't you feel you are taking a multiple position on this issue? I could swear you were against the loss of MVET for Transits.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

Matt writes:

>>The fact that it affects user fees unrelated to MVET does not necessarily mean the initiative is not a single issue.<<

It most certainly does mean that the initiative is not a single issue. It's quite simple: a tax is not a fee, and a fee is not a tax. If the single subject of the initiative is taxation (as 695's was) and it includes fees as well as taxes, the initiative no longer relates to that single subject, which is taxes. Understand?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

Matt writes:

>>As long as the pro-I-695 folks are willing to accept the condition that all fees and taxes are valid until rejected by the voters, then this does not qualify as a referendum. Because, according to the judge, a referendum automatically suspends the tax or fee until after the vote. Therefore, the judge's conclusion is incorrect, again.<<

Your argument is illogical.

I don't see how you can argue that the pro-695 folks are willing to accept that taxes and fees are valid until approved by the electorate. In fact, they've clearly indicated the opposite; that the *only* way taxes and fees are valid is if they are *approved* by the electorate.

If fees and taxes have to be approved by the voters to be valid, how can you argue that they are valid prior to their approval or rejection? This doesn't make any sense; their validity prior to a public vote would be in name only, which is totally meaningless. You can't argue that the tax or fee is valid and then say "but actually it's not *really* valid; we still have to have the voters say that it's valid."

By stating that taxes and fees still needs voter approval you've just blown away your own argument that the taxes and fees are valid prior to voter approval.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

to BB: You seem to be engaging in tautologies. You write: "It most certainly does mean that the initiative is not a single issue. It's quite simple: a tax is not a fee, and a fee is not a tax. If the single subject of the initiative is taxation (as 695's was) and it includes fees as well as taxes, the initiative no longer relates to that single subject, which is taxes. Understand?"

No, the single subject of the initiative is freeing (hopefully, with some degree of long-term permanence) the people from onerous TAXES AND FEES on their license tabs. That is the point you (and the judge) are missing. The fact that the initiative affects public agencies which do not receive portions of the MVET does not automatically imply the initiative is guilty of logrolling.

Likewise, you are incorrect when you claim that the initiative's requirement of voter approval bars taxes and fees from being implemented prior to the voters' approval. Nowhere in the initiative does it say this. It only says voter approval is required (at some point). Until the voters reject the tax or fee, who's to say the tax and fee can't be in effect? If that's the case, then the judge's ruling about automatic referenda is null and void.

I believe the initiative needs to be fine-tuned by the legislator, as it probably make sense to exempt certain fees. In fact, Tim Eyman's "Son of I-695" attempts to do this. Likewise, the legislature needs to "clarify" when voter approval takes place. But, none of the needed improvements necessarily imply the initiative is unconstitutional.

Perhaps the initiative is supposed to work by having no voter approval take place, until someone challenges the fee or tax in court. Then, the court would rule on when the voter approval would take place, if at all. And, until the voters reject the tax or fee, it would remain in effect.

Look, if the pro-I-695 people don't agree with this compromise, then the judge's ruling about automatic referenda will probably be upheld by the Supreme Court.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 16, 2000.

to Marsha: I'm not changing positions, as I voted FOR I-695. My philosophy is that my family can afford tolls or the MVET, but not both. I would rather pay the MVET than tolls, as I can deduct the MVET from my federal income tax.

As for the judge, he comes across as biased. He should have offered reasonable arguments for both sides, and then carefully explain why he preferred one over the other. He did not do this, therefore he is biased.

Also, I don't agree with his reasoning that the initiative is guilty of logrolling. The initiative does affect agencies which did not previously receive the MVET, but the voters heard over and over that "I-695 would require a vote to raise library fines." So, the initiative affects a lot of governmental agencies. So what? It doesn't necessary follow that the initiative is therefore logrolling.

Now, the judge's argument about the automatic generation of referenda is a much stronger one. I am merely offering an interpretation which will allow the I-695 folks to save face. Again, the judge appears biased by not investigating this line of thought.

It should be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does, since they are elected officials, too.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 16, 2000.

Matt writes:

>>No, the single subject of the initiative is freeing (hopefully, with some degree of long-term permanence) the people from onerous TAXES AND FEES on their license tabs. That is the point you (and the judge) are missing.<<

You are wrong.

There is one subject in 695, and here it is: "AN ACT Relating to limiting taxation". That's it. Do you see the word fees mentioned in that sentence?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

Matt, Marsha, and others--

It is very simple. I-695 covers 2 subjects and the proof is in the verb useage:

Part one deals with the ammendment of a TAXING procedure (ie replacing MVET with $30 flat fee). Part two deals with the ammendment of a VOTING procedure (having to vote on any tax increase) That the word tax is used in 1 and 2 is unconsequential; Voting procedures and Taxing procedures are clearly two different subjects. 1 and 2 are then of two different subjects and 695 was declared unconstitutional, and rightfully so.

Apart from this (but pertaining to it)I have a very important question for Marsha, Matt, Craig, Martin, and other members of the Eyeman collective: If Tim even had an inkling that 695 might possibly be considered constitutionally questionable (which we ceaselessly reminded him), WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SPLIT THE THING INTO TWO INITIATIVES?

He still could have easily collected the necessary signatures, and would have avoided the split subject problem.

Here's my answer: Tim, salesman as he is, tried to make a "Tootsie- Pop from hell" initiative... Candy on the outside, turd in the center. Why did he throw a tantrum in the court-room? The judge called him on it. Well there it is -- take it or leave it.

What do you think?

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

"Yawwwn!!! Ever get the feeling that you've wasted your life reading something? "

Yes, another comment from Nate the Great.

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

Matt,

Since the entire Initiative was ruled unconstitutional, allowing the $30 tabs to continue (preserving the status quo) certainly seems politically motivated to me.

He had the ba**s to rule it unconstitional, but said it would be disruptive to provide injunctive relief, yes or no? He could have permitted the injunctive relief, hee-hee. That ruling would have been a far greater risk to his career. So much for those who claim this decision was not politically motivated.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Waiting for an answer Marsha...

WHY DIDN'T EYEMAN JUST SPLIT THE THING INTO TWO INITIATIVES?

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

"Since the entire Initiative was ruled unconstitutional, allowing the $30 tabs to continue (preserving the status quo) certainly seems politically motivated to me."

No, it was practically motivated. He knew that regardless of his decision, it would be appealed, and possibly rejected. Reinstituting the MVET would cause a number of problems, since DOL would have to revoke the hundreds of thousands of tab renewal forms it has already sent out, and if his ruling were overturned, the DOL would then have to refund the money. Plus it would also create a new legal question that would have to be resolved in court, would the reimposed fee now be retroactive.

Seeing as he rather completely ticked off a lot of people by just totally throwing out Section 2, I don't see how this shows political motivation. The damage was done already. Anyone who wasn't already angered by his decision probably wouldn't have been too ticked off by the reappearance of the MVET. Besides, I'm sure the judge was smart enough to know that had he not maintained the $30 tabs, that the legislature would have maintained it (which the Senate just did today).

The judge spelled out in his ruling his motives as to why the $30 tabs should remain in place for the duration of the appeal process. If you want to show that he had other motives, you'll first have to explain why we should dismiss the ones that he outlined. They appear to be rather rational to me.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

And how could I possibly know the answer to that? And why do you address me with the question? Why are you singleing me out again? You seem obsessed with your attacks on me. Even when you have been wrong, you continue to try and provoke something. Get over it.

I think it is time for Zowie to interevene with a diagnosis, you could be dangerous.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Patrick,

"The judge spelled out in his ruling his motives as to why the $30 tabs should remain in place for the duration of the appeal process."

Yes, he did spell out a motive as to why the tabs should remain in place. And I don't agree with his stated reason. He did it to soften the blow of his ruling and allow the Legislature time to act. If he were worried that his ruling would cause problems for the collection of MVET, that is a poor excuse to allow an unconstitional status quo. As far as the question of the possibility of his ruling being overturned, then maybe it IS constitutional.....which would lead one to believe he has a doubt....in any case, both ideas lead me to suspect political motivation.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

And so, in the end, despite denying elsewhere that you were personally attacking him, you DO question Judge Alsdorf's integrity for the simple reason you have stated--that you disagree with him.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 17, 2000.

Matt wrote, "So far, I'm not impressed with the judge's reasoning. It appears biased. He comes across as not believing in or supporting of direct-democracy, and then feebly attempts to buttress his point of view."

Just so you remember, we don't live in a direct democracy. The constitution was written to form a representative democracy, with specific responsibilities delegated to elected representatives. If you want to change that, you need to use the consitutional process to amend the consitiution, and the initiative didn't do that. The judge ruled on the initiative based on the current constitution, not the constitution as you may have thought, or hoped, or dreamed it could be.

Does any of that sound familiar? I just stopped in to say "I told you so." Eyman needs to get some better legal advisors, and totally rewrite the "son" initiatives also. Why should everyone, on both sides, waste all this time on his poorly written, unfair, and unconsitutional pipedreams?

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

"Why should everyone, on both sides, waste all this time on his poorly written, unfair, and unconsitutional pipedreams? " Because, if you haven't noticed, he's pushing the political agenda with them. Despite the judge's ruling, the MVET is GONE, and it isn't coming back. Regardless of the viability of his property tax "pipedreams" even the Democrats are trying to preempt the issue with a property tax cut plan. Whether or not 711 ever becomes law, both Locke and the Transportation Commission are giving ground on the HOV lane issue. He is using the initiative process to "haze" the politicians in the direction he wants to go, and quite successfully it appears. Why wouldn't he continue? He's winning, on the installment plan, and it hasn't cost him nearly as much as it has cost his opponents to fight him.

Look at where we were a year ago when no one even thought the MVET was in trouble, and look where we are now. Do you truly think the political situation is unchanged? If you do believe it has changed, has it changed toward Eyman's philosophy, or away from it? If you ask yourself these questions, and aren't willing to admit he's picked up a lot of ground, you are in an advanced state of denial.

whether or not he can keep mobilizing the people (and the politicians) to move in his direction is an arguable issue. Whether you believe he has moved the political situation in the way you think is best is an arguable issue. But the fact that he has made significant gains politically really isn't. So far, he's ahead on the scoreboard.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 17, 2000.

Howard,

I guess we both have a difference of opinion on what the word attack means.

I think it is realistic, expected, normal judicial behavior to have a degree of political motivation in a ruling. And since I don't personally find this to be a reprehensible quality in a Judge, whether I agree with him or not does not matter. I merely pointed out what part of his ruling could be politically motivated. I don't condemn him for it and I do not consider it an attack on his character.

IF you do consider it an attack, please show me where I said something derougetory about the man. For all I know, he is a fine man. However, he is still a man. Not the Legal God some are making him about to be.

If I attack someone, it's usually pretty obvious! See my posts to sick puppy Nate for a comparison.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.

Marsha,

I think I understand your position. Basically, you are saying that you expect judges to rule consistent with their politics, therefore you think this judge is no better or worse than any other. The logical conclusion to be drawn from your view is that if we know the judge's politics we know what his ruling will be. It also implies that there is no objectively correct ruling--in other words, it means that a ruling upholding Initiative 695 would simply have been a reflection of a different judge's political bias.

I disagree with you completely about how judges operate. I think you expect far too little from your judges when you tell me that you expect them, as a normal practice, to disregard their duty in the interest of politics. Most judges I observe appear to me to have done their duty in an intellectually honest fashion and to the best of their ability, whether I think they were correct or not. I Judge Alsdorf's refusal to enjoin part of the initiative--pending an expedited appeal--is pretty scanty evidence for your cynical view.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 19, 2000.

Craig:

Point taken. 695 has had some effect on the politics of the state, and if you are satisfied with that it may have been worth the trouble for you. I continue to believe it could and should have been done through the legislative process initially, as it must now be done anyway because of the decision. My real point was that it should have been known from the beginning that the decision would be to to overturn the initiative, since just about every legal opinion but those of the "695 legal team" told us that would be the result starting soon after the initiative was drafted. It is not the judges fault this is a badly drafted initiative. The fault is with Eyman, who could have done a better job 9 months ago, and had something constitutional approved by now.

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

"My real point was that it should have been known from the beginning that the decision would be to to overturn the initiative, since just about every legal opinion but those of the "695 legal team" told us that would be the result starting soon after the initiative was drafted. It is not the judges fault this is a badly drafted initiative. The fault is with Eyman, who could have done a better job 9 months ago, and had something constitutional approved by now. "

And sometimes you just do what you CAN do to further your political philosophy. Look at what happened with the title of 711. The original, which seemed reasonable enough to me, was changed to make it PAINFULLY obvious that if you only have 10% of the pie to devote to transit, transit is going to lose a whole lot of money. That decided what the people would get to sign on to as much as did Eyman, and if they qualify, what they would get to vote on. The process certainly does not guarantee that something is constitutionally vetted prior to going to the voters, but in fairness, the legislature has turned out its share of unconstitutional laws too (the anti-spamming law most recently). Given the financial resources at his disposal, the Mukilteo watch salesman is being pretty effective politically and he's doing nothing wrong, any more than the legislature did in their failed attempt to keep my inbox from filling up with junk mail. Is the process imperfect? Sure, so's the legislating process. It's like sausage, you'd never have anything to do with it if you saw what went into it. Eyman's process isn't any worse, it's just not done behind closed doors.

I think if your political philosophy were different, d, you'd be rooting him on too.

The C

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 19, 2000.

Craig:

I noted before I am a conservative Republican. And no; I would not root on the idea of using the initiative process to attempt simplistic solutions to complex problems without at least attempting to go through the legislative process first, where study and debate will (usually) weed out the really stupid ideas.

I don't believe direct democracy is a good way to pass laws. That used to be the conservative position, but I guess now it is "whatever works". I prefer representative democracy because it prevents gross stupidity (you can't get all the stupidity out of politics, I grant you). The initiative process seems to give the really stupid ideas an opportunity they should never get in a reasonable environment.

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

"The initiative process seems to give the really stupid ideas an opportunity they should never get in a reasonable environment. " Which says to me that either the current (two party system) is UNREASONABLE (for which we'd have to fault the two parties involved, among others) or that you really believe that the common people lack the ability to govern themselves, to which opinion you may be entitled, but don't expect me to share.

While I believe there is advantage in having good people in positions of leadership, there is also advantage in having EVERYONE involved in citizenship, in the process of government. Restricting the political power (and responsibility that goes with it) to an elite really alienates the voters and demeans the value of the contributions that they might make. Ultimately, it ceases to be OUR government and becomes THE government and ultimately THEIR government. I would submit that it is always in the governments interest to have the citizens identify strongly with the government, even if this makes for a lively debate in the marketplace of ideas that the careerists in government will find annoying, and interfering. The support of the citizenry for the government is more important to me than the vexation of the career politician and bureaucrat that he/she must be accountable to the citizens.

I do not regard this as anarchy, I regard it as periodically rattling the cage of institutions and individuals that otherwise have their default evolution to benefit the bureaucracy, even at the expense of the citizenry they are supposed to serve. Any government worth having, certainly has the popular support to tolerate having to respond to the cutomers (owners) periodically. If that support does not exist, that government OUGHT to be replaced.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 20, 2000.

I think D would have supported poll taxes and literacy tests. Hmmm, he and I may have common ground after all.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

Hey, this maybe a stupid question but here goes... What is a bill? What is a initiative? Where does a bill come from? Where does a initiative come from? Finally, are bills and initiatives the same? sorry if this sounds stupid but i am trying to find out some basic fundamental definitions from "what the people think" as it relates to this topic. Any response is appreciated.

-- (nondyoak@gte.net), March 20, 2000.

Howard,

Since when does a degree of of political motivation in a ruling become they following:

"I think I understand your position. Basically, you are saying that you expect judges to rule consistent with their politics, therefore you think this judge is no better or worse than any other. The logical conclusion to be drawn from your view is that if we know the judge's politics we know what his ruling will be. It also implies that there is no objectively correct ruling--in other words, it means that a ruling upholding Initiative 695 would simply have been a reflection of a different judge's political bias.

The only part of the ruling that even had an undertone of political motivation to me was in allowing the status quo. If I am not mistaken, this was only a small part, yes or no?

I neither implied nor did I state that this Judge or any other, bases his or her entire ruling on political motivation. A degree, to me, means it is one consideration of many. To state that I believe all rulings are politically motivated is the same thing as saying I hate all democrats....Lighten up!

I certainly hope he is not that biased, otherwise, I would be concerned that the next case you represent in front of him would be a forgone conclusion! ;)

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

Marsha,

It was your description of "expected, normal judicial behavior" that I was responding to. All I said is that you expect judges in a way you have described as "expected". That doesn't seem like much of a stretch on my part.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

Howard,

As we all know, it is easy to take things out of context.

For the record, my post said "I think it is realistic, expected, normal judicial behavior to have *a degree* of political motivation in a ruling."

I don't feel you have made the correct conclusion Howard. Perhaps you stretched the wrong way.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

Marsha,

I won't belabor the discussion further. I appreciate that you have qualified your description of the behavior. I would simply point out personal experience sometimes alters our views. You have described elsewhere how your views changed after an auto accident. My personal experience is in front of judges. I have seen judges make decisions that are plainly contrary to their personal preferences because that is what the law provides. Whether I agree with them or not, I think the vast majority are conscientious about enforcing the law, their personal views notwithstanding.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

"Whether I agree with them or not, I think the vast majority are conscientious about enforcing the law, their personal views notwithstanding. " Out of curiosity, did you catch the Wall Street Journal editorial on the parceling out of potential White House corruption cases to Clinton appointed justices, in apparent defiance of the usual random assignment process used by the federal judiciary. If you did, what do you think of the editorial?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 20, 2000.

Craig:

Same old tactics. Intentionally misrepresent the other persons statements, and then attack YOUR misrepresentation.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 20, 2000.

"Same old tactics. Intentionally misrepresent the other persons statements, and then attack YOUR misrepresentation. " Which of your statements was I allegedly misrepresenting and/or attacking. I've apparently put a burr uncer your saddle with something I said, which something was it?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 21, 2000.

Craig:

"The initiative process seems to give the really stupid ideas an opportunity they should never get in a reasonable environment. " Which says to me that either the current (two party system) is UNREASONABLE (for which we'd have to fault the two parties involved, among others) or that you really believe that the common people lack the ability to govern themselves, to which opinion you may be entitled, but don't expect me to share."

My comment was about the unreasonable environment of an initiative campaign full of misrepresentation, and nothing at all about the two party system. I did not indicate the "common people" do not have the ability to govern themselves, but I implied that the most reasonable method to govern themselves is through the processes of a representative government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 22, 2000.

"but I implied that the most reasonable method to govern themselves is through the processes of a representative government. " Interesting editorial on this in the Wall Street Journal today. They kind of agree with you, but note that the original problem was not the desire on the part of the founding fathers for representative government, but rather the problem with LOGISTICS. At the time of the Revolution (and for some time thereafter), the means really didn't exist for easy popular voting beyond the town hall level. Heck, the battle of New Orleans was fought weeks after the war was over, just cause nobody had gotten the message yet, and that was 40 years later. The editorial addressed the idea that, had the internet been available, it is likely that the founding fathers might have elected to go with popular voting, since they were less philosophically opposed to popular elections than pragmatically opposed, took too long, cost too much. And the world has been moving in the direction of popular government for some time. Note the amendment for popular election of Senators who used to be elected by the state legislatures only. So if you are going to make the above statement, you might want to explain why you believe it's the most reasonable process. Just saying it's always been done that way or that the founding fathers wanted it that way probably isn't enough. They didn't have much choice. We do. Would you go back to state legislatures electing the Senators if you could repeal the amendment? If not, why not?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 22, 2000.

The founding fathers might not have been philosophically opposed to a direct democracy, but consider the small, homogenous class of people who could vote at that time. It's hard to know what they would think about a direct democracy in our day and age. I'm not arguing, by the way, that we should necessarily care what they would think.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 23, 2000.

"I'm not arguing, by the way, that we should necessarily care what they would think. " Nor am I. Just don't think that popular voting is necessarily the destruction of all that's good and noble about US democracy. Might be good, might be bad. Might have to try it and find out.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 23, 2000.

Craig:

We have been through all this before. The problems that are presented by poorly thought out initiatives like 695 are a good example why direct democracy does not produce the most thoughtful or rational solutions to complex problems. DD is unrestrained self interest. It is in government, like having the employees running a corporation directly, including voting on their own pay rates and benefit packages. Better they buy stock, and hire conpetent managers who will make decisions for the long term health of the corporation.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 23, 2000.

"We have been through all this before." and now I'm having a similar dialogue with Howard. Perhaps he'll make a more convincing argument against direct democracy than you have. Analogies to companies and claims od "unrestrained self-interest" simply aren't very convincing. The public has been supporting charities, the poor, providing for the common good, and fighting wars against oppressors for a long time, in the common interest. Perhaps I just think better of people than you do, or perhaps I'm just less enamored with the nobility of politicians. Howards perspective isn't going to hurt, might even make one of us see the light.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 24, 2000.

dbvz--"DD is unrestrained self interest. It is in government, like having the employees running a corporation directly, including voting on their own pay rates and benefit packages. Better they buy stock, and hire conpetent managers who will make decisions for the long term health of the corporation."

First a bit of fun:

3 wolves and a lamb one muses, "Ewe's making dinner" "I lamb" says alpha

Since "we've been through all this before," I'll remind you again how this is an inappropriate analogy. Conceptually, the majority of taxpayers are more similar to customers than employees (at least in the US. . .there are a few severely screwed-up nations where government workers represent a majority of the country's employees). Thus, using your broken analogy, it would be more like customers determining the price they're going (as opposed to willing) to pay for an item.

As I also said previously, the "volunteer coop" model appears appropriate in this instance.

In any case, this is an off-topic discussion. I-695 was not direct democracy except in *one* (or maybe two depending on your perspective) instance--new taxes and fees. While you could argue the proverbial "Camel's nose under the tent," it wouldn't be very convincing. To be fair, there are places where I find the "slippery slope" argument reasonable--gun control and abortion-but this wouldn't be one of them.

To use a simple example, it's unlikely that many people have an interest in determining, say, the minimum height of a ceiling for a room (FWIW, 8' in Seattle). While it's accurate to say that most people would also be uninterested in determining the *amount* of impact fees a builder must pay, it's reasonable to say that people would be quite interested in voting on *whether* builder's should pay impact fees.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 24, 2000.

ack formatting:

3 wolves and a lamb

one muses, "Ewe's making dinner"

"I lamb" says alpha

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 24, 2000.