If this is a victory, what would defeat have looked like?

Locke's halfstep no solution to HOV problem 2000-03-15 Gov. Gary Locke finally took notice of the HOV problem, but his view isn't much of a solution. During a talk to the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, Locke said he would support opening carpool lanes to all traffic in non-peak hours, especially on weekends. Later, a spokesman said -- whoops! -- he only had weekends in mind. The governor got it right the first time. What irritates most people are HOV lanes that have room for more vehicles yet are kept from the majority of motorists. That's certainly true on weekends, but it's also true in the non-commute hours of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Republicans on the King County Council agree. They voted to ask the Department of Transportation to open the HOV lanes during the weekday 9-to-3 p.m. slot. Unfortunately, the DOT used the council's 6-5 vote (Republicans voted for the change, Democrats against) as an excuse to continue coercing motorists into buses and carpools. Now, with Locke suddenly wanting to lift restrictions on weekends, the DOT has less justification for its view. In fact, they should listen to Locke who, in his Chamber talk, said opening up HOV lanes to all will ``clearly ease congestion.'' What, we wonder, is so different about weekends? There's congestion throughout the week. Locke's half-step leaves motorists still suffering and fuming most of the time with no Monday-Friday relief. It also prevents a legitimate Monday-Friday test to see how traffic would respond. And it makes Tim Eyman's proposed HOV initiative look better and better. Maybe the Chamber should invite Locke back for another lunch. A few more trips from Olympia to Bellevue in midday traffic might change his mind. http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/14791

Push is on for HOV lanes open to all on weekends Wednesday, March 15, 2000 By GEORGE FOSTER mailto:georgefoster@seattle-pi.commailto:georgefoster@seattle-pi.com SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER Car-pool lanes could be open to all traffic on weekends as soon as this summer. Connie Niva, chairman of the state Transportation Commission, says she will ask today that the Department of Transportation "take a fast-track approach" to opening up high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic on weekends. And most of the seven members of her commission, which sets state transportation policy, said they were open to that idea. "It's an issue on the people's minds," said Niva, of Everett. "I'll ask (Washington DOT) if we can have this resolved by this summer." There are HOV lanes on portions of Interstate 5, I-405, I-90 and state Routes 520 and 167. All are restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants 24 hours a day, except on SR 520 where the minimum is three passengers. The state started building the car-pool lanes with federal help in 1982. Republican legislators have advocated loosening restrictions on the lanes. And Tim Eyman, author of tax-slashing Initiative 695, is collecting signatures on a new initiative that would eliminate car-pool lanes entirely. Gov. Gary Locke endorsed the weekend opening of HOV lanes Monday during a speech in Bellevue. He had raised the issue with the Transportation Commission a month ago, according to Niva. But the commission has not taken up the issue because it has been "sidetracked" as it dealt with the state transportation budget and the effect of revenue loss imposed by Initiative 695. http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/hov15.shtml

Wednesday, March 15, 2000 Locke, lawmakers rush to guarantee $30 tabs KIRO TV & ASSOCIATED PRESS  Let's talk: Do ya love Eyman or hate him?  Vote in our I-695 polls  What your's message for the judge?  Download the full transcript: Acrobat format

Tim Eyeman rips up sign KIRO-TV

OLYMPIA (AP) -- Gov. Gary Locke and lawmakers from both parties, jolted by a judge's ruling overturning tax-cut Initiative 695, rushed Tuesday to protect the state's popular new $30 car license tabs. "The voters have spoken," the Democratic governor told a hastily called news conference to announce his push for legislation guaranteeing the cheap new tabs. "Despite the court's ruling, $30 license tabs are here to stay." The initiative, approved by voters last November, repealed a value-based motor vehicle excise tax and replaced it with the $30 annual fee per vehicle. It also required a public vote for all tax and fee increases. Republicans said they'll press for enactment of Part B of the initiative as well, to guarantee that voters get the final say on all state and local taxes and fees. One fierce proponent of I-695, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, warned her colleagues that she'll campaign against any of them who stand in the way of adopting the $30 car tabs legislatively. "We either back the voters or we backstab the voters," she said. Senate Republicans were the first to strike. Within minutes of hearing about Tuesday's ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf, they tried to ram through a long-dormant bill to enact the $30 fees as state law, as an end run around the court. Democrats, caught off guard and not wanting to give the minority Republicans the upper hand, voted down the GOP motion to bring the bill to an immediate vote. Democratic leaders said they wanted to wait until the state Supreme Court rules on the state's appeal of Alsdorf's ruling this summer before seeing whether any legislative fix is needed. Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, hinted later that the Democrats will come around, particularly given Locke's position. "Give us time to catch our breath," he said in an interview. "We haven't had a chance to read or analyze the decision." Still, he said it's quite possible the Legislature will end up enacting the $30 license tabs before adjourning the current special session. In the House, the issue is on a faster track. Indeed, the Democratic co-chairman of the Finance Committee, Hans Dunshee, introduced a $30-license-tab bill and said he would co-sponsor the Republicans' version, too. "We need to carry out the will of the people," Dunshee said in an interview. "We're not gonna say `Gotcha on a technicality!"' During Senate debate on the $30-tab bill, Snyder called it "much, much too premature." Sen. Alex Deccio, R-Yakima, called it "almost a no-brainer" and Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, said it would violate the trust of the voters "to leave this judicial cloud over the will of the people." The GOP move failed on a party-line 27-18 vote. Shortly after the Senate Republicans got shot down, House Republican leaders called a news conference to announce bills to fully enact the entire initiative, regardless of what the high court does. Finance Co-Chairman Brian Thomas, R-Renton, conceded that it might take a constitutional amendment to satisfy the court's objections. Locke weighed in with his own news conference. The governor said the old car tax, based on a vehicle's age and value and costing many motorists hundreds of dollars to renew each year, was the state's most hated tax, and there's no turning back. "The voters voted very loudly and clearly in enacting 695," he said. "Despite the court's ruling today, we have no intention of returning to the old system of high license tab fees. The $30 (tabs) are here to stay." Locke sidestepped the question of whether he would agree to reimposing the public vote requirement. He repeatedly tried to draw a distinction between tax increases and the fees people pay for goods and services provided by public agencies.v "There is a difference between taxes and fees," he said. "I don't think the voters want every library fine or rental of a baseball field or every medical charge by a hospital to be submitted to a vote of the people ...

http://www.seattleinsider.com/news/2000/03/15/695.html

I-695 set the agenda, and totally redefined the political situation. We need to keep the heat on between now and the next election.

the craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 15, 2000

Answers

Kind of reminds me of the riddle:

What do you call it when a boat with 100 lawyers on it sinks with no survivors?

Ans: A good start.

But seriously (and that was a JOKE, oh hypersensitive barristers), Craig's right. We stand a good chance of winning at the legislature much of what the initiative would give us, and we can keep churning out initiative after initiative to keep the pressure up. I hope that the Supreme Court will see it in i-695s favor, but even if it doesn't, this has really improved the situation. The secret really will be to keep the pressure on the legislature and the King,....... excuse me, governor. It's Magna Carta time for the citizens.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

I see the anti-695 gloaters are staying away from this thread in droves.

Of course, that's probably because you're talking FACTS as usual, Craig.

If they aren't smart enough to figure out that they STILL come out on the losing end of this, I've little sympathy for them. Of course, I never did.

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 15, 2000.

Hmm, I seem to remember that most people on this board considered section 2 the most important part of 695. The odds of that part coming out of this experience alive are slim to none. This ain't exactly a victory for the pro-695 forces either.

In fact, with Eyman at the helm our entire system is tarnished, and EVERYBODY loses. He has no clue about constitutional law, and when that ignorance is highlighted by a court decision he is slick enough to convince way too many people that it isn't his ignorance at fault but the people who have actually pointed out his ignorance. Witness how many people here are threatening to revolt. They're all following Master Tim's lead in blaming a judge, but in reality they are all complaining about the constitution.

So if I-711 and 722 pass and are then struck down because they violate the single subject rule, we'll again have people's anger misdirected at the rule of law instead of the person who doesn't even comprehend what the rule of law is, but is really good at convincing others that he does.

You want to redefine the political situation, fine. But at least have the common sense to get a leader who has a clue about what the political situation is. Otherwise we all lose.

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

No Patrick-

You lose perhaps, we get half a loaf this time, half a loaf the next time, and we are pushing the political debate in the direction WE want it to go and that the politicians, special interest groups, and bureaucrats would rather it NOT go. It has been plain from all of your postings that you would have preferred the status quo, that I-695 would have not only lost, but never even gotten on the ballot. It got on the ballot, and it changed the political balance. Would I have liked the voter approval of taxes? SURE! But it is not a hopeless cause. The Republicans are pushing for it and the Democrats are in disarray. It may not pass this time, but we can keep the heat on and get another half a loaf if we are lucky. And we can do the same with the next initiative, and the NEXT initiative, and the one after that, ad infinitum. And we are better off today than we were a year ago, and if we keep it up, we'll be better off still a year from now. We know that, and you know that, or you wouldn't be trying so desperately to convince us that this was a waste of time because, frankly, you'd PREFER that we waste our time rather than being successful at reversing policies that you support.

So whistle past the graveyard all you want. Vilify Eyeman all you want. We gained ground and you lost ground and both you and we know it.

Our victory was half a loaf. Your victory in court was a Pyhrric victory. We're willing to keep these initiatives coming for the incremental victories until Hell freezes over. And as long as we are gaining half the ground, and your losing, we'll win in the e

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 16, 2000.

We're willing to keep these initiatives coming for the incremental victories until Hell freezes over. And as long as we are gaining half the ground, and you're losing, we'll win in the end!

Mike

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 16, 2000.

Transit won legal fight, may lose I-695's money war

Thursday, March 16, 2000

By ROBERT GAVIN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

OLYMPIA -- Transit workers and ferry riders who challenged Initiative 695 may get a legal victory, but they're unlikely to get what they really want: more money to support transit and ferries.

Even as the plaintiffs celebrated the sweeping Superior Court decision that struck down I-695 as unconstitutional, lawmakers made it clear that prospects for transit and ferries had hardly changed.

Lawmakers said they would soon enact a law that prevents re- imposition of motor vehicle excise tax and keeps $30 license tab fees in place. They added that they would continue to write a budget that provides only temporary help and makes up only part of the I-695 shortfall for transit and ferries.

In other words, transit workers and ferry riders may win the legal battle but lose the money war.

"That bothers me," said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, co-chair of the House Finance Committee, "and I don't have an easy answer."

Glen Travis, vice president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587, said union officials considered that the Legislature might step in to save $30 license tabs when they filed the first challenge to the law.

But they nonetheless hoped the legal victory would push lawmakers to find a way to maintain transit and other services affected by I-695, which blew a $750-million-a-year hold in the state budget.

"We're not saying we want (the MVET) restored exactly as is," Travis said. "We just want them (lawmakers) to give a responsible fix and solution, and recognize we all lose if our transit systems are devastated."

The irony of winning in court but losing politically represented the latest twist as the state and the Legislature continues to grapple with I-695, its effect and its meaning.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/init161.shtml

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 16, 2000.

And the beat goes on ...........

Thursday, March 16, 2000, 10:47 p.m. Pacific

Lawmakers bicker over next step on I-695

by Dionne Searcey Seattle Times Olympia bureau OLYMPIA - All the political wrangling over how best to respond to a King County Superior Court judge's ruling on Initiative 695 shut down the Legislature early yesterday amid bickering about what to do next.

Most lawmakers want drivers to keep paying just $30 for tabs. But voter approval for all tax and fee increases might be in jeopardy, unless the state Supreme Court reverses Tuesday's ruling declaring I- 695 unconstitutional.

The Legislature needs a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate to amend the state constitution to give voters referendum power over taxes. Yesterday, no one could agree on much of anything.

I-695, which passed in November, replaced pricey auto-license fees with $30 tabs and required a public vote on any tax and fee increase.

In his ruling, King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf permitted the $30 tabs to stay in place. He also ruled the referendum process set up by I-695 - requiring automatic votes on taxes and fees - was unconstitutional.

The case is being appealed.

In Olympia, lawmakers were already bickering over a budget plan to address $750 million a year in I-695-related cuts, a debate that has sent them into a special session.

"The court decision changes nothing. The car tabs won't rise under any circumstances. We should be focusing on the budget and going home," said Rep. Erik Poulsen, a Seattle Democrat.

"To say the decision has no impact! You wouldn't get an attorney to say that," countered Rep. Dave Mastin, R-Walla Walla. "You have to be concerned. A question has been raised."

"Big deal," Poulsen said.

Their disagreement embodies the biggest divide in the Capitol now. Some Democrats think the Legislature should wait to react. There's no rush, they say, because the $30 tabs are still valid. Republicans think lawmakers should immediately pass a bill to re-enact I-695.

Poulsen: "This is not the time to be wrestling over new bills. It's time to finish the budget and go home. You want to pander to (I-695 sponsor) Tim Eyman. We want to solve the budget and go home."

Mastin: "What was the vote across the state on I-695? It was 50 percent, 60 percent in some areas. It was overturned on a technicality. We're saying fix the technicality."

Yesterday some House Democrats privately said they might not want to preserve the $30 license fees, but were shushed by party leaders who believe failing to pass a law enacting $30 tabs would be political suicide.

Senate Democrats forced a meeting with Gov. Gary Locke and other lawmakers to be canceled because Locke wants immediate action on $30 tabs. They want to wait until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

House Republicans, meanwhile, are hammering out a bill that would let voters decide on tax increases but not on smaller, specific fee increases. They hope to have that measure ready today.

Eyman cautioned lawmakers about messing with his measure, saying that "any elected official who wants to guarantee re-election this fall" would be wise to re-enact the law in its entirety.

"If they think they can just give people 50 percent of what they were promised with 695 and think they're satisfied, obviously we're back to business as usual in Olympia," Eyman said.

-- Mark stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

Initiative 695 pulled over King County judge calls measure unconstitutional

Associated Press - Tim Eyman, who sponsored Initiative 695, rips up a sign in a Seattle courtroom Tuesday after a King County judge struck down the measure. Rebecca Cook - Associated Press Washington state's version of a tax revolt has been quashed -- at least for now. Initiative 695, approved by 54 percent of voters in November, was ruled unconstitutional Tuesday by a King County Superior Court judge. But state lawmakers immediately said they will push to enact all or part of the measure through legislation. The initiative repealed a value-based motor vehicle excise tax and replaced it with a $30 annual fee per vehicle. It also requires a public vote on all tax and fee increases. The fee for car tabs will remain $30, at least until the state Supreme Court rules on the case, likely in June. The public-vote requirement was struck down immediately. Judge Robert Alsdorf agreed with initiative opponents that the measure is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. He said it violates the state constitution's "single-subject rule" by dealing with two topics. The judge also said the referendum process set up by the initiative, requiring automatic votes on taxes and fees, is unconstitutional. After the ruling, Tim Eyman, the Mukilteo, Wash., watch salesman who sponsored the initiative, ripped up a red I-695 campaign sign in disgust and scattered the pieces across the courtroom. "I think today's ruling was despicable," he said. "It was abhorrent. It should give everyone shivers." But lawyer Mike Subit, who represented Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 in the challenge to I-695, said the ruling upholds the integrity of the initiative process. "The constitution won today," Subit said. "Judge Alsdorf courageously recognized that whatever the popular sentiment is, the constitution should be enforced." The state attorney general's office said it would appeal the ruling within a week. The decision touched off a flurry of activity in the state capital, with lawmakers rushing to declare their intent to maintain the $30 car tabs. "The voters were very clear that they do not like, they hated, the high license tab fees that existed in the state of Washington," Gov. Gary Locke said. "Despite the court's ruling, $30 license tabs are here to stay." Senate Republicans were the first to strike. Within minutes of hearing about Tuesday's ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf, they tried to ram through a long-dormant bill to enact the $30 fees as state law, as an end run around the court. Democrats, caught off guard and not wanting to give the minority Republicans the upper hand, voted down the GOP motion to bring the bill to an immediate vote. Democratic leaders said they wanted to wait until the state Supreme Court rules on the state's appeal of Alsdorf's ruling this summer before seeing whether any legislative fix is needed. Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, hinted later that the Democrats will come around, particularly given Locke's position. "Give us time to catch our breath," he said in an interview. "We haven't had a chance to read or analyze the decision." Still, he said it's quite possible the Legislature will end up enacting the $30 license tabs before adjourning the current special session. Republicans said they'll press for enactment of Part B of the initiative as well, to guarantee that voters get the final say on all state and local taxes and fees. Alsdorf's ruling refers to the Revolutionary War and the populist movement of the early 1900s. Quoting the cry of "No taxation without representation!" Alsdorf wrote, "Echoes of that revolutionary spirit are found in the passage of Initiative 695." But Alsdorf distinguished between representative democracy and direct democracy, and said I-695 broke the boundaries of the state constitution. Eyman bitterly challenged the judge's impartiality, saying, "We're in the heart of Seattle. This has a lot more to do with politics than it does the law." Senior Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Goltz, who defended I-695 for the state, said he believed Alsdorf was fair. "I think he made his best call on the law as he sees it," Goltz said. He said that despite Alsdorf's strong ruling against I-695, the initiative may yet prevail before the Supreme Court. Alsdorf ruled on arguments he heard from both sides last week. A variety of groups challenged the initiative. The transit union local filed its lawsuit on Nov. 18, just weeks after I-695's passage. The union local represents more than 3,500 transit workers in King, Clallam and Jefferson counties. The initiative tore a $750 million hole in the budgets of state and local programs, and hit transit programs especially hard. Bus routes have been cut and transit workers have lost jobs as a result. Agencies across Eastern Washington were forced to slash their budgets as a result. The Northeast Tri-County Health District eliminated many of its clinics in Stevens, Ferry and Pend Oreille counties, and the Spokane Public Library reduced its hours. Other Spokane-area officials warned that the initiative's voting provision could affect projects ranging from road improvements to sewer expansions. Lawsuits quickly followed from the Vashon-Maury Island Community Council; the city of Bainbridge Island; Tacoma Water, a division of the city utilities system; the Snohomish County Public Utility District; the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Longview and Whitman County; and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. By the end of the day, Eyman had identified a silver lining: he hoped the ruling would galvanize voter support for his two new initiatives, I-722, further limiting taxes, and I-711, focused on transportation. "It's 'Permanent Offense,' " he said in a telephone interview, quoting the name of his new political action committee. "The only way you lose is if you quit."

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

Once again, it doesn't look like the Amalgamated Transit Worker's Union is going to get much mileage out of their legal fees, even if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the Superior Court. And of course, they really do have to pay the price to actively defend their case in the Supreme Court, meaning they use up that much more of THEIR funds to fight a lost cause while using up that much more taxpayer funds which might otherwise be available to offset some of the revenue reductions caused by the MVET loss, sort of a "heads I lose, tails I lose too" situation. If you are on permanent offense and you only win half the time, you attrit the other side away. That's been happening for decades in the pro-big government direction. Now it looks like it may be reversing.

Judge's ruling puts STA budget in limbo Kristina Johnson - Staff writer Today was supposed to be decision day for Spokane Transit Authority board members faced with solving the budget crisis caused by Initiative 695. But after months of number crunching and public tumult about what services to cut, the future of I-695 is in question -- and so is the board's final decision. "So many things are up in the air," said STA spokeswoman Teresa Stueckle. "They could postpone the decision or go ahead with a 16percent cut." A King County Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that I-695 violated the state Constitution's "single subject rule." The initiative passed by voters last fall threw out the state's motor vehicle excise tax, replacing it with a $30 fee. It also required a public vote on any tax or fee increase. Revenue from motor vehicle excises taxes made up 40 percent of STA's operating budget. The transit agency initially planned to cut services by 20 percent for the next four years, using money from its reserves to balance its budgets. But the state recently sent STA $4.4 million in last year's motor vehicle excise taxes, and another $3.2 million is expected this spring. Transit officials drafted their 2000 budget without the dollars because they feared they wouldn't get them. The unexpected windfall means the board is considering a 16 percent cut as opposed to the original 20percent proposal. Now, I-695's uncertain future creates more uncertainty for STA, Stueckle said. She added that initiative supporters likely will take another run at voters if the Supreme Court upholds the Superior Court judge's decision. "Are we only postponing the inevitable?" she said. "We don't know." http://www.spokane.net/news- story.asp?date=031500&ID=s755273&cat=section.Spokane

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 16, 2000.

I for one, got far more satisfaction and indirect results from my contribution to the I-695 defense fund than I EVER did from hundreds of dollars in FORCED ATU dues, many of which were used contrary to my political beliefs.

Now let me see....which candidate or cause can I support next....Life is good!

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