Well it appears that after about 48 hours of rantings about storming the castle, having a tea party, and burning the judge in effigy that things are starting to calm down.

For those that are interested in discussing whether or not the ruling issued by the judge is legally sound, I'd invite you to visit the thread titled "Has Anyone Read the Judge's Ruling?" http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002mWS

Like it or not, the ultimate decision made by the Supreme Court will NOT be based on arguments like: the judge was politically motivated or this overturns the people's decision, but by questions like: does this really violate the single subject law or does it attempt to amend the constitution.

You can personally attack the judge and question his motivation all you like, but unless you can crack into his ruling I-695 won't have a prayer in June.

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

Answers

It seems to me that I-695's standing referendum without signature gathering is absolutely impossible to accomplish without a constitutional amendment. Could the Constitution have been more clear on this point? Judge Alsdorf's decision will be affirmed.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 16, 2000.

"It seems to me that I-695's standing referendum without signature gathering is absolutely impossible to accomplish without a constitutional amendment. Could the Constitution have been more clear on this point? Judge Alsdorf's decision will be affirmed. " But couldn't the same argument be made for 601, which DID withstand Supreme Court scrutiny?

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

Craig asks:

"But couldn't the same argument be made for 601, which DID withstand Supreme Court scrutiny?"

I-601 was worded slightly differently. Section 4, subsection 2(a) reads in part:

"If the legislative action under subsection (1) of this section will result in EXPENDITURES in excess of the state expenditure limit, then the action of the legislature shall not take effect until approved by a vote of the people at a November general election..."

The people vote to approve excess expenditures, not to approve new taxes. It a subtle difference, but a difference none the less.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), March 16, 2000.

We, the people, voted overwhelmingly for 695. It is Law. Thats it. No more discussion. Let the Democrat judge overturn the will of the people. In November, we will overturn all Democrats in Olympia.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), March 16, 2000.

We the people passed the state constitution well before I-695. It is THE law. It doesn't matter how many people voted for something. If it conflicts with the constitution, it is NOT a law. That's it. End of discussion.

And does anyone know if this judge actually IS a Democrat? I haven't seen anything that mentions his political affiliation. This wouldn't be an assertion based simply on the fact that he overturned 695 would it? That carries about as much weight as someone saying that I-695 is constitutional because the people passed it.

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

Politics, politics. Democrats and Republicans. The will of the people, etc., etc. Bottom line is I-695 was destroyed because Timmy, the "petulant child" that he showed after the Judges' ruling, did not do his homework like a good citizen would have. The $30 auto tax is here to stay by the will of the people. But the door is now open to "reinstitute" the personal property tax, little by little to deal with the transportation problem that this area suffers in. It really seems as though our "good for all" society is going back to "what is good for me" not "good for all". Timmy is showing his true colors and all, even his supporters, will see what he truly is, as he continues to attack whomever he feels is against "him". Watch him, hear him, it is all about "him" and not what is truly good for Washington, or our poor transportation infrastructure which has to be dealt with, like it or not. I am thoroughly enjoying Timmy articles in the paper, radio and other means.

-- Bob (pavlichwheeler@uswest.net), March 16, 2000.

Craig, your observation concerning I-601 is a valid comparison. Do you know whether the pro-695 lawyers argued the 601 ruling was precedent for the 695 case? On first blush, it seems like a decent argument. I'll have to read the Court's decision on 601 at some point.

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

"Craig, your observation concerning I-601 is a valid comparison. Do you know whether the pro-695 lawyers argued the 601 ruling was precedent for the 695 case? On first blush, it seems like a decent argument. I'll have to read the Court's decision on 601 at some point. " No I don't. Rationally, I could see how it might be interpreted that NEITHER initiative was constitutional, or that BOTH were, but one IS and one ISN'T is a little hard to understand, notwithstanding Curious George's attempt to split hairs.

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

"Rationally, I could see how it might be interpreted that NEITHER initiative was constitutional, or that BOTH were, but one IS and one ISN'T is a little hard to understand, notwithstanding Curious George's attempt to split hairs."

It's not an attempt to split hairs, it's constitutional reality. I- 601 dealt with an expendature limit, I-695 dealt with a taxing limit. The constitution states that the power of taxation can't be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away, which means that if you want to limit taxing power (supermajority for levies, 1% limit, etc.) you've GOT to do it by constitutional amendment. I-601 doesn't limit the amount of money the state can bring in, but it does limit the amount of money that the state can spend. Since the constitution is silent on the legislature's expendature authority, I-601 was found to not contradict the constitution.

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