I told you so. 8-1, Sanders dissenting.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/gotoArticle?zsection_id=268448480&text_only=0&slug=scow26i&document_id=134242343

Thursday, October 26, 2000, 09:44 a.m. Pacific

State Supreme Court declares I-695 unconstitutional

Background, Related Info & Multimedia:

by The Associated Press

OLYMPIA - The Washington state Supreme Court has struck down Initiative 695, the tax-cutting measure approved by voters last year. In an 8-1 ruling today, the court held that the initiative approved by 56 percent of voters violated the state constitution.

Organized by Tim Eyman, the initiative eliminated the value-based motor vehicle excise tax, saving many motorists hundreds of dollars a year, and replaced it with a $30 fee. The initiative also required voter approval of all future tax and fee increases by state and local governments.

Eyman appealed a March ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf, who sided with transit unions and other groups that filed lawsuits last fall challenging the measure.

Alsdorf said I-695 violated the constitution's "single-subject rule" by dealing with two topics. The judge also said the voter-approval requirement regarding future tax increases was unconstitutional because it violated the spirit of "representative democracy," in which voters delegate authority to elected legislators.

Regardless of the court decision, the $30 car tabs are here to stay. The Legislature and Gov. Gary Locke, acknowledging voter outrage over a tax widely considered unfair, rushed to approve legislation making the cut permanent, even though it eliminated $750 million in annual tax revenues and resulted in painful budget cuts.

I-695 also served to make Eyman, who runs a mail-order fraternity and sorority watch business from his Mukilteo home, a political force in Organized by Tim Eyman, the initiative eliminated the value-based motor vehicle excise tax, saving many motorists hundreds of dollars a year, and replaced it with a $30 fee. The initiative also required voter approval of all future tax and fee increases by state and local governments. Eyman appealed a March ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf, who sided with transit unions and other groups that filed lawsuits last fall challenging the measure. Alsdorf said I-695 violated the constitution's ``single-subject rule'' by dealing with two topics. The judge also said the voter-approval requirement regarding future tax increases was unconstitutional because it violated the spirit of ``representative democracy,'' in which voters delegate authority to elected legislators. Regardless of the court decision, the $30 car tabs are here to stay. The Legislature and Gov. Gary Locke, acknowledging voter outrage over a tax widely considered unfair, rushed to approve legislation making the cut permanent, even though it eliminated $750 million in annual tax revenues and resulted in painful budget cuts. I-695 also served to make Eyman, who runs a mail-order fraternity and sorority watch business from his Mukilteo home, a political force in Washington.

Backed by a loyal band of thousands, he is back this year with an organization called "Permanent Offense" and two initiatives on the upcoming Nov. 7 ballot.

I-722, dubbed "Son of 695," would limit property tax increases and roll back tax increases imposed last year before I-695 took effect. I-745 would alter state transportation policy to focus most spending on roads instead of transit.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000

Answers

HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, Justice has finally arived. How much do you sappose this poorly written piece of crap has cost the tax payers? Tim Pie in the Eyeman should have to pay the bill.

One more thing, LIKE FATHER LIKE SON. like 695, both 745 and amend state law by referring to them, and 722 also has multiple issues. Both will be found unconstitutional if they pass. Why not force TE to write something worthwhile and able to stand a court challenge. Oh there he is on TV promissing another one. I sapose you'll believe him again when he tells you that his quack.. I mean crack research team has given his new initiative(s) a constitutional test.

-- informed citizen #2 (ic@ic.net), October 26, 2000.

ya like the taste of that, I've got my little black pen ready to mark yes on a few more, and I'm half tempted to start up a few of my own....gee this is fun. If I can't get my elected reps to give me, the tax relief I want, and I can't get the State Supreme Court to let thru an initiative, maybe I can make it so expensive, Ole Gary will give it to me anyway (gee thanks for the break on tabs, ...like you had a choice..)....power to the people, isn't democracy fun...:)

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

>>If I can't get my elected reps to give me, the tax relief I want, and I can't get the State Supreme Court to let thru an initiative, maybe I can make it so expensive, Ole Gary will give it to me anyway<<

Let me get this straight: you want to force the government to waste tax money to defend unconstitutional initiatives and this will somehow give you tax relief?

Frankly, I'm angry that Eyman & Co. have forced the state AG's office to waste so much money on legislation that never would have even gotten out of committee in the legislature because it was so poorly written. If 722 or 745 pass, we'll go through the same thing again, and they'll both be thrown out after the AG's office is forced to waste a bunch of money on their defense.

So much for for the idea that Eyman & Co. want to get rid of wasteful government spending. I'd tell them that their energies would be better spent on attempting to get themselves elected, but Monte already got blown out of the water in the primary.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 27, 2000.

Doesn't the attorney general of the state or some other high official ,have to approve the wording of the initiative before it can get on the ballot? Who screens these initiatives before forwarding them on to the voters? The supreme court can invalidate 695, but it cannot invalidate the 750,000 washington voters who voted for it and who knew exactly what they were voting for. Let the governor and the politicians raise taxes without our vote. Let us see what happens next November. Hell Hath no Fury Like a Washington state Voter Scorned.....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 28, 2000.

Here it is straight....you can listen to the 3/4 of a million voters, or ignore them at your peril. If legislation or leadership is not forthcoming from Olympia, you can be assured the initiatives will flow. Oh, and yes....just payed my tabs, and low and behold they are lower than last time, I believe that qualifies as tax relief.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 28, 2000.

>>Doesn't the attorney general of the state or some other high official ,have to approve the wording of the initiative before it can get on the ballot?<<

No. The title of an initiative is reviewed, but there is no check of its constitutionality before it is placed on the ballot. The assumption is that since a majority of initiatives don't pass, it would be a waste of time and money to review the constitutionality of all of them. The other assumption is that the writers of intiatives know what they are doing and will write good legislation, which clearly is not the case with Eyman & Co.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 28, 2000.

Rolex and no chance,

Ignore 750,000 voters? The legislature and local governments won't do that. The issue you need to come to grips with is that your vision of direct democracy on tax matters has been declared unconstitutional. It was not just thrown out because it had two subjects. It was also thrown out because the concept of a requirement of a vote on all tax measures is effectively a Referendum without the required petition, in violation of the state constitution. Read the decision. Eyman can't just reword 695 as one subject and fix the problems. The concept is unconstitutional. Wake up, and start working within the constitutional rules - and work within the Legislature as the system is intended.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

If the concept is unconstitutional, then the initiative process has no power to change things in Olympia. A representative democracy works only if the elected officials, respresent the electorate. Clearly, our representatives take care of themselves and their pocketbooks long before they care about what the huddled peasantry of Washington state want. 750,000 of us have spoken on 695. Our vote and our meaning are clear and concise. I will be very interested to see the change in Olympia after the election. Will the Republicans take over and straighten things out, or will the Democrats promise and promise reform, and then deliver nothing.... We shall see.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 29, 2000.

Ah, but if the system worked as it was intended, would there be any need for an initiative..? Witness what it took to get something......anything done, about what had to be one of the most hated taxes in this state...I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but isn't it the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. It took a long time to get the system set up the way it is, I've read enough of your posts to know even you have to admit, that for the kind of change " we " are looking for, its going to take more than a few newly elected reps. I maintain my earlier statement, I'd would rather pass initiative after, initiative..putting more and more pressure on Olympia. Even being declared unconstitutional, there has been more talk of cutting taxes than ever before. So go ahead take each one to court, I hope they do, as each one falls more will take its place..how loud does the screaming have to get, as I said...ignore them at your peril. By the way the initiative process IS my constututional protected way of playing by the rules...is it the process that bothers you, or is it the message?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

You have read my mind, chance. We are on the same page here. I believe that there will be more and more initiatives put to the voters and in time, the sponsors will learn to write them so they will pass constitutional muster. I also believe Olympia knows this and might try and pass some obscure law to curb initiatives. There is nothing worse to a politician, than interrupting their cash flow, (except curtailing their power). I will be interested to see exactly how many votes 722 and 745 gets.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 30, 2000.

You missed the point. Initiatives can change things. They just can't change the contitution. A requirement that the people must vote on tax increases was found to be a violation of the constitution.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

ok...it doesn't make much sense though, and it puts us back at square one. Instead of giving us the ability to make small changes at the ballot box, we are forced to make large changes by initiative. Leaving whats constitutional aside for a moment, whats the difference between saying no to a tax increase, and removing it by initiative, the effect is the same..I did notice that 2 of the justices are retiring maybe who fills there spots should be our next focus...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

no chance,

I think the issue was that you CAN remove a (one) tax by initiative, but you can't transfer legislative responsibility for taxation (all) defined by the constitution. A referendum on any legislative action, like approval of a tax or fee, requires a petition.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

then it sounds like the initiative is the only other alternative, if your elected reps don't get the hint. Yes most citizens don't write them often enough, if ever at all, but if that is our only other recourse...well.....ya get what ya get. I wouldn't underestimate some people resolve to cut off their nose to spite their face. If the only tool you can have to trim the rose bush is a chainsaw, don't be suprised if takes a big bite...:)

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.