My question is why he went to the trouble of actually withdrawing them. It seemed pretty obvious from the start that, as he did last year, he wasn't really going to try to collect signatures, but just filed them to the legislature to work out some legal concerns. Perhaps they're less legally sound that I first thought.

Eyman's group withdraws ballot proposals designed to limit taxes

Wednesday, December 13, 2000

By HUNTER T. GEORGE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- Permanent Offense is on temporary hold.

Mukilteo activist Tim Eyman notified state elections officials yesterday that he has withdrawn two ballot proposals designed to limit taxes.

The move came one day after an opposition group filed lawsuits challenging the measures' official ballot titles and descriptions written by the Attorney General's Office.

Eyman, who has parlayed his home-based activism into a policy group called Permanent Offense, said he pulled the measures because his critics clearly were attempting to "run out the clock" by keeping him tied up in court. He had until Dec. 29 to collect more than 179,000 signatures, but the measure was scheduled for a court hearing on Dec. 22, a day Eyman said was important to him.

"I don't want to be in court on my birthday," he said.

Eyman said he'll file the measures again in January.

Knoll Lowney, a Seattle lawyer leading a newly formed opposition group called Permanently Offended, said Eyman must have realized he could not defend his poorly written measures before a Thurston County judge.

"He's just so full of hot air," Lowney said, adding the group will be ready to challenge the measures again. The ballot titles and summaries failed to adequately describe the devastating financial impact Eyman's proposals would have on critical government programs, he said.

Eyman, who already has seen voters approve his proposals to curb affirmative action, cut taxes on automobile licenses and limit property taxes, filed the two latest proposals last month.

Initiative 251 would limit the growth of total state tax revenues to the rate of inflation, beginning with the year 2000, with the intent of encouraging the Legislature to reduce property taxes to stay within the limit.

I-252 would require voter approval for all future local government tax and fee increases and would restore such taxes and fees to their Jan. 1, 2000 levels, unless approved by voters.

The measures marked Eyman's attempt to bring back key elements of Initiative 695, his voter-approved tax-revolt measure of 1999 that was struck down by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Both were filed as initiatives to the legislature. That meant that Eyman had until Dec. 29 to get official ballot titles, print petitions and collect enough signatures to force state lawmakers to consider them in January.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 13, 2000

Answers

Eyeman is just one man. Obviously you are afraid of his initiatives, as you well should be. He will resubmit them and we will vote overwhelmingly to pass them again. I am already gathering signatures with glee. Everything is going according to Plan. BUSH WON! All you Democrats can KISS MY ASS!!!! The last presidential order clinton should do is: Call Uncle Jed and Jethro and have them take billy and plywood al, back to Waltons Mountain. Good Riddance!.!.!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 13, 2000.

This is just great. I now find myself in the position of agreeing with you. I-251 has a high probability of being unconstitutional, while I-252 is not very far behind.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

>>I am already gathering signatures with glee.<<

You're gathering signatures for initiatives that don't exist yet? That's a pretty neat trick.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 13, 2000.

Interesting comments Rolex, could you explain how everything is going according to plan? Despite the Bush victory, the US Senate is tied, the House is the closest in decades, the GOP in this state got pretty trashed, I-745 lost HUGE, I-722 is on death row, and there is a civil war going on in the state GOP party. No offense, but this is like Mike Holmgren saying that everything is going according to plan with the Seahawks right now.

Marsha, I'm not trying to keep our streak going, but I'm not completely convinced that these new initiatives ARE unconstitutional. I haven't taken a real good look at them, but given the ruling on 695 and what has been established by 601, they are in a completely different league from the previous Eyman initiatives. I'm sure that this has quite a bit to do with them hiring a lawyer who actually knows a thing or two about constitutional law.

I honestly have no clue why Eyman withdrew these two things. He never even made an effort to collect signatures, and it would have been nearly impossible to do so anyway given the time restraints. Besides, you don't need to withdraw them in order to stop collecting signatures. The only thing this does is prevent a court hearing on the ballot titles, which actually benefits the opposition. Had the court ruled on the titles in December, that would have removed any doubt about them when they were refiled next year. As it is now, if Eyman refiles them as initiatives to the public next Spring, they'll just be challenged again, and he'll lose quite a bit of valuable signature gathering time.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 13, 2000.

IC,

I'm just guessing here, but I think it may be due to lack of funds and a perceived declining interest.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

The reason the seahawks are losing is because they have two high school level, quarterbacks, who are playing at high school level. They both need to be replaced, NOW. Some quarterbacks blossom to professionals, in time. These two cannot take the pressure and will never amount to didly. Holmgren should use his bosses resources in securing an NFL seasoned Quarterback. These two losers they have now will only continue to fail.

Bush won. That is the IMPORTANT thing.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 13, 2000.

Let me first say: Mathew must be an idiot or a moron with his idiotic, moronic, replies to my posts. Or maybe he is just a Democrat. If this is the case, you have my pity. Now grow up and read between the lines. Secondly,: Bush's Republican VALUES, are what matters now. NO more free Welfare, No more trying to steal our guns, No more rights for deviant freaks. I hope the Baldins are enjoying their stay out of the country, and I hope they do not make any more bad movies with their serious lack of acting skill, they posess. Now if anyone has any REAL OPINIONS, instead of nitpicking my spelling of , "isle"; I would love to hear them.

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

Rolex,

I think you may be in for a big letdown. Regardless of the partisan bickering in this forum, neither side is representing the will of the people. George Bush has promised both sides he intends to end the bickering and get some things accomplished. You and many in the Republican party will not be happy with the results.

IC,

The State of Washington is a little slow on the uptake. Once a clear division is apparent to the voters, they will demand moderation, and if your party wants to remain the majority, they will need to move their liberal butts to the center.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 14, 2000.

My God, here I am agreeing with Marsha again.

It would be suicidal for Bush to take on a right wing stance. On the other hand, even if he did, he wouldn't be able to implement it. Given the make up of the Congress, the major policy battles are going to happen there, not between Congress and the President like it's been the last 6 years. I expect a very similar tone from Congress that happened in the WA Legislature the last two years. Quite a bit of rancor, but very tame legislation spit out. Legislatively, there will probably be very little difference in a Bush administration than had there been a Gore administration.

I do disagree that the Democrats still need to move over from the left. They learned that lesson in 1994, just as the GOP learned it in 1996 and got a follow up in 1998. You don't see the calls for universal health care or gay rights as much from the Democrats any more than you see calls to end abortion or eliminate the US Department of Education from Republicans now. In the 90's, both sides had huge landslides, took it as a mandate to pass their entire platform, and then saw the public punish them in the next election for going too far. As a result I think the use of initiatives over the last few years has been the outlet for both the left and right as their respective parties have scrambled to the center.

Rolex, unless you were refering to another thread, you probably should owe Matthew an appology. He didn't zing you on the signature thing, BB did. A little friendly advice, as Marsha said, you're very passionate about your views, but in my opinion you have a tendency to go off half cocked. You say something that is rather out there and has a number of errors in it, and then you spend the next several days telling people to read between your lines. Now we've all been guilty of being less than clear with our thoughts, but when you say things like you're collecting signatures for things that clearly don't exist and then attack a person who hasn't even posted on this thread, you're not exactly making a case for yourself. Again, it's just a friendly suggestion to reflect on what has been said before you decide to respond.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 14, 2000.

My last post refers to you also, mr uninformed. Keep your condenscending attitude, and I will stick to the facts. WE are gathering signatures for next year. Eyemans new initiatives will be on next years ballot as sure as the sun will rise tommorrow. I think you owe me an apology for your nitpicking. It is really annoying. If you have an opinion, state it. Do not belittle others because they speak the truth and you cannot handle the truth.

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

Rolex I wasn't being condescending.

A) If you are collecting signatures for these latest initiatives you're wasting your time. You can't collect signatures for an initiative that doesn't exist even if you're positive that they'll be introduced next year. They'll be invalid, that's a fact.

B) You attacked the wrong person. Heck, I don't care if you decide to attack me, but again, in all fairness, Matthew hasn't even mentioned a word in this thread, so attacking him for clearly not saying anything is uncalled for.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 14, 2000.

"so attacking him for clearly not saying anything is uncalled for. "

On the other hand, it won't hurt anything either. Matthew, like most individuals with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, has OUTSTANDING ego defenses.

Criticism rolls off of him like water off a duck's back. No way will he EVER hold anyone (else) in high enough esteem to have his feelings hurt by them.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 14, 2000.

IC,

This is getting boring, can't we find something to argue about? How about abortion or the death penalty?

Let's not allow a finalized presidential election, a couple of drippy speeches and the withdrawl of a few initiatives to interfere with our disagreemnts!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 14, 2000.