Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander announced today that he is running for re-election.
Alexander is behind the most appalling recent rulings that have transferred unprecedented power from the people to the government: upholding the "emergency" baseball stadium that the voters didn't want, effectively erasing the constitutional right to referendum, gutting the Public Disclosure Act in Hangartner, upholding Sound Transit's prerogative to disregard the will of the voters in Sane Transit. In a nutshell, the man is not about justice. He is out of control, a threat to our constitutional rights and should be tossed off the bench.
Alexander's biography suggests part of his problem:
Chief Justice Alexander has served on the Supreme Court since 1995. Before being elected to that court Alexander served as a judge of the Court of Appeals for ten years. His service at the Court of Appeals followed an 11-year tenure on the Superior Court for Thurston and Mason counties.The fellow hasn't worked anywhere but inside a courtroom for the last 32 years. His disassociation from the world of ordinary working people is evident in his arrogant and nonsensical rulings. It's time to give a turn on the bench to somebody new, who has a broader range of experience, a fresh perspective, and respect for the Constitutional principle that political power is inherent in the people, not the government. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 11, 2006 10:51 AM | Email This
This guy's a danger to freedom.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 11, 2006 12:02 PMOh and for the record, I second your comments.
Posted by: Jamie on January 11, 2006 12:22 PMUntil he gets replaced, this court is apparently out to follow the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (in their case schlameals) - the out of control loony, activist judges who were unfortunately appointed to that responsible position. Wake up people before its too late before our freedoms keep eroding away and vote Alexander outta there.
Posted by: KS on January 11, 2006 12:35 PMI want somebody who lets law-making be done by the people and the people's duly elected representatives.
Let's see who opposes that "somebody"... hmmm, why do I think Horse-poop would?
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 11, 2006 12:38 PMSports teams are businesses just like coffee shops. They should pay for their own facilities.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 11, 2006 02:02 PMThe Mariners then went on their miracle run later that summer, and every dog and his mother was screaming at the Legislature to pass a bill which would finance a stadium or else "The Mariners will leave and I'll hate all of you forever!!!" And worse.
The Legislature passed a bucket full of financing measures - such as a regional tax on bars and restaurants, car rental tax, lottery tickets, license plates and no sales tax on the construction materials. A GOP House, a D Senate and D governor passed the bill in a Special Session during that year's playoff run.
I am not defending the decision by Alexander, nor am I defending what the Legislature did. However, I guarantee many of those who scream about the stadium now were the very same people who threw temper tantrums at the mere thought of the state not "Saving the Mariners."
For those who may get the issue confused, the Seahawks Stadium financing plan went before the voters (state-wide) and was narrowly approved. Large Insurance Company Field was never put before the voters, and any financing package for a baseball stadium only went before King Co. voters.
Yes, Alexander needs to go, but he needs opposition.
Posted by: jimg on January 11, 2006 02:13 PMThe fellow hasn't worked anywhere but inside a courtroom for the last 32 years. His disassociation from the world of ordinary working people is evident in his arrogant and nonsensical rulings.....
Sounds Republican to me, particularly the second sentence. But at least you are not talking about an imaginary conspiracy theory regarding a few questionable addresses.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 11, 2006 02:34 PMIt's all in your head, I assure you.
In other words, you don't make much of an argument by simply projecting your own beliefs about your political opposition.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2006 02:39 PMSo people like Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, et al...
those are the type that are really in touch with every day people? Sounds like you need to up your dose a bit.
jimg - that what I said, it was a KC (King County) vote.
Democrats support subsidized sports as much if not more than Repubs, which is a bunch of crap. Gary Locke and Patty Murray helped spearheaded the effort to build Safeco Field. Name any prominent Democrats in this state opposed the subsidized stadium.
Posted by: KS on January 11, 2006 04:45 PMTo my knowledge, those who knew and let it proceed were never prosecuted.
Check it out (use Google), and then tell all of us that stadium financing is a more important reason to de-elect than the State paying the Kiwanis to run a rape room for troubled boys a la Saddam.
Posted by: platypus on January 11, 2006 07:44 PMGerry Alexander was heavily involved with the Olympia Kiwanas Club at that time.
Alexander will not be on the bench by the time the election takes place.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2006 10:04 PMYou folks are nothing but a lynch mob, led by an increasingly unstable and disingenuous blogger. You're willing to throw your own conservative brethren to the wolves just because your spokesman puts up a post on his web-site.
Calm down and do a little more objective research before you light your torches and grab your pitchforks.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on January 11, 2006 10:43 PMEspecially if she doesn't wind up State Chair, that would be great.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on January 11, 2006 11:30 PMJust a thought
Posted by: Arky on January 12, 2006 04:42 AMAnd while I'm at it, also note his cowardly refusal several years earlier to even rule on the challenge to that same "alleged illegal subdivision application" when it found its way to the Supreme Court after years of similar refusals to rule on it in superior and appellate courts.
Posted by: MJC on January 12, 2006 06:37 AMhttp://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=760365MAJ
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=760365DI1
This is the Sheehan opinion. It was issued on Nov. 10, 2005.
Two vehicle owners sued Sound Transit and Seattle Monorail Project, claiming that the car tab taxes they are imposing are illegal. If the vehicle owners had prevailed, it would have meant refunds. ST would have had to disgorge to the taxpayers three years of the car tab taxes it collected, and the proceeds of the sales of SMP’s properties would have gone to taxpayers, not B of A.
The primary claim in the case is that when the legislature specified “excise” taxes in the two authorizing statutes, the type of excise tax that HAD to be implemented by these two local governments would be like a sales tax. An example of a proper excise tax under these grants would be a nickel a mile tax, up to the dollar limits spelled out in the statutes (.8% of vehicle value for ST, and 2.5% of vehicle value for SMP).
Copied below is a part of the briefing in the Supreme Court where the vehicle owners set out their claim that ST and SMP implemented the wrong kind of excise tax.
Instead of analyzing that claim, the Court completely ignores it. Far worse, the Court affirmatively misstates what the vehicle owners argue:
--- “Appellants appear to conclude that Sound Transit may collect an MVET up to 0.3 percent annually but only until such taxation on a given vehicle reaches a sum total of 0.8 percent . . ..”
--- “If, as Appellants maintain, the legislature authorized taxes that are based purely on the value of a vehicle . . ..”
Each of those two quoted excerpts from the majority opinion falsely asserts the vehicle owners argue a value-based tax would be legal. The portion of the briefing below shows the actual claim, which is that a mileage-based tax would be legal. A mileage-based tax has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the vehicle. At no point in this case did the vehicle owners ever argue anything remotely like “the legislature authorized taxes that are based purely on the value of a vehicle.”
One of the reasons it is clear that the legislature was authorizing an excise tax like a sales tax, and not an excise tax like the former state MVET (or like the camper/trailer licensing tax, or the annual watercraft registration tax), is that no companion statute specifies that taxes implemented under the two tax grant statutes ST and SMP are relying on must be paid as a condition of DOL’s issuance of car tabs. In contrast, the three property licensing excise taxes referenced in the sentence above all are specified in statutes as taxes that have to be paid annually when a vehicle (or camper or boat) is registered.
Here is a link to a new bill that is in part designed to cover up this obvious inadequacy, SB 6247:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6247.pdf
SB 6247 would change several statutes relating to car tab taxes. Sections 3 and 5 of SB 6247 would add the exact language that the vehicle owners in the Sheehan case claim is missing from the tax grants ST and SMP are relying on. Specifically, those two sections would for the first time create statutory authority for taxes implemented under the two tax grants that ST and SMP rely on to be imposed annually as a condition of vehicle licensing by DOL.
The following is a five-page excerpt from the briefing filed in the Supreme Court by the vehicle owners. The Sheehan opinion makes absolutely no reference to this claim, which is central to why these taxes had to be challenged.
--------
--------
CPSRTA and SPMA Implemented the Wrong Kind of Tax.
The tax granting language CPSRTA and SPMA rely on comes from (former) RCW 81.104.160(1) and RCW 35.95A.080(1). Implementing a tax under those two excise tax grants requires voter approval. When the proposed ordinances that would go on the ballots were being drafted, the State's former vehicle licensing tax was used as the model. The tax incidents of the CPSRTA and SPMA taxes were designed to closely resemble those of that State tax.
The implementing processes utilized by both CPSRTA and SPMA were flawed. The State's vehicle licensing tax was an inappropriate template. A tax of a different type should have been employed as the model.
The Legislature has named distinct types of taxes excise taxes. One type is comprised of the State's own personal property licensing levies. In addition to the former motor vehicle licensing tax, two others are the watercraft registration levy (from RCW Ch. 82.49), and the former camper registration levy (from RCW Ch. 82.50). The State retains basically all its plenary authority over conditioning the use of its roads and waterways. It requires the annual registration of motor vehicles and watercraft for legal operation of those kinds of personal property. These three taxes are specified by statutes as annual charges that are measured by property value. Each must be paid in exchange for the future availability of public ways. RCW 82.49.030(1) provides: “The excise tax imposed under this chapter is due and payable to the department of licensing or its agents at the time of registration of a vessel. The department of licensing shall not issue or renew a registration for a vessel until the tax is paid in full.” This statute establishes the legal nature of the RCW Ch. 82.49 levy as a licensing tax: paying it is a condition precedent to licensure by the State.
The State tax CPSRTA and SPMA used as their model also is that type of licensing tax. A statute expressly establishes registering a motor vehicle as the taxing event, and payment of that tax is specified as a condition precedent to licensure. RCW 82.44.060 (enacted as Laws 1937 ch 228 sec 5 (CP 296)).
A completely different type of tax than those three is the excise tax defined in Arborwood Idaho, L.L.C. v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 89 P.3d 217 (2004) at 367. Seven examples of this type of tax are validated in the cases identified in the Brief of Appellants, on pages 17-18. The taxing events triggering these are voluntary underlying transactions. This type of tax comes due in an amount that depends on the size of some undertaking the taxpayer actually engaged in. For example, using less utility service or selecting a lower-priced item to purchase at retail would result in a lower tax bill. Avoiding this type of tax does not result in property use becoming illegal in short order.
These two types of taxes can be distinguished in material respects, so they have different legal natures and characters. P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 83 Wn.2d 586, 521 P.2d 208 (1974).
CPSRTA and SPMA claim their tax grants authorize a tax with characteristics like those of the State's former vehicle licensing tax. If that interpretation of excise tax in the two grants is deemed reasonable, an ambiguity would exist because excise taxes of the type defined in the Arborwood Idaho case could have been implemented under both of those statutes. An ambiguity arises when a term is fairly susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations. Budget Rent A Car Corp. v. Dep't of Licensing, 144 Wn.2d 889, 900, 31 P.3d 1174 (2001). Any ambiguity about which type of excise tax the Legislature intended to authorize must be strictly construed in the taxpayer's favor. Budget Rent A Car Corp., supra. at 901; Arborwood Idaho, supra. at 367.
Implementation of an excise tax of the type defined in the Arborwood Idaho case would have been considerably more favorable to vehicle owners. If the taxing event was driving a mile (for example), the tax amount could be reduced by driving the vehicle less. In addition, the capping language in the statutes would have been applied in a more favorable manner. The percentage figures specified would have been applied as aggregate per-vehicle tax payment limits. Affidavits from CPSRTA and SPMA explain that their revenue projections would be significantly lower if the capping percentages were applied as limits on how much tax an owner pays in total for a vehicle. CP 341, para. 5 and CP 339, para. 5. Such a voluntary tax also would be more favorable to vehicle owners because avoiding it would not result in driving becoming illegal.
---------
What happened to Witz?
Not surprised are you?
It's pretty clear that Seattle and King County either do not believe in Constitutions, or they simply have no idea what one is and the concept behind it.
Posted by: BananaLand on January 12, 2006 06:52 PMNo, I'm not surprised. And honestly, I think it was a very fair question. I only started following state and local politics in the last 18 months or so, so I honestly would like to hear both sides of the issue. That said, I suspected there really weren't two sides of the issue when it came to Witz. There was one side of the issue and gainful naysaying.
Posted by: Marc on January 12, 2006 08:18 PMLet's keep something in mind, people. The primary source of financing for Safeco Field comes from revenue bonds--bonds that are paid for by user fees. That is why the beer and other concessions cost so much. The stadium is NOT paid for by general obligation bonds--bonds backed by the taxing authority of the state or the PFD.
Posted by: DevilDog on January 12, 2006 08:26 PMI will pay you back on my revenues, minus a heck of a lot of profit and bloated salaries from my employees. And I promise that I will pay you back, whereas, there still is debt on the Kingdome, in thirty years.
Say 3% financing. You will benefit because my research will allow you to live an extra 20 years. Not a bad tradeoff, is it?
Posted by: swatter on January 13, 2006 10:01 AM