From: Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, and Tim Eyman, co-sponsors of Initiative 1053 which reinstates the 2/3's vote requirement for the Legislature to raise taxes
Times are tough for everyone. After paying for mortgage/rent, vehicle costs, food, and other family expenses, it's difficult to find 'extra money' to support political efforts, like our initiatives, that move our state in a more pro-freedom, pro-reform, pro-taxpayer direction. We understand that. So as donations were coming in for I-1053's signature drive, it became increasingly apparent that they weren't coming in at a pace that would have allowed the signature drive to be successful. But there was absolutely no way that we were going to let Olympia get away with repealing the 2/3's vote requirement for tax hikes without an aggressive, effective response. Failure wasn't an option. The success of I-1053 was critical to illustrate to politicians that undoing our initiative would only result in a large number of them being voted out of office and an immediate replacement initiative reenacting the exact same policy. I-1053's success was essential and we couldn't let this opportunity pass us by.
So, from May through June, Tim accessed his bank's line of credit, secured by a 2nd mortgage on his home, and loaned the signature drive for I-1053 a total of $250,000 ($50,000 in April, $40,000 in May, $70,000 in early June and $90,000 in late June). This was, by no means, our first choice. But given the difficulty of our supporters to donate to our initiative during these tough economic times, it was the only way we could ensure the success of I-1053.
Opponents often attack the three of us for asking for support because they claim we don't do anything to earn it. We hope that I-1053's successful signature drive gives each of you 250,000 reasons to support us.
The people are being forced to pass this again and again because Olympia keeps refusing to abide by this voter-approved law. Voters have approved the two-thirds requirement three times - let's make it four with I-1053.
Let's bring back the protection Olympia took away and hold them accountable for your tax dollars - vote YES on Initiative 1053 in November.
425-493-8707, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com, tim_eyman@comcast.net
Posted by Tim Eyman at August 28, 2010 04:25 PM | Email ThisI am sending a small donation today. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Jack on August 29, 2010 06:51 AMThe Washington State Constitution is very clear on this issue. Article II, Section 22 states that
"PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.
Further, it says:
Article I, SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
And more yet:
Article VII, Section 1 declares:
TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away.
I-1053 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by any one of these measures. let alone all three. Is THAT "unintelligible" enough for you?
Posted by: ivan on August 29, 2010 09:00 AMThe Constitution only creates minimum standards for voting on legislation and nothing prevents the people from creating extra requirements by initiative.
The state Attorney General makes clear that the language of the Constitution prohibits bills from passing with less than a majority, but does not prevent the possibility of additional supermajority requirements. A bill that receives a two-thirds vote also receives a simple majority vote and meets the minimal threshold requirements in the constitution.
Opponents claim a supermajority for tax increases is unconstitutional but fail to make the same claim on the various rules adopted by the Senate that require a supermajority such as:
-Rule 35 requires a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules.
-Rule 56 requires a two-thirds vote to introduce bills after the cutoff date.
-Rule 69 permits executive sessions of committees for confirmation appointment hearings with a two-thirds vote.
If lawmakers are able to place additional restrictions on the passage of legislation using their constitutional authority, so too can the people.
Let's never forget what the Constitution says:
Article I, Section 1: "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"
and Article II, Section 2: "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature ... but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature"
Posted by: Tim Eyman on August 29, 2010 09:17 AMBe sure to ask the rubes for more money while you're at it.
Posted by: ivan on August 29, 2010 09:23 AMThey are telling their legislators that they do not give their consent for taxes to be raised by a simple majority.
Ivan's argument is that once a government has been established, the people exercising their Article I and II rights is unconstitutional.
When the people vote several times over several years to rein in the taxation of the state, and the elected representatives consistantly ignore them, do we still have a Constitutional Republic?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 09:53 AMApparently the time-honored concept of judicial review escapes you. I suggest you study up on separation of powers.
Posted by: ivan on August 29, 2010 11:25 AMAnd I'm a little confused, not being the great legal mind you obviously are. You addressed the whole senate rules being different from other laws but what about the people's right to initiative? Why is that unconstitutional?
Posted by: WFP on August 29, 2010 11:48 AMWhy should I study any harder than you? What court cases ruled that 50 +1 was absolutely the only requirement for the legislature to pass a law - after it makes it through the political jungle of committees, studies, and house or senate rules, some of which require super majority votes?
It is perfectly clear the Constitution sets a requirement that a law can't be passed unless it has 50 +1. It says nothing about prohibiting laws from requiring more, meaning that this choice is left to the people.
Why were school levies allowed to have a 60 +1 majority? Who passed the law to make levies 60 +1? Why didn't judicial review can them years ago? Why did the people get to vote on them?
Perhaps because it wasn't unConstitutional, but, instead, it was something for the people to decide?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 11:56 AMOr does that matter to you?
Have you tried Activia? It really CAN make you regular.
Posted by: It Sucks to be a dimicrat. on August 29, 2010 12:29 PMTaxes are a problem, but not the problem. The problem is excessive and prolific spending by the legislature, many times ignoring priorities and catering to politically expedient spending.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 04:10 PMSome of us think that learning something about a topic before spouting off about it is a good idea. You're free to disagree:
Passing a levy or bond issue isn't always a simple matter of majority rules. State law makes bond issues and some types of levies tougher to pass by requiring a "super majority["]. Other levies such as levy lid lifts and levies for schools only require a simple majority.
State Constitution (Article 7 Section 2) mandates the validation requirements for excess levies and bond issues.
The term "levy" is thus a shorthand for "excess levy", which our state's Constitution defines as any tax beyond 1% of value per annum. These "excess levies" have super-majority requirements. For tax increases not subject to this requirement, no supermajority is required under it either.
And, since you seem to care little about our state's Constitution, let's talk about the basic fairness of letting 1/3 + 1 vote deny what 66+% of us (or of our elected representatives) have decided is a good policy. That's not democracy, it's elitism, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, Mr. Eyeman seems to have found Mr. Dunmire's checkbook a little less generous than in previous years, so do send him some of your money, wouldn't you? His inability to provide any product or service that the capitalist market would ever want or need shouldn't condemn him to slow starvation in the gutter, now should it, comrade?
Posted by: tensor on August 29, 2010 04:20 PMI believe I-1053 is Constitutional and believe that the legislature needs to slow down it's spending. Hopefully, I-1053 will make them focus on priorites before they make the "hard" decision to raise taxes.
As for Ivan's response that the Constitution only allows for 50 +1, I brought up some cases where 60 +1 was required and hadn't been overturned by the courts. Later, as with the school levies, the people decided to change this.
As for the "fairness" of a super majority for school levies, when
As to me caring about the Constitution, I obviously care more about Article I and II more than you do because your every attack against Eyman shows that you feel those articles shouldn't even exist.
As for calling me "comrade", you ought to know. Your views give the impression that all income is the property of the state, to be doled out by the state as the state sees fit, that any tax cut is "spending" by the state rather than the person being able to keep more of what they make. You also give the impression that the state can and should raise taxes any time they feel like and that their spending is always justified.
Traditional Americans want to see lower taxes and smaller government. What do you want?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 05:15 PMI wonder how much effort Michele puts into ensuring she uses the minimum amount of state government services?
Posted by: tensor on August 29, 2010 05:21 PMSo what? You're not on our state's Supreme Court, and you're not in the recent majorities of voters, either.
You also give the impression that the state can and should raise taxes any time they feel like and that their spending is always justified.
I'm not responsible for your mistaken impressions; your statements of my views on income and overall taxation are entirely wrong. We're talking about whether or not an Initiative, which is a law, can override our Constitutional guidelines on taxes. Anyone who says a law can override a section of the Constitution can go prove it in court, and not at my expense, either. If we want to have a 67% (or 97%) supermajority for tax increases, fine. We can amend our Constitution to do so. This is nothing more than an attempt by embittered losers to enforce their will upon us winners, by negating the results of our recent elections, and the requirements of our Constitution.
Michael Dunmire, the Blethens (owners of the Seattle Times) and others don't want to pay taxes. That's fine; they're entitled to vote that way, and to proclaim, "we don't want to pay taxes!" But when they send Mr. Eyeman out to shill for them, pleading poverty and falsely pretending to represent me or other taxpayers, I will attack Mr. Eyeman for lying to me on that point.
Traditional Americans want to see lower taxes and smaller government. What do you want?
Traditional Americans once believed in slavery, sexism, racism, and many other ideas which have since been proven absolutely false. Just because an idea is "traditional" does not make it good or valid. Learn to think for yourself sometime.
Posted by: tensor on August 29, 2010 05:36 PMSo what? You're not on our state's Supreme Court, and you're not in the recent majorities of voters, either. Would you support something if you thought it was unconstitutional, or do you put off your thinking until the Supreme Court speaks?
Traditional Americans once believed in slavery, sexism, racism, and many other ideas which have since been proven absolutely false. Just because an idea is "traditional" does not make it good or valid. Learn to think for yourself sometime. Did you just try to win an argument by calling me a racist and slavery supporter? What an a$$. Note that the Supreme Court has also ruled wrongly on these issues, so waiting for them to pass absolute judgement doesn't always result in the right result either.
Lower taxes, smaller government. Why are you against it?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 05:52 PMHa, ha, ha. You tried to claim that "traditional Americans" want what you want, and I rejected your completely groundless claim by noting how it would be irrelevant even if it was true. Try winning arguments on merits next time, and not by whom you foolishly deem to be "traditional Americans" or not.
...so waiting for them to pass absolute judgement doesn't always result in the right result either.
I don't recognize that it does; I merely said that anyone who claims a law can override a section of our Constitution can take that claim to court, and not with my money, either. If you want to give your money to Mr. Eyeman for this purpose, go right ahead. But he does not speak for me on this, or any other, issue.
Lower taxes, smaller government. Why are you against it?
Taxation with representation. Why are you against it?
tensor, I noticed you didn't support lower taxes and smaller government. How telling.
Yes, having citizens with views different from your own is most troublesome. How about filing an Initiative to deny all of them votes? You can just say you believe it to be constitutional and a good idea, which would defeat any possible counter-argument, right?
Posted by: tensor on August 29, 2010 07:07 PMWhat Supreme Court decisions or case law back up your claim that the people can not pass a law requiring a super majority vote to raise taxes?
If none exist, then either interpretation could be valid.
When voters vote - express their wishes - to lower taxes or demand that legislators rein in spending and the representatives consistantly ignore and override those votes, do we really have the representation envisioned by the Constitution?
Filing an initiative is in direct resonance with our Constitution. Voting on an initiative is our right protected by the Constitution. The people decide.
Just because something might be "found" unconstitutional later doesn't mean it is at the time of the vote - it may even be found to be Constitutional. The point is, I believe the people can put additional restraints on their representatives when it comes to raising taxes.
Do you support I-1098? The Supreme Court has ruled against various attempts to impose an income tax in a similar manner to I-1098. This clearly has case law against it, yet the proponents are giving it a shot. Where is your bile for them?
Reread your comments and tell me that you have no issues with peole expressing a differing opinion from yours. You won't convince me, but you could try.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2010 07:53 PMIsn't there something to be said for the will of the people being expressed to the legislature in the form of an initiative that gains enough votes for passage?
If the majority of voters express a sentiment that they don't want to see taxes raised unless 2/3rds of the elected representatives vote for it, shouldn't the elected representatives, the special interests and the government use that as a mandate?
And -- if they do not take heed - is there any reason why an elected offical, special interest or governor would not fully expect this to become an election issue and that they would not have to explain themselves regarding why they disobeyed the intent of the people?
No hiding behind the law here please - the question is pretty straightforward. Should the democratic congress and governorship disregard the will of the people as expressed by ballot and expect anything other than their wrath? Given the firm direction of a ballot - wouldn't taking more of their money than they specifically agreed they would make available a sort of theft?
And, assuming you agree that the congress and governor should respect the people - can you tell us what is wrong with Tim Eyeman or anyone else using the initiative process in order to make that point heard?
Posted by: johnny on August 29, 2010 11:03 PMNot during the worldwide struggle against right-wing extremism, when the U.S. Government spent about as much as the entire GNP of the United States (e.g. FY 1943). The proper amount of taxation and expenditure is determined by us, and our elected delegates, in response to each circumstance. Advocating "lower taxes and smaller government" in any and all situations is just like advocating "more taxes and bigger government" in all situations. I would like to believe that such rigid, thoughtless inflexibility is not a "traditional American value."
Just because something might be "found" unconstitutional later doesn't mean it is at the time of the vote - it may even be found to be Constitutional.
When we assume the mantle of legislators, we are bound by our Constitutional limits on legislation. (There's no small irony in complaining that our duly-elected legislators are misusing their powers, then exhibiting a careless attitude towards the very constitutionality of our own legislative efforts.) First and foremost, we should consider whether our legislative efforts comport with our compact for self-government: our Constitution. (Interestingly, no one here has claimed that our legislature has violated our Constitution.)
And, assuming you agree that the congress and governor should respect the people - can you tell us what is wrong with Tim Eyeman or anyone else using the initiative process in order to make that point heard?
You have no need to assume. Our legislature and governor have been duly elected. I have a problem with anyone who claims to speak for me without my explicit consent, and who proposes using a mere law as a Constitutional amendment.
What part of a 2/3's majority vote to raise taxes overrides the constitution?
The part which says a simple majority shall suffice.
Posted by: tensor on August 30, 2010 12:51 AMAdvocating "lower taxes and smaller government" in any and all situations is just like advocating "more taxes and bigger government" in all situations.
There are times of national, or sometimes local, emergency that require increased government involvement and expenditures, but outside of those emergencies, the founders believed in limited government which translates to smaller government which results in lower taxes. This was the original basis of our government and should be the norm outside of national emergencies.
And no. I do not beleive that government wanting to spend, spend, spend, but not having the funds to do so is an "emergency".
You have no need to assume. Our legislature and governor have been duly elected. I have a problem with anyone who claims to speak for me without my explicit consent, and who proposes using a mere law as a Constitutional amendment.
If you have spent any amount of time watching what Congress has been doing in DC over the last 80 years, it's amazing your head hasn't exploded for all the "mere" laws they've passed to avoid the Amendment process. As for people speaking for you without your explicit consent.... All of my "representatives" are democrats, what's your beef?
What part of a 2/3's majority vote to raise taxes overrides the constitution?The part which says a simple majority shall suffice.
The Constitution sets the lowest limit acceptable to pass a law - a simple majority, a plurality won't pass a law. It is silent on whether additional requirements can be set by the people or the legislature, and when there have been additional limts, there are no court cases that you have provided that overturn those limits. The court has had the opportunity but have not ruled against the super majority.
Under the State Constitution, just because a legislature has been elected, it doesn't mean the people have to shut up and take it. It doesn't mean the people's only recourse is to vote them out in two years. We have more than just the right to speak, we have the right to propose laws that the legislature won't. In this case, if the legislature were diligent, more conscientious stewards of the taxpayers money, they wouldn't be seeing such a backlash.
All of your arguments still give the impression that you do not believe in the rights of the people as spelled out in Article's I and II. Your stance exudes the belief that the parts about the people are the source of power, and the initiative and referendum are reserved for the people to independantly propose legislation should be crossed off now that a legislature has been elected.
I believe I-1053 is constitutional. You do not. The courts are thus far silent, though they have had opportunities. Therefore, under our Constitution, since it is not expressly banned, it is a fair assumption that this is a power reserved to the people.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 30, 2010 07:15 AMHopefully under ObamaCare they will be able to get psychiatric treatment.
Posted by: travis t on August 30, 2010 10:26 AMWin or lose, I will keep fighting. I will never surrender.