My vote "Yes" was wishful thinking more than anything else. I won't be holding my breath for that result.

He fucking better or we are fiscally screwed.

Read Art. II, Sec. 22 of the Constitution of the State of Washington. Says in clear 19th-century language that it takes only majority votes in each house of the Legislature to pass a bill. Period. No provisos allowing changing it by statute or initiative.

If the judge is a strict constructionist, he will rule that the constitution means what it says and Eyman's initiatives are null and void. If he's an activist judge, he could rule to the contrary.

I was on the jury panel in a case tried by Judge Heller. Oddly, though he's listed on the civil side of KCSC judges, it was a criminal case. In the end, I was excused from consideration for that jury.

In the 3 days or so that I was in his courtroom (it was a very long voir dire), Judge Heller came across as a very serious man, a man with immense respect for the law. How that translates to his ruling in this case is beyond me. But you can be sure that however he rules, it will be a well-reasoned and serious one.

1053 didn't even achieve a 2/3 supermajority. Fuck Tim Eyman in his smarmy dumbass face.

@4

"Nanny state!" Good one. Bust out a "will of the voters" line next.

see: california

We need an initiative that bans all Eyeman anything forever. Better yet, declare him an illegal and have him deported. What a con he is.

@ 4, 5, 10 - What's wrong trolly? Got nobody to play with?

It doesn't matter what Judge Heller decides. Either way it will be appealed all the way the state supreme court. Call me when the real game starts, this is just the pre-game warm up.

If you like tax so much, you should be supporting HB-2100, a tax on financial assets.

But since as we all know, you are really hypocrites, you won't.

@5; thanks for acknowledging my point -- so-called conservatives, known for their caterwauling against Judicial Activism, are now calling for exactly that -- they want the court to read something into the Constitution of the State of Washington directly contrary to the plain meaning of its text.

The state Supreme Court has already ruled on this, in Brown v. Owen in 2008. The Court said that the Legislature had chosen to implement the supermajority as a matter of procedure, and that the Court cannot interfere with the Legislatures procedure.

The strong implication was that if either or both chambers were to decide that, as a matter of legislative procedure, they would interpret "majority" in the state constitution as meaning "simple majority" unless the constitution said otherwise, then the Court would not interfere. But of course, Chopp and Owen are too damned cowardly to do anything that might piss off Eyman.