Slog Comments

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Sorry, that would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Got 3/4 majority in both houses and a vote of the people, or 3/4 of the people and a majority of the house and senate?

Didn't think so.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on February 28, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Joe Szilagyi 2
If they do it this should be a slam dunk lawsuit for Democrats. It's over.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on February 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM
Goldy 3
@2, No, because the court is already on the record that it won't involve itself in Senate rules.
Posted by Goldy on February 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM
auntie jim 4
Yes.
Posted by auntie jim on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Joe Szilagyi 5
@3 is that the court's position under the law or under politics? Quite different things.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on February 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM
6
The Senate can pass a 2/3 rule, and the supremes won't interfere. But a simple majority of Senators can vote to repeal a Senate rule, so it's kind of pointless.
Posted by Moag on February 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Sir Vic 7
@6 Unless the point is to poison the political well in WA for the next 15+ years, Gingrich-style, which is apparently Rodney Tom's prime agenda.
Posted by Sir Vic on February 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM
bradpwa 8
The constitution clearly gives each chamber the right to set its own rules. That was part of the problem with 2/3, it went around that power. The Senate can pass a 2/3 rule although it's purely a move for political optics. Presumably the votes for a tax increase even with a simple majority do not exist in that body. And rules can be amended by a simple majority vote of the rules committee. So to bring a tax to the floor, one just needs rules to say yes, not 2/3. You can also vote on the floor to temporarily "suspend the rules" (not sure if that takes simple majority or 2/3) and then just pass your bill. None of this would get around a 9th order, in which all the rules are suspended and the majority then governs the place. So a lot of song and dance. WIll have the effect of getting the D's to come out and make unpopular statements about raising taxes, puts the moderate D's in the house in an interesting position. Lot's of D's will just vote over big tax bills from the house with no expectation they will pass just to please interests and the base. All in all, this changes nothing this year, but could make future years more interesting.
Posted by bradpwa on February 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM
9
Nothing is a slam dunk before a judge or jury, but the Constitution (state or federal) addresses government actions, and a Senate rule is a government action. Moreover, if the enabling legislation is found unconstitutional, the administrative rule promulgated to carry out the legislation would most certainly also be found unconstitutional. I think Rodney Tom has been watching Fox news too long.
Posted by johnniegreen on March 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Add a comment