Tim Eyman's 2/3 Majority Requirement Ruled Unconstitutional

Back to article

Comments

haha, suckah!

Erin Resso on May 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Not like the damage hasn't already been done.....

Cato the Younger Younger on May 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Before people complain about the will of the people a super majority requirement gives 33% an insane amount of power.

CbytheSea on May 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Tim's response: No, YOU'RE unconstitutional!

*stomps off to basement and puts on Darth Vader helmet*

on May 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM

@2 Seriously. Although, a small consolation will be Tim Eyman's head exploding when he hears the news.

pfffter on May 30, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Yawn….not that Olympia liberals have the balls to raise our taxes. Nothing's gonna change. Put a new, different initiative up in November and watch 65% of Washington support it. WA State's middle class has nothing to fear from the taxaholics.

on May 30, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I don't know why Eyman would be bothered by this. Isn't it normal to see him as a fraud who does this stuff for a living? This ruling just means he's got a project for next year. The fundraising letters write themselves.

Alden on May 30, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Yeah, Cato is right. State has already been pretty much crippled by both these stupid initiatives. Happy that the State Constitution trumps them, though.

Pithy Name on May 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM

@7: Bingo. Regrettable, but true.

pheeeew!crack!boom! on May 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Woo hoo!

gloomy gus on May 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM

" State has already been pretty much crippled"

Crippled? The State is doing much better than most of the country, and definitely better than Taxifornia, 10th highest tax rate in the USA and still bankrupt. Nope, we're not Somalia as so many of your predicted (except maybe down by Henderson and Rainier Ave).

Sorry folks, put your dreams for the massive SEIU/mafia-nanny state on hold, you'll still need to keep wiping your own bottoms in the great State of Washington.

on May 30, 2012 at 10:39 AM

You guys you guys! Let's raise a glass yet again to Paul Lawrence, the kickass lawyer who won the I-1192 ballot wording and R-74 disclosure cases, and now this.

gloomy gus on May 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM

@7 is correct. Professional initiative promoter Eyman has to love this. "Gasoline on the fire" means more money in his pocket. He's crying all the way to the bank.

Take away well-healed backers and paid signature gatherers, and Timmeh's job dries up overnight.

Reverse Polarity on May 30, 2012 at 10:48 AM

On the face of it, an initiative that says "if we get a bare majority of 50.001% of the vote this one time, we only need 33% from now until forever" seems to be blatantly anti-democratic. It's like a kid saying "you're it, no tag-backs, infinity!" and declaring himself winner for life.

Super-majority rules should, at a minimum, require super-majority passage.

Proteus on May 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM

@2 Indeed, yes. In the long run, this is good. There are now verifiable facts that deal directly with Washington to argue against any more such nonsense. We tried it, it didn't work.

Would you be happier if the decision went the other way? No. This is a victory, let's all celebrate it.

Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on May 30, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Rabble rabble WILL OF THE PEOPLE rabble ACTIVIST JUDGES rabble rabble NANNY STATE.

Zebes on May 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM

This is good news, and I'm feeling good about the case's chances on appeal. I'd love to gloat at Eyman's expense but that won't happen until people stop giving him money to pass harmful initiatives. When he's back to selling watches and his name brings universal derision, then I'll celebrate.

Cascadian on May 30, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I keep staring at the Eyman quote because I still don't quite believe it's real. I hope that some kind of Mecha-Eyman rises from the ashes.

icouldliveinhope on May 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I saw people trying to get signatures on this on 3rd and Pine the other day. Dude told me what it was for; I told him he was batshit.

erly on May 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM

"This is a victory, let's all celebrate it."

It's a victory when it's upheld. It's a victory when Olympia politicians think they can vote against the interests and beliefs of the majority of the state (unlikely outside of Cap Hill). It's a victory when you can pass taxes that punish higher income earners.

In other words, you're confusing your mental masturbation with actual sex.

on May 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM

This is a good thing. Look at the filibuster rules in the Senate or California's insane 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget to understand why this initiative would deadlock Washington indefinitely.

robdaemon on May 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Tim Eyman needs to be Ignored as soon as possible.He does nothing good for this state.

h8red42 on May 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Why are taxes punishment?

If taxes are punishment, you're doing it wrong.

zachd on May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I consider taxes a surcharge to live and do business in a given place.

Gomez on May 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I consider taxes the subscription fee to keep playing this shitty MMORPG they signed me up for when I was born.

Zebes on May 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

As promised I will now stop calling for a mandatory 2/3 majority vote for all tax giveaways (aka exemptions).

And will settle for a straight majority vote of the people.

Will in Seattle on May 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM

@19 me too, told him I wanted to raise taxes on the rich even more.

Will in Seattle on May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM

@25
Awesome.

@27
A few people sending extra money to Olympia will not provide a greater public benefit. If everyone pays a higher, but fairly assessed, tax, the state can provide better services that increase the greater good. I don't like taxes, but I do like the high quality standard of living they help provide.

emor on May 30, 2012 at 12:31 PM

For Y'all's sake, I really hope that McKenna shits himself in public and eats it in front of the cameras and is forced to withdraw days before the erection.

The Max on May 30, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Happy to see a judge who reads Art. II, Sec. 22 the way it was written by the Framers -- simple majorities are required in both Houses of the Legislature to pass a bill -- any bill! And nowhere does it empower the initiative process to amend that Black Letter constitutional provision.

Citizen R on May 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

@25 Winnah!

ScrawnyKayaker on May 30, 2012 at 12:51 PM

@32 is correct.

Will in Seattle on May 30, 2012 at 1:53 PM

stop calling it a 2/3 majority requirement, it's a 1/3 minority rule junta empowerment practice, and it's not law. So no it's NOT REQUIRED AND ALL THE DEMS FOLLOWING IT FOR YEARS WERE FOLLOWING AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE they didn'thave the balls to ignore.

on May 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Say this is confirmed by every court up the line. Isn't there anything to prevent Eyman from starting initiative after initiative? Also, would getting a new initiative on the ballot forestall implementation of normal voting rules required by this verdict?

Seems kind of whack that the public can be forced to vote on something that is verified unconstitutional and will be thrown out as soon as it's challenged.

Someone should start an initiative that says that for an initiative to even be considered, it can't clearly violate the state constitution.

Free Lunch on May 30, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Tim Eyman's 2/3 Majority Requirement Ruled Unconstitutional

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Capitol Hill Block Party's 2023 Lineup Is Here!

Washington’s Supreme Court Lacks a Strong Progressive Voice

Why Are Pigeons’ Feet So Fucked Up?

The Queen Protester of Baton Rouge: An Art Review

The Killing of the Pregnant Woman in Belltown Is Unacceptable

The "Pedophile's Paradise"

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!