Washington State Supreme Court Strikes Down Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement. Finally!

Comments

1
congratulations goldy. i know you burned brain cells on this issue. thanks for covering it.
2
The Constitution prevails.
3
Fuck you, Timmeh! Eat shit and die!
4
Clarification, Goldy -

Charles Johnson wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Stephens and Jim Johnson.

Jim Johnson wrote his own dissent.

Personally, the big surprise to me was Chief Justice Madsen getting past the justiciability issue.

Still - great result! Just imagine if Richard Sanders was still on the bench - it would have been 5-4, and possibly flipped if Madsen could have been brought over to the other side.
5
I blame the idiots who keep buying Eyman's simplistic view of governance.
6
@4: That thought is giving me hives.
7
But what does this mean? This ruling is on a past 2/3 majority initiative right? does this mean that the more recent attempts at this are also struck down?
8
I hear bells tolling in mourning on the east side of the Cascades. Eyeman is the bell pull.
9
Can we raise some fucking revenue now?
10
Huzzah!
11
Publicola was first out of the gate with the news. SLOG second. KUOW third.

From the Seattle Times: Zippo.

That firewall sure is going to pay off.
12
Get ready for a drive for a constitutional amendment to enshrine the 2/3 requirement.

This battle isn't over, sadly.
13
and note that the judges voted in a 2/3 majority for this. irony.
14
Awesome!

Now we just need Inslee to recant his dumbass no new taxes pledge.
15
"Can we raise some fucking revenue now?"

Who wants to bet a testicle we'll never get an income tax? Anyone?
16
Congrats Washington State!
17
Cue the self-serving tears and rending of garments from our resident attention whore, Tim Eyman. Go cry, emo kid.
18
RIP democracy, hello oligarchy.
19
@18 Yes, the oligarchy of the 51%.

Let me be the first (today) to call you a fucking idiot.
20
Such great news! Holy fuck!
21
Seattle Times headline on the main page: "High court makes it easier for lawmakers to raise taxes"

Their demise can't come quickly enough. Fuck them, and fuck Tim Eyman.
22
Good luck getting that 51% in the senate.
23
3. go fuck your mother's dick. if she is dead, go fuck her corpse.
24
This seems like some of the best news I've ever read in the Stranger. More democracy and a government that has more tools to actually govern in the public interest. Beautiful!
25
@12, a constitutional amendment can't be introduced via voter initiative. It has to be introduced in one of the legislative branches, then it would have to be passed by 2/3 majority (ha! brilliant) in the legislature, then go before a public vote and pass with a simple majority. I don't see the legislature approving this as an amendment anytime soon.

@18, I believe you're looking for "oligarhy" - that's the version used by the paranoid crazies.
26
Thus proving that all along the democrats in the state legislature who were afraid to officially challenge it were in fact cowardly pieces of shit who only cared about their own jobs prospects.

Lets see if Inslee follows the history of the governorship and pushes to pass an amendment for 2/3s cause its "what the voters wanted"

I think its hilarious when sloggers believe Olympia gives a shit about you.
27
@ 18, let me just point out that oligarchy doesn't mean what you think it means.
28
Would the Stranger and its readers be so happy if the state Supreme Court found something in the constitution that invalidated the pot legalization initiative?
29
Really great news, had hoped it would happen for a while, really glad to see the coverage of it on here, thanks guys, Tim Eyeman is a horse's ass and I wish he'd leave the state. Maybe he'll find his antics more profitable in another state, worst joke in state political history I tell ya. I don't see how you can support a guy who regularly circumvents our republic for personal gain. If you hate the constitution of our state so much fight to change it like a real political person, exploiting the voters to get your way should not be tolerated.
30
@28

It would depend on the clause, but I'm open to suggestion. Considering the lack of "don't use drugs" in our state constitution I wish you luck in your fantasy land.
31
@23 I'm pretty sure #3 was referring to Tim Eyman, not you. A little touchy?
32
@25: I agree with you regarding the process. What I think that means, however, is that the Republicans will use this issue as a big stick to go after Democratic candidates for and incumbents presently in the state legislature, in order to have the bodies, through a combination of electoral victories and intimidation, that they need for a state constitutional amendment.

It doesn't mean we can't defeat this new level of fearmongering - and in some ways this is where the real battle needs to take place - but it will require a better effort at educating the voters that we aren't paying for, and need to pay for, the services we want. We shouldn't expect it to be a cakewalk, at least for the first few electoral cycles. As with many victories of late, we can't afford to rest on our laurels.
33
Hot Damn! This is extremely good news...

Also: Mr EyeMan needs a new hobby. STAT
34
@17 "Tym Eyman Sucks Dick"

As a Dicked-American, let me tell you that the sensations I get from Tim Eyman are not only totally dissimilar from usual suction, but are localized to other portions of my anatomy.
35
@28 - No.

Also, you suck at trolling.
36
You may like pizza, BUT HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT MEATLOAF.

@28 got you guys good.
37
Time for Tim Eyman and his fellow travelers to move to a state, like Idaho, that supports his brand of socialism.

The Constitution is fairly clear on how to do a Constitutional Amendment. You either need a lot of votes in the House and Senate and a majority of the People, or you need a lot of votes (which he never got) from the People and a majority in the House and the Senate.
38
@7 yes.
39
@37 you think the 34% of WA that supports new taxes can mooch by itself?
40
So, when are you going to start asking the senators what their plans are? Are you going to criticize them for attempting to pass regressive taxes, or are we still going with the any taxes are good taxes meme that has fucked over the poor in this state for so long?
41
@40 first we get rid of all the tax exemptions on a simple up down vote.

Then we talk.
42
@41 The conversation has already started.

See the transportation bill passed last week.
43
@19: Don't mix your apples and oranges. Don't mix legislative majorities with voter approval majorities.

@27: The term is perfectly appropriate given the road we're heading down.

44
@42 Not passed. But presented. Typing too fast. Bleh.
45
@43- I'll bite. What the high holy hell does a having a simple majority vote to pass tax laws (like we had for most of the state's history) have to do with oligarchy?
46
@45 I finally decoded Pheeble's "logic:" Because THE MAJORITY of the judges (elected by A MAJORITY of the voters) is comprised of only six people, that makes them an oligarchy, because six is a minority of the citizens of the state. Similarly, THE MAJORITY of the legislators (elected by A MAJORITY of the voters) would also be a minority of the citizens of the state.

So, any decision in a democratic republic not taken by a direct election is OLIGARCHY!!!11! DUHHR SOCIALIST KENYAN MUSLIM MEXICAN BIRTH CERTIFKAT SHARIA!!!!!!!

Unless, of course, the majority of the legislators are Republicans. Then it would NOT be oligarchy.

Now my brain hurts.
47
@40 -- they are still going with the meme. The Senate committee has already voted to pass a constitutional amendment, requiring a 2/3rds vote to increase taxes (or a majority vote, with a confirming vote by the people). Someone (can't recall who now) tried for an amendment saying -- fine, if that is how you feel, let's go for 2/3rds on everything! It of course lost.

Fortunately, there is still another half of the legislature -- and the Governor's possible veto. But we are a LOOOONG way from done with tax stupidity in this state.