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.
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?
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!
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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?
@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?
@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.
@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.
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.
From the Seattle Times: Zippo.
That firewall sure is going to pay off.
This battle isn't over, sadly.
Now we just need Inslee to recant his dumbass no new taxes pledge.
Who wants to bet a testicle we'll never get an income tax? Anyone?
Let me be the first (today) to call you a fucking idiot.
Their demise can't come quickly enough. Fuck them, and fuck Tim Eyman.
@18, I believe you're looking for "oligarhy" - that's the version used by the paranoid crazies.
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.
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.
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.
Also: Mr EyeMan needs a new hobby. STAT
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.
Also, you suck at trolling.
@28 got you guys good.
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.
Then we talk.
See the transportation bill passed last week.
@27: The term is perfectly appropriate given the road we're heading down.
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.
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.