Well, it is going to be an interesting election season. Ordering extra popcorn for how this will play out.

Eyman was right for once - the Legislature DID violate the rules on this. But even blind squrrel finds a nut once in a while.

I think the judges last name is Schaffer

My mistake, Schaffer is the King County judge

Let us guess — Timmeh will be making plenty of money off the “No on I-940” campaign?

“Tim Eyman, the very familiar anti-tax activist...”

“Tim Eyman, the very familiar liar, thief, and accused money-launderer...”

Fixed it for you.

I wish Tim Eyeman would die in fire.

All so the Initiative can be approved, yet again. $20 he's profiting off the ”No on I-940” Initiative.

Sorry meant campaign and I see someone had the same thought as well lol.

@9: Where in this story did you see the supporters of I-940 getting “hated”?

Goodness.
The lack of civil discourse,
the inability to disagree without being disagreeable;
it is disheartening...

The ineptitude of the state legislature, and Eyman's decades long run as one of the most powerful influences in the state, can't but be a reflection of the kind of people Washingtonians are. When things go off the rails here and there, it can be called an aberration. But this state has had its head up its ass for years and years. After a while you have to admit the truth about who is ultimately to blame for fouling our own nest. Obviously there's a lot of decent people in Washington, but clearly not enough.

If you want competent and benevolent government in Washington, you have to cram that down the throats of a near-majority who are always unified in their singular purpose of making things as shitty as possible.

Way to go, Timmy!

You've finally joined our Team!
Or vice versa...

I certainly hope the legislature will appeal this ruling. The core of Eyman’s argument is that an Initiative’s sponsor can’t withdraw an Initiative after it has qualified for the ballot, even if the sponsor deems the Initiative is no longer desired. This is like arguing a legislator cannot withdraw a bill from consideration. This ruling, if it stands, will effectively limit the power of the Initiative to effect change.

When our legislature hustled to implement the ideas brought to it by the sponsors of I-940, that showed the spirit of our Initiative process at work. The entire reason for sending an Initiative to the legislature is to have the legislature act, which it did. If the sponsors had wanted a popular vote, they would have sent the Initiative to the voters in the first place. This ruling effectively denies the Initiative’s sponsors their chosen course of action. Again, this ruling subverts our Initiative process.

Eyman's decades long run as one of the most powerful influences in the state,

Yeah, right. After he got caught stealing from his own supporters, he stayed active only through the intercession of his sugar daddy, Michael Dunmire, who dropped dead awhile ago. Since then, Timmeh has been laundering money through a kickback scheme involving the paid signature gatherers he started needing after his admitted theft robbed him of any real support.

This state has problems. Timmeh is not one of them. (If anything, he’s comic relief.)

14
No.
After the voters approve an initiative it is no longer the plaything of the sponsors, to use as a bargaining chip, to alter or modify in some backroom deal.
The sponsors proposed, the voters approved putting in on the ballot and on the ballot it will go.

“.... After the voters approve an initiative...”

The voters have yet to vote on I-940. It gained enough signatures to qualify for consideration to the legislature. The legislature then acted upon the concerns the citizens had expressed. End of story.

“...to use as a bargaining chip, to alter or modify in some backroom deal.”

Propsed legislation is subject to bargaining all of the time; that is how a legislature works.

What backroom deal? Everything was out in the open. Again, citizens petitioned the legislature to act, and the legislature acted. End of story.

“...the voters approved putting in on the ballot...”

Wrong. I-940 was an Initiative to the legislature, not to the voters. Had the sponsors and citizen signatories wanted a vote, they would have filed I-940 to the people. This ruling requires what the sponsors and citizen signatories explicitly chose not to do.

14 & 16 as guaranteed by the constitution, there’s only one way for the legislature can stop the voters from voting on the initiative as written: and that’s to pass the initiative as written. Here, they tried to change it (can’t do that) and then they tried to block voters from voting on it as written (can’t do that). Voters who sign petitions for init to leg want that particular law - sponsors aren’t allows to ok something different than the init as written. That’s what the constitution requires and it protects the voters right to vote and decide for themselves. The Leg violated the Const by changing init 940 and blocking the vote on it

In response to #5, no I won’t be involved on the no on 940 campaign — it’s not my area of interest or experience. As an initiative activist, I sponsor init and defend other init sponsors rights - I don’t do no campaigns on init’s. I’m focused on our initiative to bring back our $30 car tabs I-976 which we launched on Monday. To learn about it: Www.voterswantmorechoices.com

@17: So glad to see you now agree with the practice of commenting on blog posts. Back when you still posted at Sound Politics, you didn’t hesitate to delete any comment which didn’t fit your agenda.

The legislature acted in a manner which satisfied the concerns of the initiative’s sponsors, and so the sponsors withdrew the initiative. Your argument is based entirely on the idea the sponsors can’t withdraw an Initiative. That is contrary to the entire sprit of the Initiative.

We also need to be clear: the legislature did not enact I-940. The legislature wrote a bill, HB 3003, which was based upon I-940, and after our legislature passed it, our Governor http://apps2.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Bill…">signed it. In response, the sponsors of I-940 withdrew it. In no way did the legislature amend and pass I-940, and so any argument based on that idea fails.

(The sloppily inaccurate reporting, both here at the Stranger and other news outlets, can mislead a casual reader into believing the legislature altered and passed I-940.)

@19

You're wrong. Actual judges who study and rule on a law professionally said you're wrong. In court. In a written decision.

Judges aren't infallible. It's why we have appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court. But they're probably a great deal closer to am understanding of law than you are.

@12

And you wonder why nearly every Washington resident outside the Seattle Metro area despises Seattle and the sneering, breathtakingly arrogant and terminally adolescent leftists that live there.

@12: Democracies don't cram things down citizens throats - dictatorships do.

Tim Eyeman: Keep up your good work. Some of which I didn't agree with, but you've always remained diligent at keeping our democracy fertile for citizen participation, and your contributions to help our State achieve this goal are always appreciated.

Response to 19: everything you wrote is not correct. And initiative sponsor cannot withdraw and initiative after it is qualified and certified by the Secretary of State. At that point, it is a decision for the voters only (unless the Legislature, under the constitution, a Doppes the initiative as written). As was made clear in the public record that was agreed to by all parties, the legislature amended the initiative, Inslee signed the amended version of the initiative into law, and only then did the legislature adopt the initiative. So they changed it, and the Constitution specifically says that is not an option for the legislature, to change an initiative. Initiatives can only become law by a vote of the people and the only way to avoid that is if the legislature a Doppes it exactly as written which they didn’t do here, they even explicitly blocked the people from voting, another unconstitutional no no

Misspellings due to computer transcription of me using microphone.
Anyone who actually reads the legal briefs in the case itself will know my description of what the Legislature did is correct.

So what's to stop the Legislature from just writing a new bill from scratch and passing that?

@25 - The Legislature could have place an alternative on the ballot, but I would assume at this point they've missed the deadline. I have not been able to find the text of the ruling itself, but it looks like the only path forward for the time being would be to have 940 on the ballot & no alternate measure.

If it fails, the Legislature could re-pass HB 3003 but would be under no immediate pressure to do so. And it requires a supermajority to amend the initiative within 2 years of passage.

@25: Nothing. In fact, the legislature can copy an Initiative verbatim as a bill and send it to the governor for signature. If the governor signs, then the bill becomes law — just as we all learned in elementary school.

In that case, the original initiative would continue to the ballot. If we voters approved it, it would merely duplicate the existing law the legislature already passed. If we voters rejected it, the law the legislature passed would remain on the books. There would be no net change as a result of our vote.

Why can't we just hurtle Tim Eyesore, along with Repigs Thug Ericksen, Vincent Buys Votes, LuAnn Van Weirdo, Cathy McMorris-Rogers, ad nauseum into outer space once and for all and finally be done with them?

@28: Because Martians have no use for our man-made toxic waste, either?

So, if they'd put white-out over the "I-940" on the bill before they passed it, the judge would have had no gripes?

This all seems very silly.

As much as it pains me to admit it, eyman seems to be clearly correct on the legal rule here. Reading the relevant sections of the statute it seems pretty straightforward.

@30, the leg can pass whatever legislation they like on the matter, that's not the issue. The issue is whether that takes a certified and qualified initiative off the ballot.

Response to 27, that’s wrong as well. Judge Schaller, prompted by the brilliant brief by my Attorney Joel Ard, highlighted that the constitution requies that init to the leg “take precedence” over all other leg action other than appropriations. She agreed that the Leg is restrained in passing anything on the same subject matter as the pending unit to the leg. Once it qualifies and is certified by the sec of State, the legislature no longer has plenary power to do anything it wants related to the init subject matter. The judge was quite emphatic on this point because the const is clear on this. Anyone who read the briefs and/or watched the hearing would know this.

As far as I can tell the decision is absolutely correct, and makes sense given the logic of the initiative process--that logic being that we ensure the legitimacy of an initiative by requiring a minimum number of signatures endorsing it. You can't change the text of the initiative after those signatures are recorded, because it would no longer be the text the signatories endorsed. Of course the end result here is a terrible disaster. That rarest of things--a miraculous compromise between opposing groups to make progress on a crucial issue at the core of not only public safety but the entire legitimacy of policing--is lost because an initiative was involved. To me it's another damning failure of the initiative process, which is a completely broken way to govern a society and should be done away with entirely.

Response to 34, something to ponder: the underlying premise of your statement assumes the compromise was made independent of the init (this your statement that the init interfered with the compromise). Consider that it was the init qualifying was the only reason there was any action at all on this topic. The leg did nothing in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 on this subject matter. Do you really think it’s just a coincidence that they only took action after the init qualified? Do away with initiatives and you remove a const right of the people to force the leg to confront issues they’ve for years ignored. That includes conservative policies that the stranger abhors and progressive policies they champion. Free speech and the First Amendment and the init process are all peas in the same pod. It should be a right that voters across the spectrum be able to exercise. One of the most poignant editorials on this was by the TNT: “opposing the init process because you don’t like Tim Eyman is as foolish as opposing the jury system because you don’t like the OJ Simpson verdict.” 940 is a progressive init that got screwed with by the Leg. If they got away with it, then initiatives on any topic would be next

Mr. Eyman - It will not do to hide behind "free speech and the First Amendment" as though such things require the initiative process in order to function--they work just fine in the states that do not have an initiative process. The initiative process may have been a noble idea but it doesn't produce good government--it encourages poor behavior in everyone. As envisioned, republican government works by vesting the authority to make decisions in elected representatives who can then be held accountable. The initiative process undermines this by making nobody accountable. The voters approve a non-stop parade of "I want a pony" initiatives--yes to free benefits, and yes to tax cuts!! But they need never account for the whole at once. For the elected representatives, it breeds cowardice and lack of accountability. They are not responsible for the budget, when the people are the ones who cut the taxes and demanded the benefits! And why take the lead on a controversial issue, when they can wait for a plebiscite to defer to? In a world without the initiative process, maybe they would have been forced to act on this problem sooner? And lastly there is you, Mr. Eyman, who seems to have been affected the worst of all...without the initiative process, you might have been forced to invest your political energies into building something, or proposing some positive and coherent vision. But the initiative process allows you to evade that responsibility. Your series of initiatives are nothing but repeated, cynical attempts to break the ability of the system to function. Doubtless you think that is wonderful, but without the responsibility of actually governing, what are you but a vandal? Worse--thanks to another corrupt aspect of the initiative process--it is clear that you actually use the process not to advance any cause but to make money for yourself. And so the process has turned you into yet another con man who gulls the rubes into supporting the cause so you can line your own pockets.

Insulting me is certainly an option, though unoriginal and dull.
The initiative process is free speech and is is the First Amendment and without them would be a deeply unaccountable govt at the state and local level. List all the impactful inits over the last hundred years and ask yourself would the leg have done any of them on their own. I see very little evidence that they would have, but others are free to perceive a different reality. The leg passes 99.8% of all laws but letting the people get a shot passing 0.2% is not the end of representative democracy, only a facilitator of it.

#37 They got it on the ballot, then wanted to use it as leverage to get the legislature to do something--people need to make up their damn minds!

The judge ruled appropriately, and most Progressives and Leftists--aside from myself--seem to have sour grapes about it.

Curious though if there will be a challenge following the vote, if the initiative is successful. Won't be able to argue it didn't follow the initiative process. Any thoughts?

Please, Tim, continue to use a type of public discourse which you willingly denied to anyone who disagreed with you when you held the power to censor. Every word you write here is thus primarily a testament to your utter hypocrisy on the topic of "free speech." As usual, it's really all about money:

...constitution requies that init to the leg “take precedence” over all other leg action other than appropriations. She agreed that the Leg is restrained in passing anything on the same subject matter as the pending unit to the leg.

And that, folks, is what Eyman is really after: the ability to abuse the Initiative process to constrain the legislature. Wealthy special interests can pay him to pay signature-gatherers to put an initiative to the legislature on any topic which affects those wealthy special interests, knowing it takes a relatively small number of signatures (compared to the total number of voters) to qualify an initiative. This would allow a minority of voters to control the agenda of our legislature, and that is the primary reason this ruling needs to be reversed. (If voters disagree with an action by the legislature, we can use the Referendum process to address that.)

(Also, seeing Eyman spout off about constitutional law as if he knows anything about it really is priceless. How many times did he claim an initiative was constitutional, only to be proven wrong in court? Five that I can recall off the top of my head.)

#39 The ruling wasn't about the initiative process, it was about the process of this particular initiative. They started an initiative, then attempted to bypass the process AND the voters who approved it to be on ballet. Of course it was going to be ruled unconstitutional.

If those seeking the initiative wanted, they could have lobbied for a legislative remedy, and not a initiative remedy. But they didn't.

I'm not fan of Eyman, but to lay blame for this setback on him is nonsense. The blame sits with whoever organized this initiative, because they clearly weren't able to make up their mind.

#39 "Wealthy special interests can pay him to pay signature-gatherers to put an initiative to the legislature on any topic which affects those wealthy special interests, knowing it takes a relatively small number of signatures (compared to the total number of voters) to qualify an initiative."

Are you making an argument against the initiative that was used for I-90? You know, the number of signatures is a low threshold to get on the ballot. Any special interest can make it happen.

It takes an even smaller number of people to pass legislation.

Remember, just because they get signatures for the initiative, that doesn't translate into votes. At the end of the day people still have to vote for it, and the majority wins. You got a better case than the other side, make your case. If you lose, then you didn't have much of a case to make.

"...the ability to abuse the Initiative process to constrain the legislature."

The same argument could be made about the original authors of the initiative. They got the signature for the initiative, then used it as leverage against the legislature. A minority of people sought to get the legislature to do something the majority hasn't agreed to.

"...How many times did he claim an initiative was constitutional, only to be proven wrong in court..."

Well, it appears there's at least one documented time you have claimed an initiative/legislation was constitutional, only to be proven wrong in court.

Tim: You can safely disregard tensor's posts, obviously.

They got the signature for the initiative, then used it as leverage against the legislature. A minority of people sought to get the legislature to do something the majority hasn't agreed to.

They petitioned the legislature for action. The legislature acted by passing a law — not an Initiative, a law — which addressed their concerns. If a majority of the voters do not like this law, we can file a Referendum to overturn it.

Eyman talks a great game — as a thief and con artist, he has to — but he really wants to limit voters’ choices. He claims the sponsors of an Initiative can’t withdraw it after it qualifies for the legislature. He claims the legislature cannot act on a matter if an Initiative has been qualified concerning that matter. These are limits on power, and he knows it; he just lies and says he’s trying to empower us.

Also, on the question of how many times Eyman has falsely claimed his Initiative was constitutional, I see you can’t count that high. :-)

I'd like to see Tim eaten by an angry hippopotamus then shit onto a white hot hibachi.

"The initiative process ... is the First Amendment"

You will say just about anything, won't you?

@46: That particular non sequitor is really rich, considering how many times he’s edited or deleted other persons’ comments when they dared to disagree with him.

Judge Scaller recognized the absurd burden the Legislature had put on initiatives to the Legislature if this dangerous precedent had stood. You’d have to get 350k signatures to qualify your initiative, and then if the Legislature amends the initiative and then adopts the initiative and then blocks the voters from voting on either version, the sponsors are then forced to do a 2nd signature drive, this second one being a referendum, to finally earn a clean vote on their original initiative. Think about that. 2 signature drives just to get a clean vote on the initiative. The Const guarantees a vote if your measure qualifies unless the Legislature passes the initiative as written. In other words, there’s nothing in the Const that penalizes sponsors going the ini to the Leg route. Hence, schaller’s ruling what they did with 940 was unconstitutional. Getting 350k signatures in a few months is brutally difficult - we have done it 16 times and made it seem easy but it’s really hard. Arm chair quarterbacks who post comments on a blog about how easy it is to qualify initiatives are unlikely to have sponsored or qualified an initiative because that’d require serious effort. But talk to the 940 people and ask them if 940 was easy to qualify. They’ll likely confirm it was really hard. That’s why only a handful of measures qualify each cycle. If they were easy, there’d be a lot more.

Tiresome @48: please recall the Initiative’s sponsors got the legislature to do what they wanted. (Just because you can’t ever do it doesn’t mean the rest of us are so limited.) That’s fully within the the spirit of the Initiative process, and that’s why they voluntarily withdrew I-940. Your claim they could not withdraw their own Initiative (!) is the point of dispute here, and you haven’t cited anything in our state’s constitution or our laws to support it.

Getting 350k signatures in a few months is brutally difficult - we have done it 16 times and made it seem easy but it’s really hard.

It’s easier if you actually have popular support, instead of always having to use money from wealthy benefactors to pay signature-gatherers to lie to voters.

Once an initiative qualifies and is certified, it can’t be withdrawn by the initiative sponsors. The 360,000 voters who signed i940 petitions signed on to the statutory changes on the back of the petition. No where in State law or the Coonstitution empowers init sponsors to negotiate on behalf of petition signers. An amicus Brief was filed by one of the signers of the 940 petition and she asked Judge to put 940 in the ballot and not the legislature’s alternative. The judge sided with her, not the init sponsors in this case. So who do think knows more about the Constitution and initiatives, this judge or an anonymous blog poster?

#44 No, they engaged in the initiative process then used it as leverage to push legislation.

They simply should have sought a legislative remedy in stead of this slide of hand. Curious what the worry is. It's going to a vote by all of us. If it's reasonable then there should be no problem getting the majority of citizens to vote for it.

No, they engaged in the initiative process then used it as leverage to push legislation.

Engaging in the Initiative process is the very definition of pushing legislation.

Curious what the worry is.

That HB3003, which was not an Initiative, but was enacted by the normal method of making a law, was also declared invalid because it had much of the same content as I-940. The legislature can take suggestions from citizens when making laws.

Also, the filer of an Initiative should have the power to withdraw it.

#52 That's all over with. Now we all get to vote on it, which is a great thing!