OPPOSING RIGHT WING INITIATIVES AND FIGHTING TIM EYMAN
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER CHALLENGES I-960 IN COURT
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown is filing a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to invalidate the provision of Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 that requires two thirds votes to increase revenue. Permanent Defense applauds Senator Brown's action and urges the Supreme Court to set a needed precedent nullifying this undemocratic supermajority scheme. Learn more in our series Unconstitutional, Unfair, Unsound.
more... previous headlines....
more from the Release Center...
Welcome to our website! Founded on February 6th, 2002, Permanent Defense is the oldest continuous organization committed to fighting against Tim Eyman's senseless initiatives (including his latest, I-960) and working to reform the tax structure in Washington State.
To learn more about our mission, visit About Us. Please feel free to contact us with your comments, thoughts, or suggestions. Interested in supporting our efforts? Contribute, and learn about other ways that you can get involved to make a difference.
I-960 IS A THREAT TO OUR REPUBLIC
DO YOU KNOW WHAT INITIATIVE 960 WOULD DO?
Tim Eyman, Washington State's most notorious libertarian moneymaker and political profiteer, has recycled a bad idea from four years ago and made it even worse to promote as his 2007 initiative. It's not a tax cut, but it's designed to starve government and undermine representative democracy.
It would prevent the state Legislature from approving any revenue increase unless a two thirds supermajority approves - allowing a minority to control the state budgeting process.
Furthermore, any and all revenue increases (whether they be taxes or fees) would be subject to a nonbinding public vote, resulting in endless gridlock.
Questions About Initiative 960
Who's behind this initiative?
As noted above, it's a product of Tim Eyman's initiative factory. It was sponsored by Eyman and his Spokane cohorts Mike and Jack Fagan. It's being financed by Woodinville millionaire Michael Dunmire. Using his money, Eyman's allies at "Citizen Solutions" are employing paid petitioners to collect signatures for it.
Proponents claim we need this initiative to protect taxpayers. Is this true?
No, it certainly isn't. If we the taxpayers (most of us are also voters) thought Olympia was needlessly raising revenue, we would have voted the majority party out of office in the last election....and we would have said yes to recent right wing initiatives to cut taxes. But we didn't. Instead we rejected those initiatives and strengthened the majority party's control of the House and Senate. The "taxpayer protection" argument is a manipulative frame proponents use to make themselves sound like populists who are fighting against an unresponsive political establishment. What taxpayers really need to be protected from is the misinformation peddled by Eyman.
Will this initiative cut funding for public serivces?
It won't cut taxes, but it will make it difficult for the Legislature to adequately fund public services in future bienniums (a biennium is a two year budgeting period). If it makes the ballot, it will also interfere with state agencies' plans for increasing or implementing new fees set to go into effect on January 1st, 2008.
How can these guys still be in business after so many failures?
That's a good question (see our Failure Chart). They'll evidently stay in business until they can't find any wealthy backers to provide money for paid signature drives and their compensation fund (Help Us Help Ourselves).
Isn't this like a few disgruntled players trying to change the rules of a game because they can't win?
Yes, somewhat. But in this case the ramifications are much more serious. Lawmaking and the legislative process is not a game. The decisions that we make - and the decisions that our elected leaders make - have a significant impact on our society, our environment, and our communities.
If I-960 is passed and takes effect, what happens to my ballot in the general election held every November?
Presumably, it becomes a lot more cluttered and complicated because every tax and fee increase that makes it through the Legislature would be subject to a vote of the people - either a referendum or an "advisory vote". (I-960 sets up nonbinding "advisory votes"). Ironically, I-960 could also end up costing the state a significant amount of money because the ballots would have to be so much longer (remember, elections themselves cost money).
Is I-960 unconstitutional?
We believe it is. In Washington State it is impossible to amend the state Constitution by initiative, and several sections of I-960 contain language which is conflict with the supreme law of the Evergreen State. It's no surprise that I-960 is flawed - previous Eyman initiatives have been tossed out by the courts for running afoul of the Constitution. I-960 undermines the fundamental, written principles on which our republic operates and is therefore unlikely to ultimately survive a legal challenge.
© 2007 Permanent Defense
Paid for by Permanent Defense
A Northwest Progressive Institute organization
Post Office Box 264, Redmond, WA 98073-0264
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons license, which means that Permanent Defense has granted you the rights to reproduce our materials under certain conditions, including attribution.
All other rights are reserved.
NEWS, NOTES, AND DIGEST
ONLINE SINCE FEBRUARY 2002 PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES
