Category Archives: Threat Analysis

Permanent Defense, MajorityRules respond to Eyman’s attempt to re-impose minority rule

Statements & AdvisoriesThreat Analysis

The Northwest Progressive Institute’s Permanent Defense project and MajorityRules.org – both part of the successful NO on Initiative 1033 Coalition that stopped Tim Eyman’s scheme to trap Washington in a permanent recession – today responded to the umpteenth filing of Tim Eyman’s new attempt to reimpose an unconstitutional two thirds barrier to raising revenue.

“Once again, Tim Eyman is assaulting our cherished tradition of majority rule with a recycled, poorly conceived initiative,” said Northwest Progressive Institute Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve. “Eyman’s goal is to give control of fiscal decisions in our state to a minority of the Legislature, in direct violation of Article II, Section 22 of our Constitution, which specifically says that bills shall pass by majority vote. We have Article II, Section 22 because our Framers understood that representative democracy requires majority rule with minority rights.”

“Minority rule isn’t democracy; it’s a recipe for legislative gridlock. Why should we listen or trust someone who purposely wants to jam the gears of government and wreck our common wealth?” Villeneuve asked.

“Tim Eyman’s new scheme is blatantly unconstitutional, unfair, and unsound, just as Initiative 960 was. It’s no surprise that Republican legislators like Janea Holmquist and Pam Roach have jumped on the Tim Eyman station wagon: Without this scheme in place, they don’t have the ability to obstruct the work of the majority, which was elected by the people of Washington to responsibly govern our state and protect its public services,” Villeneuve added.

“One of the reasons that California continually has severe budget crises is because they require two thirds votes for approval of all budgets, which include any new revenue,” noted Steve Zemke of MajorityRules.org. “The last thing we need is to become known as the next California.”

“Unfortunately, Eyman’s undermocratic scheme would also prevent the Legislature from repealing out of date, unneeded tax exemptions which are no longer in the public interest, because it allows a one third minority of the Legislature to block reform,” Zemke added.

“Over the last two years, voters have spoken decisively and clearly in rejecting Initiatives 985 and Initiative 1033, because they realize that cuts, gimmicks, and shortcuts aren’t the answer to our problems,” Villeneuve reflected. “The people want the Legislature to be able to addess this budget crisis unshackled. They want our representatives to be able to respond positively to meet our shared needs.”

Zemke observed that in the same year (2007) that voters narrowly passed Initiative 960, they also approved a constitutional amendment to reduce the bar for passage of school levies from sixty percent to a simple majority. “People feel an obligation to support their communities; all they ask is that they be taxed fairly. But this scheme does not make our tax system fairer or more equitable. It just makes a bad situation worse,” Zemke concluded.

In the coming days, weeks, and months, NPI’s Permanent Defense and MajorityRules will be working hard to form a new coalition to oppose Eyman’s latest measure and protect Washington’s tradition of majority rule.

Permanent Defense responds to Eyman’s submission of signatures for jobs killing Initiative 1033

Statements & AdvisoriesThreat Analysis

This morning in Olympia, professional initiative profiteer Tim Eyman submitted signatures for his latest scheme to wreck Washington – Initiative 1033, which would result in job losses across The Evergreen State.

“Our economy is extraordinarily fragile right now,” noted Northwest Progressive Institute Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve. (Permanent Defense is a project of the Northwest Progressive Institute). “Initiative 1033 would wipe out any chance of a quick recovery from this recession by destroying jobs across our state.”

If Initiative 1033 passes, cities and counties will have no choice but to start laying off public servants – if they haven’t already.

Such layoffs would not only weaken public services and our quality of life, but they would cause a ripple effect. A rise in unemployment, especially in Washington’s small towns, would further destabilize the economy and only lead to more competition for a scarce number of new jobs that don’t pay as well.

“Washingtonians need to understand that Initiative 1033 is a jobs killer,” Villeneuve added. “It’s a cynical, destructive idea that would wreak havoc on our communities. The pain that so many are feeling now from the Legislature’s dehumanizing budget cuts would be cruelly extended and deepened with the passage of Initiative 1033.”

“We simply cannot afford for this measure to pass. That’s why Permanent Defense, along with a wide and diverse coalition of other organizations fighting for the public interest, will be working hard in the weeks and months ahead to ensure that the people of this great state know the consequences of Initiative 1033.”

Permanent Defense responds to Eyman’s 2009 anti-prosperity initiative

Statements & AdvisoriesThreat Analysis

The Northwest Progressive Institute today responded to the filing of Tim Eyman’s anti-prosperity initiative for 2009 in Olympia by announcing it will vigorously oppose the measure through its Permanent Defense project. I-1033, if it became law, would have a horrific impact on Washington State.

“Washingtonians have a long and cherished tradition of pooling our resources and working together for shared prosperity,” NPI Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve remarked. “This initiative would destroy our common wealth, making it almost impossible for us to improve our schools, create new jobs, or provide healthcare to children who aren’t covered.”

Villeneuve explained that Eyman’s measure would have a detrimental impact because it would paralyze government’s ability to respond to the basic needs of the people by imposing an ill-conceived, artificial limit on spending.

“Our democratic government, which belongs to each of us, exists so that we can do for ourselves collectively what we can’t accomplish alone,” Villeneuve added. “Revitalizing our economy and rebuilding our infrastructure will take a team effort. We need our government to be there for us in these tough economic times. Washington must reject this cynical and shameless attack on our future.”

NPI and its Permanent Defense division, which opposes misguided and harmful initiatives in Washington State, are initiating research into Eyman’s 2009 measure to learn more about the specific harm it would do to neighborhoods across the Evergreen State. Research will begin immediately.

Washington Research Council publishes report on I-960

Off TopicThreat Analysis

The Washington Research Council, a business-supported think tank, has a new report (PDF) that echoes our criticisms of Tim Eyman’s latest plan to handicap government:

Initiative 960 is intended to make it more difficult for our elected representatives to raise taxes without referring the matter to a direct vote of the people. As such, it would take the state a step further away from representative democracy.

The value of delegating public decision making to a small number of representatives was well expressed by James Madison:

The effect of [the delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest is] to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love for justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. (Federalist 10)

The Research Council likes representative democracy. While both the initiative and the referendum provide useful checks on the legislature, public votes should be the exception not the rule.

We find the advisory ballots to be particularly problematic, as they are designed more to intimidate legislators rather than to engage the public. If the initiative passes, the two-thirds majority requirement will almost certainly be challenged for violating the state Constitution.

Learn more about I-960’s harmful ramifications for our state at Reasons to Oppose.

Initiative 960 would cost taxpayers millions

Threat Analysis

The state Office of Financial Management has released a statement analyzing the potential financial impacts of I-960. It’s not pretty:

Initiative 960 would result in added costs to prepare ten-year cost projections for proposed state tax and fee increases, to notify legislators and the public about proposed revenue legislation, and to conduct advisory votes on tax increases approved by the Legislature. Costs are estimated to be up to $1.8 million a year, including $1.2 million for local election expenses. Local government pays election costs in even-numbered years. The state pays a pro-rated share in odd-numbered years. Actual election costs for any particular year will depend on the number of tax measures referred to an advisory vote.

Most of the money is for election related expenses (remember, elections cost money) to handle the nonbinding, useless advisory votes that I-960 would implement, if it takes effect.

An advisory vote, a new form of referendum, would be automatically triggered when a tax increase is passed into law by a two thirds supermajority (the high bar stipulated by I-960). Both the advisory vote gimmick, which is meant to give voters the false impression that their taxes are skyrocketing, and the two thirds limits run afoul of the state Constitution.

The state Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the legal challenge to strike I-960 from the statewide ballot next week.

Referendum 67 qualifies for ballot

Threat Analysis

You can thank insurance industry money for forcing this unnecessary public vote:

Secretary of State Sam Reed announced today that Referendum 67 has sufficient valid signatures to qualify for a spot on the statewide ballot in November.

According to elections officials, a check of petition signatures submitted in support of the proposal has shown that the measure meets constitutional requirements for a minimum of 112,440 valid voter signatures. The measure will appear on the November 6 General Election ballot.

Referendum 67 would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and permit treble damages plus attorney fees for that and other violations. Some health insurance carriers would be exempt. The official ballot summary on Referendum 67 reads, “Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5726 would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny a claim for coverage or payment of benefits to any “first party claimant”, as defined in the bill, or to violate insurance fair practices regulation.

With court approval, successful claimants would be entitled to actual damages plus costs and reasonable attorney fees, and in some cases up to triple damages. The bill would not apply to health plans offered by health carriers.”

Sponsors of Referendum 67 submitted a total of 156,446 petition signatures to the Secretary of State. Election officials conducted a random sample of 4,783 signatures, of which 4,132 were valid signatures – 651 were determined invalid. Signatures are invalid if the signer is not a registered voter or if he or she signed more than once.

The petition was checked using the “random sample” process authorized by state law. Under the process, a statistically valid percentage of the signatures are selected at random and checked against voter registration records. A mathematical formula is then applied to the results to obtain a projected rate of invalidation.

Election officials examined 4,783 (a 3 percent sample) on Referendum 67. From that inspection, it was determined that the measure had an invalidation rate of 13.6 percent.

Remember to vote YES on Referendum 67 this November. Voting YES keeps the consumer protection law in place!

Setback in I-960 lawsuit

Ballot WatchdoggingThreat Analysis

Via our parent organization’s blog, some bad news:

Judge refuses to block I-960 from ballot
Before actually granting the state’s motion, the judge explained the various reasons why she did not want to address the issues raised by the plaintiffs. At one point she even paused and clearly stated, “This is very limited review.”

She did not address the constitutionality of the measure, noting that would, however, be appropriate for post-election review.

And while acknowledging that the scope issue was pertinent to the case, she basically sidestepped it. For example, she refused to look at the supermajority issue on the basis that a similiar requirement was approved years ago as part of Initiative 601 (and is now on the books, although the Legislature has not considered the law to be binding, and no court has considered its validity or constitutionality.)

So we didn’t get the definitive ruling for or against the suit that I thought we would get from the Court. Restraint evidently weighed heavily on Judge Shaffer’s consideration of the plaintiffs’ request.

Futurewise and SEIU 775 could still appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, which might come out of summer recess to hear two other unrelated cases that also pertain to the 2007 general election this November.

Eyman should think twice before he gloats…this may not be over yet.

Hutcherson abandons Initiative 963

Threat Analysis

Antioch Bible Church pastor Ken Hutcherson, who earlier this year filed an initiative to overturn Washington’s recently amended civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, admitted today that he has not been doing any work to qualify the measure.

Initiatives currently require 224,880 valid signatures to appear on the ballot. I-963 never had a signature drive, so it stands no chance of going before voters. Its demise is the religious right’s second failure in two years to force a vote on the law. Last year’s Referendum 65 (an effort by Tim Eyman, Hutcherson, and others) also came up short. The equal rights law appears to be safe for the foreseeable future.

Decline to Sign Referendum 67

AnnouncementsThreat Analysis

Our parent organization’s blog has a post about a message sent out by Representative Steve Kirby earlier today concerning insurance industry trickery. Insurers, using a shell PAC called “Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates” are attempting to collect signatures to force a vote on a consumer protection act that the industry wants repealed.

Referendum 67 is not about screening you from higher insurance rates, it’s about rolling back safeguards that defend your family. If you are approached by a petitioner to sign Referendum 67, decline and immediately report your encounter to Permanent Defense so we can track and respond to their activities.

You never know when Eyman’s telling the truth

Threat Analysis

Not too long ago, the lying initiative profiteer sent out an email to a few select supporters saying the campaign for R-65 was in trouble and in need of more signatures.

Now Eyman is boasting that his supporters are not overconfident, and he’s within striking distance of having enough signatures by June 6th. It’s typical Eyman.

Will he have enough signatures? While the reports we’ve been receiving indicate that signature gathering for R-65 has been stepped up, it doesn’t sound as if there’s been an all out aggressive push.

It could be like in 2004, where Eyman attempted to keep everyone in suspense until the very end, when he and his partners the Fagans brought in a table stacked with petitions to make the press think he was going to turn in, when in reality he was about a hundred thousand signatures short of what was needed.

We’ll know for sure when the deadline arrives.

In the meantime, we are not confused – we continue to work to educate Washingtonians about the danger of these attacks on our sustainable future.

Eyman’s press release:

It’s been nearly a month since our announcement that we needed a big increase in signatures. The effect couldn’t have turned out better. Our supporters now know the facts. They know there’s work to be done. Emails and phone calls have been pouring in ever since with offers to work even harder.

This is what Eyman says every year about every initiative effort, including those that have failed. Remember I-807 in 2003, which was going to be “wildly popular”?

The media stories have been remarkably neutral. Opponents are perplexed and disoriented (“Is it a political ploy? Do we stay quiet? Do you attack? What do we do??????????”). There’s not an ounce of overconfidence among any of our supporters now. We all know that it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get Referendum 65 on the ballot.

We’ve got 19 days left. 19 days is a lifetime in politics IF AND ONLY IF WE ALL GET GOING — AND GET GOING BIG TIME. Our deadline for signatures is Tuesday, June 6th. The number of valid signatures needed is 112,440.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW IS THAT THERE IS ENOUGH TIME TO GET THE SIGNATURES FOR REFERENDUM 65. BUT ONLY IF WE ALL REDOUBLE AND RETRIPLE OUR EFFORTS RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Remember, if you see right wing signature gathering activity occurring, please report it to Permanent Defense.

You are here:

Mobilizing for 2024 to counter new threats

Stop Greed: Vote no in 2024
Visit StopGreed.org to learn about three harmful right wing initiatives we're opposing that are headed for the November general election ballot

What we do

Permanent Defense works to protect Washington by building a first line of defense against threats to the common wealth and Constitution of the Evergreen State — like Tim Eyman's initiative factory. Learn more.

Protecting Washington Since 2002

Newsroom Archives