Tag Archives: No on 1053

AARP Opposes Initiatives 1053 and 1107.

Posted on October 13th, 2010 | Comments Off on AARP Opposes Initiatives 1053 and 1107.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is opposing Tim Eyman and British Petroleum’s Initiative 1053 and the American Beverage Industry’s Initiative 1107. Both measures are based on greed, namely that large corporations are unwilling to help Washington citizens fund basic public services but are instead intent on increasing corporate profit. And they hope that the public is gullible enough to believe it is about reducing taxes for the average taxpayer. It’s not.

As AARP notes:

Out-of-state special interests are at it again. This November, Washington voters will be asked to vote on two initiatives that if passed, would lead to deep cuts to important services like health and long-term care for low income seniors and a quality education for our children and grandchildren.

Initiative 1107, funded by the American Beverage Association, and Initiative 1053, funded largely by out-of-state businesses like BP and big Wall Street banks, will threaten our state budget, cripple state government, and make it harder than ever to recover from the recession.

Times are tough enough already. In response to one of the worst economies in decades, we’ve already cut more than $4.4 billion from the state budget. As a result, 2,600 education jobs were eliminated, 44,000 people lost Basic Health Plan coverage, class sizes are soaring and college tuition has skyrocketed by nearly 30 percent.

Initiatives 1107 and 1053 would only make things worse. Further cuts will seriously harm the things that we value – more cuts in health care means more expensive emergency room use, and more cuts in education hurts our kids for generations to come.

Initiative 1053 is an attempt by large corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They want to bank their profits and have the rest of us taxpayers pay for their cost of doing business in our state.

The Big Oil Companies like BP and Tesoro and Conoco Phillips paid for getting signatures to put I-1053 on the ballot. They did not do so to lower costs to average middle class taxpayers. They did so to try to make it impossible to allow Legislators to require them to help pay for cleaning up stormwater runoff polluted with the oil products they sell. They want you to believe I-1053 will lower your taxes, really all it will do is shift the tax burden and environmental health costs onto the citizens of Washington while Big Oil laughs all the way to the bank.

Vote NO on 1053 and make the Big Oil Companies pay the cost of cleaning up their waste before they bank their corporate profits taken out of our pocketbooks. Vote No on 1107.

Both measures are on the Nov 2, 2010 General Election Ballot in Washington State.

for additional information see:

http://www.stopgreed.org/

http://www.protectwashington.org/

http://www.voteno1053.com/

http://www.voteno1107.com/

Comments Off on AARP Opposes Initiatives 1053 and 1107.

Posted in Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Olympian Urges Voters to Reject Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

Posted on September 30th, 2010 | Comments Off on The Olympian Urges Voters to Reject Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

The Olympian has come out with an editorial strongly opposing Initiative 1053. It’s title “Initiative would give undemocratic veto power over budget” sums up one of the main arguments against Initiative 1053. Initiative 1053 would give 1/3 of the members of either House of the Washington State Legislature veto power over the state budget. What Eyman and special interests like Big Oil and Out of State Banks haven’t been able to achieve by electing a majority of legislators that support their position, they are trying to achieve by changing the rules by which Legislators can operate.

The Olympian’s editorial board recommends a vote against this Eyman initiative.

Why? We elect lawmakers to balance the budget. If we don’t like the way they do it, we can send them packing. But it’s unfair to take away one of their tools — tax increases. This initiative essentially gives a narrow minority — 17 senators or 34 House members, the difference of a simple majority and supermajority — veto authority on budget matters.

That’s not right nor is it democratic.

The Olympian continues with pointing out that the public expects the government to provide services yet doesn’t want to be taxed. People like Tim Eyman drone on endlessly and erroneously about the tax and spend Legislators. Yet as the Olympian notes:

Contrary to popular opinion tax increases are not the first solution for budget writers. In the past three years, lawmakers have dealt with a $12 billion shortfall. They’ve made $5.1 billion in program and service cuts; taken $3.6 billion in stimulus funds, transferred $1.7 billion from other funds; drawn down the ending fund balance and used money from the rainy day fund.

They’ve raised taxes by $800 million.

That’s a measured approach — certainly not “raise taxes as a first option.”

This nation and this state are on a financial precipice. We can tip in either direction. That economic uncertainty has consumers hunkered down and frightened.

This is no time to let a fraction of lawmakers dictate how this state’s budget is balanced.

Budget writing is a complex business with huge risks and people’s very lives at stake.

Tim Eyman’s “legislate by initiative” philosophy is an unwarranted intrusion into that complex decision-making process.

Vote “no” on Initiative 1053.

What the Olympian neglects to mention is that over a million dollars was spent to collect signatures using paid signature gatherers to put I-1053 on the ballot.  The big spenders as noted by Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times were not average citizens but special interests.

Why is Big Oil helping bankroll I-1053? It’s because they oppose Legislative efforts to slightly increase toxic waste taxes to help cleanup storm water runoff. They would rather citizens bear the brunt of toxic waste problems including cleanup while they deposit bank record  profits as they have in recent years.

“…Tim Eyman went more corporate than usual this year.

His Initiative 1053, to limit the Legislature’s tax-raising ability, has the type of stick-it-to-the-man appeal that you might think would get Joe Six-Pack to the ramparts.

Yet it’s on the ballot due to big cash from out-of-state oil companies such as BP, Tesoro and Conoco, which want to block any new oil taxes. Only about 12 percent of his more than $1 million came from individuals, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.

I-1053 is an example of greed in action. Citizens need to vote NO on 1053 so polluters rather than citizens have to pay for cleanup or in it’s absence suffer continued polluting of Puget Sound and the environment.

For a list of other companies involved in greedy actions this years promoting special interest initiatives that pass the burden of taxes and/or lack of funding for public services  onto Washington taxpayers see http://www.stopgreed.org/

Comments Off on The Olympian Urges Voters to Reject Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

Posted in Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , ,

Futurewise Urges a No Vote on Initiative 1053

Posted on September 24th, 2010 | Comments Off on Futurewise Urges a No Vote on Initiative 1053

Initiative 1053 is an initiative sponsored by Tim Eyman and backed by  corporate funding from oil companies like BP and Conoco Phillips and banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and US Bank. It is special interest legislation trying to give a minority of 1/3 of the State Legislators supporting these corporate interests veto power over the majority of Legislators. It is undemocratic and unconstitutional. Yet that doesn’t stop these special interests from trying to pull a fast one on Washington voters.

Many statewide organizations are opposing Initiative 1053. Futurewise has joined the Coalition against Initiative 1053 as have other environmental groups like the Washington Conservation Voters and the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. Futurewise describes itself as  “a statewide public interest group working to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland, forests and shorelines today and for future generations.” It recently celebrated its 20th anniversary of working.

Futurewise provides the following reason for their opposition to Initiative 1053:

Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 would institute minority rule in Washington state, empowering one-third (plus one) of the members of either the state House or Senate to prevent the majority from closing tax loopholes or raising new revenues.  BP, Conoco Philips, and Tesoro are some of the top funders behind I-1053. For the past two years, the statewide Environmental Community of which Futurewise is a member, has prioritized the Clean Water Act of 2010 – a $100 million investment in clean water infrastructure through either a fee or tax on polluters. If I-1053 passes, it will be even more difficult to make polluters like petroleum companies pay to clean up their messes. Futurewise encourages you to Vote NO I-1053.

I think Futurewise is understating the impact of I-1053 on our ability to enact legislation requiring polluters to pay for cleaning up waste hazards caused by the use of their products. The Legislature earlier this year was unable to pass legislation by a simple majority to require polluters like the oil companies to pay for cleaning up stormwater runoff caused by oil and other toxic chemicals.  Initiative 1053 would allow 1/3 of the members of either the House or the Senate to block such legislation. I think it would make it not just more difficult but almost impossible to pass such legislation under these circumstances.

Futurewise is also urging a No vote on Initiative 1107 pushed by the beverage industry to repeal taxes on pop and candy, They are urging a YES vote on Referendum 52 to fund rehabbing schools for energy efficiency and a YES vote on  Initiative 1098 for raising revenues for education and health care by taxing the top 1.2% of taxpayers on their income.

Comments Off on Futurewise Urges a No Vote on Initiative 1053

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , ,

Initiative 1053 is a Corporate Power Grab to Control the Legislature

Posted on September 20th, 2010 | Comments Off on Initiative 1053 is a Corporate Power Grab to Control the Legislature

BP Corporation North America, Conoco Phillips, Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, Alaska Airlines, Liberty Mutual, US Bank. What do all these corporations and banks and insurance companies have in common? They helped bankroll I-1053 along with Tim Eyman.  They are doing a power grab trying to take away majority votes in our State Legislature and vest power in a minority of Legislators that would comprise only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House of the Legislature.

Why are they doing this? Because they can more easily convince 17 out of 49 Senators  to support their corporate no tax agenda than convince 25 Senators to do so.  It is a blatant power grab. Under I-1053, only 17 Senators (a 1/3 minority) out of 49 would be needed to oppose  repealing special interest tax exemptions like some out of state banks now get or opposing legislation to make polluters like the oil industry pay for cleaning up toxic waste caused by use of the products they sell.

Corporations and banks and insurance companies put their profits as their bottom line, not the public good.  Our elected  State Legislature helps to provide a balance between corporate profits and the public good. Framers of our Washington State Constitution understood that making decisions by a majority vote was the fairest way to make decisions. They wrote it into the Washington State Constitution in Article II, Section 22, which states the Legislature shall act by majority votes.

Trying to require a 2/3 vote for some decisions like taxes,  will specifically benefit corporations and their profits over the public health and welfare. Such a proposal is unconstitutional.  One could just as easily argue that because tax exemptions for businesses and corporations remove revenue from the State budget, that a 2/3 vote should be required to continue existing tax exemptions and create any new tax exemptions. Exemptions should not be given lightly because they place more of a burden on other taxpayers to make up for the revenue lost.

Of course the same corporations supporting I-1053 would oppose this. Yet it is just as logical as their proposal. The unfairness here is also that the current tax exemptions in state law were passed by a simple majority but under I-1053 a 2/3 vote would be required to repeal any exemption because it is defined as increasing taxes. It doesn’t matter whether the exemption has outlived its usefulness or no longer provides any benefit to the state or the public.

I-1053 is the height or arrogance.  The two previous times it was passed by voters (I-601 and I-960), it squeaked by with a scant 51% to 49% vote.  It could nowhere near muster the vote numbers it is now trying to impose on the Legislature.  Voters should reject I-1053 for what it is – a backdoor approach to gain more power and profits for corporate interests at the expense of the rest of the state.

 Voters may think they are limiting their taxes but it is the corporations that are laughing all the way to the bank as they rake in more profits and pass the cost of their doing business in the state onto the public.  I-1053 will decrease the power of the average voter in the Legislative process and increase power in the hands of the self selected corporate elite that can more easily control a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators to further their special interest agenda and pad their bottom line.

Check out the list of big corporate interests and banks and oil companies and think to yourself why they want the public to vote for I-1053. Do you  think it is about the public welfare and health of our state and its voters or is it about their profits?  Do you think it is about educating our children and caring for the needy and seniors or salaries for corporate executives and bankers ?

Here’s a list of the largest donors, many who are based out of state,  that paid to put I-1053 on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot.  All told some $1,023,115 was raised by corporate and business interests and Eyman.

BP Corporation North America, Warrenville, IL  $65,000

Tesoro Industries Inc, San Antonio, TX $65,000

Washington Restaurant Association $59,000

Conoco Phillips, Huston, TX $50,000

Equilon, Huston, TX $50,000

Washington State Farm Bureau $50,000

Washington State Association of Realtors $25,000

Washington Bankers Association $25,000

Northwest Grocery Association Washington PAC, Wilsonville, OR $15,000

Kemper Holdings LLC $20,000

Community Bankers of Washington $10,000

Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding CA $10,000

Schnitzer Steel Ind, Portland, OR $10,000

Simpson, Tacoma, WA $10,000

Wells Fargo Bank, Minneapolis, MN $10,000

Port Blakeley Tree Farms, Tumwater, WA $8000

WA Aggregates and Concrete, Des Moines, WA $7,500
Martin Selig $5000

Alaska Airlines, $5000

Boise, Boise, ID $5000

Cowles Company, Spokane, WA $5000

Darigold, Seattle, WA $5000

Liberty Mutual, Dover, NH $5000

Plum Creek, Columbia Falls, MT $5000

Sherman Bakery, Shoreline, WA $5000

Simplot, Boise, ID $5000

US Bank, Robbinville, MN $5000

Washington Food Industry, $5000

Washington Food PAC, Portland, OR $5000

Washington Lodging Association PAC, $5000

Washington Oil Marketers Ass.,Port Orchard, WA $5000

Weyerhauser, Federal Way, WA $5000

Yakima Valley Growers-Shippers Association $5000

Comments Off on Initiative 1053 is a Corporate Power Grab to Control the Legislature

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , ,

Broad Coalition of Groups Oppose Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

Posted on September 16th, 2010 | Comments Off on Broad Coalition of Groups Oppose Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

A broad coalition of Washington State organizations has come out against Initiative 1053 which is on the November 2, 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 was put on the ballot by Tim Eyman, BP, and other oil and banking interests in an attempt to give a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators in either house of the Legislature veto power over the state budget and raising revenue or repealing special interest tax breaks.

I-1053 is unconstitutional because it is trying to amend the Washington State Constitution. You can not amend the Constitution by an initiative in Washington State. That requires a constitutional amendment.I-1053 is trying to amend the language in Article II, Section 22 of the State Constitution which says the Legislature shall act by a majority vote in passing legislation. By I-1053 trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills it is basically saying that only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House can overrule the vote of the majority.That is why it is unconstitutional.

Major statewide groups opposing I-1053 include:

League of Women Voters of Washington
Washington Association of Churches
Washington State Labor Council
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington Education Association
Washington State Democrats
Sierra Club – Cascade Chapter

Here is the complete list opposing I-1053 done alphabetically. More groups are joining every day.

•Adams County Democrats

•AFT Seattle Community Colleges, Local 1789

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1384

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1765

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 843

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 883

•American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

•American Federation of Teachers – AFT Washington

•Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA)

•Asian Pacific Islander Coalition of King County

•Center for Social Justice

•Central WA Progress

•Childhaven

•Children’s Alliance

•Church Council of Greater Seattle

•Community Workers of America (CWA) State Council

•Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Labor Council

•Eastern Washington Voters

•Economic Opportunity Institute

•Entre Hermanos

•Equal Rights Washington

•Friends Committee on Washington State Public Policy (Quakers)

•Fuse Washington

•Futurewise

•Greater Seattle Business Association

•Health Point

•IBEW Local 46

•IBEW Local 77

•IFPTE Local 17

•Inland Empire Residential Resources

•Inter*Im Community Development Association

•International Community Health Services

•Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) Seattle Chapter

•King County Democrats

•King County Labor Council

•Kitsap County Labor Council

•Laborers Local 1239

•League of Women Voters of Washington

•Lewiston-Clarkston County Labor Council

•Lincoln County Democrats

•Latino PAC of Washington

•Lutheran Community Services Northwest

•Lutheran Public Policy Office

•Minority Executive Directors Coalition

•NARAL Pro-Choice Washington

•National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) Seattle Chapter

•National Council of Jewish Women – Seattle Section

•New Futures

•North Central Washington CLC

•North Urban Human Services Alliance

•Northwest Progressive Institute

•Northwest Washington CLC

•Olympic Labor Council

•One America

•One America Votes

•Operators (IUOE) 302

•Organizing for Seattle

•Pacific County Democrats

•Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane

•Pierce County Democrats

•Pierce County Labor Council

•Planned Parenthood Pub Pol Network of WA

•Public School Employees of WA/SEIU Local 1948

•Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans

•Raising Our APA Representation

•Retired Public Employees of Washington

•Sahngnoksoo

•SEA MAR Community Health Clinic
•Seattle Human Services Coalition

•SEIU 925

•SEIU Healthcare 1199 NW

•SEIU Healthcare 775 NW

•SEIU WA State Council

•Sheet Metal Workers Local 66
•Sierra Club Cascade Chapter
•Sightline

•Snohomish County Democratic Central Committee

•Snohomish County Labor Council

•Snohomish County Young Democrats

•Southeast Washington CLC

•Southwest Washington Central Labor Council (Formerly Clark, Skamania, and West Klickitat CLC)

•Spokane Regional Labor Council

•Statewide Poverty Action Network

•Teamsters Joint Council 28

•Thurston, Lewis, Mason Counties Labor Council

•Twin Harbors Labor Council

•UA Local 32 Plumbers and Pipefitters

•UFCW 141

•UFCW 365/WPEA

•UFCW 21

•UNITE Here Local 8

•United Faculty of Washington State

•Washington Association of Churches

•Washington Association of Community and Migrant Health Centers

•Washington Bus Education Fund

•Washington Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics

•Washington Community Action Network

•Washington Conservation Voters

•Washington Education Association

•Washington Federation of State Employees

•Washington State Council of Fire Fighters

•Washington State Democrats

•Washington State Labor Council

•Whatcom County Democrats21

•Yakima South Central Counties Labor Council

•Yakima County Democrats

•2nd Legislative District Democrats

•5th legislative District Democrats

•28th Legislative District Democrat

•30th Legislative District Democrats

•32nd Legislative District Democrats

•33rd Legislative District Democrats

34th Legislative District Democrats

•36th Legislative District Democrats

•38th Legislative District Democrats

•41st Legislative District Democrats

•43rd Legislative District Democrats

•44th Legislative District Democrats

•45th Legislative District Democrats

•46th Legislative District Democrats

•47th Legislative District Democrats

•48th Legislative District Democrats

Comments Off on Broad Coalition of Groups Oppose Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off on Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

The Washington Conservation Voters are among the many organizations across Washington State opposing Initiative 1053, which is on the November 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman’s attempt to errorously amend the Washington State Constitution by initiative. Unfortunately for Eyman, in Washington State you can not amend the constitution by initiative. To do that requires a separate process of passing a constiutional amendment.

Eyman is trying to change Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution that says the Washington State Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote.  Eyman and his corporate backers like BP are trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills.

The Washington Conservation Voters describe their opposition to I-1053 as follows:

Vote No on Initiative 1053

Tim Eyman is back. His latest initiative, I-1053, recycles the failed concept behind Initiative 960 – forcing a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any increase in revenue for our state, such as taxing polluters. If this initiative passes, next legislative session’s expected $3 billion budget deficit will have to be closed with another brutal all-cuts budget. Critical protections that keep our air safe to breathe, our water healthy to drink, and toxic contaminations cleaned up would once again be at risk.

The Washington Conservation Voters also has an article written by Joel Connelly of the SeattlePI.com posted on their website entitled “Eyman’s I-1053 – A slick initiative” which explains some of the reasons corporations like BP, Tesoro, ConocoPhillips and Equilon  are pushing I-1053. For them it’s profits over public good and corporate responsibility.

You can add your voice  opposing 1053 on Facebook by going here.

You can view the Vote No on 1053 website here.

You can check out all the Washington Conservation Voters 2010 endorsements by clicking here.

Comments Off on Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , ,

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

Posted on September 1st, 2010 | Comments Off on Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club has come out against Initiative 1053.  This is Tim Eyman’s 2010 initiative trying to impose a 2/3 vote requirement for Washington State Legislators to pass revenue measures and close special interest tax exemptions.

The measure is unconstitutional. An initiative can not amend the Washington State Constitution. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.

Here is the Sierra Club’s rationale for opposing I-1053.

Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman’s latest bad idea that will cripple state government by allowing minority rule. The measure would require a supermajority on all revenue measures, such as increases in levies on toxic run-off from oil and other hazardous substances. In fact BP and their Big Oil friends have ponied up big to Tim Eyman to ensure that they can continue to pollute without paying to cleanup their mess. To add insult to injury, this measures also allows a minority to block closing tax loopholes to polluters.

In order for our government to function, the legislature needs to be able to ensure that polluters pay, and that we are able to invest in cleaning up our air and water. Just Say No to Initiative 1053.

You can go to the Sierra Club’s website to see their endorsements for candidates for the November election. They also are supporting Referendum 52.

Comments Off on Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

Posted in Economy, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , ,

Supermajority Vote Requirement for Washington State Legislators as Proposed by I-1053 is Unconstitutional

Posted on August 25th, 2010 | 2 comments

This issue should have been decided long ago by the Washington State Supreme Court. Any attempt to limit the Washington State Legislature from enacting revenue bills or repealing non-performing tax exemptions by requiring a supermajority vote is unconstitutional. Initiative 1053 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by voters this November.

The Washington State Constitution is very clear on this issue.

Article II, Section 22 states:

“PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

It does not state that more than a majority vote can be required. Initiative 1053 tries to change that by requiring Legislators to act by a 2/3 supermajority vote in both Houses to enact revenue measures or repeal tax exemptions. It happens to be revenue in this case but it could just as easy be environmental protections or labor issues or race issues or women’s issues or any other issue.

The fact of the matter is that anything more than 50% to pass a bill would give Legislators on one side of the issue more power than the other side in determining the outcome of a vote.  Requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a measure means that the vote of 1/3 of the Legislators can prevail over the vote of 2/3 of the Legislators.

A majority vote gives both sides on a issue equal voting power  to pass or reject legislation. Everyone’s vote has equal weight. It’s the basic concept of one person/one vote. But a 2/3 vote requirement for Legislators to pass something means that 1/3 of the Legislators can prevent passage;  in essence giving the vote of those opposed to a measure  twice the weight of someone voting for the measure.

This sets up a two tiered system of weighted votes, something that is not in the State Constitution for passing legislation.  It distorts the process of representational government. Initiative 1053 tries to change the Washington State Constitution by saying that in some cases your elected Senator or Representative will represent you with one full vote to decide an issue but in cases involving raising revenue or repealing non-performing tax exemptions, they will essentially only have the equivalent of half a vote to decide the issue if they vote yes. If they vote no their vote will represent a full vote.

This is the flaw in supermajority votes. Under a 2/3 majority vote requirement to pass some issues, it sets up a system that essentially assigns Legislators the equivalent of half a vote if they vote yes or a full vote if they vote no on certain issues.

While I-1053 would require supermajority votes for deciding to raise revenue or repeal non-performing tax exemptions, it only requires a simple majority to pass itself. It does not require a 2/3 vote.

Washington voters are certainly not overwhelmed by this proposal based on past voting. In the one instance in which it was mentioned specifically in the ballot title, it just barely passed. That was Initiative 960 in 2007. It only received a 51.24% yes vote. That is nowhere near the 2/3 voting requirement it is asking the State Legislature to operate under.

In 1993, the 2/3 vote requirement was an issue in Initiative 601, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the ballot title.  It also just barely passed with a 51.21 % yes vote.

Eyman mentions this measure passing 3 times which is misrepresenting the issue. In 1998 voters passed Referendum 49. It’s subject dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits. Nowhere was a 2/3 vote requirement mentioned in the ballot title or official arguments for the voters pamphlet by supporters and opponents as referenced by the League of Women Voters.

These attempts to negate the concept of 1 person/1 vote for Legislators voting are unconstitutional. They are attempts to assign different voting powers to different Legislators depending on whether they vote for or against a particular measure. The Washington State Constitution does not allow the ability to weight votes for bills depending on the subject.

Article I, Section 29 states:

CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

The State Constitution does not set up the power to weight votes depending on a Legislator’s position on a bill.

The issue of revenue/taxes is specifically addressed in another part of the Washington State Constitution.

Article VII, Section 1 states:

TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away.

Initiative 1053 is obviously an attempt to take away the Legislator’s authority to raise revenue or taxes to support public services. The only way this can be altered is by a constitutional amendment.

An initiative or legislative bill can not amend the state constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. Because constitutional amendments affect the basic framework of how our government works, it is a specific instance where the state constitution spells out a requirement for a 2/3 vote by the Legislature and a majority vote of the people to pass. Two other instances spelled out for 2/3 votes by the Legislature are to expel a member of the house and a 2/3 vote in the first 2 years to amend an initiative.

No where does the Washington State Constitution say that voters can by a simple majority vote on an initiative, limit the power of Legislators to pass revenue legislation or repeal under-performing tax exemptions  by requiring supermajority votes. Under Article I, Section 29 to do so would require express words and no such words exist in the Constitution.

Initiative 1053 should be rejected by voters this November. It is unconstitutional. Uphold our Constitution by voting No on 1053 this November 2nd!

2 Comments

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,