Chief
08-13-2007, 11:31 AM
http://www.theolympian.com/118/index.html
OLYMPIA — The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments next month in a legal challenge meant to keep Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960 off the November ballot.
The environmental group Futurewise and Service Employees International Union 775 have teamed up to challenge the measure before it’s been voted on — an action that could be termed a legal longshot since courts rarely block measures from the ballot.
Eyman wants to re-enact a two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for tax increases, which voters approved by initiative in 1993. He also wants to require advisory votes on tax increases and require government press releases every time state lawmakers propose a tax increase or vote on one.
I-960 is one of six measures on the Nov. 6 ballot. Supreme Court arguments are set for 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 6, according to a notice parties in the case received today from Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.
As word of the decision made its way out from the Temple of Justice, Eyman put his spin on the issue: “The State Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in 2005 that these kinds of anti-initiative lawsuits are illegal. That unanimous ruling — Coppernoll v. Reed — made clear that voters have a First Amendment right to vote on initiatives. We're confident the High Court will affirm the July 13th ruling by King County Judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee, and voters will get to vote on I-960 in November.”
Futurewise didn’t immediately comment on what appears to be new life in its bid to keep I-960 off the ballot. The group contends the measure is unconstitutional, and attorney Knoll Lowney wrote in a June newspaper column that I-960 tries illegally to amend the state Constitution through initiative.
“I-960 would require a two-thirds vote to pass most revenue measures in the first instance. This constitutes an amendment to the lawmaking structure established in the constitution. For this reason the Alaska Supreme Court struck a virtually identical initiative from the ballot less than four months ago,” Lowney wrote in The News Tribune.
**SCHNIPP**
Hmmmm.......this was datelined on last thursday; I must be slipping to have mised this one...
I'm still waiting to hear when the WSSC will rule on I-747...
Developing...
OLYMPIA — The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments next month in a legal challenge meant to keep Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960 off the November ballot.
The environmental group Futurewise and Service Employees International Union 775 have teamed up to challenge the measure before it’s been voted on — an action that could be termed a legal longshot since courts rarely block measures from the ballot.
Eyman wants to re-enact a two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for tax increases, which voters approved by initiative in 1993. He also wants to require advisory votes on tax increases and require government press releases every time state lawmakers propose a tax increase or vote on one.
I-960 is one of six measures on the Nov. 6 ballot. Supreme Court arguments are set for 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 6, according to a notice parties in the case received today from Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.
As word of the decision made its way out from the Temple of Justice, Eyman put his spin on the issue: “The State Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in 2005 that these kinds of anti-initiative lawsuits are illegal. That unanimous ruling — Coppernoll v. Reed — made clear that voters have a First Amendment right to vote on initiatives. We're confident the High Court will affirm the July 13th ruling by King County Judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee, and voters will get to vote on I-960 in November.”
Futurewise didn’t immediately comment on what appears to be new life in its bid to keep I-960 off the ballot. The group contends the measure is unconstitutional, and attorney Knoll Lowney wrote in a June newspaper column that I-960 tries illegally to amend the state Constitution through initiative.
“I-960 would require a two-thirds vote to pass most revenue measures in the first instance. This constitutes an amendment to the lawmaking structure established in the constitution. For this reason the Alaska Supreme Court struck a virtually identical initiative from the ballot less than four months ago,” Lowney wrote in The News Tribune.
**SCHNIPP**
Hmmmm.......this was datelined on last thursday; I must be slipping to have mised this one...
I'm still waiting to hear when the WSSC will rule on I-747...
Developing...