Unions bankroll legislative sprint to raise taxes
Posted by Amber Gunn - March 03, 2008If the legislature is unhappy with the constraints established by what is left of Initiative 601, they can amend it. Instead, legislators have chosen only to suspend the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases that has been on the books for 15 years.
Now, in a rush of panic at the passage of Initiative 960, which reaffirms the I-601 supermajority requirement to raise taxes, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown has filed a writ of mandamus against Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen after a showdown on Friday over the legislature’s inability to raise liquor taxes with a simple majority vote.
The writ of mandamus would “compel Lt. Governor Brad Owen as a constitutional officer of the state to perform his (proposed) constitutional duty to declare Senate Bill 6931 (the $10 million liquor tax increase), having reached the constitutional majority, passed, and thereby forward it to the House for consideration.”
The Brown v. Owen brief was filed today and requests an extremely expedited review by the State Supreme Court. So expedited in fact, that the respondent’s brief will be due this Thursday and oral arguments heard next Monday if Brown and her backers have their way.
Technically the lawsuit goes after I-601, since that was the initiative that originally established the two-thirds requirement in 1993. Which begs the question—why now after 15 years? What’s the rush?
And just who are her backers and why are they so eager to smash I-601’s protective measures for taxpayers? According to Brown’s online MP3 discussing the challenge, “labor and environmental groups” are bankrolling the suit. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.
Prior to the November 2007 election, Futurewise and Service Employees International Union (SIEU) challenged I-960’s voter and legislative approval requirements relating to tax increases, with the ultimate goal of preventing the initiative from appearing on the November ballot. The State Supreme Court rejected their pre-election challenge.
Is it coincidence that the bill cited to create I-960’s first post-election challenge is a real heart-strings puller? After all, majority democrats ask, aren’t new liquor taxes worth the cost to enforce drunk driving laws? Is it coincidence that between Friday and today, Seattle attorneys Hugh Spitzer and Tom Ahearne had already crafted a ten page brief outlining the case and its alleged constitutional support? Is it coincidence that unions are bankrolling the suit? Is it coincidence that Lisa Brown and her supporters have requested an expedited timeline that would severely hamstring the opposition’s ability to thoughtfully and thoroughly respond?
Connect the dots. It isn’t hard to see the design behind the seemingly chaotic web.
Thoughts? Add Comment -
There are no comments for this entry yet.