Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Democrats Want a Do Over on Yesterday’s 960 Vote

Update: Correction. We initially reported that the GOP was able to pass amendments to SB 6843 to preserve the transparency requirements of I-960. That was incorrect. It was a democrat amendment intended to suspend I-960 in its entirety that essentially preserved the transparency requirements by accident. The story has been amended to reflect this correction.

This morning we reported that the GOP could claim a partial victory in yesterday’s vote to suspend I-960 because several aspects of the initiative were left intact—including the 10-year fiscal outlook and public announcement requirements about tax increase bills.

The democrats thought the bill they passed yesterday would suspend I-960 in its entirety for one year because of a democrat-sponsored amendment, but because of a bizarre misunderstanding, the amended bill only suspended the two-thirds majority vote requirement. Now the dems have called a mulligan on yesterday’s vote.

A new bill, which would suspend all of I-960, has already been introduced and voted through the Senate Ways and Means committee. The next stop for the bill is the Senate Rules Committee. The Senate Democrats want to fast track the new bill to the Senate floor, but that will take some cooperation from the Republicans, which might be a little difficult to wrangle.

“In order for the bill to be pulled out of rules and heard on the floor, it needs a procedural vote which gives the minority party some leverage,” said Jeff Reading, Senate Democrats Communications Director.

Tim Eyman responded to the democrats’ screw-up in a press release this morning.

“Democrats in Olympia aren’t bound by 3 votes of the people, nor by their own vote yesterday,” Eyman wrote. “They are above the law, above the rules, above reproach, above criticism.


  • timeyman

    Here's our comments in their entirety:

    RE: Democrats aren't bound by votes, not even their own — “you peasants don't understand, the rules don't apply to us”

    A vote on the floor of the Senate yesterday by the Democrats eliminated the 2/3's legislative vote requirement for tax increases. Voters have approved that law requiring a 2/3's vote 3 times and that 2/3's law has survived 4 court challenges — the voters are clearly on record demanding that that be the law. Nonetheless, Democrats in Olympia took it away yesterday without hesitation — they are clearly planning on violating that voter-approved law in the coming weeks and again during next year's legislative session after the election. But in their zeal to steal more of the taxpayers money, they realized after their vote, that the citizenry would learn of their treachery because of I-960's transparency provisions.

    So now they're saying yesterday's vote doesn't count.

    Democrats in Olympia aren't bound by 3 votes of the people, nor by their own vote yesterday. They are above the law, above the rules, above reproach, above criticism.

    During the debate on the Senate floor yesterday, Democrats didn't even allow for a full discussion, voting to cut-off and truncate debate. Rodney Tom's exasperated “let's get on with it” captured perfectly the Democrats' arrogance. Citizens worked for 300 days to qualify and pass I-960, waited nearly a year for a unanimous state supreme court to reject Lisa Brown's lawsuit, and yet Democrats whined about spending time discussing the ramifications and implications for eviscerating this 3 time voter-approved policy.

    With their dictatorial, banana republic approach to governing, why are they even having another vote? Why not just 'decree' that Democrats don't have to follow the law, aren't required to follow senate rules and cut-off dates, and don't have to disclose the costs, hearing dates, sponsorship, and voting records of legislators? Why are they even pretending to follow the rules or abide by the Constitution? Such strictures only apply to us mere mortals, not to the demi-gods in the Democrat party.

    What does the complete elimination of I-960 mean:

    * Under I-960, when a bill increasing taxes or fees is introduced, it is analyzed by the state budget office to identify its short-term and long-term cost — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Under I-960, after its analyzed, the press and interested citizens are told how much it costs, and which legislators are sponsoring it and how to contact them by phone and email — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Under I-960, when a hearing is scheduled on a tax/fee bill, the press and interested citizens are told when and where and told the members of the committee and how to contact them by phone and email — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Under I-960, when the tax/fee bill is voted out of committee, the press and interested citizens are told how legislators voted — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Under I-960, when the tax/fee bill is voted on the floor of the house or senate, the press and interested citizens are told how legislators voted — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Under I-960, unelected bureaucrats in state agencies cannot unilaterally jack up fees or create new fees — I-960 gave that sole authority to the elected representatives in the Legislature — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Prior to I-960, the Legislature was found guilty in Snohomish County Superior Court for transferring money from various accounts so they could spend the same money twice, a way to get around the spending limit — I-960 prohibited them from spending the same money multiple times — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Prior to I-960, the Legislature claimed that a tax increase wasn't a tax increase if it didn't get deposited into the general fund — I-960 said a tax increase was a tax increase regardless of what account or fund it was deposited into — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * The Legislature constantly abuses/overuses/misuses the emergency clause to make controversial bills “referendum proof”, meaning the citizens are prohibited from exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed right to referendum, to collect signatures and put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. Under I-960, voters can't stop the tax increase and can't stop them from slapping emergency clauses on the tax hike bills, but they at least get to be notified how legislators voted on the 'emergency' tax increase at the next general election (2 pages in the voters pamphlet are set-aside for that purpose) — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    * Also with regard to 'emergency' tax increases, voters can't stop the tax increase and can't stop them from slapping emergency clauses on the tax hike bills and can't exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to referendum and receive a binding vote on the legislature, but under I-960, they at least get to express their opinion on the 'emergency' tax increase at the next general election — NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

    There's no justification for legislators' voting records to be kept secret from the public.

    The Democrats' plan is to make sure that taxpayers get screwed, and to make sure the citizens have no right to know who screwed 'em and by how much.

    Regards, Our Expanded Team of co-sponsors for I-1053, the “Save The 2/3's Vote For Tax Increases Initiative”: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, Mike Dunmire, Senator Don Benton, Senator Janea Holmquist, Erma Turner, Nancy Nelson, Dagny Lord, Keli Carender, Senator Pam Roach, Rep. Matt Shea, John Ahern & Ken Morse, http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

  • JK

    Dear Tim, GO AWAY.

  • PugetSound

    Dear Tim – don't agree with all of your measures, but I agree with this one. Why can't we expect our elected officials to have to put their names on bills they sponsor that increase our taxes? Casting the law/bill aside for one year is bad enough; trying to avoid any future attachment to a revenue bill just exacerbates the problem even more.

    In this case Tim…don't go away.

  • whut

    This was NOT because of R amendments. The Rs hung one technical amendment at the end, and the Ds agreed to it. Get it right.

  • politickling

    It seems that Democrats/Progressives universally agree that they vehemently dislike Tim Eyman and his use of the initiative. What has has me consistently baffled is why Dems/Progs don't use the initiative to advance their own agenda.

    When I've asked this before, I've been told by Progressives that it's because they don't have the resources that Eyman does. While I don't believe this is true (there's a wealth of Dem candidate/party donors), I would think that they would look at virtually every school levy passing with limited resources as a sign that its possible.

    I've just grown weary of listening to Dems complain about Eyman while standing idly by and acting like his victims. The initiative has proven to be an effective tool to accomplish what the legislature is unable/unwilling to do. It's time for Dems/Progs to get off of the sidelines and get in the game.

  • A in Seattle

    Why shouldn't voting records be public? Why shouldn't voters have the opportunity to chime in on taxes?

    I don't think either party has earned the right to make decisions on our behalf for us to pay; buying votes with our $$ does not qualify.

    I don't care what party your from but if you represent that you actually trust our elected officials, you are either naive or afraid to face the music.

  • Commentator

    it is really pathetic the Ds didn't know what they were voting on. Do they actually read the bills before they vote?

  • A in Seattle

    pretty sure that would be a “no”…

  • sarah68

    A in Seattle: We live in a representative democracy. That means yes, our representatives HAVE earned the right (by being voted into office) to make decisions on our behalf. If you don't like those decision, tell them so, and/or vote them out next time.

    You can check the state legislative website to determine who voted for and against what. But you'd have to take some interest and make some time to do that, not just complain about a system you don't understand.

  • lol

    Legislating by initiative is what got California in huge trouble. They got hamstrung by anti-tax hucksters like Tim Eyman but forced to spend money on various projects. It left the legislature completely unable to respond to financial crises.

    But it's Washington Progressive's fault for not going through with the second half of the suicide pact?

    (Of course, terms limits and gerrymandering have also caused their share of pain by ensuring there'll always be enough unaccountable Republicans gumming up the works.)

  • A in Seattle

    And they're doing a great job of voting for measures they haven't read nor understand. But thank you for the lesson.

  • morganba

    Governing by initiative is a bit like governing by TV advertisements.

    Dems & Progs may be too idealistic to design initiatives to circumvent our representatives, but it sure would bleed some good money out of the other side. Just think of all the money we've wasted taking down Tim's initiatives.

  • sarah68

    The trouble with Dems/Progressives floating initiatives is that “the other side” is able to promise things we can't. We're for good representative government which puts people first; the other side is for healthy businesses (i.e., banks/developers, etc.). They've got the populist rhetoric; we've got the woo-woo language. They've got the “you're overtaxed” slogan; we've got the “we need more services” slogan, to which people say “Hell no, not with my tax money.” We've done a lousy job of educating people into seeing that services need tax $$. Even people who are suddenly down on the bottom now and are using services don't want to think about paying for them once they climb up again, because they're not “one of those people” who need services, and they don't want to pay for “those people”. Once they rise again, they'll sign Eyman's initiatives again.

  • http://www.MajorityRules.org/blog Steve Zemke MajorityRulesBlog

    Eyman's 3 votes for a 1/3 minority of the Legislature having veto power on revenue bills need some explanation. Two of these just barely passed. I-960 received 51.24% in 2007 and I-601 received 51.21% in 1993. The third one – Referendum 49 in 1998 had a phrase stuck in the bill supporting the 1/3 veto power, but it was nevewr mentioned in the ballot title. The ballor title dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits.

    A vote is a vote but the public has never overwhelmingly said that giving only 1/3 of the members in either house of the Legislature veto power over passing revenue bills was such a great idea.

    And Legislators elected to comprise a majority of Legislators under the Washington State Constitution can vote to change or repeal any initiative.after 2 years by a majority vote. And that's what they're doing. So Eyman can scream but that's the way things work in our state.

    Eyman can of course try to change the Constitution but that takes a 2/3 vote of the Legislators. Not so easy to get, is it Tim? And the people also have to approve any constitutional amendment, but just by a majority vote.