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.

x close
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.

Extra Fizz: State Senator Says Eyman’s 1053 Is “Unconstitutional”

This Washington   December 6, 2010 at 12:51 pm Erica C. Barnett

Southeast Seattle state Sen. Adam Kline (D-37) said in a recent letter that there was “little doubt” that Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053, which requires a two-thirds majority of the state legislature to raise taxes, violates the state constitution. “Personally,” he wrote, he believes “there’s little doubt that the supermajority requirement of I-1053 is unconstitutional.” However, he added, “there is the political question of whether we want to litigate this, and be seen as once more “’against the will of the people,’” 64 percent of whom supported 1053 in November.

Additionally, “there’s the legal question of who has standing to bring this lawsuit, and how to tee it up.” Asked last week whether the Transportation Choices Coalition, which wants the legislature to create new revenue sources for transit and other alternatives to driving alone, would consider bringing a lawsuit against the measure, TCC director Rob Johnson said, “We’re not going to file a constitutional challenge. We don’t have the authority, nor is it within our work plan.”




  • Jakers

    I really like Adam Kline’s comments here!

    A question to lawyers,since the legislature is a representative body, could anyone that they represent who is lobbying them for a tax increase have standing?

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    If it’s unConstitutional – then couldn’t the Legislature then simply vote (by majority) to ignore it, pass what they want by majority and let the Eyemanites challenge their actions in court? Wouldn’t that force a review by the state Supreme Court, and zap the idea of “standing” (or turn it on its head)?

  • Anonymous

    I think the answer is yes, but the challange is to get half of the Legislature to vote against the will of the people.

  • Anonymous

    If only initiatives were vetted by the courts for constitutionality BEFORE they could appear on the ballot, as occurs in Oregon. Perhaps Sen. Kline should pursue common-sense legislation like that. My guess is that the majority of Eyman’s proposals would be nipped in the bud.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    I’ll believe it when I see a vote against it to force a lawsuit, or when the state mans up to file suit.

    Hopefully they do that after 1053 forces the tolling in the Deep Bore Tunnel financing package to re-open the whole thing. Kill the tunnel, then sue.

  • Michaelp

    The State Supreme Court has already ruled that the initiative has to pass before they can consider its constitutionality, based on the constitution.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    Here we have a paradoxical situation where the “will of the people” (i.e. a majority who voted on this initiative) is to subvert the will of the people (i.e. a majority of our representative leaders’ ability to pass legislation).

    This “tyranny of the minority” crap has got to end.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    Here we have a paradoxical situation where the “will of the people” (i.e. a majority who voted on this initiative) is to subvert the will of the people (i.e. a majority of our representative leaders’ ability to pass legislation).

    This “tyranny of the minority” crap has got to end.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    If you believe that Tim Eyeman or his idiot followers have the people’s best interests at heart, then you probably believe in this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    If you believe that Tim Eyeman or his idiot followers have the people’s best interests at heart, then you probably believe in this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE

  • Jakers

    I’m against it, but I do understand that a lot of people are tired of ever-increasing taxes for every good idea. I think that is why the majority passed such a horrible law. Since this majority’s mindset has not changed, it would be politically very difficult to go against it.

    That said, we need to control spending, not taxing. but that is too hard for voters to understand and politicians to resist when we run surpluses some years and deficits others, but limit spending growth to CPI or some other inflation-based index. that way when we have a good idea (say umbrellas for a pedestrian safety campaign) we can weigh it against the other good ideas that we are funding and decide on priorities rather than simply say, “it’s only $5k.” We have broken the camel’s back and we are now paying for it with this stupid initiative.

  • Jakers

    And one of the minor reasons behind that is because it would be way too taxing on our courts to have to in effect be the legal counsel for initiative filers/challengers.

  • sarah

    No.

  • The Law Won

    It is not as if the state doesn’t frequently alter the constitution.

    The other possibility is to create a punishment mechanism. Attorneys fees are only available if a statute provides for fees, a contract provides for fees, or a recognized ground of equity. What if a statute is provided requiring those who bring an initiative to obtain two independant legal opinions (there are ethical rules on how attorney’s provide these.) If this is not done, and an initiative is later found to be unconstitutional, the state AND the challenger can go after the one who brings the initiative for the attorney fees expended?

  • Barleywine

    The “going against the majority of voters” thing should be moot if anything is said to be unconstitutional, and I would think the majority of voters would agree. Even if they signed the petition and voted for it.

    Maybe I’m wrong about the majority, but I think although they may be misled sometimes, they aren’t against the constitution.

  • no one will sue.

    the problem is because Democrats simply do not fight, they don’t tell the public what’s up, so the majority will never know this thing is unconstitutional or takes away your right to majority rule.

    what the majority believes and wants is the product of right wing message machines (I include Eyman in that) combined with Democratic party pussylamousness.

    Example: About 90% of the Democratic legislators internally agree this is unconstitutional, but NOT ONE of them will challenge it, create a ruckus, start a lawsuit, fail, sue again and again and again, organize, or have a united message.

    Those things are what the right wing does.

    Not the left.

    Yoiu can’t win an argument you don’t enter.

  • Perfect Voter

    To “no one will sue” below. Hear, hear!

    This has been a regular point of mine lately — Art. 2, Sec. 22 of the state constitution says it takes a majority vote to pass a bill. Period. No proviso saying “except as modified by initiative” or anything like that.

    But as you note, Legislative Democrats are first class chickenshits, with the exception of a few like Sen. Adam Kline. But we can continue to beat the drum, with Adam’s help. Maybe the leadership will grow a pair (and whatever the female equivalent might be…)

  • sarah

    Sixty-six percent of the voters in the State voted for 1053. That’s a supermajority. We’ll see just what that means in the next two years. Maybe the next time Eyman floats this (which will be the next time it’s suspended, if it is), I hope people will remember just how everything they needed went away.

  • Sparsecus

    So if 2/3rds voted for 1053, then it seems like only the other 3rd read and post on Tunnelcola.

  • Jakers

    Constitutional is as constitutional does. How long do we live with laws that are unconstitutional but then decades or centuries later are ruled unconstitutional. It’s constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional. Just like we have all rights unless explicitly taking away from us. Sure we have some that are explicitly given us on a federal level to make sure they aren’t taken away at a lower level.

  • crankyoldlady

    The constitution gives voters the right to act as a citizen legislature through the initiative and referendum processes. Through the initiative process, the voters have resounding said that they want their elected representatives to raise taxes only when a supermajority of them believe that the increases are essential. Otherwise, they want the legislature to give the voters a say in whether or not new taxes are necessary.

    In other words, they asked to be consulted before their pockets were picked. What in the world is wrong with that construct?

  • Perfect Voter

    I-1053 doesn’t require that voters be consulted, rather it requires a 2/3rds vote on bills that the constitution says require only a simple majority to approve.

    The constitutional rights given to voters re initiatives and referenda do not, repeat NOT, extend to amending the constitution itself. Search all you want, and you won’t find it.

    Legislators take an oath to “uphold the constitution of the state of Washington,” and it’s damned time they live up to that oath.

  • Jay Devereaux

    You folks, including this unfit senator should try actually reading the state constitution before you open your mouths and display your ignorance.

    Washington State Constitution
    PREAMBLE

    We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.

    ARTICLE I
    DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

    SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

    SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.

    SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

    SECTION 6 OATHS – MODE OF ADMINISTERING. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation, shall be such as may be most consistent with and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath, or affirmation, may be administered.

    SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

    SECTION 8 IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE OR IMMUNITY PROHIBITED. No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.

    There’s more here if you care to EDUCATE YOURSELVES WITH FACTS

    http://tinyurl.com/yhwyy8a