Would the Bills passed in 1937 and 1939 be ruled constitutional by Judge Alsdorf?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Would the Bills passed in 1937 and 1939 be ruled constitutional by Judge Alsdorf?

Compare the enactment of the MVET Laws to the repeal of the MVET with I-695. It appears that Judge Alsdorf should have also stricken the MVET laws unconstitutional using the same logic he used on I-695.

If you want to protest the Judges decision in the most effective way, help gather signatures for I-722 and I-711.

From Session Laws, 1937. Chapter 228 {S.B. 291.}

EXCISE TAX ON PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLES

An Act relating to taxation; providing for an excise tax upon private motor vehicles in lieu of property taxes thereon and for the allocation of revenues therefrom to the state school equalization fund for the relief of counties from the burden of common school support; limiting the county property tax levy for support of the common schools to one and one fourth mills; making an appropriation from the state school equalization fund of $1,500,000.00, and prescribing the duties of certain state and county officers in relation to said excise tax.

From Session Laws 1943 Chapter 144 [H.B. 177.}

EXCISE TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS

An Act relating to revenue and taxation; providing for an excise tax upon certain motor vehicles and trailers in lieu of property taxes thereon, and for the allocation of revenues derived therefrom; limiting the county property tax levy and support of the common schools; prescribing certain duties of certain state and county officers and there appointees, and others; creating the Motor Vehicle Excise Fund; making an appropriation; declaring certain acts to constitute a gross misdemeanor repealing chapter 228 of the Laws of 1937, amended by sections 1 and 2, chapter 206, Laws of 1939 (section 6312-101 to 6312-114, inclusive, Remington's Revised Statutes); and providing when and in what manner this act shall take effect.

The Attorney General is required to write the ballot tittle and ballot summary for initiatives. The authors of the initiatives start out with An Act relating to.....

Here is what was written for I-695:

AN ACT Relating to limiting taxation by: limiting excessive license tab fees; limiting tax increases by requiring voter approval; repealing existing licensing fees: (lists RCW's); repealing existing excise taxes: (lists RCW's), adding a new section to chapter 46.16 RCW; and a new section to chapter 43.135 RCW; creating a new section; and providing an effective date.

It's your call. Did the authors of I-695 make limiting taxation as the single subject? Remember the Attorney General sets the ballot title and the ballot summary. (The bills for enacting the MVET were acts relating to taxation and I-695 was an initiative to limit taxation.)

The Best way to protest the judges decision is to help get signatures for I7-22 and I-711.

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), March 20, 2000

Answers

The fact that you want to engage in "protest" of a ruling which is on a "fast track" appeal suggests that you don't feel the appeal has much chance of succeeding. I think you're right in feeling that way.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

to Monte: I agree with you that the Supreme Court will overturn the Judge's decision that I-695 is guilty of logrolling. However, you have not addressed the judge's point about the automatic generation of referenda without the required 4% signatures.

On I-722 ("Son of I-695"), you call for the repeal of all taxes passed since the middle of 1999. However, based on the Judge's ruling, it appears you will be required to explicitly list every tax (as part of your initiative) which you intend to roll back. Are you prepared to do this? If not, you may want to make I-722 into at least two initiatives, so we can at least get the property tax reform, which most of us will find very attractive. Particularly those of us forced to pay tolls without our approval. Talk about taxation without representation!

As for I-711, I still don't understand how it works. People vote for increased sales taxes to fund transit. Are you now going to commit the monies to roadbuilding? Monies the voter dedicated to transit. Why should my sales taxes collected in Pierce County build roads for Vancouver or Spokane? It's not fair.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 20, 2000.


The key thing with these laws were that they both dealt with the overall subject of the implementation of the MVET.

First it implemented the MVET and exempted motor vehicles from personal property taxes (something I-695 forgot to do). Then it specified where the tax would go. Since motor vehicles had been taxed as personal property at both the state and local levels, the property tax limit needed to be adjusted. And finally, it had to be determined who would collect the tax. All of those had something to do with the implementation of the MVET.

As the judge clearly stated in his ruling, had 695 only applied to the taxes that could be raised to replace the MVET, then it would have fit under the single subject rule. HOWEVER, since it applied to ALL taxes and fees regardless if their revenue could be used to replace the MVET, it encompassed two subjects: the elimination of one tax, and the limitation of all other taxes.

Stating that they both fall under the subject of taxation reduces the one subject rule to absurdity. In theory then, almost any two subjects no matter how different could be tied together under titles like "safety," "education," or "government."

I have to give you credit for at least trying to come up with a defense, but the judge already thought of what you're trying to argue and refuted it.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.


to Patrick: I-695 dealt with the elimination of the MVET, WITH SOME DEGREE OF PERMANENCE. In order to PERMANENTLY eliminate the MVET, you must necessarily limit ALL taxes and fees. Otherwise, governmental beauracracies will simply bring back the MVET tax in the form of other taxes and fees.

Therefore, I-695 deals with a single issue.

I'm not saying the Judge's interpretation doesn't have merit. It's just not THE ONLY interpretation.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 20, 2000.


That would be the case if "the government" was one entity, but it isn't. There are a whole slew of fees and taxes that COULD NOT be used to replace the MVET like impact fees, and various levels of government that have never received MVET funds like utility and library districts.

Case in point: The cost of a lab fee at the University of Washington has no bearing on the MVET or lack there of, yet an increase in that fee would require a vote of the people.

There were ways to ensure that the MVET or a replacement did not return, but what I-695 did was well beyond the scope of just them MVET.

And another note to Monte, the best way to protest the judge's decision is to revise I-722 and 711. Otherwise you're just going to repeat history.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.



Monte:

You seem to think the Legislature has exactly same rules to follow for bills as does the initiative process. That is not correct. Some specific requirements are placed on initatives because (unlike bills) those that vote on them have no way to tinker with them by adding amendments to fix their problems or clarify their meaning. You get a yes or no vote, and the constitution requires that the issues be clear to the voters to a greater extent than is necessary for a bill in the Legislature.

Matt:

You are wrong about the log-rolling decision. The Supreme Court will have no problem agreeing with the judge. That is exacly what 695 does.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 20, 2000.


to Patrick: You write: "That would be the case if "the government" was one entity, but it isn't. There are a whole slew of fees and taxes that COULD NOT be used to replace the MVET like impact fees, and various levels of government that have never received MVET funds like utility and library districts."

But, in fact, in one key way, the government is a single entity in that the money it expends comes from a common pool. In other words, by raising lab fees at the University of Washington, the university may not require as much funding from the state. And, with the freed funds, the state could fund an entity which previously depended upon the MVET. So, you see, all governmental agencies are intertwined, and it is fallacious for you to argue otherwise.

The government is like an octopus with many arms, and each arm has a myriad of suction cups. I-695 was attempting to disengage a particularly nasty suction cup off of the taxpayers. For you to argue that the other suction cups are separate issues defies logic. The octopus needs to learn who is the master and who is the slave.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 21, 2000.


to dbvz: If you see my response to Patrick, you will see how one could view all governmental agencies as intertwined. Therefore, I-695 may not be guilty of log-rolling.

I just believe the Supreme Court is going to be more even-handed, considering all interpretations very carefully before handing down their ruling. The judge in Seattle did not do this. He pounced upon every opportunity he had to thrash I-695. He clearly exuded a bias towards direct-democracy. It was almost as if he were saying "any attempt to expand direct-democracy is automatically unconstitutional".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 21, 2000.


Matt writes:

>>So, you see, all governmental agencies are intertwined, and it is fallacious for you to argue otherwise.<<

This is complete bunk. All governmental agencies are most certainly not intertwined. Many local government agencies receive absolutely no funding from the state, but they were covered by 695.

Can you explain how a fire district, that receives its funding solely from property taxes and gets absolutely no money from the state, is somehow intertwined with a state university's science lab fees, or even with the MVET? I'll help you out: it's not.

>>He pounced upon every opportunity he had to thrash I-695. He clearly exuded a bias towards direct-democracy.<<

You keep saying this, but you never show any proof. The only bias he showed towards direct democracy is the bias towards direct democracy contained in the federal and state constitution. If you've got a problem with it, make an amendment to both of them.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 21, 2000.


to BB: Please explain how I-695 hurts a fire district. They're still free to propose possible levies to the voters.

I would agree with you that if a governmental agency is self-funded, then it should receive consideration by the legislature to be exempted from I-695. The legislature would've been free to "clarify" I-695, but now we'll have to wait, needlessly.

We'll see what the Supreme Court does with the I-695.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 21, 2000.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ