Evan Smith: Rep. Ryu says lawsuit will test constitutionality of two-thirds vote requirement
Thursday, August 4, 2011
 |
| Rep. Cindy Ryu |
By Evan Smith
ShorelineAreaNews Politics Writer
State Rep. Cindy Ryu and others have filed a lawsuit testing the constitutionality of the voter-approved requirement that laws that raise taxes get a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature.
Ryu says that the suit will bring clarity to whether the requirement conforms to the state constitution.
Ryu and other legislators have joined with the League of Education Voters, the Washington Education Association and others in the suit in King County Superior Court that would test the constitutionality of Initiative 1053, the 2010 measure that reinstated the two-thirds requirement that the Legislature had suspended earlier that year,
In the 2011 Legislature, Ryu and 10 other first-year legislators introduced a bill that would have eliminated several tax exemptions, with the proceeds going to support public schools.
The bill got a majority vote in the state House of Representatives but died because it didn’t get the two-thirds majority required by I-1053.
The suit noted that the tax exemptions had been passed with simple majorities.
Ryu said Monday that the suit would test whether the law is constitutional.
Ryu said that laws written by the people or their representatives must conform to the constitution, which, she said, also was written by the people.
She said that the constitution rates higher loyalty than any other state document ”by design, by necessity, and by my oath of office.”
She noted, for example, that the constitution wouldn’t allow voters or their representatives to pass a law outlawing gun ownership.
Ryu is a Democrat representing the 32nd Legislative District, including Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Woodway, south Edmonds and nearby areas of both King and Snohomish counties.
Ryu said that the intent of the suit is not to "overturn" the citizen's initiative; "it is to clarify the constitutionality of a supermajority requirement for legislation to pass.
“The state constitution says that final passage of a bill requires a majority vote in the House and Senate. I-1053 raised that requirement. The question of whether statutory supermajority requirements are constitutional has gone unanswered for too long. This is an issue of broad public importance and needs to be answered once and for all
“The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Statutes, whether passed by the Legislature or by citizens through the initiative process, have to comply with the constitution. This can sometimes frustrate the will of the majority, but our adherence to constitutional principles is the cornerstone of our democracy.”
She added that the courts routinely are asked to decide whether a statute conflicts with the constitution or not, so this challenge is nothing out of the ordinary. It's just a part of our checks-and-balances form of government.”
Tim Eyman, the primary sponsor of I-1053 called the suit an “arrogant” suit by Seattle Democrats against the 64 percent of Washington voters who had approved the initiative.
Eyman noted Tuesday that the measure had passed everywhere outside Seattle in the 2010 election.
“Nonetheless, Seattle politicians are leading the charge to sue the citizens because they didn't like the voters' decision on I-1053,” Eyman said. “Talk about arrogant. This is the fourth time the voters have approved these policies.”
Eyman added that rather than listening to the voters, legislators are suing them instead. Eyman noted that a Seattle legislator had said that the Legislature needs the ability to at least repeal tax exemptions, such as one for banks.
"They obviously believe voters are stupid,” Eyman said. “Democrat politicians have proven time and time again that they'll impose tax increases on everyone without the two-thirds requirement. In 2010, with mega-majority control of the House and Senate, the Democrats suspended Initiative 960's 2/3, giving them the opportunity to raise any tax or repeal any tax exemption.
"Who didn't they target? They didn't tax "the rich" or repeal tax exemptions on Big Banks or Big Oil. Who did they actually go after? The working class and the poor.
"They imposed taxes on soda pop, candy, food, beer, and cigarettes, all of which are disproportionately hurtful to the working class and the poor."
Posts
7 comments:
The people spoke. The elite cronies like Ryu don't want to listen so they sue. Politics in America, circa 2011.
I voted for I-1053 and it won but hey, what do I know? Cindy Ryu and her party obviously know what's best, even if they have to spend public money to sue and nullify elections to maintain their power.
Oh my...they're going to overturn it AGAIN?
How many times must the voters pass this concept?
I agree that the people spoke, but what the people decide at the polls must be consistent with the State and federal constitutions, When the people spoke in favor of the top-two primary, the State had to defend it at all three levels of the federal Court system. What Ryu, the League of Education Voters, the Washington Education Association and others involved in this suit is no different. They have the same right to challenge an initiative's constitutionality as we would have to challenge an unconstitutional act been the Legislature.
The second anonymous comment came from someone who voted for the initiative. He must realize that the laws he supports must be consistent with the State and federal constitutions,
I voted for the top-two primary, but I recognized that the Democrats and Republicans had a right to challenge it in the Courts.
As for cost, the State will pay only if it loses. When the State prevailed against the Democrats and Republicans. the political parties got a bill for the State's court costs.
In reply to the last anonymous comment, when the Legislature suspended the two-thirds requirement last year, it was by legislative vote, as allowed under the State constitution. This is a court test over whether a statute, whether passed by the Legislature or by voters can impose a stricter requirement on the Legislature than the State constitution does. It's a legitimate question of law.
I agree that the people spoke, but what the people decide at the polls must be consistent with the State and federal constitutions, When the people spoke in favor of the top-two primary, the State had to defend it at all three levels of the federal Court system. What Ryu, the League of Education Voters, the Washington Education Association and others involved in this suit ARE DOING is no different. They have the same right to challenge an initiative's constitutionality as we would have to challenge an unconstitutional act been the Legislature.
Post a Comment