This is particularly amazing. Tim Eyman thinks that we should need a 2/3 majority in the state legislature...
This is particularly amazing. Tim Eyman thinks that we should need a 2/3 majority in the state legislature to raise taxes. Almost 2/3 of the voters agreed with Eyman.
This letter claims that Eyman "opposes democracy," because he wants a minority of the voters to be able to prevent a majority from raising taxes. But he doesn't: he wants a majority of the voters to make a rule for the legislature. And a majority of the voters did do that. And that rule would have stuck, except that a majority of the Supreme Court of Washington said that you need a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of the legislature.
You get that? This guy is criticizing Eyman for saying we should have a supermajority of the legislature to raise taxes, but that rule was only shot down because the Court said you need a supermajority of the legislature to agree to it. So no matter which side you're on, you are in favor of a supermajority being required to prevent the other guys from doing what you don't want done.
So that is what Eyman is doing now: he got a constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot (sort of*), which would require a supermajority of the legislature to say that in the future, only a supermajority of the legislature may raise taxes. And a majority of the voters must agree with it.
It's amazing that The Olympian even printed this bizarre letter, that literally gets all the salient facts wrong.
*You can't put a constitutional amendment on the ballot -- it has to go through the legislature first -- so Eyman cleverly put an initiative on the ballot that says a tax increase would be eliminated unless a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes is passed by the legislature and proposed to the people on the ballot.
This letter claims that Eyman "opposes democracy," because he wants a minority of the voters to be able to prevent a majority from raising taxes. But he doesn't: he wants a majority of the voters to make a rule for the legislature. And a majority of the voters did do that. And that rule would have stuck, except that a majority of the Supreme Court of Washington said that you need a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of the legislature.
You get that? This guy is criticizing Eyman for saying we should have a supermajority of the legislature to raise taxes, but that rule was only shot down because the Court said you need a supermajority of the legislature to agree to it. So no matter which side you're on, you are in favor of a supermajority being required to prevent the other guys from doing what you don't want done.
So that is what Eyman is doing now: he got a constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot (sort of*), which would require a supermajority of the legislature to say that in the future, only a supermajority of the legislature may raise taxes. And a majority of the voters must agree with it.
It's amazing that The Olympian even printed this bizarre letter, that literally gets all the salient facts wrong.
*You can't put a constitutional amendment on the ballot -- it has to go through the legislature first -- so Eyman cleverly put an initiative on the ballot that says a tax increase would be eliminated unless a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes is passed by the legislature and proposed to the people on the ballot.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment