George Walker v Munro :: 124 Wn2d 402
Category: Initiative and Elections
This lawsuit was the elitists’ attempt to use the judicial system to thwart the will of the people by overturning Initiative 601. It did not succeed. Without going into all the arguments and issues, Initiative 601 suppresses an overweening government, thus protecting the rights and the pocketbooks of the individuals. The court recognized this at 419: “The affidavits submitted to claim that Initiative 601 is currently causing harm relate only to the problems of government officials. There is no affidavit by a taxpayer relating to harm to taxpayers.”
Especially worth noting is Justice Utter’s dissent. I believe that this man went to the Oliver Wendell Holmes school of law because he is very adept at framing oligarchic principles around constitutional ideology. That is, he will use the rhetoric of the Constitution to enlarge the authority of the state and destroy the liberties of the people.
1. The judge claims that by requiring the Secretary of State to bring measures to the ballot is a burden upon the “taxpayers who financially support Munro’s office and the operation of elections. . .” He further contends that by requiring tax increases to come before a vote of the people impedes “the work of legislators.” [at 427-28].
2. His second point is similar to the first. He couches his argument around the obligation of State officials to uphold the constitutionality of section 13 of Initiative 601. This is not at issue, nor do the State officials have standing in this case. He is laying a second foundation for the petitioners right to prevent “the expenditure of state resources on certifying bills to the public and taking a public vote. . ..” What he fails to differentiate is that the petitioners (large corporations and non-governmental organizations) have been at the public trough for time-on-end. He has no problem with them squandering the ‘state resources’ (taxpayers’ money) on programs and wasted projects. However, he wants to prevent the potential ‘wasting of funds’ that would be spent on elections to get taxpayer approval for spending more money. [at 431].
3. His third point is another attempt to give government officials standing in this case. He cites representative Applewick’s affidavit, “The requirement of submission of revenue enhancement measures to public vote has had a chilling effect on the legislative action which would otherwise have proceeded in the normal course.” Rep Applewick makes it sound as if it is the legislature’s singular job to raise taxes and when we limit their ability to do so, we impede their ability to legislate. When the people voted for Initiative 601 they intended for that measure to have a chilling effect upon all revenue enhancement measures. The people want to put a limit on their taxes!!! There is nothing unconstitutional about that--read the Declaration of Independence. [at 431].
Lastly, he implies that this measure amends the constitution. This writer doesn’t think the people would have cared if it did. That is, this initiative would have likely passed even if it was a constitutional amendment. They are fed up with the government wasting their money and asking for more. However, this measure does nothing of the sort. It changes what he terms the “time-tempered methods” i.e. the good old boy system of scratching each other’s bureaucratic backs. It does not matter how long they have been doing that, that is not the Constitution. [at 426 and 435].
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Dolliver, James | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Egeler, Anne | |
| pass | Even, Jeffrey T | |
| pass | Gregoire, Christine | |
| pass | Groen, John M | |
| pass | Guy, Richard | |
| pass | Johnson, James Martin | |
| pass | LaFetra, Deborah | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Pierce, Narda | |
| pass | Rivett, Robin | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| pass | Zumbrun, Ronald | |
| fail | Fugate, John David | |
| fail | Lawrence, Paul J | |
| fail | Spitzer, Hugh | |
| fail | Utter, Robert |