Cominus.com :: Local 587 V State

In the past, God overlooked mans' ignorance, but now He commands all
people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge
the world with justice by the Man, Jesus Christ; the One He has appointed.
He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.
                                                                                        -Acts 17:30-31

Local 587 v State :: 142 Wn2d 183

Category: Initiative and Elections

What the people thought would be an event that would harness control of runaway government spending and taxation became the trigger to unleash ten thousand high-paid lawyers and bureaucrats upon the courts. The taxpayers, voters and automobile owners passed Initiative 695 to reduce one of the costliest car-tabs schemes in the nation. But the courts held the measure to be constitutionally invalid and once again precluded the God?given right of the people to relieve themselves of political oppression as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution of the State of Washington.

The courts held the initiative violated three clauses of the State Constitution. First): That the measure must have only one subject and that subject must be contained in the title (Art 2, §19). It is a matter of splitting hairs to arrive at this conclusion. However, there is nothing within the Constitution that would even hint that this requirement applies to Initiative and Referendum. This clause, in fact, applies to bills presented before the Legislature.

Second): The Court contends that subjecting future tax increases proposed by the Legislature to a vote of the people violates the clause (Art 2, §1(b)) providing for referendum. In other words, to subject a tax to a vote of the people before it is imposed violates their ability to protest the tax after it is enacted. The Court held that subjecting future taxes to a vote of the people “establishes a referendum procedure not allowed under the state constitution [sic].” [At 192]. Justice Sanders countered this notion in his dissent, “I-695 does not on its face purport to establish or call for future referenda per se but rather requires any new tax or tax increase be conditional on voter approval.” [At 273].

Third): The majority contends “Article II, section 37 prohibits enactment of legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth at full length.” [At 192]. Once again, the Court would impose upon the people the sophistication required of the Legislature alone.

As Justice Sanders pointed out in his dissent:

The electorate had every right and constitutional authority to adopt an initiative to impede taxing authority. [At 265].

We must avoid the erroneous and all-too-common assumption that the Constitution means what we think it ought to mean. It does not; it means what it says. [At 258, cite omitted].

This ruling is one more exhibit of the war in our nation that is fomented by bureaucrats to protect and advance the municipal economy, even at the expense of commerce and personal financial freedom.

Rating the Usual Suspects:
passJohnson, James Martin 
passSanders, Richard  
passStephens, Richard  
failAhearne, Thomas F 
failAlexander, Gerry  
failAlsdorf, Robert  
failArnold, Carol  
failBeles, Craig  
failBerg, Bradley  
failBranum, Kyle  
failBridge, Bobbe  
failBrower, Joshua  
failBubenik, Mark  
failCleveland, Grover  
failDavis, Lonnie  
failDoyle, William  
failEbell, Walter C 
failFerguson, Robert  
failFord, Charles  
failFreed, Clifford  
failGianunzio, Michael  
failGoltz, Jeffrey  
failGregoire, Christine  
failGuy, Richard  
failHalvorson, Laurie  
failHough, John  
failIreland, Faith  
failJenkinson, Robin  
failJohnson, Charles  
failKing, Michael  
failKlien, Gwendolyn  
failLarsen, Cynthia  
failLawrence, Paul J 
failMadsen, Barbara  
failMaron, Andrew  
failMonroe, Ramona  
failNomura, Lori  
failRessler, Allan  
failRobart, James  
failSchneider, Patrick  
failSmith, Scott A 
failSmith, Charles  
failSpitzer, Hugh  
failSpoonemore, Richard  
failSubit, Michael  
failTalmadge, Phil  
failToledo, Margaret  
failVogel, David  
failWinter, Deborah  

«« Back To Case Reviews


JOH 10:28-29 [NIV] :: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

Husky Floor Liners