Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/127801865/League-of-Education-Voters-Et-Al-vs-State
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:51:44+00:00

Document:
On Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, the Washington Supreme Court rejected a voter-approved law requiring a legislative supermajority to raise taxes. The majority opinion is followed by two dissents.
both provisions of former RCW 43.135.034 are constitutional.
this provision as setting both a minimum and a maximum voting requirement.
decision that the Referendum Requirement presents a justiciable controversy.
In 2010, voters passed I-1053, which is codified at former RCW 43.135.034.
Supermajority Requirement and the Referendum Requirement.
determining whether I-601 applied to a particular bill. Id. at 410.
two years in 2005. Brown v. Owen, 165 Wn.2d 706,713,206 P.3d 310 (2009).
initiative unless two-thirds of the legislature approves amending the initiative sooner.
WASH. CONST. art. II, 41.
non justiciable political question. !d. at 727.
The legislature suspended I -960 after two years, just as it had suspended I -60 1.
the 2012 ballot, which again contained these two requirements. LAWS OF 2013, ch. 1.
constitutionality of former RCW 43.135.034.
1 (b) prohibited the Referendum Requirement.
The State then appealed directly to this court. We accepted direct review.
preventing the passage of tax legislation that received a simple majority vote.
the hypothetical nature of the claim and the lack of injury.
determination of which will be final and conclusive."
142 Wn.2d 183, 203, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000).
the "essence" of SHB 2078 is inaccurate.
59 S. Ct. 972, 83 L. Ed. 1385 (1939).
nullification. Consequently, there is an actual dispute between the State and LEV.
standing satisfies the jurisdictional requirement).
Justice C. Johnson's analysis of Raines is inapposite.
Supermajority Requirement's constitutionality presents a justiciable controversy.
constitutional, Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 146, 955 P.2d 377 (1998).
dispute constitutes a matter of great public importance warranting review.
constitutionality is properly before us.
In contrast, LEV's challenge to the Referendum Requirement is not justiciable.
not changed since we stated in Walker that addressing the requirement is premature.
specific dispute arises in regard to a particular bill.
Referendum Requirement is not properly before this court.
majority vote for tax legislation. We conclude that it does.
determined at the time they were drafted." !d. (citing State ex rel. 0 'Connell v.
with article II, section 22.
must have been supported by a simple majority vote.
provision merely sets a minimum requirement to which the legislature may add. !d.
rejection of term limits for the officers at issue. ld. at 202-04, 210.
implication that the legislature still has the power to fix an additional limitation." ld.
citizen of the United States and a qualified voter in the district for which he is chosen"
state office." WASH. CONST. art. II, 7 (emphasis added), art. III, 25 (emphasis added).
an informal principle here favoring a simple majority vote for ordinary legislation.
intended ordinary legislation to require a supermajority vote.
REFERENCE GUIDE 51 (G. Alan Tarred., 2002).
of ordinary legislation is not one of those.
WASH. CONST. art. II, 9, 36, art. III, 12, art. IV, 9, art. V, 1, art. XXIII, 1, 2.
contrary to our canons of constitutional interpretation. Wash. Econ. Dev. Fin. Auth. v.
be construed so that no clause ... shall be superfluous").
thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater.
antithetical to the notion of a functioning government and should be rejected as such.
inconsistent with the representative form of government in this state").
section 22 as establishing both a minimum and a maximum vote requirement.
300-01 (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 538-39, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed.
have adopted supermajority requirements through constitutional amendment).
requires only a majority vote, and a two-thirds vote cannot be required." !d.
our holding is supported by other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Requirement is severable from the remaining provisions of former RCW 43.135.034.
accomplish the purposes of the legislature."
determine if the voters, not the legislature, intended severability. See McGowan v.
State, 148 Wn.2d 278, 296, 60 P.3d 67 (2002).
constitutional amendment, not through legislation.
Dissent by C. Johnson, J.
chart a new course for the court to more actively engage in the political process.
This change is both unwise and unprecedented.
distinction does not make sense and is unsupported by any logical analysis.
2078 could have resulted in several outcomes, as is always the political reality.
speaker ruled on SHB 2078.
existed to resolve the dispute, a principle which our cases have consistently held.
Raines, 521 U.S. at 824, 829; see Brown, 165 Wn.2d 706; Walker, 124 Wn.2d 402.
rejects the majority's position here.
lacks foundation and misunderstands the concept of justiciability. "Justiciability"
recognized. No such cases exist.
Brown case or any of our prior case holdings from the issue again raised here.
(political questions are not within the judicial power to determine); Roehl v. Pub.
interference with a vested right, will not be judicially reviewed); State ex rel.
statutory or written constitutional law making the question judicial); State ex rel.
resolution." To-Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wn.2d at 411 (quoting Diversified Indus.
hypothetical at this time and certainly moot as to SHB 2078.
factors, justiciable controversy does not exist in this case.
possible to recur in the future.
Dissent by J.M. Johnson, J.
supermajority to raise taxes permit a "tyranny of the minority." Majority at 20.
There is, of course, no historical evidence justifying such a concern in Washington.
assessments for special purpose districts are only a few examples.
qualified and passed similar tax protections.
I-1053 passed in 2010 with 1,575,655 (63.75%) votes for and 895,833 (36.25%) votes against.
imposed-by-state-government.html; see also infra App. A.
Concerning tax and fee increases imposed by state government; WASHINGTON SECRETARY ST.
higher percentage of the vote than the last time. See infra App. A.
existence at the time that more clearly establish a simple majority vote as a ceiling.
quorum requirement for bill passage.
legislature, the elected governor, and the people, not to the courts.
Library 1998) (further discussed infra).
renewed by a majority of the voters.
THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION: A REFERENCE GUIDE 50-51 (2002).
recall of all elected officers except judges.
unique reliance on popular governance, the majority's contention is unfounded.
their constitution, recall should apply to judges as well.
congressional decision making when designing Washington's government.
relating to private property, individual rights, and corruption in government.
term majority and addresses the concerns of the framers.
limitation on the legislature's power.
are given to a predominant party, to trample on the rules of justice.
shilling saved to their own pockets.
17 U.S. ( 4 Wheat.) 316, 431, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819).
fifths vote closes the debate by invoking cloture. Standing Rules of the Senate Rule XXII, 2.
constitutional provision to that effect.
legitimate action of the people of this state under the initiative power. See CoNST.
of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor."
delay in arriving from across the state for the legislative sessions was anticipated.
impact fell directly on legislators from eastern Washington.
"Every bill attaining a simple majority shall become a law" would have sufficed.
and remains in Indiana's constitution today.
the presiding officer of each of the two houses." CoNST. art. II, 22, 32.
It is not clear how the court's majority deals with abstention in a close vote.
to effectuate their desired goals. The voters read and ratified what was written.
law, then it must have been supported by a simple majority vote." Majority at 14.
written by its founders and ratified by the state. See majority at 14.
Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284, 292, 174 P.3d 1142 (2007)).
that the history of the TP A shows frequent unconstitutional legislative action.
article II, section 22, I am confident in this conclusion.
(Beverly Paulik Rosenow ed., 1999).
293, 347 P.2d 1081 (1959))).
those present could pass a bill.
elected be necessary to pass a bill. The motion was lost and the section passed."
Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, SEATTLE TIMES, Aug. 9, 1889, at 1.
section 22 is clearly and unequivocally a quorum requirement.
framers intended to prevent the institution of a supermajority requirement.
will not be denied their rights.
analysis opposing the majority and have signed that opinion.
(last visited Feb. 25, 2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.