In today's Crosscut, Daniel Jack Chasan provides a nice overview of the legal challenges to Initiative 960. Here's the crux:
Futurewise and SEIU Healthcare Local 775NW, which represents home-care and nursing-home workers, are the groups trying to keep 960 off the ballot. They’ve lost in Superior Court and appealed directly to the Supreme Court. They argue that I-960 would use the initiative process to amend the state Constitution, which the Constitution itself clearly forbids. They reason that the public votes required for some tax measures and the advisory votes required for tax laws with emergency clauses are all really referenda, that 960 would short-circuit the Constitution’s referendum process, and that therefore, it would be an amendment. They also reason that the Constitution requires a simple majority vote to pass legislation, so that requiring a two-thirds vote also constitutes an amendment.
Didn't I-601 have a similar requirement? Yes, but ...
If the two-thirds vote required by I-960 would be unconstitutional, then the two-thirds vote required by I-601 was unconstitutional, too. Futurewise and Local 775 suggest that issue is now moot, since the Legislature itself has reaffirmed the requirement. Other people think it’s not moot at all, and that the current statute is also unconstitutional.
This, from the Seattle PI's Strange Bedfellows blog, suggests one reason opponents are concerned.
There's good news for Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 in the latest Elway Poll. Seven out of 10 of those surveyed said they support the idea of requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legisalture or a public vote to raise any state taxes.
All along, Eyman has said the most popular feature of his initiatives has been that people want to vote on tax hikes. Still seems to be true.
