State attempts to strike declarations
of support made by legislators and Talmadge
OLYMPIA, WAThe Attorney General's (AG) office filed a legal motion
today asking the judge to strike from the court record declarations supporting
the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's (EFF) public
records lawsuit, which seeks the release of documents related to the
Boeing agreement. The AG says the declarations are not relevant to EFF's
lawsuit.
Four legislators, including two members of the House Appropriations Committee,
signed declarations in support of EFF's lawsuit. They are Rep. Marc Boldt,
Rep. Lois McMahan, Rep. Tom Mielke, and Rep. Gigi Talcott. Retired State
Supreme Court Justice and current gubernatorial candidate Phil Talmadge
also signed a declaration supporting the lawsuit.
The declaration of legislators reads in part: "It is in the best interest
of the public to disclose all public records related to the (Boeing) agreement.
The Legislature has not seen all the public records. This Legislature must
consider all public records in order to fully understand the agreement and
propose enacting legislation required by the agreement."
"I can't believe the attorney general is trying to argue the irrelevance
of statements from legislators who want public information about an issue
they're about to vote on," said Bob Williams, EFF's president. "First
her staff got rid of a judge known to uphold the public records law, and
now they want to keep the new judge from knowing that legislators want this
information. What are they afraid of?"
The declarations in question were filed with the court on February 18,
2004 in support of a motion to set a hearing that has been granted for 9
a.m. on February 27, 2004. This is a hearing that the AG does not oppose.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"