EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
|
PRESS RELEASE March 30, 2004 Judge modifies I-884 ballot title OLYMPIA – The title and concise summary for Initiative 884 (the billion-dollar education tax measure) were modified yesterday by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy in response to a lawsuit brought by Citizens for a Sound Economy, Clyde Ballard, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, and the Building Industry Association of Washington. The groups challenged the Attorney General's concise summary (big print) of the initiative because it did not mention that the measure will be funded by an increase in the state sales tax. "Gregoire's version was clearly designed to not just inform voters, but influence them," said Tom McCabe, president of the Building Industry Association of Washington. The new concise summary still does not mention the tax increase. It states: "Initiative Measure No. 884 concerns dedicating funds designated for educational purposes." "Voters reading only the statement of the subject and no further will have no idea that their taxes are being increased by this measure," said Lynn Harsh, Executive Director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "At the end of the day the most important thing is giving voters the facts so they can make an informed choice." Parties to the lawsuit requested a summary with the two key elements of the measure: "Initiative Measure No. 884 concerns a retail sales tax increase earmarked for educational purposes." Jamie Daniels, state director for the Washington chapter of Citizens for a Sound Economy, sees some improvement in the new wording: "I'm pleased the judge changed the wording in the text to reflect the fact that dollars raised from the sales tax increase will be designated, rather than dedicated, to education funding. While the money is designated, it may or may not be dedicated to education purposes since the legislature can change its intended use." Former House Speaker Clyde Ballard expressed disappointment: "It's no wonder citizens are losing trust in government agencies and the judicial system. The Attorney General has been inconsistent about letting voters know the true costs of initiatives. I'm concerned the public will be deceived by the description of the "one percent increase" in the sales tax for I-884, since it is actually a 15.4 percent increase." I-884 CONCISE SUMMARIES Original Version (Attorney General) Suggested Version (CSE, Ballard, BIAW, EFF) Final Version (Judge Pomeroy) OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE AND
DESCRIPTION Contact: Booker Stallworth | Communications Director | 360.956.3482
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance 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]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
