State misleads court again in 7E7 public
records appeal
OLYMPIAWashington's Boeing 7E7 Project Office and the
Attorney General's office recently added to their series of misleading statements
to the court in the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's (EFF) lawsuit for public
records.
In February of this year, the state claimed under penalty of perjury
that it did not have specific documents requested by EFFdocuments
central to understanding the legal authority for state officials to enter
into the agreement with the Boeing Corporation. The attorney general's office
argued in court that the state could not have violated the public records
law if, in fact, the documents in question were not even in the state's
possession. Last March, Superior Court Judge Pomeroy ruled in favor of the
state, and we
appealed.
As it turns out, the key documents were in the state's possession. On
August 18, 2004, EFF obtained records that prove the state was not telling
the truth back in February and did indeed have copies of at least two
key records requested by EFF. The attorney general's office is now fighting
our move to have this fact
brought before the Appeals Court. Instead, state attorneys are demanding
we go through the time and expense of filing a new lawsuit.
Ironically, in an October 25, 2004, legal brief, the attorney general's
office claimed EFF never asked
the court to force the 7E7 Project Office to turn over the documents.
These would be the same documents the 7E7 Office claimed, under penalty
of perjury, they didn't have. Apparently the state believes EFF should have
challenged the trustworthiness of its February declarations made under the
penalty of perjury. (We uncovered this evidence in August.)
"The state has spent this entire year attempting to keep public records
related to the 7E7 from becoming public," said Bob Williams, EFF President.
"This is another shameful assault by the attorney general's office
on the Public Records Act."
Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget
Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
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]?"