Quotes From Our Brief About the Case

"Thus, the State’s own logic regarding finalization of the limit is wholly inconsistent with its conclusion that the adjusted limit controls whether voter approval of tax increases is necessary. The sole reason for the State’s tortured logic is simple. The State’s reasoning is nothing more than a post hoc attempt to rationalize the Legislature’s conduct, and the State has now painted itself in a corner because its position is not supported by the plain language of the TPA.

Finally, Respondents hope that arguments regarding statutory construction and the intricacies of the state expenditure limit do not overshadow how simple this issue truly is. The TPA was unquestionably designed to limit state expenditures. As Respondents have previously observed, the TPA seeks to apply to government the same age-tested financial advice given to our citizens—create a budget, stick to that budget, and save for a rainy day.

If a family creates a budget, that budget can be effective only if it is established before the spending occurs. If the family engages in a spending spree that exceeds the budget, adding up the amount of the receipts and declaring that the budget has been increased proportionately defeats the entire purpose of establishing a budget in the first instance. The State’s logic contravenes the plain language of the TPA, legislative intent of the TPA, and common sense."

"The State would have this Court engage in raw policy making dressed up in the guise of constitutional adjudication. Time and again, the State erroneously conflates elected officials’ long -standing constitutional immunity from suit for actions taken within the scope of their official duties with an evidentiary privilege shielding vast reaches of the executive and legislative branches from the judicial process. Large sections of the State’s reply are spent extolling the policies served by such privileges; not once, however, does the State cite a Washington statute or judicial opinion that actually recognizes the existence of either privilege"

" In a transparently desperate effort to hide its egregious misconduct from being exposed to the light of day in a court of law, the Legislature enacted ESSB 6896 mere days before the trial court hearing on cross motions for summary judgment. The State erroneously takes the position that ESSB 6896 renders this case moot. It should be observed by this Court that the mere existence of ESSB 6896 is a tacit admission by the Legislature that it did indeed exceed the state expenditure limit. Nonetheless, this amendment failed to achieve the purpose argued by the State in this case . . . First, this case demonstrates the havoc that may result if an amendment to a statute, even a technical or inconsequential amendment, automatically renders moot any judicial proceeding involving the application of the statute. This case is not moot simply because the Legislature made the reaffirming amendment in ESSB 6896."

"Surely, neither the voters nor the Legislature intended to create a scheme that effectively results in no limit at all. If the State can 'appropriate' $250 million, then the Legislature could easily move $25 billion in the same manner, resulting in no effective limit whatsoever. The statute cannot be construed to allow an absurd result of effectively increasing the state expenditure limit simply by labeling a transaction an 'appropriation.'"

"Our State Constitution clearly states that '[a]ll political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed…'Art. I, § 1 . Accordingly, the authority to require voter approval for bills that would result in expenditures above the state expenditure limit is within the power of the people and the Legislature. Moreover, it is common for the Legislature to authorize taxes that are not effective until passed by the voters."