TIMELINE OF THE CASE:

Nov. 1993 – Voters approve I-601.

Nov. 2004 – Expenditure limit Committee sets 2005-07 spending limit.

April 2005 – Legislature suspends 601’s 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases with an emergency clause to deny referendum.

April 2005 – 2005-07 budget adopted along with various tax increases (not sent to voters for approval as required for exceeding I-601).

April 2005 – Evergreen Freedom Foundation exposes budget shell game used to artificially increase I-601 spending limit: http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=905&number=30

June 14, 2005 - Legislature “appropriated” $250 million from the General Fund (GF) to the Violence Reduction and Drug Enforcement Account (VRDEA). The Legislature expressly directed that these funds were “solely for deposit.”

June 15, 2005 - The same $250 million “appropriated” on June 14 was transferred from the VRDEA to the Health Services Account (HSA), and then from the HSA back to the GF where it first originated.

July 2005 – Lawsuit filed challenging 2005-07 budget and tax increases for violating I-601.

Jan. 2006 – Snohomish County Superior Court judge creates “executive and legislative privilege” to deny access to some state communications concerning intent behind I-601 actions. Some emails released though showing blatant disregard for intent of I-601.

March 2006 – Legislature passes bill (6896) attempting to circumvent lawsuit for violation of I-601.

March 2006 – Snohomish County Superior Court judge rules budget and some of the tax increases violate I-601.

May 2006 – Snohomish County Judge orders additional reduction to gamed I-601 limit.

May 2006 – Attorney General appeals case; stay issued.

October 2006 – Various amicus filings:

Pro – Washington Coalition for Open Government and American Legislative Exchange Council brief against creation of executive and legislative privilege.

Pro – Association of Washington Business brief for constitutionality of I-601.

Con – WEA/WSLC/WFSE brief arguing I-601 unconstitutional in its entirety.

Con – National Conference of State Legislatures arguing for extensive executive and legislative privilege.

Con – National Governors Association arguing for extensive executive privilege.

Con – Former Governor Gary Locke's brief justified the legislature's ability to short-circuit legal challenges by retroactively changing the law.

November 28, 2006 – State Supreme Court oral arguments.