Read the State Legislative Tracker. New edition available now!

Difference between revisions of "Washington Supermajority Vote Required in State Legislature to Raise Taxes, Initiative 1053 (2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(edited introduction sentence)
(41 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}'''Washington Supermajority Vote Required in State Legislature to Raise Taxes, Initiative 1053''' appeared on the [[Washington 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 general election ballot]] in the [[Washington|State of Washington]] as an {{witpfull}} where it was '''approved'''.
+
<table style="float: right;">
 
+
<tr valign="top">
I-1053 required that "legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval."<ref name="GuideAug24"/><ref name=st>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010768973_eyman12m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Eyman will push to restore tax barrier", January 12, 2010]</ref>
+
<td>
 +
{{tnr}}
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
{{Supermajority requirements}}
 +
{{WAConstitution}}
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
The '''Washington Supermajority Vote Required in State Legislature to Raise Taxes Initiative''', also known as '''Initiative 1053''', was on the [[2010 ballot measures#Washington|November 2, 2010 ballot]] in [[Washington]] as an {{witpfull}}, where it was '''approved''' but later '''overturned'''. The measure required that "legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval."<ref name="GuideAug24"/><ref name=st>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010768973_eyman12m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Eyman will push to restore tax barrier", January 12, 2010]</ref>
  
 
[[Tim Eyman]] filed the language for the proposed initiative on [[BC2010#January|January 11]] with the [[Washington Secretary of State]].  He was joined by several co-sponsors, including [[Republican]] state senators [[Pam Roach]] and [[Janea Holmquist]].<ref name=sos>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/01/another-round-of-eyman-vs-legislature-begins/ ''Office of the Washington Secretary of State'', "Another round of Eyman vs. Legislature begins",  January 11, 2010]</ref>
 
[[Tim Eyman]] filed the language for the proposed initiative on [[BC2010#January|January 11]] with the [[Washington Secretary of State]].  He was joined by several co-sponsors, including [[Republican]] state senators [[Pam Roach]] and [[Janea Holmquist]].<ref name=sos>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/01/another-round-of-eyman-vs-legislature-begins/ ''Office of the Washington Secretary of State'', "Another round of Eyman vs. Legislature begins",  January 11, 2010]</ref>
Line 16: Line 25:
 
The requirement for passing bills cannot be overridden by an initiative, argues the lawsuit. In order to amend the constitutional majority vote requirement, a constitutional amendment would be needed.<ref name="SpokesmanJuly26"/>
 
The requirement for passing bills cannot be overridden by an initiative, argues the lawsuit. In order to amend the constitutional majority vote requirement, a constitutional amendment would be needed.<ref name="SpokesmanJuly26"/>
  
The supermajority requirement was also challenged in 2008 by [[Lisa Brown|Sen. Lisa Brown]]. However, the [[Washington Supreme Court|state's high court]] ruled 9-0 to reject the challenge.<ref name="SpokesmanJuly26"/>
+
On March 9, 2012, a hearing was held before [[Judgepedia:King County Superior Court, Washington|King County Superior Court]] Judge [[Judgepedia:Bruce Heller|Bruce Heller]] at which time both side presented oral arguments. <ref name="PubicolaMarch9">[http://www.publicola.com/2012/03/09/superior-court-judge-hears-challenge-to-eymans-two-thirds-rule/''Pubicola'',"Judge Hears Challenge to Eyman's Two-Thirds Rule," March 9, 2012]</ref> <ref> [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015724705_taxlawsuit26m.html ''Seattle Times'', "", Retrieved April 17, 2012]</ref>  
  
==Election results==
+
On May 30, 2012, King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller ruled that the two-thirds vote requirement for the State Legislature to raise revenue under I-1053 was unconstitutional. <ref> [http://http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2012/05/30/king-county-judge-rules-that-23rds-majority-initiative-violates-simple-majority-rule-in-state-constitution/ ''Tacoma News Tribune'', "Eyman's Initiative 1053 Unconstitutional", Retrieved June 8, 2012]</ref> The issue will ultimately be decided by the Washington State Supreme Court.
:: ''See also: [[2010 ballot measure election results]]''
+
  
{{Outcome
+
Another supermajority requirement was challenged in 2008 by [[Lisa Brown|Sen. Lisa Brown]]. However, the [[Washington Supreme Court|state's high court]] ruled 9-0 to reject the challenge on technical grounds not related to the substance of the initiative.<ref name="SpokesmanJuly26"/>
| title = Initiative 1053 (Supermajority Vote for Taxes)
+
 
 +
===State Supreme Court ruling===
 +
:: ''See also: [[League of Education Voters v. Washington State]]''
 +
{{League of Educ. Voters v. Washington State (2013)}}<ref>[http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-Supreme-Court-23-requirement-for-tax-hike-unconstitutional-193858411.html Associated Press,"State Supreme Court strikes down two-thirds vote for tax hikes," February 28, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=controller.managefiles&filePath=Opinions&fileName=87425-5%20opinion.pdf ''League of Educ. Voters v. State 87425-5 (2013)'']</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Election results==
 +
{{Short outcome
 +
| title = Washington Initiative 1053 (2010)
 
| yes = 1,571,655
 
| yes = 1,571,655
 
| yespct = 63.75
 
| yespct = 63.75
Line 30: Line 45:
 
| turnoutpct =  
 
| turnoutpct =  
 
| image = {{approved}}
 
| image = {{approved}}
 +
|overturned = Yes
 +
|casename = League of Educ. Voters v. State
 +
|casenumber = 87425-5 (2013)
 +
|link = http://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=controller.managefiles&filePath=Opinions&fileName=87425-5%20opinion.pdf
 
}}
 
}}
  
 
[[Category:Approved, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Approved, 2010]]
Official results via [http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/ Washington Secretary of State]
+
Election results via: [http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/ Washington Secretary of State]
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
===Title===
 
 
According to the [[Washington Secretary of State]], the ballot title read:<ref name="GuideAug24">[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'',"2010 Election Voters' Guide (Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220)," retrieved August 24, 2010]</ref>
 
According to the [[Washington Secretary of State]], the ballot title read:<ref name="GuideAug24">[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'',"2010 Election Voters' Guide (Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220)," retrieved August 24, 2010]</ref>
  
::<u>Statement of Subject:</u> Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
+
{{Quote|<blockquote><u>Statement of Subject:</u> Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.<br/>
  
::<u>Concise Description:</u> This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.
+
<u>Concise Description:</u> This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.<br/>
  
::<u>Should this measure be enacted into law?:</u> Yes [ ] No [ ]
+
<u>Should this measure be enacted into law?:</u> Yes [ ] No [ ]</blockquote>}}
  
 
===Fiscal note===
 
===Fiscal note===
According to the Office of Financial Management, "Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness." The fiscal note stipulates that the initiative's impact is limited to changes in the state legislative process.<ref name="GuideAug24"/>
+
According to the Office of Financial Management, "Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness." The [[fiscal impact statement|fiscal note]] stipulates that the initiative's impact is limited to changes in the state legislative process.<ref name="GuideAug24"/>
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
 
===Initiative 960===
 
===Initiative 960===
:: ''See also: [[Washington Legislative Supermajority or Voter Approval Required for Tax Increase, Initiative 960 (2007)|Washington Initiative 960 (2007)]]''
+
:: ''See also: [[Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)|Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)]]''
  
 
Washington I-960 appeared on the [[2007 ballot measures|November 6, 2007]] statewide ballot in [[Washington]] where it was approved with 51.24% of the vote. I-960 required that in order for the [[Washington State Legislature]] raise taxes, the legislature would have to approve any tax increases with a two-thirds supermajority vote or submit tax increase proposals to a statewide vote of the electorate. After a two-year threshold, only a simple majority is required to change or repeal an initiative. I-960 passed the two-year threshold and was temporarily suspended by the state legislature until July 2011. Eyman's proposed I-1053 would implement a 2/3rds requirement for all "legislative actions raising taxes."<ref name="GuideAug24"/>
 
Washington I-960 appeared on the [[2007 ballot measures|November 6, 2007]] statewide ballot in [[Washington]] where it was approved with 51.24% of the vote. I-960 required that in order for the [[Washington State Legislature]] raise taxes, the legislature would have to approve any tax increases with a two-thirds supermajority vote or submit tax increase proposals to a statewide vote of the electorate. After a two-year threshold, only a simple majority is required to change or repeal an initiative. I-960 passed the two-year threshold and was temporarily suspended by the state legislature until July 2011. Eyman's proposed I-1053 would implement a 2/3rds requirement for all "legislative actions raising taxes."<ref name="GuideAug24"/>
Line 57: Line 75:
 
In January 2010 legislators said they planned to suspend I-960 "to make way for tax increases to help close a $2.6 billion state budget gap and stave off severe cuts to state services"<ref name=st/>.  On February 4, [[Margarita Prentice]] introduced Senate Bill 6843, which would suspend I-960.<ref>[http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=111183 ''Washington Votes'', Washington Senate Bill 6843]</ref>,<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2010975198_senate_democrats_propose_bill.html?prmid=obnetwork ''Seattle Times'', "Senate Democrats propose bill to make it easier to raise taxes", February 3, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6843&year=2010 Text of SB 6843]</ref> Should I-960 be suspended, tax increases would have required a simple majority, otherwise I-960 required a two-thirds approval by the legislature.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011153698_apwaxgrraisingtaxes1stldwritethru.html ''The Associated Press'',"Wash. Senate has final vote on suspension of I-960," February 22, 2010]</ref>
 
In January 2010 legislators said they planned to suspend I-960 "to make way for tax increases to help close a $2.6 billion state budget gap and stave off severe cuts to state services"<ref name=st/>.  On February 4, [[Margarita Prentice]] introduced Senate Bill 6843, which would suspend I-960.<ref>[http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=111183 ''Washington Votes'', Washington Senate Bill 6843]</ref>,<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2010975198_senate_democrats_propose_bill.html?prmid=obnetwork ''Seattle Times'', "Senate Democrats propose bill to make it easier to raise taxes", February 3, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6843&year=2010 Text of SB 6843]</ref> Should I-960 be suspended, tax increases would have required a simple majority, otherwise I-960 required a two-thirds approval by the legislature.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011153698_apwaxgrraisingtaxes1stldwritethru.html ''The Associated Press'',"Wash. Senate has final vote on suspension of I-960," February 22, 2010]</ref>
  
On February 17, 2010 the [[Washington House of Representatives|House]] approved the temporary suspension of I-960 after a 51-47 vote.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011116398_960taxes18m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"State House approves I-960 suspension," February 18, 2010]</ref> Shortly thereafter the Senate voted 26-21 in favor of suspending I-960.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011157732_apwaxgrraisingtaxes4thldwritethru.html ''Associated Press'',"Wash. Legislature OKS suspension of I-960," February 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/22/state-senate-approves-i-960-suspension-third- time/ ''The Spokesman-Review'',"State senate approves I-960 suspension for the third time," February 22, 2010]</ref> [[Christine Gregoire|Gov. Chris Gregoire]] signed the 16-month suspension of some provisions of Initiative 960 on [[BC2010#February|February 25, 2010]]<ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/feb/24/gregoire-signs-i960-suspension/ ''The Spokesman-Review'',"Gregoire signs I-960 suspension," February 24, 2010]</ref> I-960 goes back into effect in July 2011.
+
On February 17, 2010 the [[Washington House of Representatives|House]] approved the temporary suspension of I-960 after a 51-47 vote.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011116398_960taxes18m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"State House approves I-960 suspension," February 18, 2010]</ref> Shortly thereafter the Senate voted 26-21 in favor of suspending I-960.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011157732_apwaxgrraisingtaxes4thldwritethru.html ''Associated Press'',"Wash. Legislature OKS suspension of I-960," February 22, 2010]</ref> [[Christine Gregoire|Gov. Chris Gregoire]] signed the 16-month suspension of some provisions of Initiative 960 on [[BC2010#February|February 25, 2010]]<ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/feb/24/gregoire-signs-i960-suspension/ ''The Spokesman-Review'',"Gregoire signs I-960 suspension," February 24, 2010]</ref> I-960 goes back into effect in July 2011.
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
Initiative 1053's goal, according to its supporters, was to reinstate the 2/3rds [[supermajority vote]] provisions of [[Washington Legislative Supermajority or Voter Approval Required for Tax Increase, Initiative 960 (2007)|Initiative 960]] , which voters approved in [[Washington 2007 ballot measures|November 2007]] with a 51.24% to 48.76% vote. I-960 was temporarily suspended by the state legislature in 2010.
+
Initiative 1053's goal, according to its supporters, was to reinstate the 2/3rds [[supermajority vote]] provisions of [[Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)|Initiative 960]] , which voters approved in [[Washington 2007 ballot measures|November 2007]] with a 51.24% to 48.76% vote. I-960 was temporarily suspended by the state legislature in 2010.
  
 
[[Laws governing the initiative process in Washington#legislative tampering|Laws governing the initiative process in Washington]] allowed the [[Washington State Legislature|state legislature]] to amend or repeal voter-passed initiatives with a 2/3rds vote within 2 years after passage. After the two year threshold, only a simple majority was needed to change or repeal an [[Initiatives to the People (Washington)|Initiative from the People]].  Since the two years were up, Eyman sponsored the new initiative in 2010 to implement a permanent 2/3rds supermajority requirement for all revenue raising measures in the future.<ref name=sos/>
 
[[Laws governing the initiative process in Washington#legislative tampering|Laws governing the initiative process in Washington]] allowed the [[Washington State Legislature|state legislature]] to amend or repeal voter-passed initiatives with a 2/3rds vote within 2 years after passage. After the two year threshold, only a simple majority was needed to change or repeal an [[Initiatives to the People (Washington)|Initiative from the People]].  Since the two years were up, Eyman sponsored the new initiative in 2010 to implement a permanent 2/3rds supermajority requirement for all revenue raising measures in the future.<ref name=sos/>
Line 66: Line 84:
 
* On [[BC2010#May|May 13, 2010]] the [http://www.awb.org/ Association of Washington Business’ (AWB)] board of directors voted unanimously to support the proposed measure. "Taxes and increased costs on business are the top issue of concern for our members right now. This fall’s elections will undoubtedly be about the impact of taxes on families and businesses. Our board felt strongly enough about this measure to provide an early endorsement, in the hopes of raising the visibility of the issue among voters," said AWB President Don Brunell.<ref>[http://kpbj.com/business_weekly/2010-05-24/employers_back_measure_requiring_two_thirds_vote_on_taxes ''Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal'',"Employers back measure requiring two-thirds vote on taxes," May 24, 2010]</ref>
 
* On [[BC2010#May|May 13, 2010]] the [http://www.awb.org/ Association of Washington Business’ (AWB)] board of directors voted unanimously to support the proposed measure. "Taxes and increased costs on business are the top issue of concern for our members right now. This fall’s elections will undoubtedly be about the impact of taxes on families and businesses. Our board felt strongly enough about this measure to provide an early endorsement, in the hopes of raising the visibility of the issue among voters," said AWB President Don Brunell.<ref>[http://kpbj.com/business_weekly/2010-05-24/employers_back_measure_requiring_two_thirds_vote_on_taxes ''Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal'',"Employers back measure requiring two-thirds vote on taxes," May 24, 2010]</ref>
  
===Donors===
+
===Contributions===
Reports in [[BC2010#August|August 2010]] revealed that supporters collected an more than $700,000 in campaign contributions.<ref>[http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/ap_state/20100723/More-than-$6.6M-spent-on-initiative-signatures/ ''Associated Press'',"Wash. initiative campaigns draw big campaign cash," August 17, 2010]</ref> According to "StopGreed.org," opponents of the proposed measure, supporting corporations that made contributions to I-1053 included: BP Oil, ConocoPhillips Oil, Tesoro Oil, Shell Oil, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Weyerhauser, Sierra Pacific Industries, and Boise, as well as the Washington Restaurant Association and the Washington Farm Bureau.<ref>[http://www.stopgreed.org/visual-analysis/ ''StopGreed.org'',"Visual Analysis - Initiative 1053," retrieved September 8, 2010]</ref>
+
Reports in [[BC2010#August|August 2010]] revealed that supporters collected more than $700,000 in campaign contributions.<ref>[http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/ap_state/20100723/More-than-$6.6M-spent-on-initiative-signatures/ ''Associated Press'',"Wash. initiative campaigns draw big campaign cash," August 17, 2010]</ref>According to "StopGreed.org," opponents of the proposed measure, supporting corporations that made contributions to I-1053 included: BP Oil, ConocoPhillips Oil, Tesoro Oil, Shell Oil, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Weyerhauser, Sierra Pacific Industries, and Boise, as well as the Washington Restaurant Association and the Washington Farm Bureau.<ref>[http://www.stopgreed.org/visual-analysis/ ''StopGreed.org'',"Visual Analysis - Initiative 1053," retrieved September 8, 2010]</ref>
 +
Acording to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission at the end of the campaign, Eyman's committee - Voters Want More Choices-Save the 2/3 vote for Tax Increases raised $887,970.  A second PAC of corporate and business interest named Citizens for Responsible Spending, idependently raised an additional $617,340 for the initiative.
  
 
'''The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in support of I-1053:<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=U1RPUEZCIDUwNw====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "Stop the Food and Beverage Tax Hikes-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>'''.
 
'''The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in support of I-1053:<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=U1RPUEZCIDUwNw====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "Stop the Food and Beverage Tax Hikes-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>'''.
Line 84: Line 103:
 
| JPMorgan Chase (TX) || $30,000
 
| JPMorgan Chase (TX) || $30,000
 
|-
 
|-
| Green Diamond Resource|| $20,000
+
| Conoco Phillips Co|| $25,000
 
|-
 
|-
 +
|-Washington Association of Realtors|| $25,000 
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 91: Line 111:
 
Opponents argued that the proposed measure could allow for a small portion of the legislature to overthrow the majority. Additionally, opponents argued that the concept may be legally problematic because the [[Washington Constitution]] states that legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013141615_apwaraisingtaxes2ndldwritethru.html ''Associated Press'',"Eyman, businesses backing two-thirds for tax votes," October 12, 2010]</ref>
 
Opponents argued that the proposed measure could allow for a small portion of the legislature to overthrow the majority. Additionally, opponents argued that the concept may be legally problematic because the [[Washington Constitution]] states that legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013141615_apwaraisingtaxes2ndldwritethru.html ''Associated Press'',"Eyman, businesses backing two-thirds for tax votes," October 12, 2010]</ref>
  
* State senator [[Margarita Prentice]], chair of the [[Ways and Means Committee, Washington State Senate|state senate's Ways and Means Committee]], said he believed that I-1053 was an unconstitutional violation of [[Article II, Washington State Constitution#Section 22|Section 22 of Article II of the Washington State Constitution]].  Prentice also said he believed that [[Washington Legislative Supermajority or Voter Approval Required for Tax Increase, Initiative 960 (2007)|2007's I-960]] was unconstitutional: "I-960 is clearly unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court punted. They said the Legislature can fix it and that's what we're doing".<ref name=npi9601053>[http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2010/02/democratic-legislators-begin-courageous.html ''NPI Advocate, "Democratic legislators begin courageous and noble effort to neutralize Tim Eyman's I-960",  February 4th, 2010]</ref>
+
* State senator [[Margarita Prentice]], chair of the [[Ways and Means Committee, Washington State Senate|state senate's Ways and Means Committee]], said he believed that I-1053 was an unconstitutional violation of [[Article II, Washington State Constitution#Section 22|Section 22 of Article II of the Washington State Constitution]].  Prentice also said he believed that [[Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)|2007's I-960]] was unconstitutional: "I-960 is clearly unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court punted. They said the Legislature can fix it and that's what we're doing".<ref name=npi9601053>[http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2010/02/democratic-legislators-begin-courageous.html ''NPI Advocate, "Democratic legislators begin courageous and noble effort to neutralize Tim Eyman's I-960",  February 4th, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* Gov. [[Christine Gregoire]], who said in January 2010 with respect to I-1053's primary sponsor Tim Eyman: "For those like him who want to have a say constantly, come on down and run for election. Otherwise, leave it to us."<ref name=st/>
 
* Gov. [[Christine Gregoire]], who said in January 2010 with respect to I-1053's primary sponsor Tim Eyman: "For those like him who want to have a say constantly, come on down and run for election. Otherwise, leave it to us."<ref name=st/>
Line 101: Line 121:
 
* In an editorial [[Reuven Carlyle|Rep. Reuven Carlyle]] was featured in ''The Seattle Times'' on [[BC2010#September|September 26, 2010]]. He said, "Our founders' vision of citizen-legislators — real people living real lives who engage in representative democracy — is central to Washington's populist history. This vision is built on the fundamental principle of majority rule: 50 percent plus one vote. Not 60 percent. Not two-thirds. The principle itself is now under attack by Tim Eyman's undemocratic Initiative 1053." Carlyle describes the measure was "undemocratic, unfair and unwise."<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012990743_guest27carlyle.html?prmid=op_ed ''The Seattle Times'',"Eyman's Initiative 1053 undermines the principle of majority rule," September 26, 2010]</ref>
 
* In an editorial [[Reuven Carlyle|Rep. Reuven Carlyle]] was featured in ''The Seattle Times'' on [[BC2010#September|September 26, 2010]]. He said, "Our founders' vision of citizen-legislators — real people living real lives who engage in representative democracy — is central to Washington's populist history. This vision is built on the fundamental principle of majority rule: 50 percent plus one vote. Not 60 percent. Not two-thirds. The principle itself is now under attack by Tim Eyman's undemocratic Initiative 1053." Carlyle describes the measure was "undemocratic, unfair and unwise."<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012990743_guest27carlyle.html?prmid=op_ed ''The Seattle Times'',"Eyman's Initiative 1053 undermines the principle of majority rule," September 26, 2010]</ref>
  
===Donors===
+
===Contributions===
  
'''The No on I-1053 Committee''' was first formed in August of 2010<ref>[Confirmed with Washington PDC Officials on 10-19-2010]</ref>. The committee has raised more than $1,579,760.82 as of October 19, 2010<ref name="wa state" />.
+
'''The No on I-1053 Committee''' was first formed in August of 2010<ref>Confirmed with Washington PDC Officials on 10-19-2010</ref>. The committee has raised more than $1,579,760.82 as of October 19, 2010<ref name="wa state" />. The final amount was $1,638,971 according to the PDC.
  
 
'''The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in opposition of I 1053:<ref name="wa state">[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk8xMDUzIDEwMQ====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "No on I-1053 Committee-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>'''.
 
'''The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in opposition of I 1053:<ref name="wa state">[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk8xMDUzIDEwMQ====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "No on I-1053 Committee-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>'''.
Line 156: Line 176:
  
 
==Reports and analysis==
 
==Reports and analysis==
===State fiscal impact analysis===
+
===OFM impact report===
 
In 2010 the [http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/default.asp Washington Office of Financial Management] released fiscal impact statements for initiatives scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot, including Initiative 1053. Below is an excerpt:  
 
In 2010 the [http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/default.asp Washington Office of Financial Management] released fiscal impact statements for initiatives scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot, including Initiative 1053. Below is an excerpt:  
 
<blockquote>''Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness.''</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>''Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness.''</blockquote>
Line 180: Line 200:
 
* An '''October 7-10, 2010''' poll of 400 likely voters by [http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/11/poll-candy-tax-repeal-gains-ground-four-initiatives-losing/ Elway] showed that 49% supported the proposed measure, while 34% opposed it and 17% were undecided.<ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/11/poll-candy-tax-repeal-gains-ground-four-initiatives-losing/''Publicola'',"Poll: Candy Tax Repeal Gains Ground, Four Initiatives Losing" October 11, 2010]</ref>
 
* An '''October 7-10, 2010''' poll of 400 likely voters by [http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/11/poll-candy-tax-repeal-gains-ground-four-initiatives-losing/ Elway] showed that 49% supported the proposed measure, while 34% opposed it and 17% were undecided.<ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/11/poll-candy-tax-repeal-gains-ground-four-initiatives-losing/''Publicola'',"Poll: Candy Tax Repeal Gains Ground, Four Initiatives Losing" October 11, 2010]</ref>
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
<tr><td>{{2010BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
+
<tr><td>{{BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
{{Washington1053Poll}}
 
{{Washington1053Poll}}
Line 199: Line 219:
  
 
===Related measures===
 
===Related measures===
{{approved}} [[Washington Legislative Supermajority or Voter Approval Required for Tax Increase, Initiative 960 (2007)]]<br>
+
{{approved}} [[Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)]]<br>
  
 
===Articles===
 
===Articles===
Line 211: Line 231:
 
===Campaign links===
 
===Campaign links===
 
{{colbegin|2}}
 
{{colbegin|2}}
* [http://www.yeson1053.com/ Yes on 1053 - Citizens for Responsible Spending] (proponents)
 
 
* [http://www.voterswantmorechoices.com/ Voters Want More Choices] (proponents)
 
* [http://www.voterswantmorechoices.com/ Voters Want More Choices] (proponents)
 
* [http://www.permanentdefense.org/ Permanent Defense] (opponents)
 
* [http://www.permanentdefense.org/ Permanent Defense] (opponents)
 
* [http://www.no1053.org/ NO on 1053] (opponents)
 
* [http://www.no1053.org/ NO on 1053] (opponents)
* [http://protectwashington.org/no1053.html/ Protect Washington] (opponents)
 
 
{{colend}}
 
{{colend}}
  
Line 240: Line 258:
 
{{2010 ballot measures}}
 
{{2010 ballot measures}}
 
{{Washington}}
 
{{Washington}}
[[Category:Washington 2010 ballot measures, certified]]
+
 
 +
[[Category:Washington 2010 ballot measures]]
 +
[[Category:Taxes, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Taxes, Washington]]
 
[[Category:Taxes, Washington]]
[[Category:Certified, taxes, 2010]]
+
[[Category:Supermajority requirements, 2010]]
 +
[[Category:Supermajority requirements, Washington]]
 +
[[Category:State legislatures measures, 2010]]
 +
[[Category:State legislatures measures, Washington]]
 
{{certinitstat2010}}
 
{{certinitstat2010}}

Revision as of 16:19, 23 September 2013

Voting on
Supermajority Requirements
Supermajority requirements.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Washington Constitution
StateConstitutions Ballotpedia.jpg
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIXIIIXIVXVXVIXVIIXVIIIXIXXXXXIXXIIXXIIIXXIVXXVXXVIXXVIIXXVIIIXXIXXXXXXXIXXXII
Amendments

The Washington Supermajority Vote Required in State Legislature to Raise Taxes Initiative, also known as Initiative 1053, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, where it was approved but later overturned. The measure required that "legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval."[1][2]

Tim Eyman filed the language for the proposed initiative on January 11 with the Washington Secretary of State. He was joined by several co-sponsors, including Republican state senators Pam Roach and Janea Holmquist.[3]

Eyman filing the "Save the 2/3rds vote for Tax Increase" initiative.
Photo credit: Office of the Washington Secretary of State

On July 2, supporters filed an estimated 400,000 signatures, far exceeding the 241,000 required minimum.[4][5] Following a 3 percent signature check the Washington Secretary of State certified the proposed initiative for the 2010 ballot.[6][7]

Aftermath

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation and List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010

In late July 2011 Washington House Democrats filed a lawsuit arguing that the supermajority vote required for tax increases is an unconstitutional limit on legislative authority.[8] The suit was filed in King County Superior Court with League of Education Voters and he Washington Education Association listed among the plaintiffs.[9]

Specifically, the lawsuit centers around House Bill 2078. The bill called for "closing a tax preference on interest received by large banks on some mortgages and using the money for reducing class sizes in kindergarten through third-grade." The bill was approved by the House (52-42) however, the bill did not reach the two-thirds supermajority requirement in order to proceed to the Senate. The filed lawsuit argues that the bill should have been sent to the Senate because the House had a majority vote in favor of the bill, as required by the Washington Constitution.[8]

The requirement for passing bills cannot be overridden by an initiative, argues the lawsuit. In order to amend the constitutional majority vote requirement, a constitutional amendment would be needed.[8]

On March 9, 2012, a hearing was held before King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller at which time both side presented oral arguments. [10] [11]

On May 30, 2012, King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller ruled that the two-thirds vote requirement for the State Legislature to raise revenue under I-1053 was unconstitutional. [12] The issue will ultimately be decided by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Another supermajority requirement was challenged in 2008 by Sen. Lisa Brown. However, the state's high court ruled 9-0 to reject the challenge on technical grounds not related to the substance of the initiative.[8]

State Supreme Court ruling

See also: League of Education Voters v. Washington State

On February 28, 2013, the Washington Supreme Court issued its ruling on League of Educ. Voters v. State and, in doing so, declared legislation requiring a supermajority vote for tax legislation unconstitutional. The challenge was initially filed against Initiative 1053, but is part of a larger issue concerning similar initiatives beginning in 1993 with Initiative 601.

The court found such supermajority requirements to be in violation of Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 22, which states that no bill shall become law unless a majority of each chamber votes in favor of it. The court's ruling concludes with,

Our holding today is not a judgment on the wisdom of requiring a supermajority for the passage of tax legislation. Such judgment is left to the legislative branch of our government. Should the people and the legislature still wish to require a supermajority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation.

[13]

Washington Supreme Court, [14][15]

[16][17]

Election results

Washington Initiative 1053 (2010)
OverturnedotOverturned Case:League of Educ. Voters v. State 87425-5 (2013)
ResultVotesPercentage
Yes 1,571,655 63.75%
No895,83336.25%

Election results via: Washington Secretary of State

Text of measure

According to the Washington Secretary of State, the ballot title read:[1]

Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.

Concise Description: This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.

Should this measure be enacted into law?: Yes [ ] No [ ]
[13]

Fiscal note

According to the Office of Financial Management, "Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness." The fiscal note stipulates that the initiative's impact is limited to changes in the state legislative process.[1]

Background

Initiative 960

See also: Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)

Washington I-960 appeared on the November 6, 2007 statewide ballot in Washington where it was approved with 51.24% of the vote. I-960 required that in order for the Washington State Legislature raise taxes, the legislature would have to approve any tax increases with a two-thirds supermajority vote or submit tax increase proposals to a statewide vote of the electorate. After a two-year threshold, only a simple majority is required to change or repeal an initiative. I-960 passed the two-year threshold and was temporarily suspended by the state legislature until July 2011. Eyman's proposed I-1053 would implement a 2/3rds requirement for all "legislative actions raising taxes."[1]

Temporary Suspension of I-960

In January 2010 legislators said they planned to suspend I-960 "to make way for tax increases to help close a $2.6 billion state budget gap and stave off severe cuts to state services"[2]. On February 4, Margarita Prentice introduced Senate Bill 6843, which would suspend I-960.[18],[19][20] Should I-960 be suspended, tax increases would have required a simple majority, otherwise I-960 required a two-thirds approval by the legislature.[21]

On February 17, 2010 the House approved the temporary suspension of I-960 after a 51-47 vote.[22] Shortly thereafter the Senate voted 26-21 in favor of suspending I-960.[23] Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the 16-month suspension of some provisions of Initiative 960 on February 25, 2010[24] I-960 goes back into effect in July 2011.

Support

Initiative 1053's goal, according to its supporters, was to reinstate the 2/3rds supermajority vote provisions of Initiative 960 , which voters approved in November 2007 with a 51.24% to 48.76% vote. I-960 was temporarily suspended by the state legislature in 2010.

Laws governing the initiative process in Washington allowed the state legislature to amend or repeal voter-passed initiatives with a 2/3rds vote within 2 years after passage. After the two year threshold, only a simple majority was needed to change or repeal an Initiative from the People. Since the two years were up, Eyman sponsored the new initiative in 2010 to implement a permanent 2/3rds supermajority requirement for all revenue raising measures in the future.[3]

  • On May 13, 2010 the Association of Washington Business’ (AWB) board of directors voted unanimously to support the proposed measure. "Taxes and increased costs on business are the top issue of concern for our members right now. This fall’s elections will undoubtedly be about the impact of taxes on families and businesses. Our board felt strongly enough about this measure to provide an early endorsement, in the hopes of raising the visibility of the issue among voters," said AWB President Don Brunell.[25]

Contributions

Reports in August 2010 revealed that supporters collected more than $700,000 in campaign contributions.[26]. According to "StopGreed.org," opponents of the proposed measure, supporting corporations that made contributions to I-1053 included: BP Oil, ConocoPhillips Oil, Tesoro Oil, Shell Oil, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Weyerhauser, Sierra Pacific Industries, and Boise, as well as the Washington Restaurant Association and the Washington Farm Bureau.[27] Acording to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission at the end of the campaign, Eyman's committee - Voters Want More Choices-Save the 2/3 vote for Tax Increases raised $887,970. A second PAC of corporate and business interest named Citizens for Responsible Spending, idependently raised an additional $617,340 for the initiative.

The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in support of I-1053:[28].

Contributor Amount
BP Corporation (IL) $50,000
Washington State Farm Bureau $50,000
Tesoro Companies (TX) $40,000
JPMorgan Chase (TX) $30,000
Conoco Phillips Co $25,000

Opposition

Opponents argued that the proposed measure could allow for a small portion of the legislature to overthrow the majority. Additionally, opponents argued that the concept may be legally problematic because the Washington Constitution states that legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote.[29]

  • Gov. Christine Gregoire, who said in January 2010 with respect to I-1053's primary sponsor Tim Eyman: "For those like him who want to have a say constantly, come on down and run for election. Otherwise, leave it to us."[2]
  • Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, who earlier filed an unsuccessful lawsuit, Lisa Brown v. Brad Owens, to have I-960 declared unconstitutional. She said in January 2010 that I-960 had had "ludicrous" consequences and that the state legislature should suspend it in order to "stay true to the principle of majority rule."[2]
  • In an editorial Rep. Reuven Carlyle was featured in The Seattle Times on September 26, 2010. He said, "Our founders' vision of citizen-legislators — real people living real lives who engage in representative democracy — is central to Washington's populist history. This vision is built on the fundamental principle of majority rule: 50 percent plus one vote. Not 60 percent. Not two-thirds. The principle itself is now under attack by Tim Eyman's undemocratic Initiative 1053." Carlyle describes the measure was "undemocratic, unfair and unwise."[32]

Contributions

The No on I-1053 Committee was first formed in August of 2010[33]. The committee has raised more than $1,579,760.82 as of October 19, 2010[34]. The final amount was $1,638,971 according to the PDC.

The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in opposition of I 1053:[34].


Contributor Amount
Washington Federation of State Employees $600,000
SEIU Healthcare 775 NW $350,000
SEIU District 1199 NW $100,000
SEIU Washington State Council $100,000
Community Health Plan of Washington $60,000

Media editorial positions

Main article: Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • The Seattle Times supported the proposed measure. In an editorial, the board said, "A two-thirds requirement was in effect in 2009, and the Legislature did not raise taxes. But under the state constitution, the Legislature may suspend any initiative after two years by majority vote. In January they did, and raised taxes by more than $800 million. I-1053 would force the Legislature to find ways other than simply raising taxes to adjust to the state's economic realities."[35][36]
  • The Columbian supported I-1053. In an editorial, the board said, "...there is no doubt that (1) the Democrat-led Legislature this year rushed to suspend the two-thirds requirement of Initiative 960 of 2007; (2) revenue was raised this year by almost $800 million, largely through tax increases, and (3) little to no effort was made to reform government. Those three realities lead The Columbian to recommend a “Yes” vote on Initiative 1053."[37]
  • The Yakima Herald-Republic supported I-1053. "This time, legislative Democrats really deserve this initiative. They have repeatedly ignored calls for reforming a broken fiscal system and instead have imposed a patchwork of budget cutbacks and tax increases. Apparently, the voters need to push lawmakers along into finding long-term solutions. Consider this the push," said the editorial board.[38]
  • The Kitsap Sun supported the measure. "This is a re-re-rerun: three times, voters previously approved a similar measure, and three times, the Legislature overturned after two years. On the disgust-o-meter, it’s a toss-up between legislators’ unwillingness to budget with restraint instead of new taxes, and their habitual willingness to dump the will of the people. In terms of efficiency, it’d be simpler to boot out some legislators instead of re-running this initiative every two years. We strongly endorse I-1053," said the board.[39]
  • The Bellevue Reporter was in support. "Three times voters have approved a measure to require a 2/3 majority vote in order to raise taxes. Three times the Legislature has overturned the measure after two years and continued on its tax-and-spend ways. Once more voters must protect their pocketbooks – this time by voting 'Yes' on I-1053," said the board.[40]

Opposition

  • The Seattle Post-Intelligencer was opposed to I-1053. In an editorial, the board said, "Do we want to bring endless legislative sessions and California-style gridlock to the Evergreen State? I-1053 is income for Eyman. It keeps Big Oil from cleaning up its act. It means votes of a minority in the Legislature count for more. I-1053 is bad for Washington. The forces that defend and advocate education, the environment and social services in this state should not let it pass without a fight."[41]
  • The Tacoma News Tribune was opposed to I-1053. In an editorial board, the board said, "I-1053 would give a minority party outsized power to block tax increases while also disavowing the painful choices forced by hits to existing revenues."[42]
  • The Olympian was opposed to I-1053. In an editorial board, the board said, "This initiative essentially gives a narrow minority — 17 senators or 34 House members, the difference of a simple majority and supermajority — veto authority on budget matters. That’s not right nor is it democratic."[43]
  • The Peninsula Gateway was opposed to I-1053. In an editorial board, the board said, "The idea to remember here is that I-960 was only temporarily suspended. It will be reinstated in July 2011, at the beginning of the new fiscal year."[44]
  • The Pacific Northwest Inlander was opposed to I-1053. In an editorial, the board said, "Forget about the legislator you sent to Olympia; under Eyman’s plan, it would only take 17 individuals to hold up progress for the state’s nearly 7 million citizens. That is nothing like the democracy we all hold so dear."[45]
  • The Tri-City Herald was opposed to I-1053. In an editorial board, the board said, "Essentially, passing this initiative nullifies a major belief of most Americans: Majority rules."[46]
  • The Stranger was opposed to the proposed initiative. The editorial board wrote, "...Eyman thinks that putting the legislature in a straitjacket by conning voters into passing I-1053 is a great way to cure what ails us. Want proof that he's full of shit? See California, which is a bankrupt, cracked-out...thanks to its two-thirds majority requirement. Vote no."[47]
  • Publicola opposed I-1053. "The extremist rule gives a minority the power to muck up the democratic process. (Would the proponents of I-1053 want this initiative to need two-thirds voter approval at the ballot in order to pass?)," said the editorial board.[48]

Reports and analysis

OFM impact report

In 2010 the Washington Office of Financial Management released fiscal impact statements for initiatives scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot, including Initiative 1053. Below is an excerpt:

Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness.
Read the full report here

Budget and Policy Center

The Washington State Budget and Policy Center released an analysis of several Washington 2010 initiatives, including I-1053. According to the study, I-1053 "would tie legislators’ hands as they deal with the continued effects of the recession." The initiative, they said, would do this by requiring a public referendum vote or a supermajority vote in the legislature along with a nonbinding public advisory vote. The requirements, according to the study, "would hamper public officials from making smart and rational decisions."[49][50]

The report can be read here.


Polls

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures
  • A Washington Poll, conducted from May 3 – May 23, 2010, revealed that 60% of polled registered voters approve of requiring a 2/3 majority by the state legislature before approving tax increases. 24% said they were opposed. The poll surveyed approximately 1,252 registered voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8.[51][52]
  • An August 26-August 29, 2010 poll of 650 likely voters by Survey USA showed that 55% of voters were certain they would support I-1107, 18% were certain they would oppose the measure, and 26% were undecided. [53][54]
  • A September 9-12, 2010 poll of 500 likely voters by Elway Poll revealed that 48% supported the proposed measure, while 27% were opposed and 25% were undecided.[55][56][57]
  • A September 30-October 3, 2010 poll of 639 likely voters by Survey USA revealed that 56% supported the proposed measure, while 19% were opposed and 25% were undecided. The poll was sponsored by KING-TV Seattle. The margin of error was +/- 3.9 percentage points.[58]
  • An October 7-10, 2010 poll of 400 likely voters by Elway showed that 49% supported the proposed measure, while 34% opposed it and 17% were undecided.[59]
Legend

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
May 3-23, 2010 Washington Poll 60% 24% 16% 1,252
August 26 - 29, 2010 Survey USA 55% 18% 26% 650
Sept. 9-12, 2010 Elway Poll 48% 27% 25% 500
Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2010 Survey USA 56% 19% 25% 639
Oct. 7-10, 2010 The Elway Poll 49% 34% 17% 400


Path to the ballot

See also: Washington signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs
Taxes on the ballot in 2010
Nevada 2010 ballot measuresUtah 2010 ballot measuresColorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010)New Mexico 2010 ballot measuresArizona 2010 ballot measuresMontana 2010 ballot measuresCalifornia 2010 ballot measuresOregon 2010 ballot measuresWashington 2010 ballot measuresIdaho 2010 ballot measuresOklahoma 2010 ballot measuresKansas 2010 ballot measuresNebraska 2010 ballot measuresSouth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresNorth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresIowa 2010 ballot measuresMissouri 2010 ballot measuresArkansas 2010 ballot measuresLouisiana 2010 ballot measuresAlabama 2010 ballot measuresGeorgia 2010 ballot measuresFlorida 2010 ballot measuresSouth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIllinois 2010 ballot measuresTennessee 2010 ballot measuresNorth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIndiana 2010 ballot measuresOhio 2010 ballot measuresMaine 2010 ballot measuresVirginia 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresMassachusetts 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresAlaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (2010)Hawaii 2010 ballot measuresCertified, taxes, 2010 Map.png

In order to place the proposed measure on the 2010 ballot organizers were required to collect a minimum of 241,153 valid signatures by July 2. According to reports I-1053 supporters expected to file signatures with the Washington Secretary of State on Friday, July 2.[60]

On July 2 supporters filed an estimated 400,000 signatures, far exceeding the 241,000 required minimum.[61][62]

On July 19 Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the measure following a 3 percent signature check. Of the 10,325 signature checked, 9,187 or 80% were valid and 1,138 were rejected. According to state officials, signatures were primarily rejected because they weren't registered voters. The total error rate was 19.62%.[63][64]

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

Related measures

Approveda Washington Rules for Approving Tax Increases, Initiative 960 (2007)

Articles

External links

Campaign links

Additional reading

Editorials

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Washington Secretary of State,"2010 Election Voters' Guide (Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220)," retrieved August 24, 2010
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Seattle Times, "Eyman will push to restore tax barrier", January 12, 2010
  3. 3.0 3.1 Office of the Washington Secretary of State, "Another round of Eyman vs. Legislature begins", January 11, 2010
  4. The Associated Press,"Wash. campaign to limit taxes turns in signatures," July 2, 2010
  5. Washington's: From Our Corner,"`Direct democracy’ — A six-pack for 2010," July 2, 2010
  6. Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner,"Tim Eyman’s I-1053 earns ballot spot," July 19, 2010
  7. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Eyman tax initiative qualifies for fall ballot," July 19, 2010
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 The Spokesman-Review,"Anti-tax measure heads to court," July 26, 2011
  9. Associated Press,"Dems challenge WA initiative curbing tax increases," July 25, 2011
  10. Pubicola,"Judge Hears Challenge to Eyman's Two-Thirds Rule," March 9, 2012
  11. Seattle Times, "", Retrieved April 17, 2012
  12. Tacoma News Tribune, "Eyman's Initiative 1053 Unconstitutional", Retrieved June 8, 2012
  13. 13.0 13.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  14. Associated Press,"State Supreme Court strikes down two-thirds vote for tax hikes," February 28, 2013
  15. League of Educ. Voters v. State 87425-5 (2013)
  16. Associated Press,"State Supreme Court strikes down two-thirds vote for tax hikes," February 28, 2013
  17. League of Educ. Voters v. State 87425-5 (2013)
  18. Washington Votes, Washington Senate Bill 6843
  19. Seattle Times, "Senate Democrats propose bill to make it easier to raise taxes", February 3, 2010
  20. Text of SB 6843
  21. The Associated Press,"Wash. Senate has final vote on suspension of I-960," February 22, 2010
  22. The Seattle Times,"State House approves I-960 suspension," February 18, 2010
  23. Associated Press,"Wash. Legislature OKS suspension of I-960," February 22, 2010
  24. The Spokesman-Review,"Gregoire signs I-960 suspension," February 24, 2010
  25. Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal,"Employers back measure requiring two-thirds vote on taxes," May 24, 2010
  26. Associated Press,"Wash. initiative campaigns draw big campaign cash," August 17, 2010
  27. StopGreed.org,"Visual Analysis - Initiative 1053," retrieved September 8, 2010
  28. Washington PDC "Stop the Food and Beverage Tax Hikes-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010
  29. Associated Press,"Eyman, businesses backing two-thirds for tax votes," October 12, 2010
  30. NPI Advocate, "Democratic legislators begin courageous and noble effort to neutralize Tim Eyman's I-960", February 4th, 2010
  31. Tri-City Herald, "Holmquist joins Eyman on initiative over tax rule", January 12, 2010
  32. The Seattle Times,"Eyman's Initiative 1053 undermines the principle of majority rule," September 26, 2010
  33. Confirmed with Washington PDC Officials on 10-19-2010
  34. 34.0 34.1 Washington PDC "No on I-1053 Committee-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010
  35. The Seattle Times,"Reset 2010: Statewide initiatives tackle taxes, taxes and drink," June 18, 2010
  36. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Times endorses Eyman initiative, opposes income tax on rich," June 21, 2010
  37. The Columbian,"In Our View: ‘Yes’ on I-1053," September 19, 2010
  38. The Yakima Herald-Republic,"On tax initiatives, keep your money and keep it away from lawmakers," September 27, 2010
  39. Kitsap Sun,"OUR VIEW | Sorting Out the Ballot Issues," October 21, 2010
  40. Bellevue Reporter,"Vote 'Yes' on I-1053, to control taxes | editorial," October 21, 2010
  41. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Seattlepi.com: Avoid chaos and vote 'no' on I-1053 (Eyman tax initiative)," September 8, 2010
  42. "The News Tribune","No to Initiative 1053 and tying legislators' hands," September 23, 2010
  43. "The Olympian","Initiative would give undemocratic veto power over budget," September 24, 2010
  44. "The Peninsula Gateway","Initiative 1053: More gridlock with lawmakers," September 23, 2010
  45. "The Spokane Inlander","Decision Time," October 6, 2010
  46. "The Tri-City Herald","2/3 majority to raise taxes means a Legislature in knots," October 11, 2010
  47. The Stranger,"VOTE, BABY, VOTE!," October 13, 2010
  48. Publicola,"PubliCola Picks for the Nov. 2 Election," October 14, 2010
  49. Othello Outlook,"Ballot measures could have significant impacts on state - Washington State Budget and Policy Center," August 24, 2010
  50. Washington State Budget and Policy Center,"New Policy Brief: 2010 Initiatives Could Impact Public Services," July 21, 2010
  51. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"New state poll: Murray runs weak, income tax strong," May 24, 2010
  52. The Washington Poll, "Issues and Opinions May 2010," May 24, 2010
  53. Survey USA, "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #17011" August 30, 2010
  54. PubliCola,"SurveyUSA Poll Could Spell Bad News for Progressive Coalition," August 31, 2010
  55. FireDogLake,"WA Ballot Measures Polling Under 50% – So Much for That Anti-Tax, Less Government Wave," September 16, 2010
  56. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Skeptical public? All initiatives under 50 percent in poll," September 15, 2010
  57. The Spokesman Review,"Initiative support tepid in poll," September 20, 2010
  58. SurveyUSA,"10 Days Until WA Ballots Mailed, New Support for Initiative 1107, Steady Support for 1053, Faltering Support for Referendum 52," October 4, 2010
  59. Publicola,"Poll: Candy Tax Repeal Gains Ground, Four Initiatives Losing" October 11, 2010
  60. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Eyman, second liquor measure ready to turn in signatures," June 28, 2010
  61. The Spokesman Review,"I-1053 turn-in: 333,000-plus signatures," July 2, 2010
  62. The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader,"Initiative 1107 aims to repeal food and beverage tax with Nov. ballot," July 13, 2010
  63. Associated Press,"Eyman initiative on tax hike votes to make ballot," July 19, 2010
  64. Publicola,"Eyman Initiative Makes the Ballot," July 19, 2010