I am sending $200 to Tim Eyman, even if I disagree with him sometimes. A judge declared his car tab initiative unconstitutional, after a majority of the people of this state voted for it. That is a slap in the face of those people, who still make the effort to participate in the voting process.
With the excuse of a “single-subject rule” legal argument, a well-established minority forces its view on the majority. The legal argument is hogwash. The single-subject rule applies equally to all legislative bills and ordinances. The reason for that rule is the fact that a new law, initiative or ordinance should not be so confusing that the average person cannot understand the meaning of the proposal.
However, countless times, new laws and ordinances have been passed into law by county and state legislators, even if they were challenged in court. A prime example is the Growth Management Act, which has 13 different goals to start out with and which has been challenged in court many times. With other words the court is measuring with different yardsticks when it comes to the right of initiative by the people. When I was a Snohomish planning commissioner, I voted no on a lot of proposed ordinances because they were so confusing, the average person could not understand the ramifications of such proposals. Everybody who voted for or against the car tab initiative knew it was about less taxes. Historically and legally, the single-subject rule has been interpreted in many different ways. Now, it takes away the right of government by the people.
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
