Madison and Hamilton Would Have Voted NO on I-1053

Two of the founders of our country, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, would have voted No on Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053 if they were alive today.  They spelled out their reasoning in The Federalist Papers in which they discussed the wisdom and necessity of majority rules for voting, instead of requiring a supermajority vote. Their arguments, which helped to frame the majority voting provisions in the US Constitution, are still as relevant today as when they were first written.

Initiative 1053 is an attempt to rewrite the rules by which Washington State Legislators make their decisions and vote. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Washington State Legislature shall make decisions by a majority vote. Eyman wants to change this to require that a 2/3 vote is needed by both Houses of the Legislature to pass revenue measures to fund state services or to repeal special interest tax exemptions that only benefit large corporations.

James Madison in The Federalist Papers No 58 had this to say about requiring supermajority votes:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers No 22 likewise stated:

what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ...

This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. ...

If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, ... Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

These arguments for majority votes still ring true today. Washington State voters should vote NO on Initiative 1053 and uphold our State Constitution.

Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

The Washington Conservation Voters are among the many organizations across Washington State opposing Initiative 1053, which is on the November 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman's attempt to errorously amend the Washington State Constitution by initiative. Unfortunately for Eyman, in Washington State you can not amend the constitution by initiative. To do that requires a separate process of passing a constiutional amendment.

Eyman is trying to change Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution that says the Washington State Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote.  Eyman and his corporate backers like BP are trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills.

The Washington Conservation Voters describe their opposition to I-1053 as follows:

Vote No on Initiative 1053

Tim Eyman is back. His latest initiative, I-1053, recycles the failed concept behind Initiative 960 - forcing a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any increase in revenue for our state, such as taxing polluters. If this initiative passes, next legislative session's expected $3 billion budget deficit will have to be closed with another brutal all-cuts budget. Critical protections that keep our air safe to breathe, our water healthy to drink, and toxic contaminations cleaned up would once again be at risk.

The Washington Conservation Voters also has an article written by Joel Connelly of the SeattlePI.com posted on their website entitled "Eyman's I-1053 - A slick initiative" which explains some of the reasons corporations like BP, Tesoro, ConocoPhillips and Equilon  are pushing I-1053. For them it's profits over public good and corporate responsibility.

You can add your voice  opposing 1053 on Facebook by going here.

You can view the Vote No on 1053 website here.

You can check out all the Washington Conservation Voters 2010 endorsements by clicking here.

Another Oil Rig Explodes in Gulf

Another oil rig has exploded and is burning in the Gulf of Mexico. No workers were killed but an oil scheen is reported at the site. Thirteen workers you were doing repairs and maintenance on the site were rescued from the water. Current reports say the well was not in production at the time. There is still a question as to the existence of the oil sheen but it could be from oil stored on the site.

see Washington Post -Fire forces evacuation of Mariner oil platform in Gulf of Mexico.

While a disaster is never good news, it may take some the heat off of Obama's decision for a moratorium on deep well drilling even though this rig was in shallow water. If there is a leak, at least in shallow water it is much easier to stop. A second oil rig explosion obviously raises concern about rig safety.

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club has come out against Initiative 1053.  This is Tim Eyman's 2010 initiative trying to impose a 2/3 vote requirement for Washington State Legislators to pass revenue measures and close special interest tax exemptions.

The measure is unconstitutional. An initiative can not amend the Washington State Constitution. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.

Here is the Sierra Club's rationale for opposing I-1053.

Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman's latest bad idea that will cripple state government by allowing minority rule. The measure would require a supermajority on all revenue measures, such as increases in levies on toxic run-off from oil and other hazardous substances. In fact BP and their Big Oil friends have ponied up big to Tim Eyman to ensure that they can continue to pollute without paying to cleanup their mess. To add insult to injury, this measures also allows a minority to block closing tax loopholes to polluters.

In order for our government to function, the legislature needs to be able to ensure that polluters pay, and that we are able to invest in cleaning up our air and water. Just Say No to Initiative 1053.

You can go to the Sierra Club's website to see their endorsements for candidates for the November election. They also are supporting Referendum 52.

Republicans Blowing Smoke on Economy According to Newsweek

In an article in Newsweek's The Gaggle on Press, Politics and Absurdity, Arthur Romano details how the Republican agenda for the economy doesn't hold up when examined. The article is entitled "Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge". Romano examines and calculates the figures based on stated Republican positions and actions they have proposed.

The article notes:

As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

It is good to finally see some response from the media to questioning the absurd pronouncements and posturing by Republicans beyond merely quoting their phony claims. Anyone can repeat the nonsense that many Republicans and Tea Party fanatics have been spouting. It's something else to actually look beyond the heated rhetoric and rantings of the right wing and analyze what putting these folks and their friends back in power would actually mean.

As just one example of why people should read the Newsweek article to understand just how ridiculous the Republican claims are, let's look at the claim that extending the Bush Tax cuts for the very wealthy will help small business create more jobs.

As Newsweek notes:

"...it's unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn't pay higher taxes under Obama's plan.

History isn't on the GOP's side, either. If keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35 percent—the rate under Bush, and the rate that Republicans are fighting to preserve—spurs so much hiring, why didn't America experience any job growth at all during Bush's time in office? And if a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent—the rate under Bill Clinton, and the rate that Democrats are fighting to restore—is such a job killer, why did payrolls grow by 20 percent during the 1990s?"

I urge you to read the article to get more details and understand better why the Republican economic
rantings are just a lot of smoke obscuring the reality that things would be worse off, not better if Republicans gain control of either House of Congress.  If you thought we had gridlock and weren't getting enough done now, expect nothing to get done if Republicans get back control of either house.

Conservatives Plan to Spend Mega Millions to Win Congressional Lottery

Conservatives are betting heavily that they can bring back their nefarious philosophy of corporate control of America by spending mega millions of dollars this year to convince conservatives and independents to get out and vote for right wing candidates to help takeover the US House and Senate. Think Progress reports that right wing spending for the November Election will drastically rise to around $400 million.

 Under such well known previous players like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association are also all American sounding names like Americans for Job Security and Americans for Prosperity.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision and Tea Party fanaticism and continuing libertarian ideals and free market advocates are all contributing factors stirring up a whirlwind of right wing dollars. Also contributing and giving these fanatics hope are polls that suggest the waning of the  idealism and fervor of new voters and others that helped to elect Obama and put Democrats in control over the last several national elections. They are hoping these Democrats and independents don't make the effort to vote this year.

All I can say is WAKE UP to those that thought electing Obama was the end of the need to fight for the future. Wake Up to the reality that what we won is in danger of being lost.  Wake up to the realization that despite all the problems inherited from Bush and the Republicans that much progress has been made for a better future.  Maybe its not all you wanted but it is a hell of a lot considering where we were.

I say to those not yet energized to vote this year  - Are you willing to just roll over and play dead and ignore the damage to our future that this right wing fanaticism and greed will bring to us all? I hope not. I urge you to get engaged in this year's elections and help battle off the attempt by the right wing to bring back the Bush/Cheney/Rove corporate greed machine that puts profit over people lives and dreams and hopes for a better future.

This election year is too important to sit out! Vote and urge your family and friends to vote. Give money to candidates you support and volunteer for their campaigns.

To give an idea of the magnitude and scope of the spending by conservatives here is the list of right wing groups and their proposed spending as tabulated by Think Progress. Do you really want these folks back in charge?

– Chamber of Commerce has pledged to spend $75 million


– American Crossroads has pledged to spend $52 million

– Americans for Prosperity has pledged to spend $45 million

– Republican State Leadership Committee has pledged to spend $40 million

– American Action Network has pledged to spend $25 million

– American Future Fund has pledged to spend up to $25 million

– Club for Growth has pledged to spend at least $24 million

– National Republican Trust PAC has pledged to spend at least $20 million

– An unnamed health insurance industry coalition has pledged to spend $20 million

– National Rifle Association has pledged to spend $20 million

– Faith and Freedom Coalition has pledged to spend $11 million

– FreedomWorks has pledged to spend $10 million

– Americans for Job Security has pledged to spend $10 million

– Susan B. Anthony List has pledged to spend $6 million

– Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express) has already spent $5 million

– Tax Relief Coalition has already spent $4 million

– Republican Majority Campaign has pledged to spend $3 million

– Campaign for Working Families has pledged to spend $2 million

– Heritage Action for America has pledged to spend $1 million

– Financial Services Roundtable has already spent $0.5 million

– Family Research Council has raised $0.5 million

– Citizens United Political Victory Fund has pledged to spend $0.2 million


TOTAL: $399.2 million

Supermajority Vote Requirement for Washington State Legislators as Proposed by I-1053 is Unconstitutional

This issue should have been decided long ago by the Washington State Supreme Court. Any attempt to limit the Washington State Legislature from enacting revenue bills or repealing non-performing tax exemptions by requiring a supermajority vote is unconstitutional. Initiative 1053 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by voters this November.

The Washington State Constitution is very clear on this issue. 

Article II, Section 22 states:

"PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

It does not state that more than a majority vote can be required. Initiative 1053 tries to change that by requiring Legislators to act by a 2/3 supermajority vote in both Houses to enact revenue measures or repeal tax exemptions. It happens to be revenue in this case but it could just as easy be environmental protections or labor issues or race issues or women's issues or any other issue.

The fact of the matter is that anything more than 50% to pass a bill would give Legislators on one side of the issue more power than the other side in determining the outcome of a vote.  Requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a measure means that the vote of 1/3 of the Legislators can prevail over the vote of 2/3 of the Legislators.

A majority vote gives both sides on a issue equal voting power  to pass or reject legislation. Everyone's vote has equal weight. It's the basic concept of one person/one vote. But a 2/3 vote requirement for Legislators to pass something means that 1/3 of the Legislators can prevent passage;  in essence giving the vote of those opposed to a measure  twice the weight of someone voting for the measure.

This sets up a two tiered system of weighted votes, something that is not in the State Constitution for passing legislation.  It distorts the process of representational government. Initiative 1053 tries to change the Washington State Constitution by saying that in some cases your elected Senator or Representative will represent you with one full vote to decide an issue but in cases involving raising revenue or repealing non-performing tax exemptions, they will essentially only have the equivalent of half a vote to decide the issue if they vote yes. If they vote no their vote will represent a full vote.

This is the flaw in supermajority votes. Under a 2/3 majority vote requirement to pass some issues, it sets up a system that essentially assigns Legislators the equivalent of half a vote if they vote yes or a full vote if they vote no on certain issues.

While I-1053 would require supermajority votes for deciding to raise revenue or repeal non-performing tax exemptions, it only requires a simple majority to pass itself. It does not require a 2/3 vote.

Washington voters are certainly not overwhelmed by this proposal based on past voting. In the one instance in which it was mentioned specifically in the ballot title, it just barely passed. That was Initiative 960 in 2007. It only received a 51.24% yes vote. That is nowhere near the 2/3 voting requirement it is asking the State Legislature to operate under.

In 1993, the 2/3 vote requirement was an issue in Initiative 601, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the ballot title.  It also just barely passed with a 51.21 % yes vote.

Eyman mentions this measure passing 3 times which is misrepresenting the issue. In 1998 voters passed Referendum 49. It's subject dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits. Nowhere was a 2/3 vote requirement mentioned in the ballot title or official arguments for the voters pamphlet by supporters and opponents as referenced by the League of Women Voters.

These attempts to negate the concept of 1 person/1 vote for Legislators voting are unconstitutional. They are attempts to assign different voting powers to different Legislators depending on whether they vote for or against a particular measure. The Washington State Constitution does not allow the ability to weight votes for bills depending on the subject.

Article I, Section 29 states:

CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

The State Constitution does not set up the power to weight votes depending on a Legislator's position on a bill.

The issue of revenue/taxes is specifically addressed in another part of the Washington State Constitution.

Article VII, Section 1 states:

TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away.

Initiative 1053 is obviously an attempt to take away the Legislator's authority to raise revenue or taxes to support public services. The only way this can be altered is by a constitutional amendment.

An initiative or legislative bill can not amend the state constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. Because constitutional amendments affect the basic framework of how our government works, it is a specific instance where the state constitution spells out a requirement for a 2/3 vote by the Legislature and a majority vote of the people to pass. Two other instances spelled out for 2/3 votes by the Legislature are to expel a member of the house and a 2/3 vote in the first 2 years to amend an initiative.

No where does the Washington State Constitution say that voters can by a simple majority vote on an initiative, limit the power of Legislators to pass revenue legislation or repeal under-performing tax exemptions  by requiring supermajority votes. Under Article I, Section 29 to do so would require express words and no such words exist in the Constitution.

 Initiative 1053 should be rejected by voters this November. It is unconstitutional. Uphold our Constitution by voting No on 1053 this November 2nd!

McGinn Administration Proposes Eliminating Protections for Most Trees

Maybe it’s time to check if Seattle Mayor Michael McGinn is still carrying his Sierra Club Card. His Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has issued a controversial draft proposal, entitled City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations Dated July 14, 2010.

Unfortunately the proposal represents a complete reversal of recent tree protection legislation passed by the Seattle City Council and signed by McGinn’s predecessor, Mayor Greg Nickels. The proposal calls for ending all protection for mature trees in Seattle. It would rescind Director’s Rules 16-2008 which protects exceptional trees in Seattle.

It would also repeal the interim tree ordinance passed last year by the City Council which among other things protected tree groves and limited the number of trees which could be cut down in any given year. DPD’s proposal runs counter to Resolution 31138, passed by the Seattle City Council last year calling for strengthening trees protections, not weakening them. And it ignores most of the problems identified by the City Auditor in 2009 entitled “Management of City’s Trees Can be Improved.”

Seattle's urban forest and trees comprise an important component of Seattle's green infrastructure. Our urban forest reduces costs to taxpayers by reducing storm water runoff and cleaning pollutants from the air we breathe. It provides habitat for wildlife, screens noise and reduces weather impacts. Seattle's urban forest has been in decline in recent decades, losing canopy and mature trees.

The report was prepared in secret without a public process and is being marketed by DPD as the best way to increase our urban forest canopy. Comments will be accepted until Oct 31, 2010. The report proposes that instead of regulation, the city rely on education and incentives to protect trees. Unfortunately there are no good examples of places where this approach has worked.

Other cities are strengthening their tree regulations rather than proposing eliminating them. Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission has reviewed the preliminary draft report and does not support the approach being proposed by DPD. They note that the proposed DPD framework would eliminate protections for trees on 99.5% of Seattle’s property and only apply to the .5% of property being developed each year. Once a building site is complete, there would be no ongoing protections for trees under DPD's proposal.

DPD is presenting their draft proposal to the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee of the Seattle City Council this afternoon, August 17, 2010 from 2 PM to 4 PM. The Urban Forestry Commission will also be discussing at this meeting their problems with the proposal. They have prepared a written response to DPD’s proposal.

Neighborhood and environmental activists across the City are outraged by the proposal. They held a public meeting at the Broadview Library on August 8, 2010 and decided to organize a Coalition effort to draft a citizen’s alternative to DPD’s proposal. The consensus of the meeting was that the DPD proposal was so extreme and contrary to public opinion and went in the opposite direction from that which other cities are moving; that DPD could not be trusted to prepare a forward looking and comprehensive proposal that addressed the need of the city to protect and expand our our urban forest and trees.

The organizations and community representatives meeting decided to consolidate and focus their efforts to enact a strong urban forestry ordinance under one umbrella group. The group agreed to organize under the auspices of Save the Trees-Seattle which has been fighting to save the old trees at Ingraham High School for the last two and one half years. Save the Trees-Seattle also came up with the idea of Seattle having an Urban Forestry Commission based on science. The City Council created the Urban Forestry Commission last year and they have been meeting since January. Save the Trees – Seattle also worked to pass the interim tree ordinance enacted last year.

The new coaltion under the name Save the Trees – Seattle established a legislative committee which will be putting together a citizen's draft ordinance. They will be seeking public input and welcome tree advocates and others from around the city to participate in the process. They will send their draft proposal to various groups and organizations around the city for review and will be speaking before interested organizations, seeking public feedback.

Coalition members of Save the Trees –Seattle have agreed on some preliminary proposals that they believe should be incorporated in any comprehensive urban forestry and tree ordinance. These include:

1. Maintain and expand protection for exceptional trees and tree groves

2. Expand current permit system for street trees to include all trees over 6 inches in diameter on public and private property; 2 week posting of permits on internet and visible sign on site, appeal process

3. Comprehensive regulations that cover both public and private sectors

4. Consolidate oversight, regulation and enforcement in an independent department other than DPD, that does not have a conflict of interest

5. License and train all arborists and tree cutting operations; with fines and suspension for violations of law

6. Give priority to native trees and vegetation to help preserve native plants and animals

7. Emphasis on habitat and ecological processes and soil as part of urban forestry

8. All real estate sales to require disclosure of exceptional trees on property or all trees requiring a permit to remove

9. Define canopy cover in terms of volume and area

10. Rebate on utility bills based on exceptional trees (or all trees over 6 inches in diameter) on property; property owners file to get rebate like they file for senior’s property tax exemption

11. Meaningful and descriptive site plans that show existing and proposed trees to scale.

The coalition will meet again on August 29, 2010 at the Broadview Public Library from 1:30 to 4:30 PM.