Court keeps anti-tax initiative on ballot

OLYMPIA – A unanimous state Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to prevent Tim Eyman’s latest anti-tax measure from appearing on the November ballot.

The high court, led by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, ruled Friday that the challenge to Initiative 960 “is not subject to pre-election review.”

The ruling came a day after the court heard arguments from the environmental group Futurewise and the Service Employees International Union, which said the initiative illegally tries to alter the state constitution.

The initiative reasserts and broadens the requirement – imposed by voters in 1993’s Initiative 601 – that the Legislature approve tax increases by a two-thirds majority.

It also adds a variety of impact statements and broader public information on all tax plans and could result in more public votes on taxes.

Eyman, a Mukilteo ballot box activist, said he was “thrilled that the court said they’re not going to take away the voters’ First Amendment rights.”

“Courts are not going to block people from voting. That’s a good thing,” he added. “All of the heightened scrutiny that this lawsuit brought about has actually been in our favor. The more people know what 960 does and doesn’t do, the more likely they are to support it.”

Opponents argued that Eyman’s measure violates state law by trying to make constitutional changes not allowed through the initiative process.

But the court said, “the question of whether the initiative ultimately will violate one of the constitutional limitations in these areas is a constitutional inquiry that we will not engage in before the voters have had their say.”

The Supreme Court has previously resisted considering the constitutionality of ballot measures before an election, and in Friday’s ruling cited a 2005 case in which it refused to stop a doctor-supported initiative on medical malpractice from appearing on the ballot.

The court quoted itself from that earlier case, saying that pre-election review of initiative measures is highly disfavored because “the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state’s history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government.”

Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna applauded the court decision in a joint statement that said “the initiative and referendum process is an important right.”

Keith Scully, legal director for Futurewise, said the decision was not wholly unexpected, but “we’re disappointed, of course.”

“We’re going to fight the initiative at the ballot and hopefully the voters will agree this is a politically bad idea,” he said. “It would unfairly eliminate the authority of the government to collect taxes for projects we all need, like transportation, environment, and schools. It allows the small minority of people who want no taxes to overrule those of us who believe that government has to invest in the state.”

Eyman said his opponents’ claims are “lies, threats and scare tactics.”

“I really think this was their last gasp,” he said of the court case. “They were really counting on the court to keep this off the ballot.”

Scully noted that the court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the measure, just that there was no legal reason to keep it off the ballot.

He said if the measure passes and is enacted, his group may again challenge it in court.