2ND LAWSUIT: Here’s why I’m suing the Legislature a 2nd time – to protect the Rainy Day Fund

A few weeks ago, I sued the Legislature because in the final days of the legislative session, they essentially repealed initiatives to the legislature. They established an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that if left unchallenged would seriously undermine the initiative process. Eyman v Wyman asks the Court to overturn their unconstitutional actions and let the voters vote on both Initiative 940 and the Legislature’s alternative HB 3003 this November.

But that’s not the only thing this Legislature did that deserves to be challenged.

Yesterday, I sued the Legislature a 2nd time because the Democrats also unconstitutionally diverted $700 million from the constitutionally-protected Rainy Day Fund. It’s another horrible precedent that if left unchallenged will result in the destruction of the Rainy Day Fund. Eyman v Davidson asks the Court to find their actions constitutionally impermissible. It’s important to remember that 67.7% of voters created the Rainy Day Fund in 2007 and 66.6% of voters strengthened the Rainy Day Fund in 2011.

To fully understand the issues involved, read it yourself.

Attorney General refuses to act

Shortly after the Governor signed this diversion of Rainy Day Funds into law on Tuesday, I sent a letter to the Attorney General asking him to initiate legal proceedings challenging the Legislature’s unconstitutional actions.

His response? “I cannot conclude … (that) the actions you request clearly serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers. I therefore decline to take the actions that you request.”

Really? Upholding the state Constitution doesn’t serve the taxpayers interests? Stopping $700 million from being diverted doesn’t serve the public’s interests? Ensuring the $700 million goes into the Rainy Day Fund doesn’t serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers?

That doesn’t make any sense.

I asked the AG to do that to earn taxpayer standing in the case (I have standing to challenge their actions for several other reasons, but taxpayer standing is one of them). And all he had to write was: “I am the Legislature’s lawyer, not the taxpayers’ lawyer, I will defend any action by this Legislature, no matter what.” But he didn’t say that. He said that defending the state Constitution’s provisions related to the Rainy Day Fund does not “serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers.” That’s just bizarre.

Why are you suing Duane?

It is incredibly ironic that the lead Defendant in this case is State Treasurer Duane Davidson. Why? Because he was the elected official most vehemently opposed to the Democrats’ raid on the Rainy Day Fund. He said it imperiled bond ratings, he said it set a dangerous precedent, he warned of recessions and inadequate reserves, and he said it was irresponsible and self-inflicted wound.

So why is he named in the case? He oversees the state treasury, which includes the Rainy Day Fund, as serves as the state’s Chief Financial Officer. From the Complaint: “Plaintiff (Eyman) asks the court to declare the diversion of revenues in SB 6614 unconstitutional, enjoin Defendants (the Legislature) from spending those diverted revenues, and order the State Treasurer (Duane Davidson) to fulfill his constitutional obligation to ensure the integrity of the Rainy Day Fund by ensuring the transfer of extraordinary revenue growth into the Rainy Day Fund as required by Article 7, section 12 of the Constitution.”

Why am I suing the Legislature in Eyman v Wyman? To protect the initiative process.

Why am I suing the Legislature in Eyman v Davidson? To protect the Rainy Day Fund.

I’d really appreciate your feedback on all of this.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

After 20 years of fighting for taxpayers, we’ve learned that the most effective way to fight the Democrats’ tax-hiking schemes is by taking our case directly to the people. That’s why we’re moving full steam ahead with We Don’t Want An Income Tax. It prohibits the state and local governments from imposing any kind of income tax, especially a capital gains income tax.


Jack, Mike, and I are committed to protecting taxpayers. But we can’t do it alone. We need everyone’s help.

Top 5 Contributors: Larry Sundquist, William Montgomery, Tim Eyman, Kristina Sundquist, Morris Mehrer