Optimistic about High Court and 2/3

In 2008, the Senate Democrats led by Lisa Brown fabricated a tax increase for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit against the two-thirds.  Their transparent orchestrated scheme was unanimously rejected by the state Supreme Court just two years ago. 

        Unwilling to listen to four voter approvals and three High Court rejections, the House Democrats fabricated their own tax increase for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit against the two-thirds — it was even more transparent and orchestrated than the Senate D’s effort.  There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic that the Supreme Court will reject the House Democrats’ photocopy of the Senate Democrats’ previous failure:

•      Just two years ago, a unanimous state supreme court rejected a very similar lawsuit under very similar circumstances (one chamber passed a tax increase and a lawsuit was filed challenging the two-thirds).  That 9-0 opinion, authored by Justice Mary Fairhurst, the most liberal justice on the state supreme court, resulted in a “finding this a political question” that should be resolved through the legislative process.
•      In 1994, the Court found that individual legislators and special interest groups lack standing to bring lawsuits like this (“When a statute may be amended by the very persons the Petitioners claim are being harmed, state legislators, we cannot do otherwise than find that this is only a speculative dispute.”).
•     The tax increase they tried to pass last year was approved this year, arguably making their current lawsuit moot.
•     Lawsuits like this aren’t valid if the Legislature doesn’t exhaust all their remedies before going to court. They could have appealed the ruling of the Chair and passed the tax increase; they didn’t.
•     A law is constitutional unless the Constitution expressly prohibits it.  Our Constitution does not.
•     For a lawsuit to be valid, the dispute must be “between parties having genuine and opposing interests” that are “direct and substantial.”  The Attorney General has a job to do, defend initiatives, but in my view, their office lacks the direct and substantial interest needed to surpass this threshold. 

      When the Legislature suspended I-960’s 2/3 in 2010, KING 5 released a statewide poll and the results were staggering — suspending I-960?  68% said it was the wrong thing to do, 24% right thing, 8% undecided.  Asked whether tax increases should require 2/3’s or a simple majority, 74% said tax hikes need 2/3’s.  The following November, despite opponents spending $1.6 million trying to convince voters to reject it, voters overwhelmingly reinstated the 2/3’s.

      Have voters suddenly changed their minds?  Will the state supreme court suddenly change its mind?  It seems to me that the Democrat politicians (and the special interest groups that fund them) who want it to be easy for Olympia to raise taxes are gonna have a pretty tough time on both fronts.