Posted on 07/16/2019 5:41:14 AM PDT by sasherm13
The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld Seattle’s pioneering “democracy vouchers” program, which allows residents to contribute taxpayer money to qualifying political candidates. ... Under the program approved at the ballot in 2015 and first used in 2017, the city raises $3 million annually in property taxes. Each election cycle, voters receive four $25 vouchers that they can sign over to candidates who abide by certain rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
The opinion of the Court can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/96660-5.html
Yet another reason to keep the deceased and illegals on the election rolls.
Soon, the vouchers will be handed out when you renew a drivers license.
Couldn’t you go and receive your vouchers, then turn around and sell them for some value via Ebay?
The sewer pipe for our money flowing to politicians just got much wider.
so rather than use that money to house and feed the homeless they want to give it to socialist politicians
Yet another reason I’m glad I left that state in 2011.
‘Two Seattle property owners, Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon, brought a lawsuit against the city last year, claiming the vouchers system was violating their constitutional right to free speech by forcing them — through their tax dollars — to support candidates they didn’t like.
‘“Elster and Pynchon argue the Democracy Voucher Program is not viewpoint-neutral because the vouchers will be distributed among qualified municipal candidates unevenly and according to majoritarian preferences,” Gonzalez wrote, referring to the plaintiffs.’
Wait minute. Did the court add this weird “majoritarian preferences” language on its own? Is that actually how it was framed in the complaint?
You mean like this? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Democracy-Vouchers-Historic-Ephemera-City-of-Seattle-2017-first-ever-politics/123535617327?hash=item1cc34bed2f:g:zY8AAOSwen9aIv1H
‘“Here, the decision of who receives vouchers is left to the individual municipal resident and is not dictated by the city or subject to referendum … That some candidates will receive more vouchers reflects the inherently majoritarian nature of democracy and elections, not the city’s intent to subvert minority views.”’
So what? It’s still candidates of whom the taxpayers did not give their specific approval.
Can the state’s supreme court ruling be appealed in federal court?
Just another good reason to avoid paying taxes any way possible. These lowlife politicians will of course redefine what constitutes a “campaign expense”.
Hmmm. Perhaps it goes to USSC. I see either way that arguments and rulings become fodder in the school choice battle.
When one political party acquires too much power, it can leverage both votes and money by abusing that power. The courts are supposed to curb such abuse of power. Until now.
I pulled the complaint. They satted “By distributing such funds at the whim of majoritarian interests, the program disfavors minority viewpoints.”
It can be found here: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/elster-v-city-of-seattle-washington/Elster-Complaint-6-28-17.pdf
Wonder if Janus can be applied to taxpayers?
Bingo! We have a winner.
Fools
And how is this viewpoint neutral?
Candidates will tailor what they say in the hope of getting qualified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.