Judge strikes down taxes in spending-limit lawsuit (WA State)

A Snohomish County judge has struck down a key package of tax increases on liquor and cigarettes, agreeing that lawmakers illegally bypassed voter-approved spending limits to enact the new fees.

The judgment, issued Friday by Superior Court Judge James Allendoerfer in Everett, invalidated an omnibus tax plan that Democratic lawmakers used to balance the two-year state budget during the 2005 session.

State officials are likely to appeal the ruling, which essentially would require a statewide vote to keep the $263 million, two-year tax package in place.

Their lawsuit targeted the 2005 Legislature's overhaul of state taxation and spending limits stemming from Initiative 601, which was approved by voters in 1993.

In a verbal ruling from the bench, Allendoerfer affirmed their assertion that lawmakers artificially inflated the state's spending limit by moving $250 million between various state accounts.

The judge said the resulting taxes were therefore illegal without a statewide vote, as called for in I-601, lawyers in the case said.

"There's always a chance that a higher court could make a different decision. It's happened in the past," McIntire said.

The bill overturned by Allendoerfer was a combination of tax increases and tax breaks that passed by narrow margins in the Democrat-controlled Legislature. Over two years, it was expected to deliver more than $263 million.

-A sales tax on extended warranties on consumer products, applying to both business and individuals, expected to raise about $37 million.

This is the kind of 'judicial activism' I like - - the judge actually look at the law and constitution and ruled according to that!

The Dims and our selected-Gov Fraudoire have ignored the people since day one. Fraudoire's payback to the unions was to make it mandatory that all state workers had to belong to the union - -those who refused were fired.

Washington Workers File Statewide Civil Rights Lawsuit Against State Employee Union For Unlawful Firings
Class-action suit seeks to bar Washington Federation of State Employees union firings of thousands of employees refusing to pay forced union dues
Print this page
Press Conference Rebroadcast time: 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Satellite: KU Analog SBS 6 Transponder 3, Center 11774 H
Olympia, WA (March 15, 2006) – In a bold move to the assert the legal rights of thousands of Washington public employees, a group of ten Washington State employees filed a statewide class-action civil rights lawsuit in federal court this morning challenging forced union dues seizures by the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union and several top state officials.

The employees filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The state workers point out that since obtaining a monopoly bargaining contract over them, WFSE union officials have denied them their constitutional due process rights – and have even ordered several employees fired for refusing to pay compulsory union dues. In addition to reinstatement and damages, the suit seeks to block union officials from further threatening the jobs of other state workers who refuse to pay forced union dues.

In May 2005, WFSE union officials sent a mailing to state employees informing them they would be forced to pay compulsory union dues as a job requirement. But this notice failed to provide certain constitutionally-required safeguards of employees’ rights to ensure they are not forced to pay for more than the cost of collective bargaining. These safeguards include an audit of union expenditures and an explanation for the basis of the portions of the workers’ fees claimed to be chargeable.

WFSE union officials are also unlawfully requiring employees who wish to object to funding ideological and other non-collective bargaining activities to sign automatic payroll deduction forms. Top state officials, including Washington State Labor Relations Director Steve McClain, are named in the suit for their complicit role in carrying out the firings of dissenting state employees.

“For union officials, it’s all about the money,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “WFSE union officials’ contempt for employees’ rights and eagerness to have employees fired demonstrates they are more interested in collecting forced union dues than supposedly ‘representing’ Washington State employees.”

The state workers charge that the seizure of forced dues by WFSE union officials without due process is a violation of their constitutional rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson decision. Hudson requires union officials to provide an independently-audited disclosure of their books and justify their expenditures before seizing any forced union dues from employees.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting over 250,000 employees in over 200 cases nationwide.

http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_485.php

Here's the latest on the WEA court case and union dues:

Teachers to Appeal Today’s Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Campaign Finance Law
U.S. Supreme Court appeal by National Right to Work attorneys underway; the only option to reclaim forced dues remains to resign from union and object annually
Print this page
Seattle, WA (March 16, 2006) — Responding to today’s 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation announced that its legal team is preparing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA), for more than 4,000 Washington teachers – who are not union members but who are forced to pay dues or fees – in Thurston County Superior Court. Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under Initiative-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used, without their authorization, for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action for the thousands of nonmember teachers.

But the long-awaited ruling today in Davenport upheld an appellate court’s decision to overturn the trial court – thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law.

But, the State Supreme Court’s ruling directly conflicts with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, noted Justice Richard B. Sanders in his three-member dissent. “The majority turns the First Amendment on its head…The suggestion that asking people to check a box once a year unduly interferes with the speech rights of those contributors borders on the frivolous…There is no indication that any state has been held to have violated union members’ rights by foreclosing mandatory collection of fees from nonmembers.”

“While there is hope that the law can be salvaged, this situation shows how so-called paycheck protection laws are ineffective in halting the practice of forcing employees to function as ATM machines for union political operatives,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to ensure employees are protected is to strip Washington union officials of their legislatively granted power to seize union dues as a job condition.”

Even though the WEA admits it spends millions of dollars each year on political activities, the much-hyped paycheck protection law has ultimately offered no relief to teachers. Even if the Supreme Court had reinstated the Thurston County court’s rulings, the law would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average, under I-134. Substantially greater relief is still available to teachers under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit brought by Foundation attorneys in recent years. Under that settlement, nonmember teachers may annually object and reclaim more than $200 each.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting over 250,000 employees in over 200 cases nationwide.

http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_487.php

That would explain the sidewalk to nowhere. Instead of addressing the vehicle congestion, they opt to make a lane for the tens of people who walk across the bridge anually.

16 is going to be exactly like 405, between 167 & 90.

2 lanes at a dead stop, with someone whistling by at 60 per every so often in the other.

I spent 3 years commuting from the Key Peninsula to Redmond, so have 1st hand knowledge of what a dismal failure that was, and now they're doing the exact same thing here.

We now have no options to get to the "mainland" w/o paying for it, unless we drive south to Olympia the back way.

What's more, they intend to gerrymander us out of the vote on the 13.2 billion (so far) RTID bill by slightly and I believe temporarily lowering the toll, and not hitting us as hard with some of the other tax raises, like the .5 sales, $100 licensing, etc..

These "benefits" will only affect people who live in Gig Harbor. I don't know if all of NW Pierce will get a break, but folks in Kitsap & Mason will still have to pay full price. Regardless, they are paying pennies on the dollar, so to say, by eliminating our right to vote.

We're already at about $5K per tax payer per annum in state taxes alone, and they are just getting started.

Considering that real estate and the tax revenue it generates is at an all time high, (and absolutely certain to drop as the GMA and CAOs take effect), unemployement is very low (PTL 4 GWB!!), the state has begun its the attack on small business, and the DOT alone has many, many, many more $billions they want to spend on frivolous BS......

One little blip and this state's economy is history...actually, it is certain now, IMO, unless something earth shattering happens very soon.

I watched Los Angeles go bankrupt, and left there at a time (1/92) that wefare recipients constituted 48% of LA county's citizens, not including unemployement or retirement. I watched real estate, from my Dad's apt building in Brentwood to my home in Palmdale, drop 40% across the board in one year.

This state is moving toward the same circumstances in largely the same way, but at a much more accelerated pace.

It's going to be interesting to watch - possibly from a distance by then, or maybe I'll just wait around for some bargains. If WA was traded on NASDAQ, I'd be shorting the hell out of it right now, down through the OTC and onto the pink sheets where it belongs

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.