Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[ottermax]

According to a Yakima news story, King is against same-sex marriage with a rather strong stance, so I guess he's not much of a swing vote.

"I think marriage is defined by the state as between a man and a woman and I think it should stay that way," said (R) Sen. Curtis King, 14th District.

[Alcon]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017162015_apwagaymarriage5thldwritethru.html

- Sheldon (D-Potlatch) against, no surprise
- Haugen (D-Camano Island) won't support it without referendum option; was noncommittal about referendum support

Haugen is a pretty hard hit.

God, these people are so absurd.

[CultureKing]

Gregoire was on CNN today about her support for gay marriage. I was presently surprised at how well she presented her case, she may be a bit cold but she's also incredibly intelligent.

[bgwah]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2017170962_bruce_harrell_mulls_congressio.html

lol. Bruce Harrell is only on the city council because his opponent got a DUI (that was dismissed later) right before the election. I doubt he'll be so lucky if he runs for Congress.

[Meeker]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017162015_apwagaymarriage5thldwritethru.html

- Sheldon (D-Potlatch) against, no surprise
- Haugen (D-Camano Island) won't support it without referendum option; was noncommittal about referendum support

Haugen is a pretty hard hit.

God, these people are so absurd.

If it doesn't pass in Olympia is there going to be an initiative organized?

[Jackson]

There is probably going to be an initiative regardless if it passes or not.

[CultureKing]

There is probably going to be an initiative regardless if it passes or not.

Yep, it's go time. I have the feeling that we have arrived at a point where those supporting gay marriage are not willing to wait any longer while those against will challenge anything that gets passed in the legislature. Which means that it'll end up with the voters one way or another.

Perhaps that's why Gregoire decided to act now..

[Meeker]

Tim Eyman filed five initiatives with the Secretary of State. He won't collect signatures on all of these, but here's a sneak peek (from the TNT) at what we might have to deal with this fall:

- Protecting his 2/3 initiative: Eyman convinced voters to require a two-thirds super-majority vote to raise taxes in the Legislature with I-1053 in 2010. His new proposal aims to keep the governor and Legislature from changing it.
- Capping car tabs: He’s also proposed a $30 limit to car tabs, which would limit the fees and taxes Washington can raise on vehicles.
- Traffic camera control: Another of his measures aims to remove all traffic cameras in the state that do not have voter approval.
- Investigating government fraud: This would create a state inspector general’s office, funded by existing sales taxes, to investigate fraud.
- The initiative process: Finally, he’s looking to make interfering with signature gathering illegal, as well as allowing more time to gather signatures for ballot initiatives.

That first one is particularly evil. The Legislature can suspend his 2/3 requirement after two years as they can with any initiative. If he just keeps passing it every two years though then the Legislature's hands are tied. Bastard.

[Seattle]

I can see all of those passing, minus perhaps the car tab. The traffic camera and fraud one,  IMO, would have a lot of support.

[bgwah]

I wonder if the car tabs initiative is aimed at stopping localities (like King County) from having their own.

I'm actually most bothered by the last one. If there's something wrong with the initiative process, it's that paid signature gatherers can just lie to and deceive people.

The fraud thing is also perplexing---isn't that what the State Auditor is for?

[BigSkyBob]

Tim Eyman filed five initiatives with the Secretary of State. He won't collect signatures on all of these, but here's a sneak peek (from the TNT) at what we might have to deal with this fall:

- Protecting his 2/3 initiative: Eyman convinced voters to require a two-thirds super-majority vote to raise taxes in the Legislature with I-1053 in 2010. His new proposal aims to keep the governor and Legislature from changing it.
- Capping car tabs: He’s also proposed a $30 limit to car tabs, which would limit the fees and taxes Washington can raise on vehicles.
- Traffic camera control: Another of his measures aims to remove all traffic cameras in the state that do not have voter approval.

The entire system amounts to little more than tax farming.

Instead of having the courage to either raise taxes by a dollar, at little administrative cost, or cut spending by a dollar, politicians are effectively granting tax farmers the right to raise taxes on the public by several dollars just to obtain a dollar for themselves. That's pathetic.

What is doubly pathetic is their rationalization, "We're just trying to change behavior." Of course, there doing it for the money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Alcon]

^

I don't think anyone needs the intent explained.  It exists to raise revenue by enforcing an existing statute to almost nitpicky levels.  Construing this as "raising taxes on the public by several dollars" doesn't really make sense because this isn't a randomly or evenly distributed tax.  I think we all understand exactly how red light cameras work in terms of revenue collection, though, seriously...they're red light cameras.

[Meeker]

I'd actually vote for that initiative. I hate those cameras.

[Alcon]

Steve Litzow (R-Mercer Island) is a Yes on gay marriage, and the Times editorial board virtually awards him a Medal of Honor for it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2017179497_edit09litzow.html

[bgwah]

Steve Litzow (R-Mercer Island) is a Yes on gay marriage

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2017179497_edit09litzow.html

No surprise. I'm guessing Hill would be the 2nd Republican to vote for it.

[Ogre Mage]

Gregoire was on CNN today about her support for gay marriage. I was presently surprised at how well she presented her case, she may be a bit cold but she's also incredibly intelligent.

Here is the clip of the CNN interview for those who would like to see it:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/01/06/nr-washington-gregoire-gay-marriage.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/06/nr-washington-gregoire-gay-marriage.cnn


And the historic press conference last week when she announced her support:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/05/what-governor-gregoire-said-as-she-endorsed-marriage-equality-in-washington-state

[Alcon]

Here's how I see it.  Based on this, I expect Haugen to be a major struggle, although probably a Yes with the (currently unattached) referendum clause.  Here, Hatfield and Hargrove give an intriguingly noncommittal answer.  Hargrove voted against "everything but marriage," while Hatfield voted for domestic partnerships because they included seniors.  Nonetheless, this is probably not the kind of answer given by legislators who have dismissed a piece of legislation unpopular in their district (as this legislation would be.)

Open to corrections.  

Needs 25

Strong Yes 19
Lean Yes 5
Unknown 3
Lean No 3
Strong No 19

Yes 24
Unknown 3
No 22

My personal guesstimate as of now:

Yes 25
No 24

Strong Yes
Brown (D-Spokane)
Chase (D-Edmonds)
Conway (D-Tacoma)
Fraser (D-Olympia)
Frockt (D-Seattle)
Harper (D-Everett)
Keiser (D-Olympia)
Kline (D-Seattle)
Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle)
Litzow (R-Mercer Island)
McAuliffe (D-Bothell)
Murray (D-Seattle)
Nelson (D-Seattle)
Prentice (D-Renton)
Pridemore (D-Vancouver)
Ranker (D-Friday Harbor)
Regala (D-Tacoma)
Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Island)
Tom (D-Medina)

Lean Yes
Eide (D-Federal Way)
Haugen (D-Camano Island) - With referendum clause only
Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens)
Kastama (D-Puyallup)
Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor) - Personally think he's a solid "Yes"

Unknown
Fain (R-Auburn) - No freaking idea; maybe slight No if I had to guess, because of his district
Hatfield (D-Raymond) - No if I had to guess
Hill (R-Redmond) - Yes if I had to guess

Lean No
Hargrove (D-Hoquiam)
Pflug (R-Maple Valley)
Shin (D-Edmonds)

Strong No
Baumgartner (R-Spokane)
Becker (R-Eatonville)
Benton (R-Vancouver)
Carrell (R-Lakewood)
Delvin (R-Richland)
Ericksen (R-Ferndale)
Hewitt (R-Walla Walla)
Holmquist Newbry (R-Moses Lake)
Honeyford (R-Sunnyside)
King (R-Yakima)
Morton (R-Orient)
Padden (R-Spokane Valley)
Parlette (R-Wenatchee)
Roach (R-Auburn)
Schoesler (R-Ritzville)
Sheldon (D-Potlatch)
Stevens (R-Arlington)
Swecker (R-Rochester)
Zarelli (R-Ridgefield)

[Ogre Mage]

Thanks to Alcon for the analysis.  My guess is that we will probably have to pass this with a referendum clause to get a majority.

While in principle I dislike the idea of civil rights being put up for a vote, I think a referendum clause would be a good idea from a political standpoint.  As we saw with the domestic partner law/R-71, the matter will inevitably wind up on the ballot at some point anyway.  Better to have the fight on our terms at the time of our choosing.  And polling and the results of R-71 certainly suggest marriage equality could win via vote in Washington State.

[bgwah]

A referendum could help Inslee, I guess.

[BigSkyBob]

^

I don't think anyone needs the intent explained.  It exists to raise revenue by enforcing an existing statute to almost nitpicky levels. 

Your formulation evades the essential reality of third-party participation. Companies that install and operate the systems are tax farming, pure and simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the tax farmer levies taxes much greater than the amount they pass onto the treasury it makes perfect sense to note how inefficient a method of tax collection that is.

P.S. taxes on cigarettes are not "evenly distributed" either, but, they are clearly taxes nevertheless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would hazard to guess that the average voter is completely unaware that red-light companies [the tax farmers] demand contracts in which the cities are prohibited from increasing the duration of the yellow lights, for instance.

[CultureKing]

^

I don't think anyone needs the intent explained.  It exists to raise revenue by enforcing an existing statute to almost nitpicky levels. 

Your formulation evades the essential reality of third-party participation. Companies that install and operate the systems are tax farming, pure and simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the tax farmer levies taxes much greater than the amount they pass onto the treasury it makes perfect sense to note how inefficient a method of tax collection that is.

P.S. taxes on cigarettes are not "evenly distributed" either, but, they are clearly taxes nevertheless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would hazard to guess that the average voter is completely unaware that red-light companies [the tax farmers] demand contracts in which the cities are prohibited from increasing the duration of the yellow lights, for instance.

Sounds like someone had to pay a ticket after running a red.

[bgwah]

^ I'd be surprised if he were that old.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

It would be hilarious if BSB was a Washington poster.

[Alcon]

Your formulation evades the essential reality of third-party participation. Companies that install and operate the systems are tax farming, pure and simple.

When the tax farmer levies taxes much greater than the amount they pass onto the treasury it makes perfect sense to note how inefficient a method of tax collection that is.

I would hazard to guess that the average voter is completely unaware that red-light companies [the tax farmers] demand contracts in which the cities are prohibited from increasing the duration of the yellow lights, for instance.

Are you saying red light camera companies are badly skimming somehow?

P.S. taxes on cigarettes are not "evenly distributed" either, but, they are clearly taxes nevertheless.

I said "randomly or evenly distributed" -- you can't remove a critical component of the statement like that and expect it to stand

Let me reiterate:  Calling increased punishment of an existing statute a "tax" simply because it increases the mean amount a taxpayer pays to the government, doesn't make sense to me.  Are all enforced statutes, for instance, "taxes"?

[RI]

It would be hilarious if BSB was a Washington poster.

God I hope not.