The Legislature doesn't like what the voters want. Really?
From The Olympian: Legislature Might Send I-1351 Back to Voters.
So wait, does this work for ANY unfunded initiative? Because we could talk about others like I-1240.
Also, how much would this repeal election cost taxpayers?
A couple of choices for the Legislature:
1) House budget writer Ross Hunter, D-Medina, said his preference would be
for the Legislature to amend or suspend I-1351 without a public vote,
but he agreed it could be difficult to summon the two-thirds majority
required in the Legislature to do so.
2) As a backup plan, Hunter said he also is researching how lawmakers might send I-1351 back to voters.
Sen. Andy Hill, R-Redmond, said referring a “corrected version” of
I-1351 back to voters is one tool he and other lawmakers are considering
as they craft a new two-year budget.
the Legislature goes that route, Hunter said he would want to ask
voters to approve one of two options: Either repeal I-1351, or enact an
amended version of the initiative that includes a funding source.
The process is clearly laid out in Article II of the state constitution,
said Hugh Spitzer, a lawyer who teaches constitutional law at the
University of Washington. Through a referendum bill, lawmakers could
propose changes to the initiative and ask voters to approve them, or
they could ask voters to just get rid of the law, he said.
It doesn’t appear as if the Legislature has tried something like this before.
Secretary of State’s elections division “has no record of this
occurring” in state history, said agency spokesman David Ammons.
But it's all about money.
The state Supreme Court has made it clear that the Legislature can’t
eliminate parts of the state’s definition of basic education for merely
financial reasons, Hunter said. Lawmakers need to consider whether that
limits their ability to tweak I-1351, he said.
“You’d have to replace it with some investment that has better educational outcomes,” Hunter said.
Rich Wood, spokesman for the Washington Education Association, said the
state Supreme Court would look harshly on lawmakers if they try to
“Instead of trying to find ways to thwart the will of the voters,
the Legislature should focus on providing our kids with the smaller
class sizes that they deserve, and the law requires.”
Hunter and Hill said they can readily think of better – and cheaper –
ways to improve public education than the plan laid out in I-1351.
Hill wouldn’t say exactly how he’d like to change the law, he said
lowering K-3 class sizes and expanding all-day kindergarten makes sense,
as does investing more money in preschool programs and higher
“I would argue, yes, there is a better way to spend that money,” Hill said.
Wouldn't say "exactly say how he's like to change the law?"
NO one should be talking about this without revealing their own great plan for public education AND how to pay for it.
The Legislature also doesn't like what the Supreme Court wants them to do.
And, by the way, HOW is that work going on McCleary because I am
astonished at the number of bills coming out of the Legislature when Job#1 is