Washington 1639 vs 976

[whitney]

In a unanimous ruling, the state's high court said the measure (976) was unconstitutional because it combined more than one subject in one initiative — which the state constitution forbids. Eight of the court's nine justices also said the initiative had a misleading title, striking it down on that basis as well.


How does this ruling differ with 1639?

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/983208.PDF

~Whitney

Read More

 

[Stomper]

Two part answer...

1. Political/ideological convenience.

2. Cognitive dissonance.

 

[AMT]

Not sure how it differs, as i don't know all the ins-and-outs. But now that it has been voted on wouldn't it set precedence? Hopefully 1639 is next to be brought up.

 

[Sporting Systems]

The state supreme court already ruled that it was ok, when they put it on the ballot. The legal team will review their decision and see if it opens up another avenue.

 

[44Brent]

Good judges interpret laws based on what is written in the constitution. Bad judges start out with the desired outcome, and then twist the constitution and law to support the desired end result. Guess what type of judges inhabit "Mount Olympus" in Washington?

 

[DB is Here]

Guess what type of judges inhabit "Mount Olympus" in Washington?

Elections have consequences as we've all been told.

 

[mortar maggot]

Not sure how it differs, as i don't know all the ins-and-outs. But now that it has been voted on wouldn't it set precedence? Hopefully 1639 is next to be brought up.

I cannot remember, but I think a court ruled that 1639 was Constitutional.

I do not believe it was the state supreme court, but the lower court judge worded things so that it was difficult if not impossible to appeal.

 

[Nutknocka]

The state supreme court already ruled that it was ok, when they put it on the ballot. The legal team will review their decision and see if it opens up another avenue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the ruling in that case was that there was no avenue to challenge an initiative prior to the election, regardless of any potential deficiencies?

I thought the ruling also stated that the Secretary of State must certify an initiative for the ballot if it meets the number of required signatures, despite Wyman's publicly stated concerns with the formatting of the initiative- basically she had no choice.

If that's the case, the court wasn't tacitly endorsing I-1639 when they dismissed the case, rather, they were saying the issue wasn't "ripe" to use legal parlance until the election was completed.

This doesn't mean that they wouldn't concoct a reason to find it constitutional if the case came back to them now, but they haven't actually ruled on that aspect yet. Which is why the lawsuit has been revived by someone if I remember correctly.