Why I Believe WA State Is The Next California

The state legislature shifts by one district seat, which is sufficient for the Democrat Party in the House in Olympia to shift the power to them, and what do they do? They pass laws which threaten to strip the state's constitution of the people's power to exercise petition rights and raid the state treasury's "rainy day fund"!

To anyone who understands the threat this action poses, it is clear that the Democrat Party in WA is making the very same moves, which have been and are, going on in California's state assembly. They're no longer interested in working within the confines of established government restrictions under the principle that "...all power resides in the people." No, they want to become the controlling elite and dictate from their positions of power and control.

The article recently posted from Tim Eyman - WA's single, most effective advocate for combating such measures of government tyranny in Olympia - it is clear that what I've described above is precisely what's happening after the first legislative session of their taking control of the legislative process. 

If they remain in power, I ask... what's next? Does WA become a sanctuary state? I pray the citizens of our lovely state don't wake up some day and discover it's too late to take back control of the direction the Democrat Party wants to take it.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thursday, March 29, 2018

To: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state (cc'd to the media, house & senate members, and Governor, and other candidates for office)

From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Fighting for Taxpayers for 20 years, 425-493-9127, tim_eyman@comcast.net, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

A few weeks ago, I sued the Legislature because in the final days of the legislative session, they essentially repealed initiatives to the legislature. They established an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that if left unchallenged would seriously undermine the initiative process. Eyman v Wyman asks the Court to overturn their unconstitutional actions and let the voters vote on both Initiative 940 and the Legislature's alternative HB 3003 this November.

But that's not the only thing this Legislature did that deserves to be challenged.

Yesterday, I sued the Legislature a 2nd time because the Democrats also unconstitutionally diverted $700 million from the constitutionally-protected Rainy Day Fund. It's another horrible precedent that if left unchallenged will result in the destruction of the Rainy Day Fund. Eyman v Davidson asks the Court to find their actions constitutionally impermissible. It's important to remember that 67.7% of voters created the Rainy Day Fund in 2007 and 66.6% of voters strengthened the Rainy Day Fund in 2011.

To fully understand the issues involved, read it yourself:

http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com/pdf/Complaint.pdf

or

https://tinyurl.com/y7d2o44y

(Sorry, but I can't make either one of those addresses into a hyperlink -- very frustrating -- please cut and paste one of those web addresses into your search to read the brief).

Attorney General refuses to act

Shortly after the Governor signed this diversion of Rainy Day Funds into law on Tuesday, I sent a letter to the Attorney General asking him to initiate legal proceedings challenging the Legislature's unconstitutional actions.

His response? "I cannot conclude ... (that) the actions you request clearly serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers. I therefore decline to take the actions that you request."

Really? Upholding the state Constitution doesn't serve the taxpayers interests? Stopping $700 million from being diverted doesn't serve the public's interests? Ensuring the $700 million goes into the Rainy Day Fund doesn't serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers?

That doesn't make any sense.

I asked the AG to do that to earn taxpayer standing in the case (I have standing to challenge their actions for several other reasons, but taxpayer standing is one of them). And all he had to write was: "I am the Legislature's lawyer, not the taxpayers' lawyer, I will defend any action by this Legislature, no matter what." But he didn't say that. He said that defending the state Constitution's provisions related to the Rainy Day Fund does not "serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers." That's just bizarre.

Why are you suing Duane?

It is incredibly ironic that the lead Defendant in this case is State Treasurer Duane Davidson. Why? Because he was the elected official most vehemently opposed to the Democrats' raid on the Rainy Day Fund. He said it imperiled bond ratings, he said it set a dangerous precedent, he warned of recessions and inadequate reserves, and he said it was irresponsible and self-inflicted wound.

So why is he named in the case? He oversees the state treasury, which includes the Rainy Day Fund, as serves as the state's Chief Financial Officer. From the Complaint: "Plaintiff (Eyman) asks the court to declare the diversion of revenues in SB 6614 unconstitutional, enjoin Defendants (the Legislature) from spending those diverted revenues, and order the State Treasurer (Duane Davidson) to fulfill his constitutional obligation to ensure the integrity of the Rainy Day Fund by ensuring the transfer of extraordinary revenue growth into the Rainy Day Fund as required by Article 7, section 12 of the Constitution."

Why am I suing the Legislature in Eyman v Wyman? To protect the initiative process.

Why am I suing the Legislature in Eyman v Davidson? To protect the Rainy Day Fund.