 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
Friday, July 31, 2015
USCCA
Progressive elite ganging up on voters
I-1366's opponents file lawsuit to prevent the people from voting on I-1366
If you can't win a vote, you try to cancel it or block it.
Politicians clearly believe that voters overwhelmingly support I-1366's taxpayer protection policies and that's why they desperately want to take away the people's right to vote on it.
So they filed a don't-let-the-people-vote lawsuit this week.
Two unanimous state supreme court rulings have stopped lawsuits just like this one.
In 2005, all 9 justices on the Washington State Supreme Court rejected an effort by special-interest groups to stop the people from voting on a qualified initiative. In their 9-0 ruling, the High Court wrote: “It has been a longstanding rule of our jurisprudence that we refrain from inquiring into the validity of a proposed law, including an initiative or referendum, before it has been enacted." Coppernol v Reed
Just two years later, opponents sued to prevent voters from voting on another qualified initiative, essentially asking the state supreme court "Did you really mean it?" They sure did. In their 2nd unanimous ruling, this one in 2007, all 9 justices wrote: "Preelection review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wash.2d 290, 297, 119 P.3d 318 (2005). The fundamental reason is that 'the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state's history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government.' Id. at 296-97, 119 P.3d 318. Given the preeminence of the initiative right, preelection challenges to the substantive validity of initiatives are particularly disallowed. Id. at 297, 119 P.3d 318. Such review, if engaged in, would involve the court in rendering advisory opinions, would violate ripeness requirements, would undermine the policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions, and would constitute unwarranted judicial meddling with the legislative process. Id. at 298, 119 P.3d 318. Thus, preelection substantive challenges are not justiciable. Id. at 300-01, 119 P.3d 318. Further, substantive preelection review could unduly infringe on the citizens' right to freely express their views to their elected representatives. Id. at 298, 119 P.3d 318." Futurewise v Reed
Editorials were unanimous too:
Walla Walla Union Bulletin: "Pre-emptive legal challenge of initiatives is a mistake. We see barring an initiative from the ballot as an abridgment of free speech. Any constitutional test in court should come after the election. That's the way the system was designed to work."
Tacoma News Tribune: "The high court got it right: Give initiatives to voters. The court said, 'No! in 2005. This time, it essentially said, 'Read our lips: Don’t try it again.' Let’s hope these two unanimous precedents get the message across to would-be initiative killers in the future. The willingness of citizens to sign the petitions determines whether the initiative will be put on the ballot in the first place. And the vote of the electorate in November determines whether the bill becomes law. Whatever one thinks of the content of an initiative, the process is pure democracy – and deserving of utmost respect. And as the court noted, initiatives – whether or not they are ultimately struck down by the courts – represent a chance for voters to 'send a message' to their elected representatives. They tell lawmakers what the public thinks about the issue in question. So let the voters have at it."
Seattle Times: "Initiative tampering is dangerous ... We believe their lawsuit should fail because it would undermine the rights of the people to petition their government. ... that is an attempt to change our political system, in which courts don’t decide whether a measure is constitutional until after the people approve it. It’s a slow way, but it’s our way, and it has the advantage of allowing the people to say what they want. That is how car tabs were lowered: the people voted to lower them, the court threw the measure out, and the Legislature lowered them anyway. The political message got through. The Seattle Times did not support that initiative, and over the years we have expressed our dislike of many others. But we defend the right of initiative. The Futurewise-SEIU lawsuit would expand the power of political groups to shrink the people’s choices before an election. We are against it."
Again, the state supreme court has twice issued unanimous rulings, making it clear to all anti-initiative groups that they shouldn't go knocking on the court's door every time an initiative qualifies for the ballot. The voters have a right to vote and that right shouldn't be taken away just because a bunch of politicians and special interest groups don't trust the voters.
We're working as hard as we can to pass I-1366 in November. Our antidemocratic opponents are trying to stop it. It's clear that we need your support now more than ever. Please help us (see below).
If you like and appreciate our past, current, and future efforts on behalf of taxpayers and especially now that Initiative 1366 has qualified for the ballot, please send us a donation for $10, $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500, $5000 or more (there are no limits on how much can be given). You can go to our website right now - www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com and make a secure on-line contribution by PayPal or VISA or M/C. OR, you can print this form, fill it out, and return it with a check or credit card information.
We’ve done so many amazing things over the past 16 years, but that's only been possible thanks to successful benefactors like you. We ask you to please help us help taxpayers.
Please donate TODAY.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan
If you can't win a vote, you try to cancel it or block it.
Politicians clearly believe that voters overwhelmingly support I-1366's taxpayer protection policies and that's why they desperately want to take away the people's right to vote on it.
So they filed a don't-let-the-people-vote lawsuit this week.
Two unanimous state supreme court rulings have stopped lawsuits just like this one.
In 2005, all 9 justices on the Washington State Supreme Court rejected an effort by special-interest groups to stop the people from voting on a qualified initiative. In their 9-0 ruling, the High Court wrote: “It has been a longstanding rule of our jurisprudence that we refrain from inquiring into the validity of a proposed law, including an initiative or referendum, before it has been enacted." Coppernol v Reed
Just two years later, opponents sued to prevent voters from voting on another qualified initiative, essentially asking the state supreme court "Did you really mean it?" They sure did. In their 2nd unanimous ruling, this one in 2007, all 9 justices wrote: "Preelection review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wash.2d 290, 297, 119 P.3d 318 (2005). The fundamental reason is that 'the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state's history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government.' Id. at 296-97, 119 P.3d 318. Given the preeminence of the initiative right, preelection challenges to the substantive validity of initiatives are particularly disallowed. Id. at 297, 119 P.3d 318. Such review, if engaged in, would involve the court in rendering advisory opinions, would violate ripeness requirements, would undermine the policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions, and would constitute unwarranted judicial meddling with the legislative process. Id. at 298, 119 P.3d 318. Thus, preelection substantive challenges are not justiciable. Id. at 300-01, 119 P.3d 318. Further, substantive preelection review could unduly infringe on the citizens' right to freely express their views to their elected representatives. Id. at 298, 119 P.3d 318." Futurewise v Reed
Editorials were unanimous too:
Walla Walla Union Bulletin: "Pre-emptive legal challenge of initiatives is a mistake. We see barring an initiative from the ballot as an abridgment of free speech. Any constitutional test in court should come after the election. That's the way the system was designed to work."
Tacoma News Tribune: "The high court got it right: Give initiatives to voters. The court said, 'No! in 2005. This time, it essentially said, 'Read our lips: Don’t try it again.' Let’s hope these two unanimous precedents get the message across to would-be initiative killers in the future. The willingness of citizens to sign the petitions determines whether the initiative will be put on the ballot in the first place. And the vote of the electorate in November determines whether the bill becomes law. Whatever one thinks of the content of an initiative, the process is pure democracy – and deserving of utmost respect. And as the court noted, initiatives – whether or not they are ultimately struck down by the courts – represent a chance for voters to 'send a message' to their elected representatives. They tell lawmakers what the public thinks about the issue in question. So let the voters have at it."
Seattle Times: "Initiative tampering is dangerous ... We believe their lawsuit should fail because it would undermine the rights of the people to petition their government. ... that is an attempt to change our political system, in which courts don’t decide whether a measure is constitutional until after the people approve it. It’s a slow way, but it’s our way, and it has the advantage of allowing the people to say what they want. That is how car tabs were lowered: the people voted to lower them, the court threw the measure out, and the Legislature lowered them anyway. The political message got through. The Seattle Times did not support that initiative, and over the years we have expressed our dislike of many others. But we defend the right of initiative. The Futurewise-SEIU lawsuit would expand the power of political groups to shrink the people’s choices before an election. We are against it."
Again, the state supreme court has twice issued unanimous rulings, making it clear to all anti-initiative groups that they shouldn't go knocking on the court's door every time an initiative qualifies for the ballot. The voters have a right to vote and that right shouldn't be taken away just because a bunch of politicians and special interest groups don't trust the voters.
We're working as hard as we can to pass I-1366 in November. Our antidemocratic opponents are trying to stop it. It's clear that we need your support now more than ever. Please help us (see below).
If you like and appreciate our past, current, and future efforts on behalf of taxpayers and especially now that Initiative 1366 has qualified for the ballot, please send us a donation for $10, $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500, $5000 or more (there are no limits on how much can be given). You can go to our website right now - www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com and make a secure on-line contribution by PayPal or VISA or M/C. OR, you can print this form, fill it out, and return it with a check or credit card information.
We’ve done so many amazing things over the past 16 years, but that's only been possible thanks to successful benefactors like you. We ask you to please help us help taxpayers.
Please donate TODAY.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan
TTV this week
VA Governor Doesn’t Want Voter Applicants to Directly Declare US
Citizenship
TTV
says it all the time – progressive political interests have a knack for
preserving, if not outright exacerbating, weaknesses in our electoral
systems. This week, Virginia offers the latest example. According to
The Washington Post,
Governor Terry McAuliffe
offered his support for a significant overhaul of the state’s voter
registration form, removing the requirement that applicants directly
affirm
they are U.S. citizens and have not had their voting rights removed due
to felony convictions. Proponents of the change say it does not allow
noncitizens to register – it just does not punish applicants if they
fail to directly answer questions. By signing the application, they
agree
with the fine print that requires citizenship. At the State Board of
Elections meeting this week, the proposal was largely panned by
concerned
citizens and local election officials alike. The general criticism was
that no one reads the fine print at the bottom of the form, yet everyone
focuses on the first two questions on the top, when required to answer.
Changing this procedure could lead to more ineligible registrations –
even if by accident. VIRGINIA RESIDENTS: an open comment period has been
initiated regarding this matter. Share your thoughts here.
Research Tip: Finding Noncitizens on Your Local Voter Roll
Almost weekly, True the Vote receives requests for help in researching potential noncitizens in local voter rolls. A popular method utilizes jury declination lists, where individuals claimed noncitizenship for comparison against the voter registry. But just because it makes perfect common sense, that does not mean it's an option in every state. TTV research has seen firsthand the mixed bag of jury data access across the nation -- ranging from wide open to shut tight. If you want to get involved locally, there are a few questions that must be answered.
- Are citizens allowed to review such files as a matter of public record?
- If not, does your local election office get copies of said files?
- How often does the election office get the files?
- Do they use the jury data information for voter roll maintenance purposes?
- Why not (if applicable)?
You may reside in a state that does not consider jury duty declination files to be public record. However, you still have the power to see proof of process. If data is to be transferred to election offices, periodically request proof that documents were received and acted upon. Citizen oversight keeps local officials on their toes.
More IRS Targeting News That Will Not Shock You
Remember when Lois Lerner swore that the DC brass of the Internal Revenue Service was unaware the targeting of nonprofits was occurring and threw the Cincinnati office under the bus, labeling them rogue actors? New (technically old and once thought lost) emails belonging to Lerner surfaced this week again proving her claims to be a lie. This week, The Washington Times reported on a November 2011 email exchange between Lerner and the Cincinnati office. It describes plans to delay a tax-exempt applicant’s likely complaint to Congress by burdening them with more questions. “Just today, I instructed one of my managers to get an additional information letter out to one of these organizations — if nothing else to buy time so he didn’t contact his Congressional Office,” a Cincinnati official told Lerner. This revelation shows us a few things. First, we can continue to build the timeline even further with respect to Lerner's direct knowledge of targeting from the top down. But more important, we see the ease in which the notorious harassment letters were used to keep applicants hamstrung on all fronts. Additional information requests typically required hundreds of pages of documents to be submitted under penalty of perjury and tight deadlines merely to back up previous responses. Applicants simply do not have the time to call their Congressman or sound any other alarms when they have to answer questions like:
List each past or present board member, officer, key employee and members of their families who:
- Has served on the board of another organization.
- Was, is or plans to be a candidate for public office. Indicate the nature of each candidacy.
- Has previously conducted similar activities in another entity.
- Has previously submitted an application for tax exempt status.
With revelations like this, it's no surprise the IRS continues to drag its collective feet in honoring court orders for document email disclosures.
Click
‘n’ Share -- True the Vote Blog
Truth in LOVE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)