There will be a temptation on the part of Washington I-960‘s supporters – where is that email from Tim Eyman; they’re running late – to make of today’s state Supreme Court ruling a larger endorsement than it is. You can hear it coming: Court backs I-960! Court upholds I-960!
What the court said in Futurewise v. Reed is that the initiative can go on the ballot. That’s pretty much it.
The court’s conclusion:
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of I-960. Such a challenge is not subject to preelection review. While the disputed sections of the initiative may be subject to constitutional challenge, if passed, the initiative does not exceed the scope of the legislative power. The initiative therefore may be placed on the general election ballot.
Elsewhere, the court specifically says that in this decision “we do not review the validity of I-960.” And seems to leave open, almost to suggest, several lines of attack if it passes.
Will it pass? It might; but we suspect the public hasn’t formed much of a view of it yet, since it sounds like an arcane procedural thing. Procedural it may be, but far from arcane, and it merits a spot near the top of the heap for serious political discussion in the weeks ahead.
Share on Facebook
