AR15.Com Archives
 Unions sue to stop 1183 liquor intiative
DoberDude  [Team Member]
12/6/2011 10:20:52 PM
We voted on this on a ballot intiative. This aint right.

It was a ballot intiative. It passed. It needs to be implemented. Period.

If it was unconstitutional gun control I would welcome the lawsuit. But that's not the case.

Two unions have filed a lawsuit in King County attempting to stop implementation of Initiative 1183, which voters approved in November and which would kick the state out of the liquor business.


The unions represent nearly 1,000 workers expected to lose their jobs because of I-1183.

The lawsuit claims the measure violates the single-subject rule, which requires that an initiative address just one issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016947384_liquorsuit07.html
Paid Advertisement
--
NWRed  [Team Member]
12/6/2011 10:25:38 PM
Are they right that it addressed more then one issue? If so, then the Initiative was illegal. If not then it'll be dismissed as baseless.
DoberDude  [Team Member]
12/6/2011 10:28:33 PM

Originally Posted By NWRed:
Are they right that it addressed more then one issue? If so, then the Initiative was illegal. If not then it'll be dismissed as baseless.

Well, what was the second issue? I honestly don't know.

Funny how the legislators can have all kinds of riders on bills but the people can't.

And FTR, I'm against riders.
BIGDUKESIX  [Team Member]
12/6/2011 11:14:27 PM
They should strike
R-32  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 2:15:18 AM
I'll drink to that!
spankybear  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 2:36:36 AM
Originally Posted By BIGDUKESIX:
They should strike


They can't. They provide vital service.
Genin  [Member]
12/7/2011 12:27:54 PM
I think it is a cheap shot to attack an initiative that the voters passed AFTER it has passed. If it is true that there is more than one issue in the measure, whoever runs the elections department screwed up by allowing a flawed initiative onto the ballot. I think the elections department should have disqualified the initiative prior to spending the money to put it before the voters, and that if the unions had a beef with the measure, they should have said something BEFORE the election was held. That way, they could have saved the state quite a bit of money.

After reading the article, I think the unions are correct that there is more than one item in the measure. But to attack the measure after the election seems to be a case of sour grapes and like they are whining because their side lost. Just because they appear to be whining, doesn't mean that they don't have a case against the measure though.

However, it is possible that if a suit was filed against the measure prior to the election, the court may have said that there is nothing to complain about yet, as nothing bad has happened yet. I still think that the election department should have said it can't go on the ballot because it is flawed. Perhaps, the elections department is required to allow flawed measures and candidates onto the ballot.
spankybear  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 12:42:33 PM
this is how they (moon bats, libtards) get rid of the first 30.00 car tab that passed saying there was more than one issue. then it went on the ballot again and passed...

SO how is my car tabs 60 bucks?

We will NEVER see licqur in Costco... There is just too much money the union will loose.
FS-FNRL  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 1:08:47 PM
Perhaps, Costco will decide to sue the State under the single issue clause. Thus having all of the States Laws on Liquor null and void. It would be cheaper for Costco to go that route.
tannardog  [Member]
12/7/2011 1:17:01 PM
Initiative 655 in 1996 banned both baiting AND hunting with dogs for bear and cougar. That withstood a legal challenge. I know this is a different issue than the original post but thought it was relevant being there is 2 different actions on one ballot measure. Just saying.....
spankybear  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 1:48:38 PM
Originally Posted By tannardog:
Initiative 655 in 1996 banned both baiting AND hunting with dogs for bear and cougar. That withstood a legal challenge. I know this is a different issue than the original post but thought it was relevant being there is 2 different actions on one ballot measure. Just saying.....


One the libtards liked... the other not so much.
FS-FNRL  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 2:23:08 PM
Do you have the case cite the trapping case?
DoberDude  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 2:23:26 PM

Originally Posted By tannardog:
Initiative 655 in 1996 banned both baiting AND hunting with dogs for bear and cougar. That withstood a legal challenge. I know this is a different issue than the original post but thought it was relevant being there is 2 different actions on one ballot measure. Just saying.....

That's what's known as Legal Precedence. Nice.
tannardog  [Member]
12/7/2011 2:23:57 PM
Originally Posted By spankybear:
Originally Posted By tannardog:
Initiative 655 in 1996 banned both baiting AND hunting with dogs for bear and cougar. That withstood a legal challenge. I know this is a different issue than the original post but thought it was relevant being there is 2 different actions on one ballot measure. Just saying.....


One the libtards liked... the other not so much.


Agreed. The pick and choose nature of Washington elections/initiatives is beyond frustrating. I was a no voter on I655.... Yes for alcohol privatization. I understand the issue with multiple subjects on initiatives, but agree with most posters here. Sounds legit to challenge, but not fair to the voters. Oh well I guess.

tannardog  [Member]
12/7/2011 2:25:51 PM
Originally Posted By FS-FNRL:
Do you have the case cite the trapping case?

I713
DoberDude  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 2:26:06 PM

Originally Posted By tannardog:
Originally Posted By spankybear:
Originally Posted By tannardog:
Initiative 655 in 1996 banned both baiting AND hunting with dogs for bear and cougar. That withstood a legal challenge. I know this is a different issue than the original post but thought it was relevant being there is 2 different actions on one ballot measure. Just saying.....


One the libtards liked... the other not so much.


Agreed. The pick and choose nature of Washington elections/initiatives is beyond frustrating. I was a no voter on I655.... Yes for alcohol privatization. I understand the issue with multiple subjects on initiatives, but agree with most posters here. Sounds legit to challenge, but not fair to the voters. Oh well I guess.


I don't want to go read the whole initiative again. What exactly is the "2nd" issue?
tannardog  [Member]
12/7/2011 3:16:28 PM
Baiting AND use of dogs. To me these are minor details. I can pretty much guarantee you if I was to sponsor and successfully pass an intitiative that legalized both on one initiative, it would be struck down for two parts, two seperate details. I have digressed a bit from the topic, my point was other slightly multiple issue initiatives have passed legal challenges, it is all how crafty attorneys sell it.
AMESO  [Member]
12/7/2011 3:20:33 PM
The single issue is how the State regulates the distribution of alcohol.
DoberDude  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 4:02:11 PM

Originally Posted By tannardog:
Baiting AND use of dogs. To me these are minor details. I can pretty much guarantee you if I was to sponsor and successfully pass an intitiative that legalized both on one initiative, it would be struck down for two parts, two seperate details. I have digressed a bit from the topic, my point was other slightly multiple issue initiatives have passed legal challenges, it is all how crafty attorneys sell it.

I meant 1183. What's the 2nd issue?
AMESO  [Member]
12/7/2011 4:14:24 PM
The union is saying State liquor stores is one issue, and the other is how wine is distributed. It all is "distilled" down to a single issue though, how the State regulates the distribution of alcohol.
1GUNRUNNER  [Life Member]
12/7/2011 5:47:40 PM
Originally Posted By tannardog:
I was a no voter on I655.... Yes for alcohol privatization.


You sir, are a true patriot.

Genin  [Member]
12/7/2011 8:02:02 PM
Originally Posted By tannardog:
Initiative 655 in 1996 banned both baiting AND hunting with dogs for bear and cougar. That withstood a legal challenge. I know this is a different issue than the original post but thought it was relevant being there is 2 different actions on one ballot measure. Just saying.....


I would hope that any attorney worth his salt would quote that case as a precedent to the liquor suit. Such a precedent would put the court into quite a nasty bind when dealing with a similar issue, and make it more difficult for the court to say why the hunting case was upheld, and now the liquor law suit with the same issue (multiple issues on single measure) will NOT be upheld.

The problem would be a judge seeking higher appointment, or union support might be really creative in coming up with a reason why the two issues are NOT the same (multiple issues on a single ballot question), and thereby justify finding in favor of the "liquor" unions that filed the suit.
gwitness  [Team Member]
12/7/2011 8:35:26 PM
Originally Posted By spankybear:
this is how they (moon bats, libtards) get rid of the first 30.00 car tab that passed saying there was more than one issue. then it went on the ballot again and passed...

SO how is my car tabs 60 bucks?

We will NEVER see licqur in Costco... There is just too much money the union will loose.


Oh quitcherbitchin...my tabs were 100 bucks...
spankybear  [Team Member]
12/8/2011 4:31:58 AM
Originally Posted By gwitness:
Originally Posted By spankybear:
this is how they (moon bats, libtards) get rid of the first 30.00 car tab that passed saying there was more than one issue. then it went on the ballot again and passed...

SO how is my car tabs 60 bucks?

We will NEVER see licqur in Costco... There is just too much money the union will loose.


Oh quitcherbitchin...my tabs were 100 bucks...



PPPPLLLLEEEEAASSSSS.... You are now a koolaid dringing union member making them big bucks... and with all of your fat boneuses

Getnlwr  [Team Member]
12/8/2011 5:30:46 AM
Retracted.
gwitness  [Team Member]
12/8/2011 10:18:47 AM
Originally Posted By spankybear:
Originally Posted By gwitness:
Originally Posted By spankybear:
this is how they (moon bats, libtards) get rid of the first 30.00 car tab that passed saying there was more than one issue. then it went on the ballot again and passed...

SO how is my car tabs 60 bucks?

We will NEVER see licqur in Costco... There is just too much money the union will loose.


Oh quitcherbitchin...my tabs were 100 bucks...



PPPPLLLLEEEEAASSSSS.... You are now a koolaid dringing union member making them big bucks... and with all of your fat boneuses





bite me...
1GUNRUNNER  [Life Member]
12/8/2011 11:28:36 AM
Originally Posted By Getnlwr:
Retracted.


Was it good?

Getnlwr  [Team Member]
12/8/2011 3:56:13 PM
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Originally Posted By Getnlwr:
Retracted.


Was it good?



It may or may not have violated a coc...
Slashhavoc  [Member]
12/8/2011 5:37:54 PM
Why are they so upset? The union bankrolled initiative 1163, which is a farce...
ZeroZero  [Team Member]
12/13/2011 8:10:37 PM
Originally Posted By Getnlwr:
Retracted.


that is not a reliable method of birth control.
Paid Advertisement
--