Columbian slices and dices Initiative 960

Chalk up another "no" endorsement against Tim Eyman's latest terrible idea:

Among its many flaws, Initiative 960 on the Nov. 6 ballot would seriously erode the representative form of government. Voters send legislators to the Legislature to legislate, and the lawmakers are rightly held accountable for their actions in subsequent elections. It's a fair and efficient system.

But I-960 would constrict their work by requiring a two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases and majority legislative approval for fee increases. I-960 also would erect many other unnecessary hoops through which legislators would have to leap.

We agree, of course, and we're pleased to see this editorial is so cogent in its condemnation of I-960, which is such a lousy proposal that editorials against it, like this, are to be expected...even from papers with fairly conservative or right wing ownership. What was surprising, though, was this (emphasis mine):

The Columbian strongly recommends a "No" vote on I-960, joining a large chorus of organizations, public officials and other newspapers. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer was not exaggerating when it editorialized that I-960 "is for anyone who likes their constitutionally established representative democracy only when it is hogtied, caged and strapped in a straitjacket."

It's interesting that the Columbian's editorial writers referenced and incorporated the P-I piece from last Friday, which I described then as a "delicious" read because of its concise and powerful takedown of a complicated, messy, poorly drafted initiative.

You can help Washington State avoid an undemocratic, complicated disaster that would handicap our government by voting NO on Initiative 960 this fall.