Homebuilding Revitalization Act, Supreme Court public financing bill die at cutoff

Two important bills that NPI supports have effectively just died for the session.

The first, SSB 6701 - the Homebuilding Revitalization Act - would have extended the same protections that condo owners enjoy to owners of single family homes. The bill was never brought up for a vote because Mary Margaret Haugen - who Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly has nicknamed Belle of the BIAW - was believed to have enough votes for a poison pill striking amendment that would have gutted the bill and replaced it with language drafted by the Building Industry Association of Washington's lawyers.

This is precisely the fate that befell similar legislation last year.

Although we knew that Senator Haugen would try to torpedo all the good provisions of our bill again this time around, we had hope that we might be able to persuade the Democrats siding with her to see the light. Regrettably, we couldn't get firm commitments out of the senators we approached, and consequently, Senate leadership did not bring up SSB 6701 for a vote.

Democratic senators known or suspected to be in Haugen's camp included Steve Hobbs, Brian Hatfield, Jim Hargrove, Kevin Ranker, and Derek Kilmer.

Haugen's camp also includes the entire Republican caucus (surprise, surprise), plus Tim Sheldon of Mason County, a wannabe Republican.

What makes Haugen's interference all the more maddening is that it shouldn't be a bill-killer. Several of the aforementioned senators have previously voted for prior versions of the Homebuilding Revitalization Act, but are refusing to do so now, so as a result, Majority Leader Lisa Brown and sponsor Adam Kline can't move the bill.

House Judiciary Chairman Jamie Pedersen had actually scheduled a hearing on SSB 6701 in anticipation of Senate passage, but now that hearing will be canceled.

So congratulations, lawmakers.

For the umpteenth year in a row, incredibly important consumer protection legislation has been squashed because a majority of you would rather do the bidding of the state's most powerful right wing lobby, the BIAW, than help victimized constituents. Homeowners will continue to have no recourse when something goes wrong with their home. Meanwhile, the message from most of you, their representatives, has remained the same: We don't care.

It's as well that this is supposed to be Mary Marget Haugen's last term in office. She is a disgrace to Democratic ideals as far as I'm concerned. If she does end up deciding to run for reelection, I will personally make a point of traveling up to her legislative district to campaign against her. I'm that sick of her. (Besides carrying water for the BIAW, Senator Haugen - who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee - has also attempted to get rid of Sound Transit. Fortunately she has been unsuccessful in those efforts).

The other bill that came up short tonight is the Supreme Court public financing bill (SB 5912) which got to the floor but was never voted upon. That bill would have provided public funding for Supreme Court candidates who obtain at least five hundred grassroots contributions minimally totaling twenty-five times the filing fee. It was strongly supported by Washington Public Campaigns, and was even placed on third reading this afternoon. But, as five o'clock rolled around, it was still on the order of consideration and hadn't received a vote.

The bill's champion, Senator Eric Oemig, told NPI yesterday that he believed Senate Democrats had the votes to get the bill through. Either they didn't when they did a final vote count, or they somehow ran out of time to get organized. Whatever the reason was for not taking up the bill, its demise means yet another setback for clean elections in Washington State.

UPDATE, 10:12 PM: Here's what happened to SB 5912, courtesy of Washington Public Campaigns, who just sent out a message to supporters a few minutes ago.

Immediately after bill sponsor Sen. Eric Oemig (D-45) motioned SB 5912 for approval, Sen. Don Benton (R-17) [who is a co-sponsor of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053] stopped the proceedings with a point of order. Benton contended the bill would need a two-thirds vote to pass because the $3 surcharge on court fees was actually a "tax" not a "fee".

This required a ruling from Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen - presiding in his capacity as president of the Senate - based upon language and provisions in the bill itself plus language of Initiative 960 and other applicable state laws.

You may know the Senate has approved a bill amending I-960 to eliminate the "supermajority" requirement of a 2/3rds legislative vote for any tax increase. But that bill has not yet passed the House or been signed by the Governor, so original language in I-960 is still the law.

And so, the Senate set aside further deliberations on the bill and went on to other business, while staff lawyers (counsel to the Senate) researched the question. After consultations, Senate President Brad Owen ruled that the $3 surcharge must be considered a tax... and therefore the bill would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, to pass.

In fact we had (and have) 27 confirmed "Yes" votes (of 49) in the Senate - enough for majority passage, but not enough for two-thirds. Therefore, Senate leaders set the bill aside - for today.

Bills can, of course, be revived after cutoff if there is enough support in the chamber to do so. After ESSB 6130 is signed into law, I-960's shackles will be removed, making it possible for SB 5912 to move forward.