State Supreme Court hears oral arguments in car tabs initiative lawsuit
The state Supreme Court heard virtual oral arguments Tuesday about the constitutionality of the initiative to lower the cost of car tabs that voters passed last year.
King County, Seattle and other jurisdictions filed a lawsuit to challenge Initiative 976 after it passed in November. The initiative hasn’t taken effect yet, due to the legal challenge.
Justices heard arguments from attorneys via Zoom in Garfield County Transportation Authority, et al v. State of Washington. It’s not known when there will be a decision.
The plaintiffs argued that the initiative, sponsored by tax activist Tim Eyman, violates the state’s constitution in various ways and should be overturned.
“In short, as one journalist put it, this initiative is a dumpster fire from the standpoint of the law,” David Hackett, a King County attorney, said. “It violates so many provisions of our constitution that it cannot be upheld by this court.”
Attorney Alan Copsey, representing the state, argued that the initiative is constitutional, and asked the justices to uphold it. He told them that the question is not whether the initiative is good policy.
The “majority of Washington voters chose it as the policy they want,” he said.
Some of the arguments were about whether voters were misled about what the initiative does by the ballot title.
Matthew Segal, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the justices that the “$30 promise” isn’t accurate.
“Nobody will pay less than $43.25” for their car tabs after fees, and some will pay more, he said.
Copsey said the plaintiff’s argument that the title fooled voters into thinking they’d get $30 car tabs requires speculation as to what voters knew.
It’s also fair to speculate, he suggested, that voters realized the $30 campaign was a political characterization of what the initiative does — “code for reducing my car tabs,” and not a promise.
On rebuttal, Hackett said: “You don’t put political phrases in the ballot title.”
He told the justices: “Voters were not properly informed as to what they were passing,” and that “the things that people pay when they register cars, that would be your average lay voter’s understanding — and those things that people pay when they register cars amount to no less than $43.25.”
Among the other arguments he made was that the initiative violates the state’s “single subject rule.”
A brief the appellants filed with the court says in part:
“In sum, I-976 is a classic example of pairing an end that will attract certain votes (a $30 car tab fee) with another end that will attract potentially different votes (requiring Sound Transit to raise funds to retire or defease bonds) in order to reach what turned out to be a slim majority of the total votes.”
The state’s brief argued: “Initiative 976 complies with the single subject rule because, as expressed in its ballot title, I-976 generally concerns motor vehicle taxes and fees, and all of its provisions relate to that subject and to each other.”
Voters approved the Sound Transit 3 construction package in 2016, raising the motor vehicle excise tax to pay for the projects. In some cases vehicle registration costs several hundred dollars.
Sound Transit has said that reducing that revenue will mean projects such as light rail expansion would be delayed or cut.
King and Snohomish county voters passed ST3. Most votes in Pierce County were against it. Pierce County voters approved I-976 by 66 percent, compared to 53 percent statewide.
The Pierce County Council voted in December to intervene in the lawsuit to help defend I-976.
This story was originally published June 30, 2020 at 7:17 PM.
