|
Report from Olympia | June 18, 2015
Dear
Friends and Neighbors,
As the Legislature continues
to work toward agreement on a two-year budget to cover state operating expenses
beginning July 1, it is important that we use this time to try to develop policies
that are good for the people of our state.
This week the Senate Law and
Justice Committee held public hearings on three bills aimed at addressing
concerns about several recent state Supreme Court decisions. The committee also
held a work session on the issue of housing prisoners out-of-state.
We also continue to work on
issues related to improving public safety by toughening Washington’s felony-DUI
law. I am hopeful that we will see progress on our bill to make a fourth DUI in
10 years a felony, and that the House of Representatives will act on the bill
in the final days of this second special session.
As always, I welcome your
input on any issue relating to state government. Please feel free to
contact me anytime via email or by calling our district office at (509) 921-2460.
Thank you, as always, for the continued opportunity to serve
you in the state Senate.
Best regards,
Senator
Mike Padden
House Democrat Leadership puts break on transportation and capital budget talks in order to force capital gains tax
Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island and transportation lead in
the House of Representatives, tells the Seattle
Times that Democrats have pulled back from negotiations on the state transportation
package, because her caucus leadership is not getting its way on the operating
budget.
Here are some of the highlights:
…Clibborn and Sen. Curtis King,
R-Yakima — the lead transportation negotiators for their parties — both said
that transportation-package talks have gone well. But, Clibborn said, “the
general- fund negotiations were not going well,” and Democratic House leaders
advised her to halt transportation talks for now.
…Democrats have argued that some
new revenue is necessary; Republicans have disagreed, saying
that projected revenue from existing taxes should be enough to pay for
government.
House Democrats say they continue
to support a capital-gains tax as the best way [to] raise new revenue.
Click
here to read the full story.
Last week, King County District Court Judge
David Steiner, president of the state District and Municipal Court Judges Association,
and Spokane County District Court Judge
Patricia Connolly Walker (pictured above) stopped by the Olympia office to discuss issues facing
our courts.
The DMCJA continuously surveys and studies the operation of
the courts served by its members. The organization also suggests rules for the
administration of courts of limited jurisdiction and reports annually to the
Supreme Court as well as the governor and the Legislature on the condition of
business in the courts.
As chair of the Senate Law and Justice Committee, I often
work on legislation to improve the function of our courts – a co-equal branch
of our state government – to help make sure that average citizens have access
to a well-functioning judicial system.
Yesterday the Senate Law and Justice Committee heard
testimony on three measures aimed at addressing recent state Supreme Court
decisions:
- SB
6099 - Appointing a representative for a crime victim in certain circumstances,
in response to the decision in Washington
v. MacDonald;
- SB
6134 - Exempting pretrial electronic alcohol monitoring programs from statutory
limitations on pretrial supervision costs, an issue arising from the decision
in Washington v. Hardtke; and
-
A
bill dealing with lawsuits and constitutional rights of speech and petition, necessitated
by the ruling in Davis, et al. v Cox, et
al.
Senate
Bill 6099, also known as the Victims’
Voice Act, is in response to a controversial
ruling by the Supreme Court in April that a detective’s testimony on behalf of
an 80-year-old murder victim, urging the court to reject a plea agreement and
give her killer a harsher sentence, violated the defendant’s due-process
rights.
Under the VVA, if a crime victim is deceased and has no
estate or surviving family or any other representative, a prosecuting attorney
may appoint an investigative law enforcement officer to serve as a
representative of the victim during the sentencing hearing. A law-enforcement
officer appointed as a representative of the victim would be permitted to make
a sentencing recommendation that is different from that provided in a plea
agreement.
The bill was advanced by our committee after an amendment
was added to also allow a community victims advocate to testify in lieu of an
officer.
Senate
Bill 6134 would clarify that a $150 limitation on costs for pretrial
supervision does not apply to those for pretrial electronic alcohol and drug
monitoring. The bill is in response to the decision in Washington v. Hardtke. In that case, the Supreme Court found that
the costs for an electronic alcohol-monitoring bracelet fit under the statutory
meaning of “pretrial supervision.” The practical effect of that decision is
that courts can no longer impose reasonable, pretrial supervision, intended to
protect victims and the public at-large. This bill fixes that problem. This
bill was also approved by our committee.
The third bill we reviewed addresses an important
free-speech concern created by the May 28 ruling in the case of Davis v Cox. Sixteen current and former
members of the Olympia Food Co-op’s board of directors were sued by five co-op
members over the board’s decision to boycott Israeli goods. The defendants
argued that the action was an illegal Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation (SLAPP) that should be dismissed as it attempts to chill the
board’s public statements on an issue of public interest.
The state Supreme Court had rejected this claim, and found
the anti-SLAPP statute to be unconstitutional.
The proposed bill would reinstate the anti-SLAPP law, with
changes aimed at satisfying the concerns of the Supreme Court by adopting a
“summary judgement” standard.
Several citizens and members of the press testified at the
hearing that the anti-SLAPP law is a vital tool used to protect investigative
reporters, whistle-blowers and average citizens from costly, frivolous lawsuits
aimed at stifling free speech.
 House Democratic budget negotiators continue to demand a new capital gains tax that they can’t pass and the state doesn’t need.
While I am very hopeful that we will soon see a resolution
to the budget negotiations, progress remains slow.
The sticking points, however, have never been clearer. The Senate proposal has no tax increases.
If the House accepted the Senate proposal, as is, the session could come to a
close and there would be no more speculation about a state-government shutdown
beginning in July.
The new House budget is a different story. It will not
balance without a $570 million tax increase (which increases to $1.3 billion in
2017-19), and there has been no House vote on that tax increase. If the tax
increase is not approved, the House budget will collapse – and a budget
collapse means a government shutdown.
With more than $3.2 billion in additional revenue expected
to come in over the next two years, I firmly believe there is no need for new
taxes. In fact, with so much revenue coming into the state, this is normally
when we would start considering a conversation about providing tax relief to
our small-business employers.
The only other major point of contention at this point is in
the area of higher education. The Senate
is proposing a 25-percent average reduction in tuition at in-state public
4-year institutions. This would essentially result in one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in state
history. The House budget includes a freeze in tuition, but plans to fund
it only if a $400 million capital-gains income tax is approved.
So yes, it really is that simple. If House majority leaders
gave up their unnecessary quest for new taxes and worked with the Senate to
provide tuition relief to middle-class families, we could bring this session to
a close. It is still my hope that this can happen – and happen soon!
* * *
| 
