The challenge to the unconstitutional state income tax progresses

The Freedom Foundation brought suit last week to end the constitutionally illegal state income tax the WA State legislature enacted last session.

Douglas County Superior Court heard the first round of arguments in the Freedom Foundation’s lawsuit challenging the controversial capital gains income tax narrowly adopted by the democrat legislature in April.

Gov. Inslee, who claimed on the campaign trail in 2012 that he would “veto anything that heads in the wrong direction, and the wrong direction is new taxes in the state of Washington,” signed the bill in May, stating at the signing ceremony that, “This could be the pinnacle of the greatest joy of the bills that I’ve signed as governor.”

Going into the hearing, Judge Brian Huber had five issues before him, two of which were decided at the hearing and three of which will be addressed at a later time.  

First, Huber decided to consolidate the lawsuit against SB 5096 filed jointly on April 28 by the Freedom Foundation and attorneys from Lane Powell PC on behalf of 10 Washington residents with a second challenge filed by the Opportunity for All Coalition (OFAC) on May 20. Going forward, the two cases will now be treated as one, as both Freedom Foundation and OFAC had requested.

Second, the judge granted a request by a group of farmers to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs contending the tax is unconstitutional.

Third, a group of additional interests — consisting of the Washington Education Association (the statewide teachers union, which has been seeking to impose an income tax on Washingtonians for almost 90 years), the Edmonds School District, a parent of a public school student, a public school teacher and a child care provider — petitioned the court to be allowed to intervene in the proceedings as parties defending the tax alongside Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office.

The parties contend they will receive some of the money collected from other taxpayers and therefore have an interest in defending the law, while the Freedom Foundation argued they do not meet the standards to be admitted as parties and could instead be permitted to file an amicus brief.

Huber indicated he would accept additional written arguments on the question from both sides and issue a written decision in the next week or so.

Fourth, the Attorney General’s Office had asked the judge to dismiss the case outright, contending that state law prevents taxpayers from challenging a tax in court until after they have paid the applicable tax and, in this case, no one will pay the new capital gains income tax until 2023.

However, the applicable state law specifically allows taxpayers to preemptively challenge taxes they allege to be “in violation of the Constitution of the United States or that of the state,” which is exactly what the plaintiffs in this case contend.

Finally, in the event the judge did not dismiss the case, Ferguson’s office had argued, without elaboration, that the “ends of justice” would be better served by transferring the case to Thurston County Superior Court. As the home to the state capital and state agencies, presumably Ferguson’s team believes it more likely to receive a ruling upholding the tax before a Thurston County judge.

While the Freedom Foundation was prepared to argue these issues at the hearing, Huber indicated he needed additional time to consider whether to dismiss the case and directed the parties to work out a time for a second hearing sometime in August.

As it has for years, the Freedom Foundation will continue to do its utmost to prevent the imposition of a new, unnecessary, harmful and precedent-setting income tax on Washington residents.

Dry WA

A map of the current drought condition in Washington State

 

 

 

This is also sort of a wildfire forecast.  Wildfire and drought go together.  

source https://www.drought.gov/states/washington

The failure of choosing government control over individual rights

Barronelle Stutzman’s endurance and the failure of SCOTUS.

Despite the utopian thinking of Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, legalizing same-sex marriage has led to a crisis of religious liberty. Barronelle Stutzman is the definitive answer to the question, “How will my gay marriage affect you?”

In 2014, a long-time customer (whom Stutzman considered to be a friend) asked Barronelle to create a floral arrangement for his same-sex wedding. When Stutzman declined due to her Christian belief about marriage, the client said he understood and asked for referrals to other florists who would be willing to do the job. She recommended three other floral designers, they embraced and said goodbye.

On Friday, in an act of what can only be described as dereliction, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case of Arlene’s Flowers, Inc. vs. Washington. In refusing to hear this case, the Court has failed to bring clarity to a situation it ultimately created.

~~~~~~~~~

When Bob Ferguson, attorney general of the State of Washington, saw a post about the incident on social media, the AG brought charges against Barronelle. In 2015, a trial court found her guilty of violating Washington’s anti-discrimination law, ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and the ACLU’s legal fees, and to no longer accept wedding business unless she agreed to serve gay weddings.

Her appeal to the state Supreme Court drew so much interest that arguments were held in a local college auditorium. The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Stutzman, citing Kennedy’s Obergefell language and even claiming that to not service a same-sex wedding is to “disrespect and subordinate” gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that floral arrangements weren’t “speech” but instead “conduct,” and rejected her free exercise claim based on the Employment Division vs. Smith. In other words, the Court found that even if the state had violated Barronelle’s First Amendment right to free exercise, it had done so in a generally applicable way that serves a compelling interest of the government.

Barronelle, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, when the Court found the state of Colorado guilty of animus toward the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips, in the very similar Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it vacated the decision by the Washington court, effectively asking it to re-examine Barronelle’s case and look for the kind of religious animus condemned by Kennedy in the Masterpiece decision. Unsurprisingly, the Washington Supreme Court, not about to admit it had decided anything wrongly, ruled again against Barronelle. So ADF, on behalf of Barronelle, appealed again to the Supreme Court.

By declining to hear Barronelle’s case, the Supreme Court has left her, after seven years of fighting for her rights of conscience, without justice. It has left her without a significant part of her business. It has left her weary but amazingly hopeful after a long battle to save it. It has left her with the potential of financial ruin, and largely at the mercy of the ACLU.

The Supreme Court has left America in the lurch, unsettled as to what definition of religious freedom it will recognize and protect. By ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services a few weeks ago, the Court made it even more clear that religious organizations will be protected. However, by refusing to take up Barronelle’s case, the status of religious freedom for individuals outside of religious organizations to live and order their public lives according to their deeply held convictions, is decidedly not clear.

(Breakpoint)