Time to let the legislature legislate and stop playing citizen activists with corporate dollars. Well thought out, Sean. In contradiction of what the oh-so-brave, Anon, posted up, I think that the key to sensible initiative is to make them single issue. While I agree that ballot proposals are not the best way to get things, you must admit that any legislation may be even messier and more compromised.
Migg22, thanks for the comment. I could live with single issue initiatives. It would make it far easier for voters to understand the issue, although this would make it far less compelling to those who write them!
I should add, in case anyone out there was wondering, that the irony of someone writing, "stop living in your fantasy land" anonymously was not lost on me. As a wine lover, I rarely drink hard liquor.
I am disappointed to see this fail, as this means the status quo will continue for a long, long time. Sean, I think you are being naive in thinking the legislature will take this up. The same distributors and anti-alcohol groups against have lobbyist and dollars to stop anything in Olympia. I hope I am wrong, but history says this state will remain one of the worst places to buy a hard drink in the nation.
Hear, Hear Sean. It's way past time for the liquor laws to be brought up to date by the legislators! Tom, I hope you are wrong as well but fear you may be right. They only way you will be wrong though is if we all put significant pressure on the legislature.
Might not work but here's hoping. Your comment will be published after it has been moderated. Sean P. He has been writing about and reviewing Washington wine since Initiatives and both fail. What now? Initiative - which would have privatized the sale of spirits in Washington State, required a distributor to sell spirits, altered taxation, and made other changes - was, as expected, resoundingly defeated on election night.
Almost immediately following the April filing of the proposed initiative, an opposition to the effort formed.
Opponents argued that the state's current regulations helpped "keep liquor out of the hands of minors and also return a good profit to the state. Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the campaign in opposition of I [28]. Contrary to an earlier report by the state auditor, the OFM predicted that the state could lose hundreds of millions of dollars. However, the OFM also reported that both measures could increase liquor sales by about 5 percent.
Supporters of the initiatives argued that the OFM's report does not account for additional revenues paid by increased liquor sales. The OFM's report on the fiscal impacts of I can be read here. The measures, according to the study, could "impose long-term social costs associated with heightened consumption of hard liquor and other alcoholic beverages. The report can be read here.
On June 1 supporters of I filed a ballot title and summary challenge against a competing measure - Washington Revise State Liquor Laws, Initiative According to the filed challenge the ballot language is too vague. I supporters pointed to the fact that the language did not reflect that in addition to privatizing state liquor stores the language did not specify that I would repeal the existing alcohol tax and require the legislature to create a new tax.
Charla Neuman, spokeswoman for I, said the other side was "just playing games" by filing a challenge on the last day they were allowed to. Additionally, the complaint went on to argue that the ballot title, written by the attorney general , did not explain what "qualified" meant when explaining that the liquor control board would have to license "qualified private parties" to sell and distribute liquor.
Another complaint pointed to the lack of the phrase "hard liquor" in the description. I argued that both proposed initiatives should include the phrase "hard liquor. Judge McPhee agreed that the term "hard liquor" should appear in both I's and I's ballot language. However, the judge rejected all other complaints by I supporters.
Shortly following the judge's ruling, I supporters said they planned to print new petitions with the changes immediately. In addition to I another initiative was also proposed relating to privatizing state liquor stores.
However, unlike I, I priced liquor licenses based on the volume of liquor sold. I, on the other hand, did not include price controls. If both measures were approved by voters, according to attorneys in the state's Elections Division and the Attorney General's office, the question would go to the Washington Legislature and the courts. With a two-thirds vote, the legislature, could find a way to adopt the two laws or adopt one and reject the other.
I would make them better off. There is a price for benefiting government. Liquor will not be cheap no matter who sells it. Then again, California has a state income tax and Washington does not. Citizens here have chosen to have liquor bear more of the burden of public spending.
It is a reasonable choice.
0コメント