JayB Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 "Unions sue to block liquor initiative from taking effect Two unions have filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court attempting to stop implementation of Initiative 1183 Two unions have filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court attempting to stop implementation of Initiative 1183, which kicks the state out of the liquor business by June. The unions represent nearly 1,000 workers expected to lose their jobs because of I-1183, which 59 percent of Washington voters approved in November. The lawsuit says the measure violates a rule that requires an initiative to address just one issue. The legal tactic is common and sometimes successful. Besides putting liquor in grocery stores, I-1183 also changes wine-distribution laws, changes the ability of the Liquor Control Board to regulate alcohol advertising and creates new franchise protections for liquor distributors, the lawsuit says. "While it is not illegal for a private company to pay for an initiative and spend almost unlimited money to get it passed, it is illegal for them to abuse the system by loading the initiative with too many changes to the law. The reason for the single-rule clause in the constitution is to prohibit this very thing," the unions said in a release." Quote
sobo Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Ohferfuckssake, why do I even bother to vote anymore??? Quote
ivan Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Ohferfuckssake, why do I even bother to vote anymore??? b/c yer not willing to sign petitions? rimshot! Quote
ivan Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) is the union the issue here or rule they're taking issue with? seems like the rule, if it is a good one, should be enforced? don't worry though, virginia, you'll be able to get all the ingredients for your screwdriver in the same story someday reaaaal soon, no matter how much any union bitches about it, the will of the people is clear! Edited December 8, 2011 by ivan Quote
sobo Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 The way I read the article is that when I-1183 gets enacted, a bunch of unionized people will lose their jobs. So those people are looking for a way to invalidate I-1183, by calling out the single-rule clause of the intitiative process. I'd have to think that the other elements in I-1183 with which the union folks are taking issue are natural flow-down/follow-on changes that would need to be made as a direct consequence of the institutuion of the main thrust of the initiative, that is, getting the State out of the liquor sales and distribution business. Quote
sobo Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Ohferfuckssake, why do I even bother to vote anymore??? b/c yer not willing to sign petitions? rimshot! coulda figgerd that one wuz comin'... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Ohferfuckssake, why do I even bother to vote anymore??? It's kind of like posting in a thread all day and having it disappear, n'est-ce pas? Quote
sobo Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Yeah, but I didn't have a dog in that fight, so I didn't lose any lofty prose on that one. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Yeah, but I didn't have a dog in that fight, so I didn't lose any lofty prose on that one. Initiative? What initiative? There was no initiative! Quote
sobo Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 There is no Comrade Commissar Yezhov. Yezhov does not exist. Yezhov never existed. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.