Jump to content

"Not So Fast, Boozers!"


JayB

Recommended Posts

"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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by ivan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...