A Senate panel on Tuesday heard testimony on a resolution calling on Congress to introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

The decision allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political campaigns. A later court decision based on the high court’s ruling freed up individuals to give unlimited amounts to independent groups, which led to the creation of the super PAC.

“I think the way that money has come to be deployed in our politics is a threat to our democracy and it’s a threat to both the reality and perception of individual citizens being able to have an influence on the political process,” said Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), the prime sponsor of the resolution.

The measure was passed by the House by a partisan vote of 55-42 earlier this month. Seven other states have passed similar measures calling for an amendment to reverse the ruling.

The Senate version of the bill never made it out of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, the same panel of lawmakers that heard testimony on the bill Tuesday. The symbolic legislation offered by the House also has little chance in the Republican-controlled committee chaired by Sen. Pam Roach (R-Auburn).

Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle), a lawyer who backed the Senate version of the measure, argued the Citizens United ruling unfairly gives people with more money a louder voice in the political process.

“Usually I am one of those people that is willing to listen to certain guidance from our courts, particularly the Supreme Court,” he said. “But I think they failed. I think they made a significant error here and it’s not an error in some innocuous law that governs 18 people. This unfortunately goes to the foundation of democracy.”

No one testified against the resolution during Tuesday’s hearing and the committee did not take action on the measure.

The House Judiciary Committee considered a bill Wednesday that aims to protect adopted children from abuse and neglect. The bill stems from cases such as Hana Grace-Rose Williams, a 13-year-old Ethiopian who died from hypothermia after her adoptive parents starved her and left her outside on a cold night.

The bill would change the adoption process to follow the recommendations made in a report issued last year by the Department of Social and Health Services called “Severe Abuse of Adopted Children Committee Report.”

“Reading a report like this is really very painful,” said bill sponsor Rep. Mary Helen Roberts (D-Lynnwood).

The report detailed what happened to 15 adopted children, Roberts said. Of the 15, two children died, four were sexually abused and five children had food withheld as a punishment to the point where they were diagnosed as being severely malnourished.

“We are completely remiss in our responsibility to these children at this point,” said David Gusterson of Adoptive Parents of Ethiopian Community, speaking in support of the bill. “We have a duty as a society to be doing a much better job, in particular when we’re bringing in children from other countries. We drag children in from other countries and they end up locked in closets, abused, starved or dead.”

Some of the recommendations included in the report:

• Keep track of adoption proceedings that fail

• Increase the minimum qualifications for social workers who do home checks

• Investigate the disciplinary philosophies of prospective adoptive parents, both during and after placement

“An applicant’s attitude towards discipline is very important to identify an appropriate match between a given child’s background circumstances and needs, and identifying the most appropriate family for that child,” said Patrick Dowd of the Office of the Family and Children Ombudsman.

The bill is scheduled for executive action by the committee Thursday.

Juveniles who are convicted of illegal gun possession would face stiffer sentencing guidelines under a proposed bill considered in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

House Bill 1096 would send juveniles convicted of a second offense to one of the state’s Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration facilities for 15 to 36 weeks.

Under current law, it takes five illegal gun-possession convictions before a juvenile can be sent to a JRA facility.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Christopher Hurst (D-Enumclaw), would also limit the ability of judges to defer a mandatory 10-day detention for first-time offenders.

King County Prosecuting attorney Dan Satterburg told committee members the current policy isn’t doing anybody any favors.

“I think doing nothing is the wrong move and that’s what we have been doing,” he said. “The earlier we can intervene the better off we all are.”

Satterburg said the 15 weeks in a JRA facility is an opportunity to educate young offenders.

Shankar Narayan with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington disagreed, telling the committee state resources would be better spent in other programs because evidence doesn’t suggest that increased detention deters juvenile offenders.

“In this case we may be pushing reachable kids into incarceration. We need to look at this at as a whole problem, not just a piece,” he said.

The bill has a projected price tag of $1 million to $3 million per year.

The committee did not take a vote on the measure.

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen

Safer courts, reliable access to lawyers and the need for more language interpreters were among the top court priorities outlined by Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen during the State of the Judiciary Address before a joint session of the legislature on Wednesday.

“I haven’t spoken to anyone who is predicting that you’re going to have an easy session this year. I think you’re all going to be spending many long days and late nights in Olympia,” Madsen told lawmakers assembled in the Senate Chamber.

One the court system’s top challenges will be security in the wake of various bomb threats at courthouses around the state and a recent shooting and stabbing in Grays Harbor County.

“No one should be afraid to walk into a courthouse. Simply hoping nothing bad happens is no longer good enough,” she said.

Madsen also asked the legislature to fund a pilot program that would implement video remote language interpreting services. The need for interrupters is exploding around the state, she said.

“Just imagine walking into a high stakes situation and not understanding a word of what’s going on.”

Madsen also told lawmakers the court system is struggling to serve the state’s low-income population, especially in rural areas.

“We have learned that in areas of our state the promise of access to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by our constitution and our legislature has not been met,” she said.

The state Supreme Court unanimously upheld the conviction of a woman who murdered a pregnant mother and cut the nearly full-term baby out of her womb.

Phiengchai Sisouvanh was convicted of the 2008 murder of Araceli Camacho Gomez, a pregnant 27-year-old from Pasco who was weeks from giving birth. Sisouvanh told the woman she wanted to give her baby clothes, then stabbed her at a highway turnout.

She drove to another spot, then cut Gomez’s baby out of her womb, according to court documents. Sisouvanh attempted to pass the baby off as her own by calling emergency officials and telling them she had just given birth in the backseat of her car.

A jury dismissed Sisouvanh’s insanity claims and sentenced her to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Sisouvanh’s attorneys appealed, arguing that the doctor who conducted the competency evaluation didn’t take her Laotian background and culture into consideration. Sisouvanh came to the United States from Laos at the age of 5.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument, writing in the opinion that the doctor “was sufficiently qualified to evaluate Sisouvanh,” and he made a “reasonable and supported judgment that Sisouvanh was sufficiently acculturated” to the American lifestyle.

The baby survived and is being raised by his father in Pasco, where KAPP TV reported that the child is “doing great, and is not suffering anything from the result of his tragic birth.”

(more…)

The Washington Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold a voter-approved law that requires the Legislature to have a two-thirds “supermajority” of votes to raise taxes, rather than a simple majority.

The law is being challenged by education advocacy groups, taxpayers and a dozen state lawmakers. They argue that the law hinders the state’s ability to raise revenue for schools, and is unconstitutional.

Paul Lawrence, a lawyer for the education groups, argued in front of the Supreme Court today that the two-thirds law is having negative impacts that are “real and undeniable.” He cited three bills that were defeated in the state House or Senate because they couldn’t muster enough votes for a supermajority.

“It is working exactly as intended, and in so doing it is taking off the table legislative options to address the state’s most pressing problems, including the ability to fund education as constitutionally required,” Lawrence said.

Arguing in defense of the law, Solicitor General Maureen Hart said the plaintiffs can’t demonstrate a legal reason for overturning the law. The education advocates are interested in “greater spending for the programs they support,” Hart said. “That’s a political interest, it isn’t a legal interest.”

The same goes for the state lawmakers who signed onto the lawsuit, Hart argued.

“Their interest is in passing tax increases that a simple majority vote of the Legislature could pass when the Legislature has not chosen to do that. That’s is a political interest, too, not a legal interest,” Hart said.

An attorney representing Gov. Chris Gregoire asked for the court for a final ruling on the constitutionality of the law to end the uncertainty surrounding the issue.

The court is expected to rule before the next legislative session. Voters have approved the supermajority requirement four times, most recently in 2010.

Watch the full arguments below:

The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday to determine the constitutionality of an initiative that requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Legislature to raise taxes.

Voters have approved or confirmed the initiative four times, most recently in 2010. It was brought to the ballot by conservative activist Tim Eyman, and is being challenged by a broad coalition of opponents — including the League of Education Voters, Washington Education Association and several state legislators.

The education groups sued to overturn the law, arguing that the initiative hampered the Legislature’s ability to raise revenue for schools. King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller agreed with the education coalition, ruling earlier this year that the initiative is a “clear restriction on the Legislature’s power.”

The plaintiffs appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, and asked for it to be expedited so a final ruling comes before next year’s Legislative session.

The education coalition argued in court filings that the law prevents the Legislature from passing new education measures, and “thwarts” its ability to fund education laws already on the books, like reduced class sizes.

In its defense of the law, the state Attorney General’s Office argued in part that Washington’s Constitution doesn’t prohibit the people, acting through the initiative process, from deciding that tax increases should require extra votes.

Although named as a defendant, Gov. Chris Gregoire filed a separate brief urging the high court to issue a final decision on the matter because the supermajority law creates “great uncertainty in planning the budget.”

The court will hear the case at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday. It’ll be broadcast live on TVW, and we’ll also have details here on the blog.

Gov. Chris Gregoire

The state Supreme Court heard arguments this morning on whether Gov. Chris Gregoire can claim executive privilege to withhold documents from the public.

The Freedom Foundation sued the governor after she declined to provide documents requested under the Public Records Act, citing executive privilege. The foundation said those records dealt with the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement proposal, Columbia River and medical marijuana.

A Thurston County Superior Court Judge ruled last year that executive privilege is an exemption to the Public Records Act. The Freedom Foundation appealed directly to the state Supreme Court, arguing that executive privilege is not specifically listed among the exemptions to the Public Records Act.

Michele Earl-Hubbard, counsel for the Freedom Foundation, said in her arguments in front of the court today that the “concept of executive privilege is not written in any law” in the state.  “It is not in the statute, it is not in the Constitution,” Hubbard said.

Hubbard argued that the state has never allowed a “secrecy forever promise” that grants state executives the power to decide issues without the public’s knowledge.

Gregoire’s attorney, Deputy Solicitor General Alan Copsey, argued in court that the right to privilege is based on United States v. Nixon, the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with secret tape recordings.

“We’re not saying the governor has the same powers as the president, we’re saying the governor has analogous powers,” Copsey said.

He cited a number of powers the governor holds — including leading the state military as commander in chief, and the ability to approve or veto a bill. “Those are all powers that are granted to the president, those are all powers granted to the governor,” Copsey said. “They don’t have to be identical.”

Since 2007, the governor’s office has released about 90,000 pages of documents through public records requests. The governor has withheld about 250 pages for executive privilege, some of which have since been released, according to the Gregoire’s spokeswoman, Karina Shagren.

The high court will issue its decision on the case at a later date.

Watch the full arguments below:

Arthur Longworth

Arthur Longworth was convicted of aggravated murder at the age of 21 and sentenced to life in prison. In the decades since the 1985 murder, he’s gained fame from inside Walla Walla’s prison walls for his writings. He’s won two national literary awards, including first place for best prison memoir from the PEN Center in New York.

The Clemency and Pardons Board held a hearing today to consider clemency for Longworth. The hearing room was full of dozens of people in support of Longworth, and several members of the victim’s family in opposition.

Longworth’s pro bono attorney spoke first, saying Longworth “endured a horrific upbringing” and has “deep and lasting remorse” for his crime. “I know of no other individual with the moral transformation that I’ve seen in this man,” she said.

The former warden of Walla Walla prison, Bob Kastama, said he first heard about Longworth through his writings about the prison. “I was so moved by his writing ability that I arranged to meet him,” he said. “I wanted to know if he was a con artist or a psychopath or some kind of deceptive person. He is none of these.”

Longworth’s sister, Dawn Longworth Enz, flew to Olympia from West Virgina to testify. She said her first memory at age 3 was of being tied to a bed, with tape over her mouth and her body sore from a beating. The siblings were often left naked in the bathroom and had to steal for food.

“My brother and I were tied up, locked up, stripped of our clothes, beaten until we passed out,” she said. “This was normal life for our family.”

(more…)

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Jorge Saenz should not be sentenced to life without parole under the “three strikes” law because he wasn’t properly transferred out of juvenile court when he was convicted of his first “strike” at the age 15.

Saenz was a teenager in 2001 when he waived his right to juvenile court and pleaded guilty as an adult to felony assault. He was convicted of another gang-related assault at 18. And in 2008, Saenz was convicted of shooting two rival gang members in Yakima County.

Prosecutors sought the “three strikes” sentence following the 2008 shooting. Instead, Superior Court Judge Michael Schwab sentenced Saenz to 46 years in prison because of concerns about the 2001 conviction. The state Supreme Court supported Schwab’s ruling and rejected an appeals court decision.

Justice Charles K. Wiggins wrote in the opinion that Saenz “wasn’t fully informed” of the consequences when he pleaded guilty as an adult to get a reduced sentence.

“Saenz had never been in adult court and nothing in the record shows he understood the important protections he was waiving or that his adult conviction could be used as a strike to sentence him imprisonment without possibility of parole,” Wiggins wrote.

The state argued that Saenz checked a box on his “guilty” plea that said he understood what rights he was waiving.

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justices Charles Johnson, Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Mary Fairhurst concurred with Wiggins. Justice James Johnson and Debra Stephens dissented. Read the full Supreme Court opinion here.

TVW covered the oral arguments in October 2011 in front of the Supreme Court — watch it below.