By Jason Mercier

Responding to today's unanimous contempt order against the Legislature by the State Supreme Court Governor Inslee said: "This unprecedented action by the Supreme Court is a critical moment in our history."

Everything about this statement is true. Not only is the Court's contempt order against a co-equal branch of government unprecedented but what may come next could lead to a doomsday scenario against voters.

Notwithstanding the many constitutional implications of the remedies and sanctions the Court is considering against the Legislature should its order not be followed next session imagine this:

1. The Legislature comes to an agreement to raise billions in taxes to comply with the Court order.
2. The people, in exercising the constitutional right of initiative, file a ballot measure to repeal the tax increases (like they recently did in 2010 with 60% of approval of I-1107). The ballot measure is adopted voiding the tax increases.
3. The McCleary plaintiffs sue the voters for repealing the billions in tax increases saying it is an unconstitutional infringement on students' right to an amply funded basic education.
4. The Supreme Court rules the tax repeal initiative unconstitutional. 

Ok, I'm probably getting way ahead of myself but the Court has already crossed one unprecedented threshold, what's to say it doesn't do it again?

This was a question the Attorney General alluded to in his original show cause brief (emphasis added):

“Imposing a fine on the State if legislators do not vote in a particular way similarly coerces the vote of legislators, and it places the burden of the legislators' noncompliance with the Court's order on the wrong group of people. By subjecting the State to a hefty fine, the Court may be harming the very people it intends to benefit by diminishing the funds available to finance compliance with the Court's remedial order.

Moreover, if a sanction on the State is appropriately levied on the legislators who do not vote in a particular way, is it also appropriate to levy a sanction on the people when they act in their legislative capacity to repeal a measure the Legislature enacted that included school funding?”

Before you call me paranoid, this wouldn't be the first time a Court has jumped the shark. Consider this example from Nevada where that state's Supreme Court "set aside" a provision of its constitution to allow an education tax increase to move forward.

But let's not give anyone here bad ideas.