Agreed. It's hard to imagine anyone in Seattle saying no to a tax hike that promises them something in return.
Whether it be a new stadium (to tear down and replace the one that used to have us in the Guiness Book of World Records) or replacing the light rail network we gave up to build a freeway 60-some years ago, you can bet the majority will vote yes.
The Enforcers of the law are paid tens of thousands of dollars a year, have sworn an oath to do their duty, and have the same requirement to obey the law or else that every citizen does. Additionally, the government is limited by the Constitution.
The general public have fewer legal restrictions on them than the Enforcers (both must obey statutes, Enforcers are additionally bound by the Constitution), and are not paid to enforce the law nor sworn to uphold it.
So if the Enforcers can't be bothered to obey the law, why should anyone?
That's nothing new. The Cuban Missile Crisis was entirely made of it.
The US had missiles that could hit Moscow and that was somehow okay. When the USSR put missiles in Cuba that could hit Washington D.C., somehow that was not okay -- even though the US missiles at the time were closer to Moscow than the Soviet missiles were to Washington.
Title 18, Section 241 of the US code makes it a felony for any two or more people, within the borders of the United States, to violate any civil, statutory or constitutional right under color of law.
As the US Supreme Court has ruled the same way over and over on prior restraints on the first amendment, I have to wonder -- are all the members of that grand jury or court that issued the gag order now felons?
A grand jury determines whether probable cause exists. Nothing more and nothing less -- that it is more likely than not that a crime was committed.
That is the same standard of evidence required for a police officer to make an arrest.
Given how low the bar is set, the only time a prosecutor ever gets a no bill result is when they want that result.
Since the prosecutor controls 100% of the evidence the grand jury sees, even a false arrest won't prevent an indictment if the prosecutor wants one. Even if the evidence against the accused is at the beyond a reasonable doubt or even absolute proof levels, a prosecutor who wants a no bill doesn't have to show any of that evidence to the grand jury, and will 'fail' to get the grand jury to indict.
In fact, a no bill result really ought to result in discipline or even criminal charges against the arresting officer, since if there was enough evidence to arrest then there is also enough to indict.