Dozens of Qualified Initiatives Killed by Special Interests

Tue, Oct 15 2013 by Neal Hobson

The following material provided by the Yes on I-517 campaign:

I-517’s primary policy change is guaranteeing you the right to vote on qualified initiatives.

Listed below are qualified initiatives that were killed by special interests.  In some cases you might have voted yes, in other cases you might have voted no, but in all cases, the people’s right to vote was taken away (“It’s not just a setback to the initiatives but a more fundamental setback to the initiative process across the state,” said the retired physician, who served as researcher for both initiatives. “If a city doesn’t happen to agree with an initiative, it can force the citizens to hire an attorney to defend it before it goes to voters. That throws a bucket of cold water on the initiative process,” she said. — see below):

In King County, after local citizens qualified an initiative to reduce the size of the King County Council, the county sued to block the vote. King County Initiative 18: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030617&slug=initiative17m

In Vancouver, after local citizens qualified an initiative for the ballot concerning the Columbia River Bridge, the city council refused to let the people vote: http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jul/31/judge-rules-proposed-light-rail-initiative-invalid/

In Spokane, two qualified initiatives were blocked from a vote after special interests sued (Community Bill of Rights and Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution): http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/aug/24/judge-orders-2-initiatives-to-be-blocked-from/

In Renton, local citizens qualified an initiative to keep the local library at its current location. The city council voted against letting the people vote on it: http://www.rentonreporter.com/news/145877785.html

In Bellingham, an out-of-state red-light camera company individually sued local citizens to prevent the vote on a qualified initiative on the cameras: http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2020438731_bruce27initiative517eymanbellinghamxml.html

Monroe Initiative #1, the city individually sued local citizens to prevent the vote on a qualified initiative on the cameras — it was the first initiative in city history:
http://www.monroemonitor.com/2013/02/25/monroe-wins-on-traffic-camera-appeal/

Mukilteo Initiative #2, an out-of-state red-light camera company individually sued local citizens to prevent the vote on a qualified initiative on the cameras:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Wash-high-court-rules-against-Mukilteo-red-light-initiative-141926443.html

Redmond Initiative #1, red-light ticketing camera initiative was blocked, city refused to submit petitions to county for validation — it was the first initiative in city history: http://redmond.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/breaking-city-of-redmond-decides-not-to-hand-red-ligh5b88482707

Longview Initiative #1, the city individually sued local citizens to prevent the vote on a qualified initiative on the cameras — it was the first initiative in city history:
http://tdn.com/news/local/local-traffic-camera-fight-may-help-shape-future-of-citizen/article_1b5fcd62-edb5-11e2-ab31-0019bb2963f4.html

Wenatchee Initiative #1, city teamed up with out-of-state red-light camera company and sued local citizens to block the signature drive for their red-light ticketing camera initiative — it was the first initiative in city history: http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2011/jun/30/they-should-have-let-us-vote/

In Bellingham, a “Community Bill of Rights” Initiative (it would have limited coal trains) qualified but was blocked from the ballot:
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/08/03/2631100/no-coal-initiative-blocked-from.html#storylink=cpy

In Bellingham, a qualified initiative that would have limited mercury in the water supply was blocked:
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/01/11/2834005/latest-eyman-initiative-would.html#

In Mukilteo, the first initiative in city history was a measure to let the people decide on the location of the new city hall. Sponsors turned in more than enough signatures to qualify but the city refused to put it on the ballot.

In Seattle, city attorney sued its own citizens to block a qualified initiative called “Save Seattle’s Creeks” Initiative 80. Sponsor Knoll Lowney: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030620&slug=creeks20m

In Seattle, city attorney sued its own citizens to block qualified initiative concerning Alaska Way Viaduct:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014632113_tunnelsuit30m.html

In Seattle, city attorney sued its own citizens to block qualified initiative (I-101):
http://seattletimes.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2015196730_council_authorizes_holmes_to_f.html

In Port Angeles, the city sued its own citizens to block two qualified initiatives concerning fluoride in the local water supply. “It’s not just a setback to the initiatives but a more fundamental setback to the initiative process across the state,” said the retired physician, who served as researcher for both initiatives. “If a city doesn’t happen to agree with an initiative, it can force the citizens to hire an attorney to defend it before it goes to voters. That throws a bucket of cold water on the initiative process,” she said. http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/dec_2006/14/fluoride.htmlhttp://www.komonews.com/news/local/103684034.html

In King County, three measures qualified for the ballot that challenged the county council’s “critical areas ordinances (CAO).” The county teamed up with special interest groups to prevent the people from voting on them: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20061221&slug=webcourt21

In Vancouver, September, 2001, an initiative qualified on whether or not to use tax dollars to support the financially failing publicly financed Hilton Hotel. Rather than letting the voters vote, city officials sued their own citizens in Clark County Superior Court to prevent the people from voting because the initiative was “confusing and ambiguous.”

King County Initiative 16 and Seattle Initiative 43:
SEATTLE TIMES, APRIL 2, 1997
Citizens have organized two initiatives to stop the stadium. The group gathered 73,000 signatures for Initiative 16, a countywide measure that called for a vote on King County’s role in the project. A King County Superior Court judge ruled that the initiative would not apply to the stadium; the matter is on appeal to the state Supreme Court. … “Are you Chris Van Dyk?” asks the messenger, handing over a lawsuit against his group by the PFD, trying to block Initiative 43, which is still in the signature-gathering stage. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970402&slug=2531809

I-517’s guaranteed vote on qualified initiatives is completely consistent with two unanimous state supreme court rulings. The High Court wrote: “Pre-election review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. The fundamental reason is that the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state’s history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government. Given the pre-eminence of the initiative right, pre-election challenges to the substantive validity of initiatives are particularly disallowed … Because ballot measures are often used to express popular will and to send a message to elected representatives, pre-election review unduly infringes on free speech.”

With I-517’s protections, future generations will have the chance to have their voices heard at the state and local level on issues they care about, whether liberal or conservative.

Mark Baerwaldt at 206-441-4615

Yes on I-517 Co-Chair

I-517’s ballot title:  This measure would set penalties for interfering with or retaliating against signature-gatherers and petition-signers; require that all measures receiving sufficient signatures appear on the ballot; and extend time for gathering initiative petition signatures. Should this measure be enacted into law?  Yes _X_ No ___

NOTE: Citizens in Charge endorses a YES vote on Initiative 517 and has contributed financially to help place I-517 on the Nov. 5, 2013 ballot.