Our political class is happy to run our state without any help from the public, except for paying higher taxes and voting for them, of course. But Washington has had ways for citizens to interfere with state government since the beginning. The initiative process allows anyone to write a proposed law and submit it for a vote by the entire state (or to put it to the Legislature first) and it has the effect of law if it passes. The referendum is a direct check on the Legislature. It enables a law passed by the Legislature to be overturned by a vote of the people.
Now the elected powers resent this. Most states in the eastern part of the US don't allow citizen interference, so "why us?" And they doubly resent it when initiatives interfere with their constant need to raise taxes.
First, some history. Our state constitution's first and only sentence of the first section of the first article [places the citizens ahead of the government and so] lays the ground for the initiative, long before mention of there being a legislature. It says "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Of course recent history includes several initiative to limit tax rates. But it also has initiatives for bigger government. Outlawing animal traps... Trigger locks...
The education establishment went for more money for everything but accountability by the vote for an initiative. It passed, but the ploy didn't work because they based it on a disappearing revenue source. [Correction thanks to a commenter.]
NOW - There are proposals in the Legislature right now that would end or restrict the initiative and referendum.
The big one - SJR 8201 by Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D) would end the initiative and referendum. It requires a vote of the people, so it's can't be rushed through in the middle of the night and is very unlikely to become law.
Restrictions - Senate Bill 5556 by Sen. Karen Fraser (D) would require any initiative or referendum to include the complete language repealed to be listed. Are you ready for the ballot to take 3 pages for just one initiative?
Senate Bill 5412 requires initiatives modifying taxes be approved by a majority of the voters in the affected taxing district. That sounds reasonable.
House Bill 1105 by Rep. Appleton (D) assumes paying a worker to gather petition signatures (based upon the number of signatures that worker receives) invites the possibility of fraud as well as misrepresentation of the ballot measure. It requires paying minimum wage, rather than per signature. [A poster points out that the Supreme Court has ruled that paying per signature is allowed.] How about signature gatherers who misrepresent their measure or their opponents whether or not they are paid?
I think some of this is just adding more and more restrictions on the citizens' initiative process so it will be used less. The initiative and referendum are major checks on the power of our government. So I oppose restricting them.
OK. We can't talk about initiatives without mentioning the outspoken initiative proponent - Tim Eyman. He has greatly helped limit government in our state by a series of tax-limiting measure. (Note: I strongly opposed his recent gambling "fairness" initiative because it would increase gambling in neighborhoods.) And this week he is starting an initiative to preserve the initiative.
I cut Eyman a lot of slack because he never asked me to vote for him, just "vote for these words." For his combination of success and his self-confident style he has been under constant attack by the media, the politicians and their powerful friends. Seattle P-I
One of the highlights of the battle over Tim was two years ago when Eyman was found to be taking a salary from funds raised for his initiative efforts. It didn't matter that what he did was legal; but he should have said so. But everyone attacked the man rather than the measure he was promoting that year. I thought he was "injured" and would hide and let someone else speak, but he spoke out. As the election approached there was story after negative story about Eyman. Could they defeat his initiative by hitting him? No. They shot and missed. The initiative won. And it was a personal victory for Eyman, since the attack was against him.
For more about the past and future of direct democracy through initiatives and referenda check the Initiative and Referendum Institute . Thanks to a commenter for the tip.
Posted by Ron Hebron at January 29, 2005 01:24 PM | Email ThisSince the Democrats have shown that they will do pretty much anything for political power, including gaming the system and encouraging sloppiness that helps them game it, the only thing citizens have left are initiatives and referendums.
It's clear that the so-called legislature and the pretend governor, now that they have tricked their way into power, are also willing to pretty much anything to push forward their extreme agenda. This totalitarian streak stretches from city and county councils up to the pretend governor.
Property rights? They don't believe you have any.
Need more revenue? Search for slices of the population with little or no organized power to pass politically expedient new taxes.
Constitutional rights? Declare something a public safety issue, and you don't have constitutional rights.
They've already gone too far with these things, but seem to not realize it. This is what happens when an entrenched, established power structure becomes arrogant.
The next initiative I would like to see is one tha calls for kicking everyone in Olympia out of office and a re-vote for all of the positions!
Maybe that possibility is what is scaring them into trying to limit these tools of democracy.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 01:38 PMI am just finishing up the work on a podcast where I interview Sherry Bockwinkel. She and the ACLU have already sued the state over this and won. The legislature did this once before and it was tossed as unconstitutional. They never learn.
The podcast will up Sunday afternoon. I am working on getting a new site up on a commercial host today.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 29, 2005 01:40 PMThe idea of taking away the initiative process won't go over well with most of the state...I can't imagine even libs will like the idea. The politicians are stepping too far out of line.
Posted by: megs on January 29, 2005 01:49 PMOur "representatives" do not want to listen to the people they represent. Just like some of the responses we received from our legislatures when we asked them to not certify CG and they responded that regardless of the will of the majority, they had to vote their conscious.
Posted by: Gil on January 29, 2005 02:00 PM"Senate Bill 5556 by Sen. Karen Fraser would require any initiative or referendum to include the complete language repealed to be listed. Are you ready for the ballot to take 3 pages for just one initiative?"
Question. Where do you see the requirement that it be listed on the ballot?
I've read the bill (http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5556.htm) and it's quite short. I don't see where it requires that the complete language repealed goes on the ballot, just that it has to be listed.
Insisting that the initiative include a copy of the language being deleted seems like a pretty good idea to me. Before I sign a petition, I like to know what I'm signing. Often is is difficult to get the signature gatherer to give much more than the title of the petition. Sometimes they don't seem to know.
Since the titles (and sometimes even the descriptions) of the initiatives often seem to have little to do with the actual effect of the initiative, this seems pretty reasonable.
The act doesn't seem to require the entire language to be on the ballot, just that it be available to petition signers and in the voter pamphlet. Most honest petition drives include that anyway.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 29, 2005 02:16 PMBut the dirty little secret is that state supreme courts -led by Oregon's Supreme Court- are already in the process of effectively neutering the initiative process. Oregon is out front making caselaw, see, eg., Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 149 Or App 498, 943 P2d 634 (1997), and other states are using and citing Oregon's rulings as precedent. Nowadays in Oregon measures like I-695 and I-200 would be summarily struck down at the trial court then that ruling would be affirmed on appeal. Bing bang boom. Doesn't really matter how, why, or on what grounds or basis, they would manufacture a reason to strike them down. Their intellectual dishonesty has become exceeding transparent.
If Washington's Supreme Court is behind the curve in this regard, lucky for you. I suspect they will catch up soon.
Posted by: jay bird on January 29, 2005 02:17 PM5412 might fly now that Grid-locke Gary is gone. Since he isn't there to say I sure lets give them cheaper tabs then behind the lines add taxes, interstate transit fees, public transit increases etc. all in all making us pay the same if not more.
Posted by: Adriel on January 29, 2005 02:36 PMDems policy is the same as another former world leader.
"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."
-Adolf Hitler
Posted by: Adriel on January 29, 2005 02:41 PMIt says "An initiative or referendum that repeals a statute shall set forth the language being repealed in its entirety". Does that mean for the signature gathering or the voting? Everyone has to vote on it, so I think the intent is that every voter get the information - the ballot - but I'm not sure.
If we're requiring that the voter's pamphlet and the actual petition include the language being repealed, it seems like a pretty good idea. Otherwise you get the "Enjoy Time with Children act" with language that says "RCW 9.68A.001 through RCW 9.68A.911 is hereby repealed" and NAMBLA hopes that nobody actually looks up the law.
(Yes, that's a bit extreme, but you get my point.)
1) They allow the writers to say whatever they want without any consequences. For example "lower taxes!" without any responsibility for the effects of enacting such.
2) They inhibit the basic principles of a represenative (republic) democracy. As Michael Medved himself argues (he's a hero here, right?), the way to change things in government is to elect the right people.
Initiatives circumvent the whole concept of republic government.
Even many of my friends on the right think initiatives should be deald away with. They are no way to run a government. Imagine if we had it nationally...in 2000 an intitiave to unelect Bush (remember, he got significantly less popular vote than Gore) would have passed. Or perhaps a majority of Amercians would do away with Federal taxes. Or the Army.
It's just plain crazy. It was in there for protection of overzealous lawmakers...not for folks to stranglehold our government.
Kudos to lawmakers to take this stand in the fact of obvious criticism (Eyman must wonder where he'll steal money from if this passes)....
Posted by: jim on January 29, 2005 05:37 PMYou say, "The teachers went for pay increases by vote for an initiative. The initiative passed, but the ploy didn't work because they based it on a disappearing revenue source."
That's wrong. I-732 was based on no revenue source. (Perhaps you've confused it with I-728.) The inflation-indexed salary increases that I-732 requires are simply an obligation of the state general fund. The Legislature amended the statute in 2003 to suspend that requirement for two years, but it is an obligation of the state again in the next two years unless the statute is amended again. I-732 COLAs will cost state taxpayers an estimated $133 million in the biennium that begins July 1, 2005.
Note also that the increases accrue to all public school employees, including administrative and classified staff, and not just teachers.
Posted by: j.a. on January 29, 2005 05:59 PMIt's not always the Dems that have been critical of it. But it certainly leans strongly in that direction now that they're in pseudo control.
Ya know...these people really 'care'...it took a lot of effort to acquire this power, and they did steal it fair 'n square...
It's just not, well ya know, good form to attempt to take it back.
or something like that.
Posted by: scott158 on January 29, 2005 06:00 PMYou don't see the Initiative process in North Korea, China, etc.
Posted by: Norm on January 29, 2005 06:44 PMI think it would be good for you to edit your post to add the political affiliation of the people who are proposing these bills as it is clear that it is the Dems who want to limit our power.
8201: Jacobsen (D)
5556: Fraser (D)
5412: Prentice (D), Fairley (D), Fraser (D), Pridemore (D), Shin (D), Weinstein (D), Haugen (D)
1105: Appleton (D), Jarrett (R), Moeller (D), Sells (D), Fromhold (D), Conway (D), Grant (D), Hunt (D), Haigh (D), Pettigrew (D), Morris (D), Tom (R), Santos (D), Ormsby (D), Williams (D), Linville (D), Kilmer (D), Roberts (D), Cody (D), Flannigan (D), Wallace (D), Darneille (D), Kagi (D), Chase (D), Dickerson (D), Upthegrove (D)
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41300
Posted by: Norm on January 29, 2005 07:00 PMGreat ideas, but in this state, that is two initiatives. We don't want to get hit by that "single subject" clause in the initiative law again.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 29, 2005 07:49 PMScott in Carnation noted the party affiliation of sponsors for the various bills:
5412: Prentice (D), Fairley (D), Fraser (D), Pridemore (D), Shin (D), Weinstein (D), Haugen (D)
You mean to say that seven Democrats are sponsoring the bill that "requires initiatives modifying taxes be approved by a majority of the voters in the affected taxing district."
Oh, how evil! Actually requiring that an initiative modifying taxes be approved by the people that will be effected. How dare they! If my district wants to pay for parks or a library, King County won't be able to tell us not to!
And 5556: Fraser (D)
That evil Democrat insists that if NAMBLA wants to promote the "Enjoy Time with Children act" with language that says "RCW 9.68A.001 through RCW 9.68A.911 is hereby repealed" they have to tell us what they're repealing, instead of simply expecting that we carry a complete copy of the RCWs with us when we sign initiatives! What nerve!
I'll grant that 8201: Jacobsen (D) needs a reality check. Of course, the chance of that turkey getting out of committee is somewhere between slim and none. The only reason it would be passed would be to give Ms. Gregoire a very popular veto.
As to 1105: Appleton (D), Jarrett (R), Moeller (D), Sells (D), Fromhold (D), Conway (D), Grant (D), Hunt (D), Haigh (D), Pettigrew (D), Morris (D), Tom (R), Santos (D), Ormsby (D), Williams (D), Linville (D), Kilmer (D), Roberts (D), Cody (D), Flannigan (D), Wallace (D), Darneille (D), Kagi (D), Chase (D), Dickerson (D), Upthegrove (D)
Well, I may think this is a bad idea, but I notice that it has some bi-partisan support.
My point here is that some of these might just be good bills. I'm in favor of telling people what is in the petition they are signing. I'm also in favor of local control over taxation whenever possible. My neighbors and I can decide what we are willing (and not willing) to pay for without having someone in Seattle second-guess us.
Keeping a close watch on lawmakers is a good idea. Knee-jerk opposition to change is not.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 29, 2005 09:49 PMTwo Republicans amongst 26 sponsers is hardly bipartisan support.....
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 29, 2005 10:01 PMTwo Republicans amongst 26 sponsers is hardly bipartisan support.....
Ok, granted. Although with the current situation going on, I'm surprised that any Republican would sign onto any bill sponsored by a Democrat. These days, if a Democrat sponsored legislation putting the entire Republican platform into law, most of the Republicans would oppose it.
Legislation requiring that we be told what we are repealing seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Legislation requiring that local people get to decide what services we are willing to pay for also seems like a pretty good idea.
I thought that honesty in laws and local control of taxation were Republican concepts. Of course, I thought that fiscal responsibility and a balanced federal budget were Republican concepts, too.
Over here, we have people holding the idea of voter initiative sacrosanct, and complaining about the idea that they might have any restrictions or requirements.
Now, I understand that in the Republican party, there are people with differing views on certain topics, much as there are differing views within my party.
Still, it is an interesting observation.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 30, 2005 03:31 PMTake I-695. Congratulations. Ill informed voters did away with the scary "car tax". As a result now, our public infrastructure is underfunded, and headed for disaster. No other source of funding has been identified to fix the problem (like a gas tax). Rural voters screwed themselves out of all the car tax revenue flowing to them from King County, and have had to cut back road maintenance, and lay off county workers.
Right-wingers forgot one important thing. Unlike the fiscally irresponsible Republicans in Federal government, we don't have the option of swiping the credit card of national debt to pay for needed services. Unlike the national GOP, we can't increase services AND cut taxes by miraculous math. If services like roads and transportation are required in this state...we HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.
To all the morons claiming that state government didn't need the money from 695, please explain HOW to pay for needed maintenance?
The Seattle times had an interesting exercise last year. They invited readers to "balance the budget". Of the thousands of submissions, nobody was able to do it, without massively cutting services.
So. Why does everyone miss the obvious way to pay for transportation? A gas tax. Obviously, the right-wingers have no problems with higher gas prices (as long as its Exxon and Haliburton screwing us). God forbid GOVERNMENT asks those who use the roads most to pay for them. A gas tax is the FAIREST form of transportation tax. The more you drive, the more you pay. The more impact your vehicle has on roads, traffic, and pollution, the more you pay. Simple.
Posted by: M on January 31, 2005 10:02 PM