State initiative advocate Tim Eyman is at it again—this time with a petition that addresses the petitioning process itself.
I-517, titled the Protect the Initiative Act, lengthens the amount of time signatures can be gathered from six to 12 months. It also broadens the legal definition of disorderly conduct to include interference or retaliation against a signature-gatherer and requires that all valid initiatives appear on the ballot.
This section may not be construed in any way to impede the right to legal review of the sufficiency of valid voter signatures or post-election legal review; however, under no circumstances may an initiative be prohibited from submission to the people for a vote if sufficient valid voter signatures are submitted.
A PDF of the complete initiative is attached to this post.
Do you support I-517? Tell us in the comments section.
Eyman submitted about 345,000 signatures for I-517 to the secretary of state's office on Thursday, according to KING 5. A total of 241,153 valid signatures must be submitted for a measure to qualify for the ballot.
Eyman sued the City of Redmond last year when officials failed to hand over signatures collected against the city's red-light camera program. A King County judge later tossed out the lawsuit, citing a previous legal ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals that had determined red-light cameras are not valid matters for initiative.
Eyman is continuing to fight the King County ruling through the Washington Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that voters don't have the right to repeal red-light programs, and the City of Redmond has removed its four cameras.
In a statement he emailed to local news media, Eyman specifically linked I-517 to his legal struggles with red-light camera initiatives in Mukilteo, Monroe, Bellingham, Wenatchee, Longview and Redmond.
"In every one of those campaigns, no money was raised or spent for their signature drives," Eyman said. "But once our initiatives were filed and/or qualified for the ballot, we were forced to 'lawyer up' because each initiative faced costly lawsuits seeking to prevent the people from voting."
There will be a serious need for concerned citizen efforts, like those of Tim Eyman.
A better initiative would be one that makes it illegal to use paid signature gatherers. We need additional separate initiatives that would: 1) Ban all political advertising 2) Make all campaign contributions illegal 3) Provide for public broadcasting of political debates. There would be no more campaign mailers, elected officials would have more time to legislate since they would not be spending their time dialing for campaign dollars and interested citizens could tune in to the debates to hear about actual issues instead of hearing campaign slogans. It would not be perfect, but it would be an improvement over the current year round campaigning we have now.
Bottom line - Tim is the result of single party rule in this state that has overstayed it's expiration date. He is using the law of the land to fill an unmet need. Don't shoot the messenger is what they say. Just examine the multiple super majority for tax hikes votes; yet the legislature fails to address the root issue and plays games around the edges of the law. Start voting against the incumbent. That is likely the best choice.
Wendy - I'd love to know how you expect someone to campaign for office if they cannot actually contact voters in the context of the campaign other than some 'public broadcast' (ooh let me set my TIVO). Also, do we really need to give them more time to 'legislate'? I do not think time is their constraint.
I appreciate the lower taxes and I am not rich. So please tell me...
Seems like the powers that be are extra interested in busting these laws.
In the 1950's corporations paid a significant amount of tax. Companies could reduce the amount of tax they paid by reinvesting in the company. My Dad was an engineer at Honeywell back in the '50's and with a couple buddies started Minco Products. In those days the focus was on long term health of the corporation. A lot was spent on R & D, which reduced the tax burden but also went in to making the company more competitive. Today it is on next quarter profits to keep the investors happy and to hell with worrying about the future. Corporations would do better if they stopped paying for golden parachutes, paid taxes and invested in their employees and R & D. And what about capital gains? Why should people who produce no product or service but make money from money not pay taxes on their income? Why should middle class Americans who produce goods and services be the ones to pay for everything?
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures ...” Harry Truman Fortunately, Washington hasn’t gone down that road yet, although it seems some local politicians find voter participation in anything other than electing them an inconvenient nuisance.