New assault on the initiative process.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

In a new assault on the initiative process the state senate appears to have approved a bill that would require future initiatives to have a certain percentage of signatures from each part of the state to ensure that "they broadly represent the opinions of the people of the state" as if the requirement to get a majority vote to be passed didn't already do that. Basically, this is an attempt to make the initiative process more difficult, to keep the peasants from playing with the tools of government that the politicians want reserved for themselves. Time to call your state senator and representative and tell them to leave the right to bring up initiatives alone.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000

Answers

Actually, it's an attempt to keep people in the more urban areas (read liberal Seattle) from getting an initiative on the ballot and then getting it passed over the objections of the rest of the state. There have been several initiatives in the past in which signatures weren't even gathered outside the Puget Sound region, yet they still easily qualified.

The sponsor of the Joint Resolution (SJR 8205 by the way)is from Hoquiam (Olympic Penninsula), and of the 12 Senator who voted against it, 9 are from King County.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 15, 2000.


doesn't matter what the intent is, the effect is to make it harder to get past the politicians.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.

Patrick..believe it or not..Seattle doesn't have more votes than the rest of the state. However with your head for figures you might believe it does.

This is a PURE move to elimiante the PUBLIC from a voice in the government.

And in answer to your next quip. NO they do NOT represent ME!! The represent ONLY the POWER elite!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.


Just another scheme by tireless politicians to manipulate election results to their liking, similar to the electoral vote process used in national elections. It allows politicians to fix the race from the onset, then point to the results as somehow being a product of the democratic process. Politicians are opposed to the initiative process because it conflicts with their systematic implementation of corruption in government. Returning the stolen power to the people is not a political priority. When you read legislative phrases such as "to ensure that they broadly represent the opinions of the people of the state", prepare to have your few remaining rights annihilated.

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.

No maddjak, Seattle doesn't. Where did I say that they do? Of course King County does contain roughly one third of the state's registered voters, 1,001,339 out of 3,099,553, which means that it would be fairly easy to collect the 179,248 required signatures to get something on the ballot without leaving the county. And one only need to look at the Seahawk vote to see how the Puget Sound region can drag the rest of the state into something it doesn't want to do.

I'm not exactly fond of this idea myself. I rather like living in the area that can be considered the 700 lb gorilla of the state. But the idea that this is some sort of an attempt to take away some of the power of the people is a little bit of a stretch. It's quite possible that Senator Hargrove voted for I-695, and again, some of the most liberal Senators voted AGAINST the resolution. I'm just pointing out to those who hold a grudge against the Puget Sound region that this would probably be fairly appealing to them.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 15, 2000.



Patrick-

You are trying to make this into a Puget Sound versus the rest of the state, or liberal versus conservative, type-issue. I'm a populist. I've seen our politicians at close range for several decades, and they not only aren't any smarter/better/nobler/self-sacrificing/etc. than the average, they are oftentimes much less so. I don't necessarily blame them, it's a corrupting system. I just want to preserve the initiative process as an escape valve for when their conduct get's TOO unreasonable, because I believe the likely alternatives are worse.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.


How about an example of most of signatures coming from the westside... I-655, the cougar bill. The westside put it on the ballot and voted for it and "we" on the eastside live with the results. I am not saying the new proposal is good or bad, but I suspect they would have had more work to get I-655 on the ballot if they had to get signatures from around the state.. Just a thought

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), February 16, 2000.

The point is they are trying to make it harder to get an initiative on the ballot. Eastside/westside debates are misleading. There is alot of rural Washington west of Seattle. I welcome the initiative process as a check and balance procedure. I could care less where an initiative gets it's signatures. If it gets on the ballot, my vote counts just as much as someone from Seattle's vote does.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

As the readers of this forum may suspect, I'm about as rock-ribbed a conservative as they come, having a sneaking suspicion that Atilla the Hun was really a little bit left of center. However, the more I think about the proposal to limit each geographical region to a certain percentage of an initiative's support. the more it seems like it might be a pretty good idea.

Look at it this way. An initiative that would have a huge base of support in the Seattle/Bellevue would almost certainly be very liberal in content. For instance, any initiative to ban firearms could probably, under the present system, gain sufficient signatures in that area alone to pass, while it wouldn't have a chance if the proposal on geographical restrictions on signatures were in effect. It may be that this is a balancing act regarding initiatives. On the one hand, there are a lot of people in this area that are available for signing petitions on either side of the ideological fence. On the other, this would tend to protect us from the ultra-liberal ideas that are the most likely to receive hugh support in the Seattle/Bellevue area.

Does this make sense to anybody. I'm still open on the issue, but to me at least it does seem to have strong attractions.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), February 16, 2000.


"For instance, any initiative to ban firearms could probably, under the present system, gain sufficient signatures in that area alone to pass, while it wouldn't have a chance if the proposal on geographical restrictions on signatures were in effect. " We had a proposition to do much less than ban firearms recently and it was pretty thoroughly drubbed at the polls.

I don't see near as much mischief likely to come out of initiatives as I do out of the legislature, where there are more opportunities to buy people's votes on issues. But I'm only reasonably a conservative, with strong populist leanings. I like initiatives because they keep the politicians and bureaucrats a little more honest. That's why the initiative exists. I look upon the initiative process also as a safety valve to give people a chance to constructively vent strong political opinions. A much better vehicle than taking to the barricades, duking it out with the police, National Guard, etc.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 16, 2000.



Seem to recall it passed in the Seattle area. Anybody remember for sure?

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

Albert- I believe that was initiative 676 (handgun safety), and if so it lost narrowly in King County:

King Yes 227,147 No 297,454

In the state as a whole, it went down over two to one.

The Secretary of State keeps (relatively) recent election results on his website. This comes from http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/gen97.htm

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 16, 2000.


Craig:

Just an observation. You said 676 lost narrowly in King County. If the numbers you gave are correct, it lost with 56.7% No. I guess you will not object if I state that 695 was approved narrowly statewide.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), February 17, 2000.


d-

"Just an observation. You said 676 lost narrowly in King County. If the numbers you gave are correct, it lost with 56.7% No. I guess you will not object if I state that 695 was approved narrowly statewide. " Narrow relative to it's 72% no vote in the state as a whole. I didn't run the numbers for the state minus King County, but I would guess that they were 75-80% no in the rest of the state to offset the "narrow" loss in the most populous county.

It's all relative, I guess. But I'll chalk up one "gotcha" in your column for the comment ;-)

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ