Another sponsor of HB 1087, which would cripple citizen initiatives by prohibiting per-signature compensation for qualifying petitions, replied to my request for evidence that such compensation promotes fraud. Fred Jarrett (R-41):
I signed on because I believe there is a need for a better discussion of how we do initiatives, beyond the polarized debates we've had in past years.Legislators oppose initiatives on the grounds that the issues are too complicated for citizens to vote on. Yet here we have a legislator who sponsors a bill without any evidence to back up its stated purpose. This suggests to me we need more regulation by citizens of bills proposed through the legislature, not the other way around. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 23, 2007 10:13 AM | Email ThisI have no direct evidence, that will come through the legislative process or not, but I do have a concern about the incentives. I don't think the incentive should be a piece rate.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1396.pdf
That bill would lump the RTID vote and the ST2 vote into a single ballot measure next November. You would not be able to vote for the road taxes and expenditures without also voting for Sound Transit train extension taxes and spending. That is classic logrolling (the reason I-695 was ruled unconstitutional).
What HB 1396 then does, is impose a deadline of a few days to challenge that logrolling on the grounds that it violates the "single subject" rule. Plus, it removes other protections for citizens that ordinarily are allowed when constitutional rights are the basis of a citizen suit. Jarrett is a flaming statist, who doesn't give a rip about the rights of citizens. HB 1396 is his way of trying to cram RTID's and ST's neverending taxes for who-knows-what-group of projects down our throats.
This is an abject lesson to us all of how statist Republican legislators in Olympia are.
#2 - the all-or-nothing aspect of the RTID including ST2 is politics at its worst, and the reason I will NEVER vote for it.
Posted by: Palouse on January 23, 2007 10:32 AMWe need new GOP leadership now. We could win easily in 2008.
Posted by: AP on January 23, 2007 10:57 AMThankfully, the writers of the state constitution were a hell of a lot smarter and respected the voters more than the bung holes populating Olympia now.
This bill to stop con artist like Tim Eyman who claim they're helping out the public but in the end just embezzles the money from special interests to line his own pockets.
Not only do you get real initiatives, you also get rid of the people who abuse the system.
Posted by: Cato on January 23, 2007 12:16 PMThere's not really much difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore. There are politicians, and then there are the rest of us citizens. It's us against them, and they know it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 23, 2007 01:06 PMIf people felt passionate about Tribal Gabling or Road Construction they would gladly volunteer to gather the signatures. Clearly this is not the case, so people have to get paid by the signature to push these special interest initiatives. No money to be paid, no special interest ballot measures.
I will put my trust in the voters in most cases over the legislature. There's FAR more special interest money going towards candidates in state government that produce quid pro quo legislation than there will EVER be by paid signature gatherers.
Posted by: Palouse on January 23, 2007 01:41 PMThe voters were happy to sign and pass initiatives that were hung on prop up poster boards around the city (Seattle Initiative 91). The voters can do this with statewide initiatives as well. There is no reason to pay someone to collect signatures. If the initiative is worthy of consideration people will happily volunteer and get it signed for free.
By allowing paid signature you allow special interests to dominate the process with initiatives like I-933 which was funded by some rich libertarian guy living in an NYC penthouse. It's not the will of the people, it's the will of whomever has the most money to spend while abusing the initiative system.
Initiative 900 requiring performance audits of state and local governments passed overwhelmingly -- so the voters really liked it and really supported it. BUT we had a heck of a time getting volunteers to gather signatures, not because they didn't support the initiative, but because it broadly benefited everyone. So for I-900, we supplemented our volunteers with people that were compensated to gather signatures. The response was huge: voters stood in line to sign I-900 petitions.
It's the ideas, the policies, the principles in the initiative that matter, not whether the people gathering signatures are compensated or not compensated.
Initiative 695 didn't compensate anyone to gather signatures -- did you support I-695? Of course not, you're a whacko lefty. You opposed I-695 because it allowed taxpayers to keep more of their own money.
Be real, you don't give a rip whether our initiative campaigns compensate or don't compensate our signature gatherers -- it's the taxpayer protection policies in our initiatives that you oppose.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on January 23, 2007 03:24 PMFace it... what's got you pissed is that YOU don't "like" Eyman's initiatives. Because if you did, you'd be fully supportive of the initiative process... but then, you ARE a member of the political spectrum that really has no interest in what the people want... so, maybe you would.
Posted by: Hinton on January 23, 2007 05:02 PM''By allowing paid signature you allow special interests to dominate the process with initiatives like I-933 which was funded by some rich libertarian guy living in an NYC penthouse.''
As an active member of the Washington Farm Bureau and Legislative Committee Chair for the Okanogan County Farm Bureau:
I helped (in a small way) to write I-933.
I worked hard to get it passed, for no pay.
I contributed several 100 dollars to the effort.
I sent in multiple signature sheets.
EVERY local County Farm Bureau in WA supported I-933, and I can tell you that the above by Cato is essentially the same lie that the radical left-wing big-government socialists and their minions used during the campaign to defeat it.
Check the WA-PDC: While out-of-State Americans for Limited Government did contribute $360K to YES on I-933, that was only 30 percent of the total $1.2 million that supporters raised. Note that I-933 opponents got significantly MORE out-of-State money than we did.
The bottom line: I-933 opponents used scare tactics, misleading information, and flat-out lies to raise $3.8 million to fight I-933. They out-spent us by better than 3:1. Money is still the mother's milk of politics, and we were overwhelmed by that spending. And even so, if you leave out the vote totals from ''greater Seattle'', the rest of the state was a lot closer. If only we could get a political divorce.
Posted by: Methow Ken on January 23, 2007 08:26 PM"The State has failed to sustain its burden of justifying the statutory prohibition. The argument that justification is found in the State's interest in assuring that an initiative has sufficient grass roots support to be placed on the ballot is not persuasive, since that interest is adequately protected by the requirement that the specified number of signatures be obtained. Nor does the State's claimed interest in protecting the integrity of the initiative process justify the prohibition, because the State has failed to demonstrate the necessity of burdening appellees' ability to communicate in order to meet its concerns. It cannot be assumed that a professional circulator - whose qualifications for similar future assignments may well depend on a reputation for competence and integrity - is any more likely to accept false signatures than a volunteer motivated entirely by an interest in having the proposition placed on the ballot. Moreover, other statutory provisions dealing expressly with the potential danger of false signatures are adequate to minimize the risk of improper circulation conduct."
So the Supreme Court doesn't found the "sufficient grass roots support" argument to be non persuasive since they still need the regulatory number of signatures.
What this will do is probably INCREASE fraud (if Oregon is an indicator) AND make it harder for grass roots movements to get on the ballot while ONLY allowing those "special interests" with enough money to pay hourly rates to get on the ballot.
All of your arguments and the legislators' arguments have been addressed by the Supreme Court in Meyer...but they don't want to let a little thing like the Constitution get in their way.
Posted by: drw on January 24, 2007 06:58 PM