Red light camera initiatives struck down again

BY Chris Sullivan  on February 26, 2013 @ 8:20 am (Updated: 10:33 am - 2/26/13 )

traffic-camera.jpg
Another Washington court has ruled in favor of red light cameras and a city's ability to use them. (AP Photo/file) | Zoom
Another Washington court has ruled in favor of red light cameras and a city's ability to use them.

The state court of appeals ruled on Monday that citizen's advisory initiatives, those that aren't binding, cannot be used to get rid of red light cameras.

This comes from a case in Monroe where a citizen's group tried to voice their displeasure over the city's red light cameras.

The city sued to prevent the advisory vote citing state law that red light cameras are not subject to local initiatives.

The court of appeals ruled the power to legislate the use of these cameras is given exclusively to the governing body of a city and not the electorate.

It supports a State Supreme Court ruling last year involving the red light cameras in Mukilteo. In that case, voters tried a binding initiative to remove the cameras. The high court cited the same state law, and the case was tossed out.

Activist Tim Eyman had his hands in both cases, and he calls the decisions "frightening."

"For the first time in our state's history, the courts have now made it illegal for the citizens of the state of Washington to even express an opinion on certain topics," he said.

Activist Tim Eyman has put an initiative on the November ballot that would allow these initiatives to continue.

Chris Sullivan, KIRO Radio Reporter
Chris loves the rush of covering breaking news and works hard to try to make sense of it all while telling stories about real people in extraordinary circumstances.
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (9)


  • Add A Comment

  • Cougsfan34 wrote...
    Why am I not suprised..
    February 26, 2013 11:30 am
    I am not surprised, Washington has been getting worse and worse over the last few years. This kinda of crap has got to be stopped. Besides wasn't King County going to stop dealing with companies in Arizona because of the whole immigration legal battle. The company that administers the Red Light Cameras is based in Arizona.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    GOOD!
    February 26, 2013 11:49 am
    The opponents don't like the cameras only because they HATE GETTING CAUGHT. If you don't speed through RED LIGHTS, you DON'T have any problems! The argument that they are used to spy on people is RIDICULOUS. There is no right of privacy when you are in PUBLIC PLACES!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    tlmbrt
    February 26, 2013 4:22 pm
    Such a good lapdog you are. The problem people have with the cameras isn't AT ALL what you say.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Get your facts straight before you post
    February 26, 2013 4:25 pm
    I've never been cited by a camera, I have contempt for reckless and unsafe drivers and I'm totally against the cameras. So you're just flat out wrong.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    Maybe
    February 26, 2013 11:56 am
    cities ARE using them to raise money. Because they KNOW some people will still run red lights. It's similar to charging taxes for cigarettes and alcohol (and now marijuana), because they know people will keep buying those products. However, unlike those you have a CHOICE. You can still DRIVE and not have to pay if you don't run red lights!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chrisfrommv wrote...
    tlmbrt
    February 27, 2013 12:05 am
    does it matter the peoples motivation for not wanting them? If the electorate votes and tells the city that they don't want it, then does the city have the power to over-ride their constituants? That was the question asked to the court. This court ruling basically said that the city has authority over it's people and not the other way around! That is disturbing... This country was based on the ideals that the people have the power. However, keep in mind, we do vote these people into power on the local level. This is a small example (although the precedent of this is can be HUGE, I would have to read the court opinion to make a further comment on how big a footprint this makes) of little by little we are loosing our freedom and control. enough small examples and you will wake to realize over the years we have gone a long way... not in a good way.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • YouLoseIWin wrote...
    Let the people vote on them!
    February 26, 2013 1:19 pm
    This is ridiculous. There is so much time and money spent on these cameras by so many people. We should just have a simple vote on them, if the majority says get rid of them then lets get rid of them! While we are voting on that lets vote out congress too:)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • USMC0311 wrote...
    Just add mud
    February 26, 2013 3:01 pm
    Just put a little mud on your plates. Just enough to distort a couple digits on your license plate and you'll be fine.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    As long as
    February 26, 2013 3:09 pm
    they don't outlaw tarring and feathering I'm ok with it. If the city officials want to go against the popular will of the people they better learn to like feathers
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }