‘Initiative on initiatives’ trails in early results
Nov 5, 2013, 3:58 PM | Updated: Nov 6, 2013, 6:09 am
An “initiative on initiatives” that would make it easier to get measures on the ballot trailed in early returns as counties across Washington state started tallying ballots.
About 60 percent of voters were rejecting Initiative 517 Tuesday night, but because of the state’s vote-by-mail system, many more ballots are left to count.
Initiative 517 would require that voters be allowed to have their say on any proposal that qualifies for the ballot, even if a lawsuit has been filed against it. The initiative also would give supporters a year, instead of the current six months, to collect signatures, and it would make it a misdemeanor to interfere with the signature-gathering process.
Backers of I-517 say the extra time is needed to encourage grassroots politics and to collect the increasing number of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. Initiative critic Holly Chisa questioned that.
“With initiative, after initiative, after initiative qualifying for the ballot over the years, there doesn’t seem to be a difficulty in getting an initiative on the ballot or for signature gatherers to have an opportunity to gather those signatures.”
Initiative 517 would also criminalize the act of interfering with signature gatherers and includes a list of prohibited behavior, such as stalking, striking, shoving, spitting, blocking or intimidating signature gatherers. Chisa considers the proposed protections too broad and unnecessary.
Initiative promoter Tim Eyman filed I-517 last year just weeks after the state high court ruled that city laws allowing for red light traffic cameras are not subject to repeal by voters.
A state Supreme Court ruling in 1981 found that initiative backers have a constitutional right to gather signatures at a large regional shopping mall. A 2007 attorney general opinion notes a Court of Appeals ruling stating that right is tempered by the property’s owner’s ability to place “reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the activity.”
The attorney general’s office has not stated whether I-517 would override time, place, or manner restrictions, or whether that would violate the constitutional rights of property owners, but initiative supporters have argued nothing in the proposal takes rights from business owners.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
