The Seattle Times
THE 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made a good ruling in Family PAC v. McKenna, a case on Washington’s law of initiative and referendum. The ruling keeps our state’s strong rules for public disclosure of campaign finances.
The rule at issue is that anyone giving more than $25 to support or oppose a ballot measure must disclose his name and address, and if giving more than $100, occupation and employer.
Two unions have filed a lawsuit in King County attempting to stop implementation of Initiative 1183, which voters approved in November and which would kick the state out of the liquor business. The unions represent nearly 1,000 workers expected to lose their jobs because of I-1183. The lawsuit claims the measure violates the single-subject rule, which requires that an initiative address just one issue.
Readers sent questions Wednesday about a Costco-backed voter initiative on the November ballot that would privatize the state’s liquor business. Here’s an edited version of our question-and-answer session on Initiative 1183.
A group from Mukilteo asked the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule on the validity of a public vote on red-light traffic cameras. It’s a case that could have broad implications as red-light-camera opponents push ballot measures in several Washington cities. Camera foes, including frequent initiative sponsor Tim Eyman, collected signatures last year seeking to repeal a Mukilteo ordinance allowing the cameras and require a public vote before the city could use them. The measure passed with 71 percent.
A coalition of retailers and restaurants, including Costco, filed an initiative Friday that would privatize the distribution and sale of liquor in Washington. Last November, voters rejected I-1100, which was financed largely by Costco Wholesale, with 53 percent of the vote. The measure would have allowed grocery stores and other retailers to sell liquor. Costco also unsuccessfully pushed a privatization proposal in the Legislature this year.
Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes filed suit Tuesday to prevent an anti-tunnel referendum, saying he wants to save citizens the expense and grief of what he considers a futile election. The motion, filed in King County Superior Court, basically asks a judge to decide whether City Council agreements for the planned Highway 99 tunnel are subject to a public vote.
With fewer than 250 signatures left to review, anti-tunnel Initiative 101 doesn’t have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The initiative, which seeks to prohibit the the state’s use of city rights-of-way for construction of a Highway 99 tunnel, needs 20,629 verified signatures to be sent to voters. As of Tuesday, 19,128 had been verified, while 8,641 had been challenged, said Kim van Ekstrom, spokeswoman for King County Elections office, which certifies the signatures.
State Sen. Sharon Nelson, D-West Seattle, is sponsoring a bill this session that would place new requirements on the ballot-initiative process aimed at reducing the chances of fraud in paid signature-gathering.
Homebuilder Rob Carlisle is carefully managing costs for materials and labor these days to keep his small Seattle company profitable, but he’s frustrated by what he pays for workers’ compensation insurance. “My rate increases have been pretty ridiculous, and we’re a pretty safe company,” Carlisle said. “If it was privatized and private companies were allowed to come in and compete, I feel I could get the same coverage for my employees for less.”
Washington voters face two initiatives on the general election ballot that would end the state monopoly on hard liquor sales. Initiative 1100 also would eliminate price controls and other regulations, some of which have been in place since the 1930s. Retailers now selling beer and wine could add hard liquor. They also would be able to buy beer and wine directly from manufacturers.
Signature gatherers for anti-tunnel Initiative 101 are becoming more conspicuous, in their red shirts at grocery stores and farmers markets. Organizer Elizabeth Campbell says 5,000 people have signed. What voters might not realize is that even if the measure attracts the required 20,629 valid signatures, it likely wouldn’t appear on the Seattle ballot until May — months after the state Department of Transportation is to sign a construction deal in January for at least $1.1 billion, to build a four-lane Highway 99 tunnel from Sodo to South Lake Union.
Secretary of State Sam Reed has certified one of two liquor privatization measures to the ballot.Initiative 1100 was certified Monday. Supporters turned in more than 390,000 voter signatures, well above the 241,000 required. A random check of signatures was completed Friday.
A voter initiative seeking to end the state monopoly on workers’ compensation could be headed for the November ballot. Sponsors of Initiative 1082 have turned in their signed petitions with state elections officials. The campaign says it has about 340,000 signatures. That’s well above the roughly 241,000 required get on the ballot. I-1082 is sponsored by the Building Industry Association of Washington, a construction trade group that’s very active in conservative politics.
A campaign seeking to end the state’s monopoly on hard liquor is one step closer to the ballot. Initiative 1100 supporters say they turned in petitions with more than 390,000 signatures on Wednesday. The state requires about 241,000 valid voter signatures to make it on the November ballot. I-1100 would allow stores that sell beer and wine to also sell hard liquor. It also would eliminate state price controls and allow volume discounts. In addition, retailers could buy liquor directly from manufacturers. Costco has been a major supporter.
The names and addresses of those who sign ballot-measure petitions, such as Referendum 71, can be made public, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a decision that upholds the constitutionality of Washington state’s Public Records Act. But that doesn’t mean copies of the Ref. 71 petitions will be immediately available. A lower court will now take up the question of whether those petitions can be disclosed at all, since those who want to keep petition signers’ names secret plan to pursue an exemption from disclosure in their case only.