Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Voters should be presumed to know what they're doing
Secretary of State Sam Reed should honor the wishes of the 300,000 people who petitioned to place Initiative 1029 before the Legislature next year. Instead, with the likely approval of the state attorney general, he appears ready to follow the lead of the Services Employees International Union and put it on the ballot this fall.
SEIU 775, chief backer of the initiative that seeks to boost training levels for home-care workers, wants Reed to overlook what they say is a mistake in the petitions. Although they want to have the measure treated as an initiative to the people, the petitions present it as an initiative to the Legislature.
Maybe it's a mistake by the politically sophisticated labor union. Or maybe it is, as Deborah Murphy calls it, "a blatant bait and switch" designed to mislead the voters. Murphy, spokesperson for the Community Care Coalition of Washington, which opposes I-1029, is the CEO of Aging Services of Washington. She calls the state's decision to accept the petitions a "gift to the SEIU."
It sure looks like one. In the plain language at the top of each signature sheet is this: "We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the State of Washington respectfully direct that this petition and the proposed measure known as Initiative Measure No. 1029 … be transmitted to the legislature … at its next ensuing regular session …"
The distinction is important. Initiatives to the Legislature are less risky. Voters understand this. Lawmakers have three options: enact the measure, propose an alternative and let voters decide, or reject (or ignore) the initiative, automatically sending it to the ballot the following November.
Representing CCCW, attorneys Kathleen Benedict and Narda Pierce wrote Reed July 2, saying, "To ignore these basic and constitutional differences in the two forms of initiative would underrate the voters … and their understanding of the options …This precedent would allow an initiative sponsor to create ambiguities about which of the two initiative processes were involved, and decide at a later date whether to argue the initiative was intended to be an initiative to the legislature or an initiative to the people."
The SEIU appears to be OK with that. Reed should not be, even though the attorney general gave him the green light Monday.
There's no need for Clintonesque parsing or to wonder what the "meaning of 'is' is." No magic words or hidden codes can change "transmitted to the legislature" to "submitted to the voters."
Reed's spokesman, Dave Ammons, told me last week that the office would prefer to "err on the side of the 300,000 people who signed the petitions." Not an unusual position for the secretary of state to take with respect to citizen initiatives.
But he misses the point: To place the initiative on the November ballot, Reed must contend that those 300,000 folks did not know what they were signing. I'll concede that voters sometimes sign petitions without adequate information. But the state's chief election officer is an unlikely proponent of the Theory of Benign Voter Ignorance.
Murphy says, sensibly, "We believe the voters knew what they were signing." To take any other position asks Reed to read minds. She finds the state's decision "baffling."
Initiative activist Tim Eyman understands the system better than most. He doubts state officials would show him the same courtesy they are showing SEIU.
Eyman says, "I see a clear double standard."
I don't. None of Eyman's initiatives has been tossed before the voters had their say. Then again, never has he submitted a petition with such a profoundly bogus assertion about its intent.
Taking what he calls "a middle of the road" position, Eyman says the secretary of state should do what the petitions require: submit the initiative to the Legislature. No need to invalidate the signatures and disqualify the initiative. Makes sense to me.
CCCW voted Monday to sue to set aside Reed's decision to place the measure on the ballot. Good for them. If the court adheres to the high standards it has set for initiatives in recent years, we won't see I-1029 on the fall ballot. And the expressed intent of the petitioners will have been honored.
It's an easy call.
Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His email address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.
SEIU 775, chief backer of the initiative that seeks to boost training levels for home-care workers, wants Reed to overlook what they say is a mistake in the petitions. Although they want to have the measure treated as an initiative to the people, the petitions present it as an initiative to the Legislature.
Maybe it's a mistake by the politically sophisticated labor union. Or maybe it is, as Deborah Murphy calls it, "a blatant bait and switch" designed to mislead the voters. Murphy, spokesperson for the Community Care Coalition of Washington, which opposes I-1029, is the CEO of Aging Services of Washington. She calls the state's decision to accept the petitions a "gift to the SEIU."
It sure looks like one. In the plain language at the top of each signature sheet is this: "We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the State of Washington respectfully direct that this petition and the proposed measure known as Initiative Measure No. 1029 … be transmitted to the legislature … at its next ensuing regular session …"
The distinction is important. Initiatives to the Legislature are less risky. Voters understand this. Lawmakers have three options: enact the measure, propose an alternative and let voters decide, or reject (or ignore) the initiative, automatically sending it to the ballot the following November.
Representing CCCW, attorneys Kathleen Benedict and Narda Pierce wrote Reed July 2, saying, "To ignore these basic and constitutional differences in the two forms of initiative would underrate the voters … and their understanding of the options …This precedent would allow an initiative sponsor to create ambiguities about which of the two initiative processes were involved, and decide at a later date whether to argue the initiative was intended to be an initiative to the legislature or an initiative to the people."
The SEIU appears to be OK with that. Reed should not be, even though the attorney general gave him the green light Monday.
There's no need for Clintonesque parsing or to wonder what the "meaning of 'is' is." No magic words or hidden codes can change "transmitted to the legislature" to "submitted to the voters."
Reed's spokesman, Dave Ammons, told me last week that the office would prefer to "err on the side of the 300,000 people who signed the petitions." Not an unusual position for the secretary of state to take with respect to citizen initiatives.
But he misses the point: To place the initiative on the November ballot, Reed must contend that those 300,000 folks did not know what they were signing. I'll concede that voters sometimes sign petitions without adequate information. But the state's chief election officer is an unlikely proponent of the Theory of Benign Voter Ignorance.
Murphy says, sensibly, "We believe the voters knew what they were signing." To take any other position asks Reed to read minds. She finds the state's decision "baffling."
Initiative activist Tim Eyman understands the system better than most. He doubts state officials would show him the same courtesy they are showing SEIU.
Eyman says, "I see a clear double standard."
I don't. None of Eyman's initiatives has been tossed before the voters had their say. Then again, never has he submitted a petition with such a profoundly bogus assertion about its intent.
Taking what he calls "a middle of the road" position, Eyman says the secretary of state should do what the petitions require: submit the initiative to the Legislature. No need to invalidate the signatures and disqualify the initiative. Makes sense to me.
CCCW voted Monday to sue to set aside Reed's decision to place the measure on the ballot. Good for them. If the court adheres to the high standards it has set for initiatives in recent years, we won't see I-1029 on the fall ballot. And the expressed intent of the petitioners will have been honored.
It's an easy call.
Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His email address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.
Comments
(