One state tree is enough

A state Senate committee has approved a bill designating the Garry Oak tree as Washington’s official state oak tree.

Why a state oak tree? We already have a state tree (the Western hemlock). So, this is a designation that a Southwest Washington legislator has proposed for the Garry oak, which according to the bill is the state’s only native oak and is now endangered by development.

The designation of the orca as the state marine mammal and the Walla Walla sweet onion as the state vegetable both came from students, who wrote the bills and testified before legislative committees, but no one testified for the Garry oak.

If we designate a state oak tree, would that make the Western hemlock the state hemlock tree? Then, imagine a battle over a state pine tree between Spokane-area partisans of the Ponderosa pine and Western Washington advocates of the white pine. For a state fir tree, I would back the Alpine fir, which makes a nice Christmas tree, over the Douglas fir, which already belongs to Oregon. Then, we could adopt a state alder, a state birch and a state cedar.

Stop. It’s time for a constitutional amendment that would limit the number of state symbols to 18, so we could add nothing new without deleting something from the list, and another limiting the number of state trees to one conifer tree and one deciduous tree.

Proposal to ban booing at sports events creates a state joke

My East Coast correspondent sent this note 10 days ago: “My local news and my favorite show on ESPN were both taking shots at Washington state tonight over the proposed legislation to ban booing at high school games.”

Of course, it’s not legislation, just a proposed rule of the state’s governing body for school sports.

We like to think that we’re nice, here, but the way to spread sportsmanship is by being models of good behavior, not by making rules.

What changes for Washington initiatives and referenda?

The Legislature has considered several restrictions on the state’s rules for filing initiatives and referenda for the ballot. Most take aim at the way initiative sponsors gather signatures.

I don’t see any evidence that a ban on paying signature-gatherers by number of signatures would reduce fraud, but I do support one change. That’s the proposal to raise the fee for filing initiatives. The fee has been $5 since initiatives and referenda became part of the political system in 1912. Adjusted for inflation, that’s worth almost the $100 proposed in the legislation.

The higher fee might reduce the number of duplicate initiatives filed every year. 

Evan Smith is the Enterprise Forum editor. Send comments to entopinion@heraldnet.com.