Plz read this — it’s about Initiative 517

Initiative Measure No. 517 concerns initiative and referendum measures.  This measure would set penalties for interfering with or retaliating against signature-gatherers and petition-signers; require that all measures receiving sufficient signatures appear on the ballot; and extend time for gathering initiative petition signatures.

         There’s lots of support for I-517:

Senator Ann Rivers: “All these citizens followed all the rules and qualified their initiatives but were nonetheless individually sued and had their measures blocked from a vote. Over and over again, voters were prevented from having their say.  Yet even with such compelling public testimony, very few of my colleagues supported my bill. The Legislature is never going to protect the initiative process.”

Senator Pam Roach: “Whether the initiative is liberal or conservative is not the issue. What matters is this: did the citizens follow the rules and collect the required number of voter signatures in the required time frame? If the answer to that question is yes, then I-517 guarantees a vote. That’s how it works with state initiatives and I-517 simply applies that same protection to local initiatives. I strongly support that.”

Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times columnist: “I support it because it does one thing especially: it ends the anti-democratic practice of kicking local initiatives off the ballot before people have a chance to vote on them. There is value in allowing the people to have a conversation, and a vote.”

John Carlson, longtime initiative activist: “517 is a welcome push back to attempts by local governments and legislators in Olympia to trim, skirt and hobble the initiative process in Washington state.”

Centralia Chronicle Editorial Board: “Neighbor Oregon allows two years. I-517 would allow one year, which matches the national average. A strong initiative process is in the best interests of those that support a government by and for the people. I-517 deserves your support.”

Pam Dzama, Kitsap Sun columnist: “While all the other elements of the initiative would help the public with collecting signatures, this section is the most important because it guarantees the voters a vote on whatever issue is the subject of the initiative. … Once an initiative qualifies for the ballot the people deserve the right to vote on it. Voters should support this reasonable initiative enhancing the ‘… first power reserved to the people.’ I recommend voting yes on I-517.”

Omak-Okanogan Editorial Board: “Extending the petition-signing window will help take some of the wind out of the sails of political zealots who have previously stepped up intimidation practices as initiative deadlines loom. I-517 is a step in the right direction and should help curtail intimidation.”

Associated Press: Initiative 517 was sparked in part by a series of legal battles over local measures seeking to block red light cameras, including one case last year that went to the state Supreme Court. I-517 was filed just weeks after the state high court ruled that city laws allowing for red light traffic cameras are not subject to repeal by voters.

Bill Forhan, publisher of NCW Media: “We all have a right to vote on these initiatives and remind our elected representatives who is really in charge of our government. The time for challenging the constitutionality of a citizen driven initiative is after the initiative is approved.”

Lary Coppola, publisher of Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal: “I-517 has nothing at all to do with property rights. Court rulings going back more than three decades have reaffirmed the peoples constitutional right to petition in places open to the public, and those rights will continue to stand whether I-517 passes or not.”

Bruce Smith, publisher of Yakima Valley Business Times: “If a court wants to rule against a measure after the election, let it. But allow voters to express their will and — at the very least — send a message to lawmakers. The state Republican Party has endorsed I-517; the Democrats oppose it.”

Jared Karstetter, King County Corrections Guild: “If I-517 had been the law back then, we could have exercised our right to petition without wasting $250,000 of our members’ money on senseless litigation.”

Nick Sherwood, Puyallup: “Voting no simply ensures more physical assaults against signers and petitioners, fewer grassroots initiatives qualifying because of limited time, and continued special interest lawsuits preventing people from voting on qualified initiatives. Without I-517, there is no functioning local initiative process. With I-517, citizens won’t have to worry about being sued if they sponsor and qualify a local initiative, they’ll be guaranteed a vote.”

Preston Drew, President of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights: “Opponents have attacked the initiative because they claim it allegedly violates property rights. This is bogus. No one cares more about property rights than I do. But I’m also a huge supporter of the initiative process. There’s no conflict between the two. Courts have ruled that petitioning in places open to the public is guaranteed by the First Amendment. I-517 doesn’t change that.”

Scott Harlan, Redmond’s red-light camera initiative sponsor: “Unless I-517 passes, the municipal initiative tool is dead. Without I-517, Redmond’s initiative process will be available in theory, but not in practice. Our city’s charter guarantees us the right to the initiative process but only with I-517 can local citizens actually be able to use it.”

Stoney Bird, sponsor of Bellingham’s “No Coal” initiative: “I never thought that I would support a Tim Eyman initiative — I’ve never voted for one before — but this one deserves the support of everyone in the state! We need the government to do what we need, not what lobbyists tell it to do. Please vote for I-517 to protect and strengthen the initiative process.”

Christy Nieto, co-sponsor of Bellingham’s red-light camera initiative: “I was part of a team of local citizens in Bellingham who sponsored and qualified one of those red-light camera initiatives for a vote. It was maddening when the out-of-state red-light camera company sued us to prevent the people from voting.”

Mimi Gates, Mukilteo’s red-light camera initiative: “They said the topic wasn’t ‘proper’ for the voters to decide. In my view, what’s not ‘proper’ is having the government telling us it knows best. To me, what’s not ‘proper’ is the government deciding what issues we, the people, can and can’t express our opinion on.”

Tiffany Sherwood, Puyallup: “My husband and I were co-sponsors of those local red-light camera initiatives. As you can imagine, it was extremely upsetting when we were individually sued by the out-of-state red-light camera companies to prevent the people from voting on our qualified initiatives.”

Barbara Smith, Spokane: “In every one of these efforts, citizens followed all the rules, yet each of them was hit with expensive, needless obstruction because state law doesn’t clearly mandate a vote on qualified initiatives. But I-517 fixes that. With I-517, if the initiative qualifies, then the voters decide.”

Darlene Sutinen, Longview: “My family and I were part of a team of local citizens in Longview who sponsored and qualified one of those red-light camera initiatives for a vote. With I-517’s protections, future generations will have the chance to have their voices heard at the state and local level.”

April Featherkile, Wenatchee: “Despite this clear ruling by the Supreme Court, dozens of citizen-sponsored initiatives – liberal and conservative – were blocked from a public vote in recent years even though local citizens followed all the rules.”

Dawn Lee, Redmond: “I was part of a team of local citizens in Redmond who sponsored and qualified one of those red-light camera initiatives for a vote. It was very upsetting when the city prevented the people from voting on it.”

Jim Coombes, Seattle: “Opponents, led by strip mall lobbyists, are offering nothing but ridiculous scare tactics designed to protect the current big-money-only-status-quo. They’re getting desperate because I-517’s common sense reforms are so popular.”

Eloise Kailin, Port Angeles’ retired physician: “If a city doesn’t happen to agree with an initiative, it can force the citizens to hire an attorney to defend it before it goes to voters. That throws a bucket of cold water on the initiative process.”

Larry Patella, Vancouver: “Our initiative is the first one in 10 years. They don’t happen often. But when they do, the law should require officials to let the people vote on initiatives that qualify.”

Randy Elmore, Bellingham: “An initiative that qualifies — that achieves the statutory requirements — should not be kept off the ballot. Not by a government, nor a disgruntled citizen, nor a powerful corporation. Our Bellingham initiative qualified. If I-517 had been the law then, we would not have been forced to waste precious time and money on lawyers fighting against powerful corporate lawyers defending the people’s right to vote.”

Tim Sutinen, Longview: “It was sad to watch lawlessness by the same people who are supposed to be upholding the law. Our 17 year old son Josh, who had spent hundreds and hundreds of hours over the preceding months on this effort, was heartbroken and cried.”

Beth Asher, Renton: “If I-517 had been the law, we could have exercised our right to petition, had our petition validated, and not had to threaten a civil rights lawsuit to get our petition on the ballot. I strongly support I-517 to prevent the next citizens’ group from being put through the same denial of rights that we endured.”

Matt Erickson, Wenatchee: “I and the other petition sponsors had no funds whatsoever to hire an attorney. Therefore, I was forced to make the difficult decision to either fight in court pro se or continue to collect petition signatures. I could not do both. So it was me, a hot dog vendor, against two government attorneys, two corporate attorneys, and one association attorney. In the end, I lost the case. Not only did the judge sign an order preventing the initiative from appearing on the ballot, his order prevented me from even turning in my signatures. Our city charter guarantees the right to initiative but without I-517, no Wenatchee citizen will ever have access to it.”

Lisa McShane, sponsor of “No More Mercury in Bellingham’s water supply” initiative that qualified but was prevented from being voted on: “This is the first Eyman initiative I’ll be voting for.”

I-517’s guaranteed vote on qualified initiatives is completely consistent with two unanimous state supreme court rulings. The High Court wrote: “Pre-election review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. The fundamental reason is that the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state’s history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government. Given the pre-eminence of the initiative right, pre-election challenges to the substantive validity of initiatives are particularly disallowed … Because ballot measures are often used to express popular will and to send a message to elected representatives, pre-election review unduly infringes on free speech.”

No517 Campaign “Holds No Position” on the Main Provisions of I-517: “Our committee (No517) holds no position on the provisions that extend the length of time that petitioners are allowed to work or with the right to have the petition placed to a vote if it qualifies with enough signatures.”

Mark Baerwaldt
Yes on I-517 Co-Chair

         Great stuff.  Please forward it to your friends and family and ask them to vote Yes on I-517.