Washington State Senator Ken Jacobsen (D-Seattle) has introduced SJR 8202. It would abolish procedures for referenda on state laws. Because the Washington state Constitution provides for the referendum process, if the legislature passed SJR 8202, it would then go to a public vote. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.
It was actually introduced last year, had a committee hearing and went no further (not reported by the committee).
In Washington, they have a procedure where at the beginning of the short session in the even-numbered year, any bills left pending at the end of the previous session are “reintroduced and retained in present status”. The Top 2 cleanup bill from SOS Sam Reed is in a similar state – other than it was reported by the subject committee, and is now pending in the Rules Committee, which decides which bills get considered by the full Senate.
I wonder why this anti-democratic bill is being introduced?
…Does it have anything to do with the issue of Gay marriage, I wonder?
Seems pretty ironic that the anti-referendum bill must then go before the public in what amounts to a referendum on referendums.
Shows just how far out of touch this legislator is and his willingness to manipulate and control everything the public would want. Anyonw signing on to this bill should be fired this next election.
Here here!
I listened to the committee hearing that was held January 22, 2009. The committee chair started out by saying that she didn’t really know why she decided to let the resolution have a hearing. This wasn’t said with any animus, but I got the sense that the sponsor was going to get to make a little speech, the opponents would get their say, and then the resolution would be forgotten.
And that appears to be what happened. After the last opponent spoke, the chair did not really do any closing, but simply looked down at a sheet of paper and introduced the next bill to be considered at the committee hearing.
The resolution (if approved by the legislature and the people) would actually eliminate both the initiative and the referendum, at the state level.
The sponsor, who has been in the legislature for 28 years, said that the initiative and referendum process is contrary to a republican form of government. Jacobsen, who is a Democrat who represents a district in northern Seattle, claimed that he was the truest republican in the legislature.
He made a claim, which I didn’t understand, that since he lived in Washington, he had less rights than people who lived in states without the initiative or referendum, since he was denied his right to be governed by an elected government. He asked if the initiative process was such a good idea, why didn’t the federal government have it?
He claimed that the US Supreme Court had corrupted the initiative process by permitting the use of paid signature gatherers, and then cited the case of an initiative in Washington to get rid of the inheritance tax, saying that the supporters had probably sailed off to the San Juan islands while signatures were collected.
He felt that sometimes the voters pass contradictory initiatives (for example passing a restriction on taxes, while also passing a requirement that the state fund some program), and then then legislature was stuck with trying to make everything work.
He argued that if people were dissatisfied with the legislature they should vote the current legislators out, or run themselves. But asked, that if proponents of the initiative and referendum thought that having the people vote on legislation was so useful, why shouldn’t the people have a chance to vote on his proposal?
Tim Eyman, successful sponsor of several initiative measures, who spoke in opposition pointed out that the voters had already voted on the issue (in 1911), and that if Jacobsen was dissatisfied with the type of legislation passed through the initiative, he should gather signatures for his own initiatives.
One of the other persons testifying in opposition was the sponsor of the Top 2 initiative.
Jacobsen had proposed the same resolution in 2007, and with the same lack of success. He probably doesn’t like some of the initiatives that have passed (he complained that they had resulted in a regressive tax structure in Washington),, but wanted to make it appear that he was speaking in support of republican principles and the legislative process.
What likely triggered new interest in SJR 8202 in 2010, is that several bills have been introduced in the legislature, that would place restrictions on the initiative process. And SJR 8202 is technically still alive.
The restrictions would among other things:
– Limit contributions to initiative measures to $50;
– Limit a sponsor’s annual income from initiatives to that of a legislator;
– Bar circulation of initiative petitions within 25 feet of doors and windows. The language is borrowed from anti-smoking legislation, and is apparently intended to protect citizens from 2nd hand speech;
– Permit signers to withdraw their signature;
– Increase the filing fee from $5 to $250;
– Require paid petition circulators to register with the public disclosure commission;
– Throw out signatures if the circulator fails to sign the back of the petition form.
I think a RECALL is in order. I think Jacobsen need a dose of people throwing hiss butt out of office.
# 6 ALL States have EVIL and VICIOUS minority rule gerrymanders putting the arrogant powermad party hack MONSTERS into power.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule — resulting in the Donkey or Elephant party hack gerrymander monarchs / oligarchs in control.
— with the MONSTERS picking a TYRANT party hack boss to control the agenda.
P.R. and A.V. – before it is too late
— things are really starting to break down due to govt deficits — going into the pockets of the govt gangs — officers, contractors, welfare, creditors (for interest).
See the Tea Party near revolt stuff going on now.