On August 17, a Washington state trial court invalidated a statewide petition that had already been placed on the November 2018 ballot. The ruling says the font was too small to read the proposal on the petition. Also the presentation on the petition of the proposed new law did not underline new text, nor did it strike through words being repealed. See this story. The initiative proponents will appeal to the State Supreme Court.
In the past has ruled that when voting on an initiative the People are acting as a legislative body, and that the language to be changed set out at length (I think this is Article II, Section 37).
Form/text requirements when the WA Legislature proposes Const Amdts ???
@Demo Rep,
See:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/voters'%20pamphlet%202003.pdf
House Joint Resolution 4206 was a constitutional amendment. See marked up text on Page 11.
The reason Washington prints a voters pamphlet is that it is required by the Constitution (for issues only, not candidates). The text requires that the pamphlet be sent to each residence in the state. For the first Top 2 primary, the SOS also included candidate bios. When the question of repeating this for later elections came up, and it was suggested that the information might be posted on the web, and voters given an opt out, the SOS explained that the pamphlet was being sent bulk rate, but they could include candidates if there was an appropriation.
The Washington Supreme Court overturned a measure because it had not correctly stated what it would do. The Wsshington Republican Party was outraged by the decision. The Legislature passed a Top 2 measure, but the ill-advised Governor, Gary Locke, line-item vetoed the provisions for Top 2. The legislation also provided for the Pick-A-Party primary. It was then that the Washington Grange petitioned for the Top 2 primary. During the litigation one of the claims was that the initiative did not properly state the existing law, since it was amending the Pick-A-Party primary rather than the blanket primary.
Page 11 —
UNEQUAL stuff for new language —
the *NEW SECTION* stuff on left — underline on right.
@Demo Rep,
The left side was an initiative that added two new sections to statutes (Revised Code of Washington RCW).
The two added sections are numbered RCW 49.17.360 and RCW 49.17.370.
The voters pamphlets for the last century are online. I’m sure that there are examples where statutory initiatives included underlines and cross-outs where existing language was edited.
UNEQUAL treatment of NEW stuff —
should underline ALL NEW stuff – const amdts and laws.
@Demo Rep,
New _sections_ are not underlined. The text explains that it is a new section. Where text is edited, added text is underlined, omitted text is crossed out.
I can detect the English language.
NEW added — all or part
OLD repealed — all or part
SAME unchanged — part [due to part(s) added or repealed]
Hack legislators in regimes love to confuse the voters — part of their EVIL existences.
@Demo Rep,
Imagine that they change a number, lets say that they change a filing deadline from 50 days before an election to 60 days.
Before the text read:
“The filing deadline is 50 days before the election.”
The change could be shown as:
“The filing deadline is ((50))++60++ days before the election.”
Here I have used an alternate denotation of (( )) around a deletion, and ++ ++ around the revision.
There is a difference between revising and a totally new addition.
Take a poll about NEW [added], OLD [repealed] and SAME [unchanged] among *average* always confused voters
— due to the nonstop machinations of the EVIL powers that be in Govt regimes.
Apparently NO underlining or interlining possible in BAN posting system.
It appears that the new/repealed stuff comes from a mere RULE in the WA State Senate —
WA Senate rules
http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Administration/Pages/senate_rules.aspx#rule56
Amendatory Bills
Rule 57.
Bills introduced in the senate intended to amend existing statutes shall have the words which are amendatory to such existing statutes underlined. Any matter to be deleted from the existing statutes shall be indicated by setting such matter forth in full, enclosed by double parentheses, and such deleted matter shall be lined out with hyphens. No bill shall be printed or acted upon until the provisions of this rule shall have been complied with.
Sections added by amendatory bill to an existing act, or chapter of the official code, need not be underlined but shall be designated “NEW SECTION” in upper case type and such designation shall be underlined. New enactments need not be underlined.
When statutes are being repealed, the Revised Code of Washington section number to be repealed, the section caption and the session law history, from the most current to the original, shall be cited.
—-
The NEW/REPEALED stuff should be in ALL Constitutions — one more limit on the HACKS.
@Demo Rep,
See Article II, Section 37.
Constitutions set forth principles, rules and laws are implementation.
Art II
SECTION 37 REVISION OR AMENDMENT. No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length.
—
NO mention of underlining or interlining.
—
Constitutions have YES requirements, NO limitations and MAY options — NOT *principles*.
The gerrymander HACKS love to totally rig mere laws and rules —
which is why the USA is NOW in SUPER-danger —
rigged ballot access laws
rigged gerrymander areas
minority rule gerrymander regimes
all sorts of Separation of Powers violations
—
PR and AppV
@Demo Rep,
Article 14, Section 2 is a statement of principle.
Article II, Section 37 of the Washington constitution is a statement of principle.