Currently viewing the tag: "initiative signature gathering"

Tim Eyman’s Initiative 517 was certified on January 23rd by the Washington Secretary of State’s office.  I-517  is an initiative to the legislature. If, as likely, the legislature chooses not to act on it, it will be placed on the November 5, 2013 ballot. The legislature has an option to put an alternative on the ballot with it.

The official ballot title and summary for I-517 is:

Ballot Title
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.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would define terms concerning interfering with or retaliating against petition-signers and signature-gatherers, and would make such conduct a criminal misdemeanor and subject to anti-harassment laws. The measure would require that all state and local measures receiving enough signatures be placed on the ballot, limiting pre-election legal challenges. The measure would also extend the time for filing initiatives and gathering signatures from ten to sixteen months before the election when the vote would occur.

View Complete Text PDF

Initiative 517 is not needed and should be rejected by both the Washington State Legislature and the voters.

Initiative 517 – which Tim Eyman calls the “Protect the Initiative Act” is really the “Protect Tim Eyman’s Profit Machine Initiative“.   Tim started initiative efforts in 1995 and by 1999 they had become his primary business.  This is an initiative meant to increase Tim’s business of putting right wing conservative measures on the ballot in Washington State.

I-517 is Tim Eyman’s attempt to increase his initiative business to a year round activity, guarantee more markets for his initiatives by requiring cities and counties to put them on the ballot, and eliminate any opposition to people signing his measures by expanding anti harassment laws to try to unconstitutionally limit free speech rights of others.

As explained on the website opposing Initiative 517:

Initiative 517 has three main provisions:

  • It would double the period of time permitted for signature gathering for an initiative to the people, allowing Tim Eyman and his associates, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, Edward Agazarm and Roy Ruffino to make collecting signatures for initiatives to the people a more profitable and lucrative year-round business.
  • It attempts to prevent Washingtonians from exercising their First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly in a “Decline to Sign” campaign by making it a misdemeanor to maintain an “intimidating presence” within “twenty-five feet of any person gathering signatures or any person trying to sign any initiative or referendum petition”.
  • It dubiously requires leaders of cities, counties, and other local jurisdictions that provide for their own initiative process to place any initiative with sufficient voter signatures on the ballot for a public vote at public expense, even if the initiative in question concerns a matter that exceeds the lawful scope of the local initiative power.

Laws already exist to deal with harassment within our state. What Eyman is proposing is to expand those laws so that anyone opposed to his initiatives would be prevented from coming with 25 feet of a petitioner. This is a violation of free speech. Because words like intimidation and harassment can take on many common meanings, the first amendment rights of citizens opposing a measure, such as merely urging people to read a measure  before signing it, could cause them to be subject to arrest.

USlegal.com for instance says the following about harassment, which should give any free speech advocates cause for concern regarding giving petitioners special rights superior to those of other citizens.

“Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons. 

Now the problem is that of course anyone who stands say 5 feet away from a petitioner with a sign that says “Read this initiative before you sign it. It is a terrible initiative” or something to that effect would obviously “annoy” a petitioner. The petitioner could consider it a “derogatory poster”. The petitioner could consider it a “hostile environment”. But if the sign holder is not physically assaulting a petitioner or blocking a petitioner from having people sign a petition, why should the sign holder lose his right of free speech. Why should he be harassed and threatened with being arrested. Tolerance and fairness is required on both sides. Free speech for all is guaranteed under the US Constitution, not just those on one side of an issue.

Eyman wants to create a special class of free speech rights for paid petitioners so he can, without public debate, more easily secure a place on the ballot. It is his business and he is asking for special rights for helping his business put more money in his pocket. Next he will be claiming that only his side should be able to speak publicly at public forums regarding the merits of an initiative since anyone speaking against his initiative  is “harassing”him.

As former Secretary of State Sam Reed wrote in his official statement in 2012 on the secretary of state’s website regarding “Filing Initiatives and Referenda in Washington State”

“Do I have the right to urge people not to sign a petition?
Yes, as a matter of freedom of speech. Opponents of an initiative or referendum can certainly express the opinion that it would not be a  good idea for a voter to sign a petition. An opponent, however, does
not have the right to interfere with the petition process. In fact, it is a gross misdemeanor to interfere with somebody else’s right to sign a petition, and there are also laws against assaulting people. You can certainly express your opinion, but you must remember that other people have rights to their opinions as well, including the right to sign petitions you may not like.
This principle works both ways, of course. Neither side of an initiative or referendum campaign has the right to prevent the other from expressing opinions.”   

Here is part of the  language Eyman is proposing to add

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person: …

(e) Interferes with or retaliates against a person collecting signatures or signing any initiative or referendum petition by pushing, shoving, touching, spitting, throwing objects, yelling, screaming, being verbally abusive, blocking or intimidating, or other tumultuous conduct or maintaining an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet of any person gathering signatures or any person trying to sign any initiative or referendum petition. (2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor. 

So most of the language would fall under current harassment law but “the maintaining an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet of any person gathering signatures or any person trying to sign an initiative or referendum petition” is so vague and subjective that it can easily be abused by any petitioner who wants to stop anyone opposing them .  This proposed initiative is not needed and is a threat to free speech.  It is frankly unconstitutional .

Costco implemented a policy a number of years ago to prohibit citizen’s collecting signatures for initiative petitions outside their stores. This is despite many other retail establishments allowing petition signature gatherers to exercise their right under the Washington State Constitution to collect signatures on initiatives.

Now however when it is in their financial self interest, the Seattle Times reports that Costco will be setting up tables inside 26 of their warehouse stores staffed by employees who will obviously be paid to help Costco get into the liquor business by asking shoppers to sign Initiative 1100.  Costco currently sells beer and wine in their stores.

Of three versions of the initiative Costco went for the free market approach that removed cost controls on the price of liquor. As noted in the Seattle Times article, this will probably lead to large stores like Costco undercutting prices of small stores to drive up sales.

The Seattle Times article also notes that

If I-1100 is passed by voters it would remove some $665 million in revenue from the state budget, based on fiscial year 2008 & 2009 figures.  The state is currently suffering from severe budget cuts and this will only add to an already projected additional budget shortfall for next year.

“… some law-enforcement and temperance representatives also oppose letting retailers like Costco sell liquor.

John Guadnola, executive director of the Washington Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, said the group does not have an official position on the initiative but that he personally supports keeping the current regulatory system.

Price controls and other regulations minimize alcohol abuse and related problems such as domestic violence and workplace problems, he said.

“In Great Britain, they’re selling beer as loss leaders in grocery stores,” Guadnola said. “It’s easy access to alcohol, and the lower the price, the more the consumption.”

Here is the official Ballot Title and summary from the Secretary of States website:

Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1100 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
Concise Description: This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributers and producers.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would direct the liquor control board to close all state liquor stores; terminate contracts with private stores selling liquor; and authorize the state to issue licenses that allow spirits (hard liquor) to be sold, distributed, and imported by private parties. It would repeal uniform pricing and certain other requirements governing business operations for distributors and producers of beer and wine. Stores that held contracts to sell spirits could convert to liquor retailer licenses.

View Complete Text

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.