Eyman will submit new Property Tax Initiative on Monday

Tim Eyman announced earlier today that he plans to be at the Capitol at 11 a.m. on Monday to file a Lower Property Tax Initiative.

Eyman's proposal, http://www.permanent-offense.org/ would limit general-fund revenue increases for state and local governments to the rate of inflation. Any excess revenues would then be used to lower property tax bills."

Here is an excerpt from the intent section of the Initiative for your review:

"This act is intended to protect taxpayers by reducing our state's obscene and unsustainable property tax burden by controlling the growth of government to an affordable level. It is long overdue. This measure would limit the growth of state, county, and city general fund revenue, not including new voter-approved revenue, to the annual rate of inflation. Revenue above this limit would be used to reduce property taxes. This measure permits the growth of Washington's tax burden to increase at an affordable, sustainable rate, allows citizens to vote for higher taxes where they see a need, and uses excess revenues above this limit to reduce property taxes.

During these tough economic times, struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need and deserve meaningful property tax relief. Property taxes have skyrocketed for decades and politicians have done nothing to address this very real problem. This measure also provides a much-needed economic stimulus to our state's struggling economy by keeping our tax burden at an affordable, sustainable level and by reducing our state's crushing property tax burden. So, this measure ensures meaningful tax relief, a big boost to our state's economy, and long-overdue reform of government. It is a smart, balanced, reasonable solution to our state's property tax problem."

Stay tuned for additional information...

Initiative 985 Update

Last Thursday, Tim Eyman's group, Voters Want More Choices turned in 226,613 voter signatures to the Secretary of State's Office for Initiative 985. The minimum number of valid signatures required is 224,880.

Voters Want More Choices will be gathering an additional 50,000 signatures over the next 16 days to ensure that the initiative has enough signatures to qualify to be placed on the November ballot.

Here's the group's summary of the ballot measure:

"Here's a quick summary of this year's initiative: ReduceCongestion.org I-985 implements the State Auditor's recommendations to reform the Department of Transportation and reduce traffic congestion by using existing public resources more effectively. It opens carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours, requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets, and increases roadside assistance funding to clear out accidents faster with the implementation overseen by the State Auditor. These policies are funded by taxes and charges we already pay: 15% of vehicle sales taxes, revenue from fines generated from red light traffic cameras, and a percentage that previously went to art on transportation-related public works projects. Finally, I-985 doesn't impose tolls, but it institutes critical taxpayer protections if tolls are created and levied."

Additional information can be found at the Voters Want More Choices website.
http://www.permanent-offense.org/

Eyman will deliver first box of signed Petitions for Initiative 985 to Secretary of State on Thursday

Initiative 985 proposes to open all carpool lanes to all traffic in non-peak hours. It will also require cities and counties to synchronize traffic lights on heavily traveled arterials and streets and increases funding for roadside assistance to clear streets of accidents.

Text of Initiative 985 http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx/text/i927.pdf

Seattle Times Opinion Article by Floyd J. McKay, Journalism Professor, WWU, Guest Author, "Tim Eyman's Traffic Initiative is Bogus." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004351102_floyd16.html?syndication=rss

Voter's Want More Choices website http://www.permanent-offense.org/
and http://www.reducecongestion.org/

Chris McGann's Seattle P.I. article titled "Eyman mortgage's house to pay for initiative." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/361340_eyman01.html

The First Power of the People is the Initiative

Apparently, our Constitutional Right to Initiative and Referendum interferes with the Legislature's perceived sense of balance regarding competing interests. In other words, state legislators feel that they need to enact legislation to protect themselves from the very citizens that elected them to office.

Never mind that the First Amendment and the Washington State Constitution guarantee citizens the right to petition government through the Initiative and Referendum process. Supporters of HB 2601 claim that this measure is necessary to protect citizens from fraud and bad actors, but a public disclosure request revealed that the Secretary of State did not find any evidence of fraud between 1999 and 2006.

It's frightening to watch HB 2601 move through the House like greased lightning - apparently, the Legislature can't wait to put pesky citizen initiatives and referendums on a shelf for future generations to study as a example of the people's misguided attempts at direct democracy.

BACKGROUND
In the 1990's Washington State had a law on the books that prevented the use of paid signature gatherers. The Court opined that because no instances of fraud had ever occurred in Washington State, the measure was invalid. Hence, Initiative proponents could hire paid signature gatherers to collect signatures for initiatives and referendum.

SUMMARY OF BILL ANALYSIS
HB 2601 requires any individual "paid" (the notion of paid reimbursement appears to potentially include "dinner out" with a initiative proponent) to gather signatures to provide his or her full name and assumed name, if any, residential street address; a signature; a list of the state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petitions on which the registrant will gather signatures; and a signed statement attesting that in the past five years, the registrant has not been convicted of an election related offense, has not been found in violation of election law (This includes Tim Eyman and other individuals who have allegedly violated PDC laws or other alleged election offense) and he or she is not a convicted sex offender.

Isn't it disingenuous for legislators to pass a law that prevents violators of PDC and other election laws from gathering petition signatures when a quick perusal of PDC enforcement actions tell us many legislators have also been found in violation of PDC laws? Why would the legislature hold petition signature gatherers to a higher standard than they hold for themselves?

The Washington State Constitution states that the first power of the people is the Initiative...

Washington State Constitution, Article I

INITIATIVE
SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature...http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/constitution.htm

REFERENDUM: The second power reserved by the people is the referendum, and it may be ordered on any act, bill, law, or any part thereof passed by the legislature, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions, either by petition signed by the required percentage of the legal voters, or by the legislature as other bills are enacted...http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/constitution.htm

SECTION 34 SAME. The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people.

Opponents of HB 2601 tell us that Election laws should facilitate the constitutional rights of the citizens; however, this law does not promote the facilitation of the Initiative or referendum process. In fact, it disenfranchises innocent citizens who signed petitions circulated by unregistered signature gatherers.

Supporters of HB 2601 claim that the initiative signature gathering process provides opportunities for identity theft, fraud and even the potential exploitation of petition signers by sex offenders. But they do not provide any examples of alleged violations to support claims of exploitation. Supporters also claim that the notion of being paid to collect signatures somehow "corrupts' the signature gathering process and encourages forgery and other bad behavior. Again, public disclosure requests did not reveal any instances of fraud on petitions. The only documented instances of fraud are with voter ballots.

Never mind that legislators are "paid generously" to write and promote legislation - or that legislators routinely receive large sums of money from lobbyists that represent special interests with legislative agendas that are not always in the best interest of the people legislators represent.

In a July 3, 2004 Seattle P.I. article written by Neil Modie; Modie tells readers, "Todd Donovan, a Western Washington University political scientist and an expert on initiatives and referendums, said Eyman seems to have evolved from being "the poster child of ... the grassroots (to being) the poster child for the interests that all the critics have been saying is wrong with the (legislative) process." Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Individuals or groups who oppose a bill or law come together to draft a petition (initiative/referendum to modify or repeal the law?

Granted, I understand that many citizens and legislators are opposed to Tim Eyman's tax initiatives, but his grassroots popularity indicates that a large number of citizens are dissatisfied with the legislature's tax and spend policies - and those citizens are using the petition process to introduce, modify or repeal laws that they feel are out of step with the values of society.

In a Initiatives and Referendum Institute paper (see below) titled Expanding Direct Democracy in the US: How Far is Too Far? Donovan cites a 2000 poll that found 78% of the voters in Washington State thought that initiatives were a "good thing." Which raises the question - why is the legislature actively seeking to limit the people's ability to exercise their Constitutional right to introduce or reject bills or laws on the ballot?

Some supporters claim that too many initiatives are "unconstitutional" and can not be legally implemented into statute. Which raises a second question, how many "unconstitutional" laws have been enacted by the Legislature? (A persual of Washington State Supreme Court decisions will help answer this question). Not even the legislature is perfect - but the citizens are not at liberty to ignore laws enacted by the legislature - even if they are unconstitutional. But the legislature has refused more than once to implement laws ratified by the people through the initiative and referendum process.

If the Legislature is sincere about helping to return a fundamental power to the citizens, they should consider deregulation, not over regulation of the initiative process.

Sam Reed, Secretary of State, has a signature verification process that allows the state to verify voter signatures on ballots and petitions. If the legislature has constitutional concerns about a petition, they can challenge the petition in Court.

Finally, the right of Referendum is guaranteed on any bill passed by the legislature except those bills that contain an emergency clause. The purpose of an emergency clause is to allow state government to respond in TRUE public emergencies, like a large scale natural disaster. Nevertheless, over the years the legislature has routinely attached emergency clauses to bills in order to prevent citizens from filing a referendum to repeal legislation. In 2007, Governor Gregoire vetoed the emergency clause off of ten bills before signing them.

Personally, I think its sad that legislators are so far out of step with the people they represent that they feel compelled to pass laws to protect themselves from the very citizens who put them in office.

Full text of HB 2601, bill report and fiscal analysis can be found at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2601&year=2007

Additional Information on this topic:

Expanding Direct Democracy in the U.S.: How Far is too Far? Todd Donovan
1http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20Studies/Donovan%20-%20Expanding%20DD%20in%20the%20US%20IRI.pdf

LWV Direct Democracy Study: http://www.lwvwa.org/i&r_study/init-ref-study.pdf

Seattle P.I. article by Niel Modie on Tim Eyman's evolution: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/180649_initiatives03.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=221

Initiative and Referendum Institute Report on paid signature gatherers: http://www.iandrinstitute.org/REPORT%202006-1%20Paid%20Petitioners.pdf

Initiative and Referendum Institute: http://www.iandrinstitute.org/

National Conference of State Legislators Powerpoint presentations on the Intitiative process: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/irtaskfc/

Washington Policy Center article by Jason Mercier on restoring our right to referendum: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/GovtRegulations/OPEDEmergencyClause2008.html

Washington Policy Center article on ending abuse of the legislative emergency clause: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/GovtRegulations/PNEmergencyClause2007.html

Evergreen Freedom Foundation home page for Initiatives and Referendum: http://www.effwa.org/main/page.php?number=420

Legislature goes after Initiative Process (Again)

A few weeks ago, I posted an article “Wanted, Dead or Alive, Signature Gatherers" warning readers that some form of the two bills aimed to restrict citizen signature gathering were likely to be reintroduced in the 2008 legislative session. Both bills have been reintroduced in the House.

HB 2601 requires licensing of businesses engaged in the pursuit of signatures on behalf of initiatives and referendum. The bill requires all paid signature gatherers to register with the Public Disclosure Commission.

Opponents raised a number of constitutional concerns at the January 18, public hearing. For example, under New Section 2, the bill reads, "When gathering signatures, a person registered under this section must display evidence of registration including the registrant's photograph and registration number." Opponents testified, "Requiring that signature gatherers wear identification is impermissible insofar as such a requirement would require signature gatherers to display their names. Such a requirement discourages participation in the political process by forcing name identification at the time they are delivering their political message and when reaction may be the most intense, emotional and unreasoned.” Bill proponents want each signature gatherer to have an ID card with their picture and name.

The measure does not provide signature gatherers a means to check ID or verify identity of signers, but it does include a clause that eliminates a signature gatherer from ever circulating a petition again if a fraudulent signature is found on one of the petitions they have circulated. How can someone be prosecuted for a crime when they are not provided the means to verify signatures or voter identification?

I have included additional comments in the detailed information taken from Bill and House Reports at the end of the post. A copy of the bill can be located at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2601&year=2008

HB 2019 requires all signature gatherers to sign an oath. The declaration states: “I, __ Swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition, and that, to the best of my knowledge, every person who signed this sheet of the foregoing petition knowingly and without compensation or promise of compensation willingly signed his or her true name and that the information provided therewith is true and correct. I further acknowledge that under chapter 29A84.RCW, forgery of signatures on this petition constitutes a Class C felony, and that offering any considerations of gratuity to any person to induce them to sign a petition is a gross misdemeanor, such violations being punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.” It also requires signature gathers to identify themselves and where they live when collecting signatures.

Those opposed to the measure testified, "The initiative process is fundamentally important to the state and created as part of the State Constitution. To interfere with the Constitution, there must be a good reason. The reason cited is fraud, but the Secretary of State's office has found no instances of fraud. The other issue is requiring signature-gatherers to provide their addresses. Signature-gatherers are often subjected to harassment and vandalism. If they are required to provide their addresses, they will be subjected to this harassment and vandalism at their homes."

The proposed legislation does not provide a means for signature gatherers to check voter ID to verify a signer's identity, but it does create a (Class C Felony) under which signature gatherers can be prosecuted if someone signs a false name on the petition. A copy of this bill can be located at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2019&year=2007.

I'm beginning to feel a "chill" coming on...

Please see Parkenfarker's blog for a guest editorial by Tim Eyman and other bill opponents regarding signature gatherer intimidation and the fight to prevent the legislature from forcing signature gatherers to wear identification. http://parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com/

Detailed information is listed below:
___________________________________________________________________
Legislative Background Information on HB 2601 and SHB 2019: This information is taken directly from House Bill Reports, Bill Analysis and Fiscal Notes.

On January 18, 2008, a hearing was held in the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee on HB 2601 and SHB 2019.

HB 2601: Bill Title: An act relating to signature gatherers; amending RCW 29A.72.170, 29A.72.110, 29A.72.120, 29A.72.130, and 29A.72.170 and amending RCW 42.17.020.

Brief Description: A measure regarding signature gatherers for petitions. If passed, would require businesses engaged in the collection of signatures for state or local initiative, referendum or recall petitions – and using paid signature gatherers to register with the Public Disclosure Commission. (PDC). The measure also requires the employees of businesses engaged in the collection of signatures for state and local initiatives, referendum or recall petitions using paid signature gatherers to register with the PDC and requires all signature gatherers to sign initiative and referendum petitions.

Constitutional Considerations: Initiative and referendum are protected free speech under the First Amendment. Meyer v. Grant 486 U.S. 414 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that petition circulation is core political speech. Because political circulation involves interactive communication regarding political change, the Court opined that First Amendment protection is “at its zenith”. Nonetheless, it is established law that elections, including initiative and referendum processes, can be substantially regulated in order to maintain that they are “fair and honest”. Storer v. Brown 415 U.S. 724 (1974).

In Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), the Court further defined the parameters of First Amendment protection for petition circulation and signature gathering. The Buckley Court held that states have considerable discretion to protect the integrity of the initiative and referendum process and while there is no “litmus-paper test” for alleged violations of the First Amendment, there are some bright line rules for the signature gathering process:

States may not require that signature gatherers be registered voters. Such a regulation would eliminate non-registered voters from participating in the political process, and there are less burdensome methods of meeting the states interests in administrative efficiency, fraud detection, and providing voters with information in the process.

Requiring that signature gatherers wear identification is impermissible insofar as such a requirement would require signature gatherers to display their names. Such a requirement discourages participation in the political process by forcing name identification at the time they are delivering their political message and when reaction may be the most intense, emotional and unreasoned.” In contrast, affidavits are not instantly accessible and are not prohibited under the First Amendment.

SHB 2019: Bill Title: An act relating to the accountability of signature gatherers for ballot measure petitions.

Brief Description: Requiring signature gatherers of ballot measure petitions to sign petition declarations under oath.

Background: In 2005, the Legislature passed a law requiring a declaration be printed on the back of initiative and referendum petitions. The declaration states: “I, …. Swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition, and that, to the best of my knowledge, every person who signed this sheet of the foregoing petition knowingly and without compensation or promise of compensation willingly signed his or her true name and that the information provided therewith is true and correct. I further acknowledge that under chapter 29A84.RCW, forgery of signatures on this petition constitutes a Class C felony, and that offering any considerations of gratuity to any person to induce them to sign a petition is a gross misdemeanor, such violations being punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.”

In 2006, the Attorney General’s office published an opinion stating that the law as passed does not require a signature gatherer to actually sign the petition.

Summary of public testimony in support follows: The Legislature already passed laws requiring that the declaration be printed on the back of petitions. This was necessary because there have been incidents of fraud and abuse of the initiative process. The declaration provides a degree of accountability and helps to improve the process. Indeed, this was the intent of the bill in 2005; this bill is only a clarification…

Summary of public testimony against: The initiative process is fundamentally important to the state and created as part of the State Constitution. To interfere with the Constitution, there must be good reason. The reason cited is fraud. But the Secretary of State’s office has no found instances of fraud. The other issue is requiring signature gatherers to provide their addresses. Signature gatherers are often subjected to harassment and vandalism. If they are required to provide their addresses, they will be subjected to this harassment and vandalism of their homes. There is no need for an emergency clause on this bill as there is no emergency other than preventing a referendum by the people. The Washington State Constitution requires that law governing the initiative and referendum process must further the process rather than frustrate it. Prior to the use of paid signature gatherers in the 1990’s, it was incredibly difficult to get initiatives on the ballot. This measure will make it more difficult again. If there is an actual problem with the validity of signatures, then the remedy is for the Secretary of State to conduct actual verifications.

There is a multiple agency fiscal note attached to this bill.

Estimated expenditures to PDC and Secretary of State - $145,054.00
Estimated expenditures for staff: - $130,474.00
Annual salaries: $42,720.00 dollars
Employee benefits: $12,682.00
Estimated expenditures from General Fund: $14,580.00

Those testifying for: Rep. McDermott, Pat Thompson, WA Council of County and State Employees; Clifford Traisman, Washington Conservation Voters/WA Environmental Council; Al Ralston, Washington Business Roundtable; Diane McDaniel, Washington State Labor Council; Katie Blinn, office of the Secretary of State; and Maudie Jordan, Citizen Solutions.

Opposed: Mike Dunmire and Tim Eyman, Tax Protection Initiative; Ed Agazar, Garry Jacobson, and Roy Ruffino, Citizen Solutions; Doug White and Jayne Anderson.