Testimony on SHB 2019 and HB 2601

The following is the prepared testimony of Permanent Defense Chair and Northwest Progressive Institute Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve on two initiative process reform bills considered by the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee.

Chairman Hunt and Members of the Committee:

The staff of the Northwest Progressive Institute, a regional think tank devoted to advancing the common good through ideas and action, would like to express our collective thanks to you for considering two bills today that would improve the integrity of the initiative process: SHB 2019, which would require signature gatherers of ballot measure petitions to sign petition declarations under oath, and HB 2601, which would require signature gatherers to register with the state.

In recent years the number of initiatives and referenda submitted to the people annually has grown in number, aided by the rise of a for profit signature gathering industry. With half a million dollars, any individual or group willing to spend the money can force a public vote on their idea, regardless of its true popularity.

Requiring the many independent contractors who are paid to circulate petitions to register with the state will strengthen the spirit of the initiative process by providing more transparency. The people of Washington State have repeatedly affirmed that an open political process is important; in 1971, the vote to approve the creation of the Public Disclosure Commission was an overwhelming 72%.

Almost every state in America with the initiative and referendum process has established regulations to protect their powers of direct democracy from fraud and abuse.

Washington is one of the few that has not, and it’s time to change that.

Article II, Section II of our state Constitution explicitly reserves the initiative and referendum powers to the people, and more specifically, “we the people of the state Washington” – the very first words in the preamble of our most cherished and foundational document.

Despite this clear intent, it is possible today for any person to circulate a petition in Washington State, because the business of signature gathering is unregulated. Petitioners don’t have to reside here, they don’t have to be registered to vote, and they don’t even have to be U.S. citizens.

Montana has addressed this issue by requiring petitioners to be residents. Residency is defined as "the union of act and intent" to reside and continue to reside in Montana.

(A full list of states with residency requirements can be found at this link.)

Our organization routinely receives reports from alarmed Washingtonians who have stories to share about their encounters with paid petitioners. Store managers have told us about out-of-state petitioners setting up shop in front of their entryways without permission, aggressively pestering customers for signatures. Activists have spoke of paid signature gatherers trying to trick them into signing multiple initiatives by falsely informing them their signature is required twice. Suspicious citizens have reported petitioners becoming irritated and unresponsive when they ask for more information about the initiative or referendum in question.

The evidence that we’ve received clearly suggests a need for investigation...and reform.

The Legislature has a duty to the people of Washington State to protect and enhance our tradition of direct democracy, and these bills are an excellent step towards greater accountability and public confidence in the process. We look forward to working with the Committee to refine and improve this legislation, and we thank all of you for your public service to our state.

Special session coverage

Permanent Defense's parent organization, the Northwest Progressive Institute, has coverage of today's special session at the Official Blog.

Please view the following posts for more information:

• Olympia's Democrats have lost their way
• A history of Initiative 747
  
• Not so fast, Mr. Speaker
• I-747 reinstatement rolls through Senate
  
• House approves I-747 reinstatement
• Testimony on reinstatement of Initiative 747

(Last Updated December 3rd, 2007)

What editorial boards are saying about I-960

Permanent Defense, the AARP, the League of Women Voters, Washington fire fighters, teachers, nurses, business and environmental groups – over 120 organizations statewide -- all oppose Initiative 960 because it would paralyze our government.

Newspapers across Washington are urging their readers to vote NO on I-960:

The Yakima Herald Republic calls Tim Eyman’s I-960 a “cynical ploy” for limiting voter information.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls it “a straitjacket.”

The Columbian “strongly recommends a ‘No’ vote on I-960, joining a large chorus of organizations, public officials and other newspapers.”

The Tacoma News Tribune criticizes I-960’s “overly prescriptive mandates that could bog down the Legislature and the ballot.”

The Tri-City Herald says it would have “costly and overzealous outcomes” and concludes “I-960 just doesn't make sense for Washington voters.”

The Walla Walla Union Bulletin says “I-960 should be rejected.”

The Olympian says I-960 will cost “taxpayers millions...” and call the requirement that legislators vote on nickel increases in fees “beyond reason.”

NO on I-960 campaign ads now airing

The NO on I-960 coalition has released its first television ad highlighting the waste and paralysis that Tim Eyman's latest proposal would create if it ever became law.

You can watch the ad at YouTube.

FOIA filed to expose potential audit mischief

One of the major reasons we opposed Initiative 900 two years ago was because we feared the potential for abuse of the performance audit as a tool to ensure good government.

Today, suspicious of the gleeful rhetoric used by opponents of transportation agencies such of Sound Transit expressing their happiness that audits will be released right before an election with a major package on the ballot (Roads & Transit) David Goldstein filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out if auditors have been communicating with those opponents (Tim Eyman, Ted Van Dyk, etc.) behind the scenes, leaking information:

Performance audits are not comparable to financial audits in either scope or purpose. You don’t just bring in a third party to examine the books in search of waste, fraud or abuse, but rather, you observe and analyze the performance of an agency and its procedures for the purpose of recommending changes that could lead to greater efficiencies. While in a worst case scenario a performance audit could conclude that an agency does not fulfill its mission at all, it is mostly meant as a productivity tool, and as such requires the full cooperation of the management and staff being audited if it is to be effective. If instead, performance audits are used as a means to politically punish and embarrass an agency — including, say, influencing elections — then future audits on other agencies will never gain the inside trust and cooperation necessary to conduct them.

Yes, voters deserve to know how well Sound Transit and WSDOT are spending our money before we vote them more of it, but if these audits are perceived to be politically motivated hatchet jobs, their reports won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. And if officials within the auditor’s office or the outside contractors have been improperly communicating with opponents of the Roads & Transit measure, soliciting their input and leaking results, then I can’t see how these so-called “performance audits” can be understood to be genuine performance audits at all, let alone impartial and unbiased.

The FOIA results should be telling - we'll be waiting to see what gets disclosed.

Washington Research Council publishes report on I-960

The Washington Research Council, a business-supported think tank, has a new report (PDF) that echoes our criticisms of Tim Eyman's latest plan to handicap government:

Initiative 960 is intended to make it more difficult for our elected representatives to raise taxes without referring the matter to a direct vote of the people. As such, it would take the state a step further away from representative democracy.

The value of delegating public decision making to a small number of representatives was well expressed by James Madison:

The effect of [the delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest is] to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love for justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. (Federalist 10)

The Research Council likes representative democracy. While both the initiative and the referendum provide useful checks on the legislature, public votes should be the exception not the rule.

We find the advisory ballots to be particularly problematic, as they are designed more to intimidate legislators rather than to engage the public. If the initiative passes, the two-thirds majority requirement will almost certainly be challenged for violating the state Constitution.

Learn more about I-960's harmful ramifications for our state at Reasons to Oppose.

Initiative 900 rears its ugly head

Via Strange Bedfellows comes word of a new performance audit released by the State Auditor's office and conducted by Ernst & Young, who declared in their report that "Washington State Ferries provides a level of service above what traffic volumes demand." The audit says this unnecessary service will cost the state $100 million over the next 10 years.

The state Department of Transportation has responded to the audit, noting:

"The Department agrees that some sailings have space available during off peak hours...However, several factors will affect how the Department addresses this recommendation.

"As a mass transit provider, there must be a balance in accommodating peak demand periods with providing some level of connection and usefulness to customers in off-peak hours. In the manner that highways are not closed during hours of low utilization, canceling off-peak ferry sailing mush consider factors in addition to utilization."

[...]

"While this finding is worthy of further consideration, it is premature to assume cost savings of almost $10 million (per year) from service cuts."

While performance audits have the potential to be useful and helpful in identifying modest cost savings, what we don't need is auditors and accountants running state government agencies. The foremost goal of the state ferry system should be to provide quality service to the people of Washington State, not transport humans as cheaply as possible.

We opposed I-900 in 2005 because it gave too much power to the auditor's office and went beyond what was needed and appropriate.

At some point in the future, I-900 will have to be revised, repealed, or amended to curtail abuse or prevent the possibility of abuse, because the initiative's language practically invites it.

Checks and balances were apparently not a concept that Tim Eyman learned when he was in high school.