Proving that money can’t buy everything, Washington State’s
most recent anti-gun ballot initiative may end up being derailed over a
failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements, despite
seven-figure funding through hefty donations from local billionaires and
other big donors.
Under state law, the sponsors of a ballot initiative must collect
signatures using a prescribed petition format and process.
The State
constitution requires that every petition must “include the full text of
the measure so proposed,” which is echoed in a state law that mandates
all petitions circulated for signatures
must have
“a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure
printed on the reverse side of the petition.” This guarantees that every
voter being asked to sign the petition has an opportunity, beforehand,
to review the complete text of the measure, so as to reduce
misinformation, deception, or fraud regarding what is actually being
proposed and supported by the signer.
The Secretary of State’s
Handbook
on initiative laws confirms that the “Office of the Secretary of State
must ascertain that the signer, at the time of signing the petition, had
the opportunity to read the complete text of the measure. Otherwise,
the Office of the Secretary of State cannot verify the signatures on
that petition.”
The group behind Initiative I-1639, the Alliance for Gun
Responsibility (AGR), has turned gun-control initiatives in Washington
State into a cottage industry, with two previous ballot initiative
campaigns. According to the AGR, I-1639 represents its “most
comprehensive” initiative in Washington State to date.
The
Initiative document itself consists of 30 pages
of wide-ranging and extensive changes to the state’s firearms laws on
rifle sales and transfers, “assault rifles,” training requirements, gun
dealer compliance, age to purchase or possess restrictions, new purchase
and transfer fees, new firearm storage crimes, and more. This shows
changes to the existing law in the traditional legislative manner, with
underlining for additions and strikeouts for deletions.
Each petition sheet circulated to the signing public reads that the
“undersigned citizens and legal voters…direct that the proposed measure
known as Initiative Measure No. 1639… a full, true, and correct copy of
which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be submitted to
the legal voters…” Not only were 30 pages of changes (now reduced to
teeny-tiny text) crammed onto the back of each petition page but – unlike the
original Initiative document – the petition pages lacked any
indications, by way of strikeout or underlined text, to show the actual
amendments being proposed to existing state law.
Concerned citizens initially raised these compliance issues in June. In their application
seeking a court injunction
to prohibit Washington’s Secretary of State from accepting the signed
petition, the court declined to intervene, concluding that court review
was “authorized only if the Secretary [of State] refuses to file the
petition.” In the meantime, I-1639’s sponsor continued to use the same
petition pages to collect signatures.
The Secretary of State
acknowledged
that “significant” constitutional concerns had been raised regarding
I-1639’s petition format and confirmed that the “petition sheets
presented a text of the measure that lacked underlining and
strikethroughs to explain its changes to existing law,” but Initiative
1639 was, regardless,
certified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot.
Early this month, the NRA and Alan Gottleib of the Second Amendment
Foundation filed two separate lawsuits against the Secretary of State,
seeking to enjoin the certification under
state law.
By incorrectly labeling the petition information as the actual text of
I-1639, the Initiative sponsor violated the explicit, mandatory
statutory direction that a “readable, full, true, and correct” copy of
the Initiative be included with the petition pages. More significantly,
this was also false, misleading, and unfair to voters.
Under this
“I-1639 bait-and-switch,” not only were voters asked to sign a petition
containing a copy of the proposed measure that was almost impossible to
read, the text made it impossible to distinguish between current law and
the changes being proposed. “None of the voters who signed the
Submitted Petition had a copy of the actual text of I-1639 on the
petition that they signed, and there is no proof that any of the voters
who signed the Submitted Petition had an opportunity to review the text
of the initiative to be placed on the ballot.”
These failures, according to the lawsuits, invalidate the petition
and the signatures, and the Secretary of State should have rejected the
signatures and withheld certification. The lawsuits ask the court to
apply the constitutional and statutory requirements and suspend or deny
certification.
In addition to the defective, incorrect text and print so voluminous
and small that voters could scarcely be expected to read it, the lawsuit
also raises claims of “misleading signage [and] untruthful signature
gatherers” –
one source contends that “paid signature gatherers were caught on film telling voters the initiative had nothing to do with gun control.”
A hearing date has been set for August 17.
The National Rifle Association is the source of this article.
Update, August 17, 2018
Thurston County Superior Court today ruled against the AGR and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law – the font size was far too small to be readable and didn't include required strikethroughs (which show what existing laws are repealed or modified).