Permanent Defense Media Center

Testimony on SHB 2019 and HB 2601

2008-01-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-29T16:32:00.000-08:00

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:

(Last Updated December 3rd, 2007)

What editorial boards are saying about I-960

2007-10-31T20:09:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-12T16:22:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-14T19:01:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-12T12:49:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-04T20:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Initiative 960 would cost taxpayers millions

2007-08-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

The state Office of Financial Management has released a statement analyzing the potential financial impacts of I-960. It's not pretty:

Initiative 960 would result in added costs to prepare ten-year cost projections for proposed state tax and fee increases, to notify legislators and the public about proposed revenue legislation, and to conduct advisory votes on tax increases approved by the Legislature. Costs are estimated to be up to $1.8 million a year, including $1.2 million for local election expenses. Local government pays election costs in even-numbered years. The state pays a pro-rated share in odd-numbered years. Actual election costs for any particular year will depend on the number of tax measures referred to an advisory vote.

Most of the money is for election related expenses (remember, elections cost money) to handle the nonbinding, useless advisory votes that I-960 would implement, if it takes effect.

An advisory vote, a new form of referendum, would be automatically triggered when a tax increase is passed into law by a two thirds supermajority (the high bar stipulated by I-960). Both the advisory vote gimmick, which is meant to give voters the false impression that their taxes are skyrocketing, and the two thirds limits run afoul of the state Constitution.

The state Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the legal challenge to strike I-960 from the statewide ballot next week.

Washington Budget & Policy Center releases analysis of Initiative 960

2007-08-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

An Olympia based think tank focusing on fiscal policy has published a new report confirming our arguments and conclusions about I-960:

A new analysis of Initiative 960 completed by the Budget & Policy Center finds that the initiative will not further widely shared goals of improving government accountability and transparency. Rather, if approved by the voters on the November ballot, I-960 will more likely undermine the ability of the state to formulate and implement rational and thoughtful responses to public priorities and will hinder responsible, efficient, and accountable policymaking.

Acting on widely shared values -- for instance, the recent bipartisan decision to invest in early learning -- could become significantly more difficult.

The report is available in PDF format.

Referendum 67 qualifies for ballot

2007-07-30T11:58:00.000-07:00

You can thank insurance industry money for forcing this unnecessary public vote:

Secretary of State Sam Reed announced today that Referendum 67 has sufficient valid signatures to qualify for a spot on the statewide ballot in November.

According to elections officials, a check of petition signatures submitted in support of the proposal has shown that the measure meets constitutional requirements for a minimum of 112,440 valid voter signatures. The measure will appear on the November 6 General Election ballot.

Referendum 67 would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and permit treble damages plus attorney fees for that and other violations. Some health insurance carriers would be exempt. The official ballot summary on Referendum 67 reads, “Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5726 would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny a claim for coverage or payment of benefits to any "first party claimant", as defined in the bill, or to violate insurance fair practices regulation.

With court approval, successful claimants would be entitled to actual damages plus costs and reasonable attorney fees, and in some cases up to triple damages. The bill would not apply to health plans offered by health carriers.”

Sponsors of Referendum 67 submitted a total of 156,446 petition signatures to the Secretary of State. Election officials conducted a random sample of 4,783 signatures, of which 4,132 were valid signatures – 651 were determined invalid. Signatures are invalid if the signer is not a registered voter or if he or she signed more than once.

The petition was checked using the “random sample” process authorized by state law. Under the process, a statistically valid percentage of the signatures are selected at random and checked against voter registration records. A mathematical formula is then applied to the results to obtain a projected rate of invalidation.

Election officials examined 4,783 (a 3 percent sample) on Referendum 67. From that inspection, it was determined that the measure had an invalidation rate of 13.6 percent.

Remember to vote YES on Referendum 67 this November. Voting YES keeps the consumer protection law in place!

I-960 lawsuit will continue for now

2007-07-23T19:44:00.000-07:00

Our parent organization's blog reports that Futurewise and SEIU 775 - the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to block Tim Eyman's initiative from being considered by voters - have filed an emergency motion for accelerated review with the state Supreme Court because the Superior Court refused to actually consider the issues at hand.

That's good news, but the Court still has to take the case.

I-960 passes random sample check

2007-07-19T13:44:00.000-07:00

The Secretary of State's office just put out a release saying that a random sample check has determined that Initiative 960 has sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot, as expected:

According to elections officials, a check of petition signatures submitted in support of the proposal has shown that the measure meets constitutional requirements for a minimum of 224,880 valid voter signatures. The measure will appear on the November 6th General Election ballot.

Initiative 960 would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval. The official ballot summary on Initiative 960 reads, “This measure would require either a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature or voter approval for all tax increases. New or increased fees would require prior legislative approval. An advisory vote would be required on any new or increased taxes enacted by the legislature without voter approval. The office of financial management would be required to publish cost information and information regarding legislators’ voting records on bills imposing or increasing taxes or fees.”

Sponsors of Initiative 960 submitted a total of 314,504 petition signatures to the Secretary of State. Election officials conducted a random sample of 9,607 signatures, of which 8,410 were valid signatures – 1,197 were determined invalid. Signatures are invalid if the signer is not a registered voter or if he or she signed more than once.

The petition was checked using the “random sample” process authorized by state law. Under the process, a statistically valid percentage of the signatures are selected at random and checked against voter registration records. A mathematical formula is then applied to the results to obtain a projected rate of invalidation.

Election officials examined 9,607 (a 3 percent sample) on Initiative 960. From that inspection, it was determined that the measure had an invalidation rate of 17.1 percent.

There is a possibility that I-960 will still not go before voters in November, if the state Supreme Court accepts for review the case filed by Futurewise and SEIU 775 and decides for the plaintiffs. But the likelihood is that I-960 will be on the ballot, and we will be doing everything we can to ensure that it fails.

Setback in I-960 lawsuit

2007-07-13T23:46:00.000-07:00

Via our parent organization's blog, some bad news:

Judge refuses to block I-960 from ballot
Before actually granting the state's motion, the judge explained the various reasons why she did not want to address the issues raised by the plaintiffs. At one point she even paused and clearly stated, "This is very limited review."

She did not address the constitutionality of the measure, noting that would, however, be appropriate for post-election review.

And while acknowledging that the scope issue was pertinent to the case, she basically sidestepped it. For example, she refused to look at the supermajority issue on the basis that a similiar requirement was approved years ago as part of Initiative 601 (and is now on the books, although the Legislature has not considered the law to be binding, and no court has considered its validity or constitutionality.)

So we didn't get the definitive ruling for or against the suit that I thought we would get from the Court. Restraint evidently weighed heavily on Judge Shaffer's consideration of the plaintiffs' request.

Futurewise and SEIU 775 could still appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, which might come out of summer recess to hear two other unrelated cases that also pertain to the 2007 general election this November.

Eyman should think twice before he gloats...this may not be over yet.

Statement on submission of signatures for I-960

2007-07-06T13:00:00.001-07:00

Here's the press release we sent out this morning following the news:

Permanent Defense today responded to Tim Eyman's submission of signatures for I-960 to the Secretary of State's office by renewing its commitment to fight the measure if it qualifies for the ballot.

"Anyone with half a million dollars can buy their way onto the ballot, no matter your issue or political ideology," said Permanent Defense chair Andrew Villeneuve. "We anticipated that Mr. Eyman would turn in a significant number of signatures for this un-American, unconstitutional, unfair proposal...but it remains to be seen if it's actually true."

"We'll be waiting to see if the Secretary of State's office actually has the number of signatures that Eyman claims he turned in. We already know we can't trust his boasting."

Villeneuve noted that I-960 may never qualify for the ballot, even if there are enough signatures. A lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court last May by Futurewise and SEIU 775 is due for a hearing next week (July 13th). The suit seeks to block I-960 from the ballot because it is outside the scope of the initiative process - it attempts to do what our state's initiative process was not designed for and expressly prohibits (amending the state Constitution by initiative).

"We will work diligently with a broad and diverse coalition of other organizations to defeat this measure in November and protect our cherished tradition of majority rule," Villeneuve added.

Hutcherson abandons Initiative 963

2007-07-02T11:35:00.000-07:00

Antioch Bible Church pastor Ken Hutcherson, who earlier this year filed an initiative to overturn Washington's recently amended civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, admitted today that he has not been doing any work to qualify the measure.

Initiatives currently require 224,880 valid signatures to appear on the ballot. I-963 never had a signature drive, so it stands no chance of going before voters. Its demise is the religious right's second failure in two years to force a vote on the law. Last year's Referendum 65 (an effort by Tim Eyman, Hutcherson, and others) also came up short. The equal rights law appears to be safe for the foreseeable future.

Decline to Sign Referendum 67

2007-06-19T19:42:00.000-07:00

Our parent organization's blog has a post about a message sent out by Representative Steve Kirby earlier today concerning insurance industry trickery. Insurers, using a shell PAC called "Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates" are attempting to collect signatures to force a vote on a consumer protection act that the industry wants repealed.

Referendum 67 is not about screening you from higher insurance rates, it's about rolling back safeguards that defend your family. If you are approached by a petitioner to sign Referendum 67, decline and immediately report your encounter to Permanent Defense so we can track and respond to their activities.

Seattle Times editoralizes against I-960 lawsuit

2007-06-18T20:26:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times editorial board published a predictably lame editorial this morning denouncing the lawsuit filed by PD allies Futurewise and SEIU 775 to block Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 from the ballot. The main gist of the whiny editorial was that the suit, which contends that I-960 is outside the scope of the initiative process, is essentially unfair.

David Goldstein has admirably deconstructed the Times' editorial, which we've all anticipated was coming ever since the lawsuit was filed.

State GOP endorses Eyman's I-960

2007-06-03T12:03:00.000-07:00

Why did they do it? Well, because the Washington State Republican Party loves initiatives that conflict with our state's Constitution.

Yesterday, at the state committee's quarterly meeting, the Evergreen State GOP unanimously renewed its firm and unwavering commitment to the right wing agenda.

In other action Saturday, the Republicans voted to endorse Initiative 960, activist Tim Eyman's latest attempt to rein in taxes.

The initiative, which needs about 225,000 valid signatures by July, would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature for tax increases, or simple majority plus voter approval.

The snippet above comes from an Associated Press article about the meeting, held in Yakima (via the Longview Daily News).

The state GOP has an established tradition of endorsing right wing initiatives - and not just those sponsored by Tim Eyman. Those Republicans who wonder why they're losing need look no further than their party's endorsement of I-960 yesterday, the latest exhibit in why the GOP won't be taking over the statehouse anytime soon.

For more information on the harmful consequences of this disaster, visit Reasons to Oppose Initiative 960.

May Campaign Update debuts

2007-05-31T22:04:00.000-07:00

The Journal is back after a long hiatus, newly integrated into the latest and greatest version of Permanent Defense's online home (Version 7, the May Campaign Update, codename Whidbey). We have worked hard to improve the user experience. Here's a summary of the major changes we've made.

New slogan/motto. We recently restyled Permanent Defense's tagline to emphasize its broader mission of fighting against bad libertarian ideas (Opposing Right Wing Initiatives and Fighting Tim Eyman). This change is permanent as of this update.

Page Background Adjusted for Easier Reading. A number of visitors have long complained that Permanent Defense's stucco background, which has been used on the site since its inception in February of 2002, makes reading text too difficult. So we've refitted the stucco pattern to appear on the screen where there isn't page content. (Where there is, you'll see a white backdrop).

Improved accessibility. Almost every image on the site uses an alternate tag now

Faster loading. The site now uses more optimized graphics (especially for navigation) and a leaner, better codebase, which means it will load more quickly in your browser.

Darker red theme. We used a softer, darker hue of red for text and buttons in this version to reduce the amount of glare or annoyance caused by the previously brighter color used throughout our site.

New address for the archives. The Permanent Defense Archives, which are being restored, reorganized, and expanded, will in the future be accessible at archives (dot) permanentdefense (dot) org. We hope to complete our work on the archive as part of this summer's July Relaunch.

Reshaped Navigation. Old sections of our site that have outlived their usefulness have been removed (such as the Press Box, which is now integrated with the Release Center). The Permanent Defense Journal is now incorporated into the left navigation menu. And there is a major distinction between the two types of buttons in the menu - red ones take you to sections inside of Permanent Defense's site, blue ones take you to other parts of the Northwest Progressive Institute's network.

Front Page Changes. We've refreshed the appearance of the menu centers on the front page (Breaking News, Releases, and the Journal) which help you find important information about our latest activities. The front page sports a new NO on I-960 banner and a frequently asked questions (or FAQ) about Initiative 960.

A more useful Release Center. We've retooled the Release Center/Newsroom to help you easily browse official statements, special reports, our document library, tax references, and press coverage of right wing initiatives. The Release Center has incorporated the now retired Press Box as mentioned above.

Updates for all permanent sections. We've carefully and thoroughly revised all the major sections of our website, including our about and contact pages, Links & Resources, Dangerous Initiatives, and the Action Center. Essays: Our Arguments includes a new exposition on I-960 and Reasons presents the case against Tim Eyman's undemocratic idea.

New materials available. Handouts are available for download to help educate the public about the harmful consequences of Initiative 960. They can be downloaded from either the Action Center or the Release Center.

Eyman dresses up as Darth Vader for ridiculous stunt

2006-06-05T12:02:00.000-07:00

Permanent Defense's parent organization, NPI, has a report on its Official Blog about Tim Eyman's latest and most deceptive trickery to date: lying to the media about turning in petitions for Referendum 65.

Eyman recently told the media by email that he was to coming to the Secrretary of State's office this morning to turn in petitions, but he ended up turning in absolutely nothing.

Read the full report here.

Whitman County, nonprofits sue to invalidate Initiative 747

2006-06-01T16:39:00.000-07:00

Good news from the Puget Sound Business Journal:

Whitman County and a coalition of nonprofit groups are suing the state, arguing that Tim Eyman's Initiative 747, which capped state and local property tax increase at 1 percent per year, is unconstitutional.

At a hearing in King County Superior Court on Friday, June 2, the plaintiffs will argue that I-747 didn't accurately describe the law it would amend and that the initiative's ballot title didn't accurately describe its subject. The group said similar arguments were used to invalidate Initiative 695, another Eyman initiative aimed at reducing car-tab taxes to $30.

The lawsuit is brought by Whitman County and several nonprofits, including Washington Citizen Action, the Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition, and Futurewise, the group formerly known as 1,000 Friends of Washington.

I-747 created a funding crisis for local and state governments, the group said.

"Initiative 747 has taken a dramatic toll on small county governments like those east of the mountains," said Whitman County Commissioner Jerry Finch. "Under this initiative, our revenue simply cannot keep up with inflation and we are being forced to cut critical services."

Seattle Chamber of Commerce votes to oppose I-917

2006-05-31T18:59:00.000-07:00

The Executive Committee of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce recently voted (on May 24th, 2006) to oppose Tim Eyman's Initiative 917, which would destroy some $2.7 billion dollars of sorely needed, statewide transportation funding.

Recommendation
The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce unanimously opposes Initiative 917 (I-917), an initiative which will likely be before voters in November 2006. This initiative’s negative impact is far-reaching, threatening our region’s social and environmental health as well as its economic health. It would repeal the fee portion of last year’s $8.5 billion Transportation Partnership funding package, repeal much of the multi-modal funding allotted in the 2003 Nickel package, undercut Sound Transit’s ability to collect MVET, and strip RTID of its MVET authority, making it almost exclusively reliant on the sales tax and jeopardizing its ability to craft a balanced and successful package that would complete our region’s most at-risk projects. If approved by voters, the Transportation Revenue Forecast Council estimates that transportation revenue would be reduced by $2.7 billion over the next 16 years.

Background
Last year, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce helped lead a broad coalition of business, labor and environmental organizations to lobby the state legislature for a significant increase in transportation funding. The $8.5 billion transportation funding package that resulted was the Chamber's number one legislative priority accomplished during that session. The package addresses unsafe and deteriorating roads and bridges throughout Washington State, and provides the multimodal infrastructure improvements that will ensure the safety and productivity of our state's businesses and their employees. On July 13, 2005, the Chamber’s Board of Trustees opposed Initiative 912 which would have repealed the gas tax portion of that package. The Chamber played a central role in the campaign that successfully defeated Initiative 912. Initiative 917 would repeal the fee portion of this package as well as reduce other local revenues and funding options. Discussion Initiative 917 specifically: Reduces license tab fees to $30 per year for vehicles weighing 20,000 pounds or less. Repeals or reduces a number of fees including truck fees, vehicle weight fees & license plate fees. Removes a portion of the motor vehicle sales tax. Changes the vehicle valuation method for tax and fee purposes from manufacturer’s suggested retail price to a depreciation schedule based on purchase price. Repeals select local and RTID motor vehicle taxes and fees authorized for voter approval. Retires several outstanding bonds that have pledged the motor vehicle excise tax. Places major transportation improvements at risk, including: Viaduct, SR520, Sound Transit, and RTID.

Conclusion
The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce believes our region's future economic health and the well-being of our communities is fundamentally linked to an efficient transportation infrastructure. The abilityto move people and goods through mass transportation and road improvements must be enhanced in ourregion to improve our economic vitality and quality of life. In addition, hundreds of hazardous bridges and roadways in Washington are in need of repair including the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This initiative would repeal critical transportation funding, therefore the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce opposes Initiative 917.

You never know when Eyman's telling the truth

2006-05-19T18:56:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago, the lying initiative profiteer sent out an email to a few select supporters saying the campaign for R-65 was in trouble and in need of more signatures.

Now Eyman is boasting that his supporters are not overconfident, and he's within striking distance of having enough signatures by June 6th. It's typical Eyman.

Will he have enough signatures? While the reports we've been receiving indicate that signature gathering for R-65 has been stepped up, it doesn't sound as if there's been an all out aggressive push.

It could be like in 2004, where Eyman attempted to keep everyone in suspense until the very end, when he and his partners the Fagans brought in a table stacked with petitions to make the press think he was going to turn in, when in reality he was about a hundred thousand signatures short of what was needed.

We'll know for sure when the deadline arrives.

In the meantime, we are not confused - we continue to work to educate Washingtonians about the danger of these attacks on our sustainable future.

Eyman's press release:

It’s been nearly a month since our announcement that we needed a big increase in signatures. The effect couldn’t have turned out better. Our supporters now know the facts. They know there’s work to be done. Emails and phone calls have been pouring in ever since with offers to work even harder.

This is what Eyman says every year about every initiative effort, including those that have failed. Remember I-807 in 2003, which was going to be "wildly popular"?

The media stories have been remarkably neutral. Opponents are perplexed and disoriented (“Is it a political ploy? Do we stay quiet? Do you attack? What do we do??????????”). There’s not an ounce of overconfidence among any of our supporters now. We all know that it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get Referendum 65 on the ballot.

We’ve got 19 days left. 19 days is a lifetime in politics IF AND ONLY IF WE ALL GET GOING — AND GET GOING BIG TIME. Our deadline for signatures is Tuesday, June 6th. The number of valid signatures needed is 112,440.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW IS THAT THERE IS ENOUGH TIME TO GET THE SIGNATURES FOR REFERENDUM 65. BUT ONLY IF WE ALL REDOUBLE AND RETRIPLE OUR EFFORTS RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Remember, if you see right wing signature gathering activity occurring, please report it to Permanent Defense.

WSLC endorses NO on Initiative 917

2006-05-17T18:55:00.000-07:00

Hundreds of union delegates from aross Washington gathered in SeaTac just last Saturday for the Washington State Labor Council's (WSLC) 2006 Convention of the Committee on Political Education (COPE). Delegates voted to endorse NO on Initiative 917 and DECLINE TO SIGN on Referendum 65.

Delegates also endorsed NO on Initiative 933, the initiative that creates loopholes for wealthy developers, and Initiative 920, which would repeal the state income tax. It's good to see the WSLC take an early position against this year's crop of right wing initiatives.

Eyman reveals signature drive progress for R-65

2006-04-27T14:08:00.000-07:00

We have no way of knowing whether Tim Eyman is telling the truth, but we do know that Tim Eyman sent an email today to supporters and the media. In it, he says that only 8,718 signatures have been collected for Referendum 65.
112,440 valid signatures are required for qualification on the ballot, but Eyman will need a cushion of thousands more signatures because a certain percentage are always duplicates or otherwise invalid.

When the AP asked Rep. Ed Murray for comment, he voiced skepticism:

"I'm very suspicious that it's a political ploy," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who sponsored the gay civil rights bill and is one of four openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature.

Eyman, for his part, gave a curious response:

"I think we're going to be scraping by the skin of our teeth," he said. "They assume we're smarter than we are. That's not the case."

Actually, we don't assume Eyman is smart. But we do assume, based on what's happened in the past, that special interests and wealthy backers (especially those who can't stand the idea of equality) will in fact be willing to put up money to fund a paid signature drive to get Referendum 65 on the ballot.

Of course, so far, Eyman's fundraising for R-65 has been less than lackluster, and we couldn't be more pleased about that.

Some of Eyman's supporters told the AP they are hoping the state Supreme Court will overturn the state's ban on gay marriage, thereby providing "a spark" to inspire right wing religious zealots to gather signatures. That indicates they're having some trouble gathering signatures now.

And to that - we say, good.