Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

When B-Ho goes all exec-order on the border, the fireworks are gonna fly for sure.

 

When the R's start taking BamaCare apart piece-by-piece the fireworks are gonna fly for sure.

 

When Barry appoints another sycophant to head Justice in the lame duck, the fireworks are gonna fly for sure.

 

When the R's apply Harry Reid's semi-nuclear option simple majority, the fireworks are gonna fly.

 

Popcorn anyone?

Posted

 

Initiatives exist because most legislatures find themselves out of touch with voters with regards to certain issues.

 

I take a bit longer view, even if it doesn't make for a tasty sound bite.

 

 

I agree. Oregon Measure 88 - failed with 68% against. :tup:

Posted

Initiatives are difficult, risky, and expensive. It's very difficult to get one passed - the long term planning and execution is daunting.

 

I 502 came at the tail end of a 12 year effort - public education, lobbying, legislative reform, polling, meetings with law enforcement, donor relationship development. The campaign was staffed with the best. The initiative was written by 2 of the most experienced constitutional lawyers in WA.

 

It took over 8 million bucks to get it passed.

 

Not every campaign can put all those moving parts together successfully. It's hard.

Posted (edited)
Initiatives are difficult, risky, and expensive. It's very difficult to get one passed - the long term planning and execution is daunting.

 

I 502 came at the tail end of a 12 year effort - public education, lobbying, legislative reform, polling, meetings with law enforcement, donor relationship development. The campaign was staffed with the best. The initiative was written by 2 of the most experienced constitutional lawyers in WA.

 

It took over 8 million bucks to get it passed.

 

Not every campaign can put all those moving parts together successfully. It's hard.

 

I have no real gripe with the initiative process. On one hand, it is a bit "mob-rules," and has the potential to trample on minority rights/points of view if not buffered by the courts.

 

On the other hand, it sends messages to entrenched representatives.

 

Still, for a state to gain admission to the union, it must adopt a "representative form of governance." The initiative process is an after-the-fact end-run around this form of government. (Article IV, Sec 4.1)

 

Anyhow, I like the initiative process--but have some reservations about it.

Edited by Fairweather
Posted

On balance, I agree with our esteemed Mr. Fairweather on this one.

 

The initiative process has led to some rather poor results that are really a reflection of paranoia or shallow thinking or what I guess he refers to as "mob rule" including the Eyeman initiatives. On balance, I think we would probably be better off if there was not such support in Washington law for the initiative process.

 

But at last night's 594 election night return event I saw a bunch of the usual liberal suspects who attend events that I attend making speeches about how it was a great night for the people of Washington when, after the Legislature failed to act, we could take this initiative to a vote of THE PEOPLE. Strange I thought: these same usual suspects were not saying that when initiatives 985, 1053, and 1185 were passed.

 

Posted

Too bad we can't have an initiative banning paid signature gatherers for initiatives - that would be closer to the original intent.

 

But money= speech, right?

Posted (edited)

Why don't you put together an initiative to ban them?

 

Good luck getting the signatures with just volunteers. Plan on getting 5% of the required 300,000 or so, because that's what you'll wind up with.

 

8% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election is what's required - plus 15% extra to make sure all the signatures are valid.

 

The days of all volunteer signature gatherers are looooong gone. Like it or not, that's today's reality.

 

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Posted

True that. And isn't there something in the original legislation that would have to be changed before this hypothetical option could occur? Didn't we cover this once?

 

As in most political deals, money rules.

Posted

Not that I know of -- only the ones chose by the electorate (30%) and the moneyed interests (1% or less) in the guise of free speech.

 

Yea, we're making progress ok. In the coming budget battles who do you think, for instance, will win out - social needs/infrastructure/environments or the Pentagon?

 

I know - at least the Dems throw a bone or two in that direction.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...