Jolt
Afternoon Jolt: Pot Reform
We're not really sure if there's a winner or loser here, but today's Jolt involves the ACLU and the marijuana legalization group, Sensible Washington.
You'll remember the two groups parted ways earlier this year when the ACLU decided not to support SW's proposed pot initiative. The ACLU thought the initiative lacked a regulatory component, particularly one that would provide revenue for the state.
ACLU drug reform point person Alison Holcomb tells Jolt that she "reached out" to Sensible Washington organizer Philip Dawdy in October and had a "pleasant" and productive three-hour strategy session about a new initiative.
However, she says the ACLU is not interested in a 2011 initiative, preferring 2012—a bigger turnout year—and Dawdy told her the sense he was getting from his troops was that they preferred running the initiative in 2011; one without the changes the ACLU wanted.
Holcomb says Dawdy said he'd get back to her with a draft initiative in December, but she hasn't seen anything yet.
UPDATE:
Sensible Washington Vice Chair Dawdy, who also says he had a "good chat with [Holcomb]" says it's "presumptuous" for the ACLU to expect to see a draft of SW's initiative given the "shabby manner in which the ACLU of Washington treated I-1068 [2010's unsuccessful attempt to field an initiative]." (Dawdy is referring to the fallout noted above when the ACLU backed out of supporting the proposed measure.)
However, he adds: "Nonetheless, if time allows, we'll show them a draft ahead of our filing with the Secretary of State."
As to the the disagreement over 2011 vs. 2012, Dawdy says:
And Dawdy has some evidence to back up his claim, noting that liberal measures have passed in odd years (I-120 in 1991, which strengthened abortion rights; and the domestic partnership referendum, R-71, in 2009). Additionally, conservative ones have been beaten in odd years (the gas tax repeal in 2005; and, Eyman's no-government budget increase measure, I-1033, in 2009).
You'll remember the two groups parted ways earlier this year when the ACLU decided not to support SW's proposed pot initiative. The ACLU thought the initiative lacked a regulatory component, particularly one that would provide revenue for the state.
ACLU drug reform point person Alison Holcomb tells Jolt that she "reached out" to Sensible Washington organizer Philip Dawdy in October and had a "pleasant" and productive three-hour strategy session about a new initiative.
However, she says the ACLU is not interested in a 2011 initiative, preferring 2012—a bigger turnout year—and Dawdy told her the sense he was getting from his troops was that they preferred running the initiative in 2011; one without the changes the ACLU wanted.
Holcomb says Dawdy said he'd get back to her with a draft initiative in December, but she hasn't seen anything yet.
UPDATE:
Sensible Washington Vice Chair Dawdy, who also says he had a "good chat with [Holcomb]" says it's "presumptuous" for the ACLU to expect to see a draft of SW's initiative given the "shabby manner in which the ACLU of Washington treated I-1068 [2010's unsuccessful attempt to field an initiative]." (Dawdy is referring to the fallout noted above when the ACLU backed out of supporting the proposed measure.)
However, he adds: "Nonetheless, if time allows, we'll show them a draft ahead of our filing with the Secretary of State."
As to the the disagreement over 2011 vs. 2012, Dawdy says:
I guess we'll just have a professional disagreement on the political dynamic in this state. The ACLU of Washington is in alignment with various national groups who want to run a legalization initiative in this state in 2012, and they are deeply wedded to the idea that such initiatives should only be run in Presidential election years. They argue that you need the extra voter turnout in Presidential years. We argue--based upon actual evidence--that the right voters turn out to vote the right way in odd-numbered years. The national groups and the ACLU of Washington have no evidence to support their claim since no one has passed a legalization initiative in any year, Presidential or not, in this country.
And Dawdy has some evidence to back up his claim, noting that liberal measures have passed in odd years (I-120 in 1991, which strengthened abortion rights; and the domestic partnership referendum, R-71, in 2009). Additionally, conservative ones have been beaten in odd years (the gas tax repeal in 2005; and, Eyman's no-government budget increase measure, I-1033, in 2009).
