This Washington
Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Eyman Camera Case
The state supreme court heard arguments yesterday from the three (yes, three) sides in a case involving red-light cameras, the denouement of a Tim Eyman-backed initiative banning the cameras in Mukilteo, where Eyman lives.
Eyman and his allies collected signatures to get the initiative banning the traffic-enforcement cameras on the ballot, and it passed with 71 percent of the vote. The Mukilteo city council, however, determined that the question of whether red-light cameras are legal was not subject to the initiative process and that the vote was merely advisory. (They later passed a law abolishing the cameras anyway).
Attorney Vanessa Power, representing a group called Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government, argued that the initiative should never have gone on the ballot in the first place.
Under tough questioning from Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justice Jim Johnson---who questioned whether Power, who has represented red-light camera companies in the past, but said she was representing a concerned Mukilteo citizen in this case, even had standing to argue her position---Power said, "We're concerned with protecting the integrity of the vote. ... What the people believe they did was direct legislation by initiative. Our concern is that this vote is meaningless and it is illusory, and that goes to the fundamental core of our democracy."
The city of Mukilteo, in contrast, argued that the initiative should have gone on the ballot, and that although it may have looked like an initiative, it was merely advisory---a sort of opinion poll on the question of red-light cameras.
And initiative proponents argued that the measure not only should have gone on the ballot but that it the question of whether it was binding---whether it obligated the city council to ban red-light cameras---is irrelevant.
"Our position is that based on the First Amendment and free speech values in having a public [vote], it is appropriate regardless of whether it is properly within the power of the voters to decide" whether red-light cameras should be legal, said Richard Stephens, the attorney for the anti-camera camp. "I think it is perfectly appropriate for post-election review to determine whether the initiative had certain effects or not."
The court's decision (they didn't rule today) could impact anti-red light camera petition drives that are currently underway across the state, including in Longview, Monroe, Wenatchee, Bellingham, and Redmond.
Eyman and his allies collected signatures to get the initiative banning the traffic-enforcement cameras on the ballot, and it passed with 71 percent of the vote. The Mukilteo city council, however, determined that the question of whether red-light cameras are legal was not subject to the initiative process and that the vote was merely advisory. (They later passed a law abolishing the cameras anyway).
Attorney Vanessa Power, representing a group called Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government, argued that the initiative should never have gone on the ballot in the first place.
Under tough questioning from Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justice Jim Johnson---who questioned whether Power, who has represented red-light camera companies in the past, but said she was representing a concerned Mukilteo citizen in this case, even had standing to argue her position---Power said, "We're concerned with protecting the integrity of the vote. ... What the people believe they did was direct legislation by initiative. Our concern is that this vote is meaningless and it is illusory, and that goes to the fundamental core of our democracy."
The city of Mukilteo, in contrast, argued that the initiative should have gone on the ballot, and that although it may have looked like an initiative, it was merely advisory---a sort of opinion poll on the question of red-light cameras.
And initiative proponents argued that the measure not only should have gone on the ballot but that it the question of whether it was binding---whether it obligated the city council to ban red-light cameras---is irrelevant.
"Our position is that based on the First Amendment and free speech values in having a public [vote], it is appropriate regardless of whether it is properly within the power of the voters to decide" whether red-light cameras should be legal, said Richard Stephens, the attorney for the anti-camera camp. "I think it is perfectly appropriate for post-election review to determine whether the initiative had certain effects or not."
The court's decision (they didn't rule today) could impact anti-red light camera petition drives that are currently underway across the state, including in Longview, Monroe, Wenatchee, Bellingham, and Redmond.
