Freaking finally.
Exchanged emails with Hunt’s LA today, and we’re on for Nov. 16 at 9a (Rep. Hunt has a breakfast meeting) 915a.
This might also be a good day to do my lit drop at the legislative office buildings, since they might just be in committee that week.
If you just happened upon this blog, and you were wondering what the heck this is all about, and whether I’m actually dead and so is the idea, fear not. I’m not, its not.
I’ve been off working on other related projects, like this one that is meant to collect other great ideas like mine and put them together.
Also, I’m still trying to get a meeting with my local representative who is on the right committee.
While conservatives lean on big money sugar daddies like Michael Dunsmire and Martin Selig to bank roll their initiatives, progressives go to a different sort.
Meet Sam Garst of Olympia, the most prolific signature gatherer for I-937.
While conservatives can pay low wages to get feet on the streets collecting signatures at high traffic locations (Mariner games, the front door at Safeway), Sam and his ilk were out every weekend at community events and progressive gatherings, rounding up as many signatures as possible.
One of things that I liked that Sam said often was “you can’t assume someone has signed.” Even in Olympia, where progressive politics is almost as common as beer, not everyone sprinted to sign I-937 or even knew about it. You can’t be afraid to ask.
Another thing is that I got tons of emails from Sam not only reminding folks to sign, but to collect signatures as well. He didn’t create a new email list, he used the lists that were out there already and asked subscribers to participate. When a discussion on one list questioned putting energy into supporting 937 as opposed to fighting 933, Sam thoughtfully participated, and actually brought the original dissenter (maybe to strong a word?) around.
Sam is a great example why volunteer signature gatherers are valuable to the initiative process and democracy. Paid signature gatherers don’t have any stake in the passage of an initiative beyond getting paid. Folks like Sam have a stake because they believe.
While we can’t ban signature gatherers from being paid, we can prevent them from being paid a bounty for each signature.
We can also (and you kind of knew this was coming) help folks like Sam do their work and help the rest of us be more like Sam by shrinking the minimum size of petitions. By making the petition itself more accessible, the rest of us can easily get our hands on them, making volunteering in and initiative campaign, easier to do.
There is something going on that I can’t figure out. On the local level, in Seattle and Bellingham, there are handful of progressive municipal initiative campaigns up and running. And, none of them are posting their initiative petitions online.
This is even more troubling because both Bellingham and Seattle (along with Spokane) allow printer sized (8.5 by 11 inch) petitions, which would make it a snap for folks to print out, sign and submit.
On the other hand, the three big conservative statewide initiative campaigns (917, 920 and 933) each have a pdf of their petition on their website. Even though someone would have to go down to a copy place to get it printed, the conservative campaigns are making it much easier for the regular guy to get inolved.
From the couple of emails I’ve gotten from folks involved in progressive initiatives, they seem to have the impression that by allowing anyone to print out, sign and submit a petition they would be allowing for signature fraud.
What do you think?
That the initiative process has been used in Washington in the past ten years to run rough-shod over state government's finances isn't evidence that the initiative system is broken, it is evidence that initiatives are the territory of the rich. Regular people, folks not like Michael Dunmire, don't get their ideas (or ideas they like) on the ballot.
Since the beginnig of Tim Eyman career, Dunmire has donated $1 million, almost totally to the Eyman initiatives blowing holes in the state's taxing authority.
It should also be noted that Eyman’s scandals have finally caught up with him, at least in terms of his so-called “grass roots” support. Of the $593,000 he raised for Initiative 900, over $514,000 can from a single source: investment banker Michael Dunmire of Woodinville. All it takes to qualify for the ballot is a half million dollars worth of paid signatures, and with a deep pocketed sugar daddy like Dunmire, Eyman is virtually assured ballot access. But that won’t mean his latest $30 car tab initiative has popular support.
That initiatives supported by Dunmire make it on the ballot is not a reflection on the public will.
It is a cynical reflection that if you have enough money, you can get your idea on the ballot and control the debate. While it is impossible, even unconstitutional, to stop guys like Dunmire from supporting ideas with all the money in the world, you can allow the rest of us to shoulder up to him.
By making the bar of participation so high in the initiattive process (for example, large sized initiative petitions) that state is benefiting people who can pay the price over folks who can't write $25,000 checks.
Cross posted at Olympia Time
Steve is correct when he reminds us that progressive's shouldn't hate the game, they should hate the player. It isn't the fault of the initiative process that it has been hijacked by right wing money makers like Eyman, it is our fault for giving the process over to them. A lot of good progressive things have come out of initiatives, as Steve points out. Read his post, it is good.
So, now that we've pretty much given over the process to guys like Eyman, what do we do? I have an idea that would hopefully encourage more regular citizen involvement in the process, but there are other ideas.
I'm not a big fan of Permanent Defense's "report right wing signature gathering" (even though I've got me some to report). I don't think it is an effective way to counter the signature gathering step in initiatives, and it boarders on encouraging harrasment.
While I'm talking about Permanent Defense also not a big fan of the name. For one, it is a take off on Eyman's Permanent Offense, you shouldn't allow your opponent to define you, even in what you call yourself. Plus it is a negative term, like "we're always on defense," or "you're so defensive."
The No on I-933 crowd seems to have struck on a great alternative to the "Report" scheme. They're encouraging people to sign a petition signifying that they aren't in support of I-933. While it would be interesting if someday a "No On" campaign could compete for signatures to keep an initiative off the ballot, this idea seems to be more powerful now as a campaign/PR tool.
Imagine Eyman getting out of his car at the Secretary of State's office finding dozens of anti-Whateverhesupto folks with their own petitions.
Plus, there wouldn't be any weird size requirments to the anti-petitions.
The meeting went well, I was early (way early) and so I scoured the first floor of the office building he's in for a nice bench so I could enjoy their nice public wifi. I ended up settling for an almost falling apart chair left outside a hearing room. No public seating in the John O'Brien building?
Rep. Sam Hunt walked by while I was waiting, and asked if the teacher had sent me out into the hall. Nope, only place I could find to sit down.
I had a two page handout for Rep. Williams, including this text (including a typo I caught while waiting), some proposed bill text (Nixon's without the width and height reference) and my example.
Anyway, Rep. Williams seemed supportive of my idea, even when I told him it had been sponsored by Rep. Toby Nixon a few years before. He said he'd look into why it didn't pass three years ago, and that I should approach the above mentioned Rep. Hunt about it too since he sits on the right committee. I did know this, but I had another reason to go talk to Rep. Williams first and I wanted to get that under my belt before I went to Hunt.
Not that I was nervous, I just didn't know what to expect.
I did serve up some of the criticisms of the idea, specifically the one that I've had the most probles refuting: that reducing the petition size to a commonly used size of paper would increase the amount of initiative fraud. Folks faking petitions, stuff like that.
Rep. Williams, though, responded quickly saying that that sort of thing could happen now if someone really wanted to do it, which has been my only response. Awesome.
All around, good first meeting.
I found one more Washington city that allows printer sized petitions, Bellingham (from Bellingham Municipal Code 1.02.030):
D. Petitions shall be printed or typed on single sheets of white paper of good quality, not less than 11 inches in width and not less than 8-1/2 inches in length with a margin of 1 inch at the top, bottom, and sides of the petition for office use only; and each sheet of petition paper having a space thereon for signatures shall contain the text or prayer of the petition. For any particular petition, all sheets of paper shall be the same size.
I found that reference while following up on an initiative being filed up there to protect Bellingham Bay. I'm sending the same email that I sent to all the other Seattle initiatives about whether they're putting a petition online.
This Thursday, I'm going to have my first meeting on this with an actual legislature. I was talking with Rep. Brendan Williams' LA earlier this week on another topic, and I thought as long as I was on the line, I might as well ask for a meeting so I could go over with him my big idea.
Here is the handout I plan to bring. If anyone still reads this blog, give me a comment if you see something I can improve on:
Reducing the size of the statewide initiative petition from 11 by 14 inches to 8.5 by 11 inches, Washington State will meet a growing nationwide standard and reduce the influence of special interests on the initiative process.
8.5 by 11 initiative petitions are common nationwide
Washington has the largest required minimum petition size in the country.
Of the more than 20 states that have some sort of initiative or referendum process, 12 states mandate a particular size for signature petitions. Eight of those states allow regular sized paper (8.5 by 11) to be used. All other states have a minimum size of 11 by 14. Even Michigan, where the minimum allowed size is 11 by 14, is considering a reduction in the minimum size to 8.5 by 11.
By reducing the minimum size of initiative petitions to 8.5 by 11, Washington can meet the national standard.
There is no such thing as 11 by 14 paper
Why does Washington State require petitions to be a size that doesn't even exist?
The original mandated minimum size for an initiative petition in Washington was 12 by 14. In the early 1980s paper was no longer printed in dimensions of 12, so the legislature took an inch off one side to slightly update the petition size. Today, 11 by 17 is the typical size of initiative petitions in Washington.
By reducing the minimum size of initiative petitions to 8.5 by 11, Washington can require a paper size that actually exists.
8.5 by 11 petitions are common statewide for municipal level elections
Only statewide initiatives require 11 by 14 inch petitions.
Both Seattle and Spokane allow regular printer size pages to be used for initiative petitions. In all other local initiative campaigns, such as recall petitions or ballot petitions, 8.5 by 11 petitions are allowed.
By reducing the minimum size of initiative petitions to 8.5 by 11, Washington can meet the standard already set in by our local governments.
8.5 by 11 petitions bring the initiative process closer to citizens
Despite being created in the early 20th century as a safety valve for citizens to circumvent the legislature, the initiative process is more and more the domain of well funded special interests. Because the federal courts have ruled that there can be no limit to donations to initiative campaigns, the only way to decrease special interest influence is to increase the opportunity for citizens to be involved. By allowing citizens to easily print out initiative petitions themselves and voluntarily circulate them, the legislature can lessen the importance of commercial printing of petitions and paid signature gatherers.
For more information, go to http://printerdemocracy.wordpress.com
Great Schools (I-87 and I-8 
aren't posting their petitions online either. Go figure.
