Maybe the explanation on Slog convinced him why his lawsuit was dumb.

Tactically smart?

If they actually believed in the Bible as the literal true word of God, they would print each initiative on lambskin or vellum.

Don't know how they'd get a sheep that big though.

well, whether a referendum is advocating a position you favor or oppose, having to put the entire object of reference on a single sheet of paper is an unfair requirement, as I'm sure you'd be quick to point out if the tables were turned.

How are they going to manage to get 114 pages on one piece of paper though...

@4, a very long scroll.

@3: No it's not, because this bill covers multiple topics that span multiple RCWs. To abridge, summarize or make concise any or all of it would infringe upon a voter's right to fair consideration.

They are not asking for approval of their own measure, they want to have an existing measure considered. It's not their words and can never be their words.

#3, would you sign something without reading all of it? I know I wouldn't.

@8: How does that translate into forcing all the petitions to have to print the bill on one sheet of paper? If they say "the bill, which can be reviewed at blahblah.com" and you don't want to sign it without reading it, don't sign it. If they print the bill up as a small book and have it ready for you to review alongside the petition, how is that a problem? Nobody's going to read a 114-page bill on the spot before deciding whether to sign a petition anyway, whether it's printed all one really huge sheet of paper or not.

@9: Well, okay, not "nobody"; I'm sure there are two or three people who would read it, and who also read Slog, and will feel the need to say that yes, they consider it their civic duty to read every 114-page petition they're presented with, right there on the sidewalk outside the library or grocery store or whatever, instead of either just signing it or not signing it and moving on. (And if you did actually want to read it, wouldn't it likely be much easier to read it if it weren't required to be on a single page of paper?)

This whole one sheet of paper nonsense is so stupid. Sure, it's funny when it fucks over hateful, exclusive activists like this, but I don't really care if you're rallying an initiative to club baby seals. Any system that has stupid little bureaucratic catches like "114 page bill on one sheet of paper LOL" is fucking broken.

For the record, I love gay sex (and baby seals).

@9: Right, and the point to draw from that is that the intricacies of any legislation that is precise enough to be meaningful make it difficult to submit that legislation to a direct democratic vote. This is what opponents of the legislation-by-ballot trends have been saying for years. The fact that the law regarding signature gathering puts the backers of this initiative in an awkward positioin is just gracy.

Argh.

"Gravy." Not "gracy."

In other words @12, what you're saying is that the people are too stupid to comprehend the legislation intended to govern them, and that's why we have to separate them from it with dishonest legal processes and red tape. Does it really not bother you that your government is freezing you out of any legal recourse to their decisions, while at the same time keeping up the farce that you have a voice?

I never really believed The Stranger could be so shortsighted. Laugh at the bigots while you can, I guess.

@14: Technically we're a representative democracy not mob rule. I know this position isn't super popular on the West Coast, but I actually do think most people are too stupid/busy/uninvolved to directly vote on the laws. It really doesn't work more often than not. I wouldn't want the other people waiting in the emergency room to diagnose my illness and I don't want the assembled massed to make decisions about things that don't involve them and are outside their sphere of knowledge.

We have representatives for a reason. And if they're not qualified to legislate, we need to elect individuals who will do their due diligence and vote with conscience and consideration.

@16: I include myself in the number of people who are "too stupid/busy/uninvolved" -- I'd skimmed the election pamphlet the last time I voted, but I was still confronted with choices I a.) didn't fully understand the nuances of b.) didn't care about or c.) didn't think were any of my business.

I'm not a homeowner -- why am I voting on increasing their tax levy? I'm not a legislator -- why am I voting on how they should form committees? For that matter -- If I'm not a gay man or woman, why am I voting on whether or not they [we] can get married?

I would just assume we scrap the while initiative referendum process. I pretty much, with rare exception vote no on all of them and I always refuse to sign petions of any form since they are pointless.

If that's the case @16, then why not get rid of the referendum process altogether? My point is that the government is trying to make us believe we have a voice in their decisions, when in reality it's practically impossible to pull off. That kind of dishonesty should piss people off.

Representative Democracy is fine, but I still think some things (not civil rights) should be put to a popular vote. Also, Representative Democracy can break down when your choices of viable candidates are limited.

@14/20: It has nothing to do with stupid, and everything to do with the complexity of the law. I certainly believe that people have a right to attempt direct legislation, just as I believe they have a right to represent themselves in court. My point is that there are numerous scenarios where direct legislation and self representation are suicidally dumb.

Yes, I think that the government belongs to the people. Yes, I think that our elected representatives frequently fail us. No, I do not think that legislating via the popular ballot is a good or productive way to deal with the deficiencies of a representative democracy. It ignores the real problems and creates a lot of new ones.

Actually the initiative process isn't populist any more because it takes huge $$$$$$$$$$$$4 to do it. It's fake populist, "ROY" life time Washingtonian.

It used to be more populist. Like, it was used to establish campaign finance limitations. And it was used to establish the state freedom of information act. And in the 1930s it was used to establish a progressive income tax, later thrown out by the state supreme court based on the ridiculous, "activist" notion that income is property.

Hi, son, I'd like to bequeath you my income. Ha ha ha.

Down in wonderful populist California this process was used to limit state funding and look where that got them.

Quite a wart. It's more like a huge tumor that's killing the patient, isn't it Roy, life time Washingtonian?

This indicates the process shouldn't be used for taxes or anything that requires funding. You can't budget by initiative without putting the whole budget up every year, which makes no sense.

@22: I live here now and I've lived places where initiative/referendum doesn't really exist, and I can say with certainty that a lot more gets done without it. Maybe some good comes of it, but it also gives us blights like Tim Eyman and endless debates about the viaduct. There's something to be said for efficiency.