Being unable to read the text of the initiative and not having the correct verbiage with strikes or underlines(also just as important), is hardly a "technicality".

The issue is whether the proposed legislation complies with Article II, Section 37. there is a four-page law review section here: http://blogs.gonzaga.edu/gulawreview/files/2011/01/Fraser.pdf

Litigation on Article II, Sec. 37 has been brisk in the last 25 years as initiatives have become a regular part of elections. However, there are relevant cases from 1909 and 1910.

I imagine the parties briefed the issue well and my impression is the WA Supreme Court has fairly clear precedents that guided judge Dixon's decision. That said, it appears within a matter of weeks the WA Supreme Court will provide guidance through a decision in this matter.

From my own experience, reading legislation without underlined additions and strike-through deletions makes it nearly impossible to understand what is added and what is deleted. Legislation is not supposed to be confusing and full of secrets. Confusion and secrecy do not serve the public.

"This seems to clearly support I-1639: The people signing the petition were knowingly exercising their right to petition their government, regardless of any missing strikethroughs or small text."

I don't know how you got to "seems to clearly support" after that very same argument failed in the trial court.

that old judge doesn't have 20/20 vision - he has presbyopia like everyone over 50.

@4...and apparently whoever put the shitty paperwork together didn't bother to do a thorough job...like everyone under 30....right? :P

I'd like to know if Judge Dixon is a proud card carrying, gun toting member of the NRA? My guess is Dixon's dyslexic---or pretending that he is to have Initiative 1631 yanked for the November ballot.
@4: Hey, wait, Max--I'M over 50! Although I am Caucasian, female and among the youngest of Baby Boomers, don't put me in the same camp with RepubliKKKans and rabid NRA gun nuts arguing their grossly outdated Second Amendment rights. I skipped Joey Gibson's bullshit hate rally downtown on Saturday for good reason.

@6: Correction: ....yanked from the November ballot, not for.

@6
more likely, the judge was job doing his job.

and the 2nd Amendment is out dated? lol. you realize how asinine that sounds right? oh wait, you probably don't.

*just doing his job.

@8 & 9: Judge Dixon was just doing his job being a dyslexic gun nut? The Second Amendment is indeed outdated, ya moron. How many of us truly need to be armed? Why do 3 year olds "need" access to AK-47s? How many mothers have been fatally shot to death in Wal*Marts? How many people have been brutally killed in parking lots? The NRA is only about pushing fear-mongering, hatred, white supremacy, and neofascism anymore. Oh, wait, you're the reigning champ on being totally asinine! You're all for bloody double bench brawls on the ice aren't you, Oglethorpe? What do you do on Saturday nights, race toy cars with the Hansen brothers in your mom's basement? That's what you get for playing without a helmet, Ogie.
And quit drinkin' that stinkin' rootbeer.

@10

I agree with you completely. No one should have the right to defend themselves and their family against a violent criminal with equal force.

It's best just to call 911 and beg a violent attacker for your children's lives. That's always the best way because when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

Regardless of how the State Supreme Court rules, it is an unforgivable error and an insult to every person who volunteered, donated or signed a petition.

10: So when Tim Eyman’s initiatives got thrown out for technicalities, did you cheer those decisions, even though he also had thousands of signatures and approval at the ballot box? The judge is doing something we all should applaud: trying to apply the law equally for initiatives we support or condemn.

@13 Teslick: Anyone as corrupt as Tim Eymen is a poor example of bringing anything to the ballot, let alone to justice. Surely you can do better than that, or is that all the resources you can dig up from watching FOX-TV?

Close only counts in horseshoes and grenade-tossing. That's one reason I never bother signing initiatives - shitty drafting.

14: If you assume I support anything Eyman does, you are sorely mistaken. The point is that initiatives, good, bad, or indifferent, have to all comply with the law. If you let this one get on the ballot, then you can’t complain when Eyman (or any goofy right group) sends up another poorly drafted initiative. Following the basic law like showing strikeouts isn’t hard.

'isn't' reasonable. Last sentence.

voting on gun rights?
Gun Control/restrictions, etc are Un-Constitution and such emunerated, recognized and protected Rights are NOT subject to popular vote by The people. The States are asking the People to vote their own rights away!!!!

In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

The Odious Fiction Destroying America - The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates..
We now have social transformation without representation. And that is what the Supreme Court is in our day – despots.
And they are not the final arbiters – as Jefferson states, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”
They proffer Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the ‘supremacy clause’ – for their notion of judicial supremacy. But when you read Article 6, paragraph 2, you realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned, nor are federal courts of any kind mentioned. Article 6, paragraph 2 – known as the supremacy clause actually gives supremacy to the Constitution!
Wholly opposite of this view of ‘judicial supremacy’ was the view held by America’s founders. They viewed the judiciary as being the weakest branch of the government.
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous.”

I'm 65 and I was able to read it. I also noted that parts of it seemed to make no sense at all, probably because of the missing strike throughs. The main problem is that the authors went hog wild with every poorly thought out gun control notion anybody ever thought of. #10, the second amendment says "well regulated" and the gun nuts are against any sane and sensible regulation.I signed in spite of my misgivings because we are in a crisis of gun violence caused by juveniles, criminals, and other irresponsible people getting quick and easy access to deadly weapons. It's time for the chicken shits in congress to uphold the second amendment by passing some long overdue regulations.

It's simple. They didn't comport with the law, therefore it is invalid.

'No more complicated than that.

@18:

Apparently you don't understand the process whereby amendments to the Constitution come into being, given your completely self-contradictory statement...

@21: Thank you, Jim, and bless you for your good common sense. Common sense appears to be in short supply these days, and your views are refreshing.

23

then why don't you and your cadre go for a constitutional amendment, rather than trying to skinny around it with shitty legislation and bench rulings?
afraid you don't have the support? of course you are.

@10

the day I feel insulted by some lonely, dirt poor old hag like you - I will be sure to let you know.

until then.....

@25 bring riots to Seattle: For someone who takes pride in not being insulted you sure have a lot to troll about, Ogie. LOL Maybe your mom will buy you a soda after the game. KILL HIM!!!

@26:....said the fat, bald, MAGA-capped, drooling diabetic rotting in his mom's basement.
You really should lay off the sugary soft drinks, Ogie. That high fructose corn syrup
is gonna hit ya in the nuts harder than Jeff Hansen's most perfectly aimed slap shot.

@26: Are you just pissed that your pal Joey and his fellow thugs couldn't start a bloody race riot downtown last Saturday? Get over it.

@13 and @16 - Eyman's were tossed for being unconstitutional (multiple subjects, etc), not for "technicalities". Our State Constitutional ban on multiple subjects in a bill is not a "technicality".