CAO Referendum Process
Gathering more than 18,000 signatures was just the first step. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, Futurewise (formerly1000 Friends of Washington), and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy then sued to stop the referenda using your tax dollars. They cited a state Supreme Court ruling on Whatcom v. Brisbane from 1994 that prevented voters in Whatcom county from holding a referendum on Whatcom County’s initial critical areas ordinance.
Prior to Brisbane, when the state legislature wanted to suppress local referendum rights on actions they required of counties, they would direct the actions be accomplished by the legislative arm of the county. The Growth Management Act specifies the legislative arm for policy plans such as King County’s Comprehensive Plan. When the state legislature wants to retain local referendum rights, they direct that actions be performed by the county itself. Under Washington's GMA, that is the provision for specific regulations such as critical areas ordinances. The Supreme Court went against that well-established precedent in Brisbane.
Our second step was to ask the courts to set aside their ruling on Brisbane and correctly allow us to continue with the referendum. We lost in King County Superior Court, as expected. The Superior Court judge did not have the authority to find in our favor contrary to Brisbane. We have appealed to the Supreme Court, which does have the necessary authority. The only justice left on the court from the Brisbane decision is Justice Madsen, the lone dissenting vote in that case. The majority opinion and her well-crafted dissent are well worth reading. We expect that this time Justice Madsen, with the help of Justice Sanders and Justice Johnson, will prevail in our favor. We are currently awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on this case.
The third step depends on the final outcome of the court case. If we prevail and make it to the ballot, we will have to run a campaign to win the vote. We can expect spirited opposition from CAO supporters. The fancy brochure put out by King County during the signature-gathering phase is one small example of what we can expect. They spent nearly as much ($50,000) on that one piece as we will spend on the entire court process. We have professionals donating their time and expertise to plan both direct mail and multimedia campaigns, but we are still going to need $300,000 to effectively fund the relatively modest campaigns they have proposed.
If we lose at the Supreme Court, we will know exactly who on that court are our friends and whom we need to replace. Three of the justices are standing for election in 2006. We are committed to finding and helping to elect judges with a commitment to defend property rights. We helped to elect Justice Johnson in 2004 and expect him to be a strong defender of all of our rights. Many land use decisions are 5-4 against property rights. One or two more justices willing to stand up to the activists can make major changes in how land use is handled in this state. If we should lose this case, one use of the money we collect for the referenda process is to fund the campaign to change the makeup of the state Supreme Court in 2006 so that we can start recovering our property rights.
[BACK]