The saga of Initiative 1639 has been frustrating for voters — even before the issue lands on the ballot. While voters will have an opportunity to weigh in on the measure, the question of how fine is too fine when it comes to the fine print will have to wait.
Last week, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the gun-control measure to appear on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot. While The Columbian’s Editorial Board will reserve comment on the measure itself until the election draws near, the mess that has brought I-1639 to this point warrants examination.
About 378,000 people signed petitions supporting the measure, which — among other things — would raise the age for purchase of semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21; expand background checks for the purchase of those weapons; require gun owners to complete firearm safety training; and establish standards for safely storing weapons.
Gun-rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association and the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, filed suit. They argued that initiative language printed on the back of petition forms was too small and that it did not include customary strike-throughs to show how current law would be changed. State law requires initiative petitions to include a “readable, full, true and correct” copy of the measure.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon sided with the plaintiffs, saying, “I have 20-20 vision. I can’t read it.” But the Supreme Court overturned that decision, issuing a four-page opinion written by Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst that said the question is beyond the purview of the secretary of state. That leaves the question of font size until after the election — if voters pass the measure.
The Supreme Court decision was to be expected. The court has often refused to rule on the legality of initiatives until after voters have an opportunity to weigh in. As reporter Jerry Cornfield of The (Everett) Herald wrote in anticipation of the court’s action: “You should know justices really don’t like to mess with initiatives before voters get a crack at them. Their tendency is to not impede use of this tool of populist protest which got chiseled into the state constitution in 1911.”
The potential for having voters approve Initiative 1639 only to have it rejected by the courts can be frustrating. But it also can be instructive. Whether or not the measure passes will offer some guidance for the Legislature as lawmakers consider issues relating to gun control; taking the pulse of voters lets representatives know how worked up the public is about a particular issue. In 1999, for example, voters approved Initiative 695, which included a $30 limit for license tab fees. When the initiative was deemed unconstitutional because it dealt with more than one subject, lawmakers followed the will of the people and passed limits on car tabs.
But while benefits can be seen in the saga of Initiative 1639, the issue points out shortcomings in the state’s pre-election review of ballot measures. State law says the secretary of state has no authority to certify an initiative for the ballot “based on the readability, correctness or formatting of the proposed measure printed on the back of the petitions.”
The Legislature should look at that issue, but it also should act with caution. Giving a future secretary of state more power to halt ballot measures could undermine the populist nature of Washington’s initiative system and invite abuse.
In other words, the issue is reflective of the mess that often comes with representative democracy.
