In trying to find a shortcut around Washington’s initiative process this year, legislators wandered into a forest of confusion. In the process, they inexplicably led voters and the state Supreme Court into the same labyrinth.
Last week, a sharply divided court ruled that Initiative 940 must go before voters on the November ballot. Justices also decided that a separate bill approved by lawmakers on the final day of the legislative session — a bill that included changes to I-940 — will not appear on the ballot.
Initiative 940, which received enough petition signatures to qualify for the ballot, deals with the use of deadly force by law enforcement. It would require that police receive violence de-escalation and mental health training, lessens the immunity that officers have from prosecution, and defines what would be an appropriate level of force in response to a given situation. It also requires independent investigations into the use of deadly force.
While The Columbian’s Editorial Board will wait until the election draws near to weigh in on the merits of I-940, for now we are comfortable in saying that the Legislature created an untenable mess in dealing with the subject.
Although the measure drew enough support to qualify for the ballot, it also drew opposition from some law enforcement groups. So lawmakers worked with supporters and critics to draft changes to the measure. On the final day of the session, they passed that bill and sent it to Gov. Jay Inslee for his signature. The changes were scheduled to go into effect the day after the initiative would. After Inslee signed that bill, the Legislature passed I-940. In other words, they changed a law before they even passed it.
In the ruling, Justice Debra Stephens noted that the constitution provides one way for an initiative to become law before being approved by voters. “That is, when it is enacted without change or amendment by the Legislature in the session in which it is certified,” she wrote. “That did not happen here.”
Still, the issue flummoxed the court. Justices were sharply divided and provided multiple dissenting opinions about various facets of the law’s constitutionality. Justice Mary Yu wrote: “While there is some appeal to these simplistic solutions, they damage our jurisprudence, undermine respect for the separation of powers and empower professional initiative peddlers selling governance by populism in place of elected representation.”
To reiterate, I-940 will appear on the ballot; the bill to change the initiative will not.
Meanwhile, the issue should provide a clear lesson to lawmakers: Those who make laws also must follow them. When an initiative is certified for the ballot, lawmakers have three options. They may put the measure in front of voters; they may approve it as written and bypass the election; or they may provide an alternative measure and place it alongside the original on the ballot. They may not, however, pass a bill and amend it in nearly simultaneous strokes in an effort to leave voters out of the loop.
In the case of I-940, sponsors of the initiative approved the changes. But that should not be the standard for consideration. There is no guarantee that would be the case for future bills, and there is no guarantee lawmakers would not abuse the power to bypass voters at their whim if this action were allowed to stand.
The bottom line is that when enough of the public signs an initiative petition, they must be allowed to vote on it. Trying to find a shortcut only leads the state into the wilderness.
