Clark County councilors should firmly reject a proposed ordinance aimed at banning mask and vaccine mandates. The ordinance would put the county at severe risk of lawsuits, lost funding and mockery from other municipalities throughout the state. It also likely would be in conflict with state and federal law.
In summary, passage of the ordinance would amount to nothing less than governmental malfeasance.
Councilors on Tuesday will consider a mini-initiative led by citizens’ organization Clark County Group. The organization collected the mandatory 8,311 signatures from registered voters — 3 percent of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election — and the petition was certified by Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey.
The proposal would ban “all mandates within Clark County that discriminate against citizens regarding their health status and/or that violates existing rights to health information privacy.” Specifically, it refers to “lockdowns, face coverings, etc.”
There are multiple problems with the ordinance, but the primary one is its conflict with the law. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns and mask mandates imposed by the state government have routinely been upheld by the courts.
In a Facebook post, Councilor Temple Lentz said the council is awaiting further information from its legal team, but added: “The general consensus so far among lawyers and generally well-read community members is that this ordinance is a mess, and it would put the county and all the businesses and agencies within it into conflict with already existing state and federal law.”
Willfully contradicting existing law should not be done with impunity. Such an action would threaten funding from state and federal sources, and it would embroil the county in lengthy and costly legal action.
As Lentz said: “If the proposal becomes county law, we are all stuck with it until another unnecessary and expensive lawsuit reverses the county council’s votes. However long that takes, we won’t be able to make up the ground lost and the funding lost in the interim.”
Clark County’s recent history is rife with foolish legal missteps. Court battles over the Growth Management Act, stormwater regulations and a reorganization of county departments have resulted in big legal bills and big settlement payments that are costly to taxpayers.
Those are merely the financial and legal issues underlying consideration of the ordinance. There also are concerns about public health and the leadership role that should be embraced by all councilors.
The Clark County Charter allows for citizen-submitted petitions to be considered by the council — an important part of representative government. But with a low threshold for signatures, the proposal should not be considered a mandate. Logic tells us that most residents support efforts to stem the pandemic; comments for the meeting may be submitted at https://clark.wa.gov/councilors/public-comment.
Yet even if a vast majority of residents oppose COVID-mitigation efforts, councilors should act for the benefit of public health. Advice from the vast majority of health experts should carry more weight that what somebody reads on social media.
Consideration of the ordinance is an important moment for county councilors. They have an opportunity to act in the best financial, legal and health interests of their constituents by rejecting the proposal; they should seize that opportunity.
