More on Initiative 1639. This is a followup to my original letter published on Aug. 8, responding to the certification of Initiative 1639 to be on the November ballot even though Secretary of State Kim Wyman said she questioned the constitutionality of it.
Thurston County Superior County Judge James Dixon agreed with gun-rights advocates that the initiative was not in compliance with state law requiring initiative petitions to be a “readable, full, true and correct” copy of the measure and subsequently issued a decision blocking it from being on the November ballot, noting it was not readable.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision in an opinion by Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst, indicating the question of font is beyond the purview of the secretary of state, leaving the legality of the issues moot until after the election – if voters pass the measure!
This tactic by the court of ignoring the legality of initiatives until voters have “weighed in” and refusing to act appropriately when legalities are obvious is subverting the “rule of law” literally by the very courts that should be upholding and protecting it.
The above action of waiting until the measure passes then provides leverage for the Legislature to pressure lawmakers to consider “the will of the people” and push legislation through.
The issue isn’t that the secretary of state has no authority to certify or not certify based on readability, correct formatting, font etc., but rather the court manipulating the law and facilitating a conscious attempt to ignore the constitutionality of an initiative to arrive at a preferred outcome.
Rosie O’Connor
Centralia
