Posted on 11/11/2019 9:11:32 AM PST by karpov
By a slim margin, Washington state voters appear to have rejected the legislature’s attempt to reinstate racial preferences. (The result is still unofficial.) Both Heather Mac Donald and Peter Kirsanow summarized the history of this issue for NR last month. Essentially, a 1998 voter referendum outlawed the use of racial preferences by the state of Washington, but this year the legislature passed Initiative 1000 that would reverse that referendum. Opponents of preferences, led in large part by Asian Americans, then put a new referendum on the ballot that would allow voters to reject I-1000 and keep the 1998 ban on racial preferences in place.
The doublespeak that voters needed to overcome in order to reject I-1000 was brazen. The legislature of course described racial preferences euphemistically as “affirmative action” and of course denied that the government would be implementing “quotas.” That rhetoric is standard. But the legislature went even further by claiming that affirmative action would be pursued without “preferential treatment” for any group. How to give preference without giving preferential treatment is a mystery that the world’s top linguists would have trouble solving.
Here is the referendum that voters saw on their ballots, with my emphasis:
The legislature passed Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerning affirmative action and remedying discrimination, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this act. Initiative 1000 would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting. Should Initiative 1000 be Approved [ ] Rejected [ ]
One assumes that the modifier “as defined” is doing some pretty heavy lifting there, but neither the ballot title nor the summary provided the newspeak definition of “preferential treatment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Once a state becomes TOO diverse these things turn into a brawl over who gets to be first in the pecking order.
Whenever the language is unclear, vote NO!
Asians don’t get any affirmative action help, obviously.
As a voter in Washington State, it truly was doublespeak. It had the kind of double negative logic that required you to carefully think about the words before you voted.
The voters ended discrimination, but special interests appealed to politicians from start to reinstate racial preferences for “marginalized” groups. The Legislature and those that wrote the initiative understood that the word “quota” should be avoided at all cost. But the allowed “preferences” based on percentages of the population were in essence quotas.
I hope this and $30 car tabs never has to see itself back on the ballot. For that to happen the politicians and the special interest groups will need to accept the will of the people.
Initiatives in Missouri are famouse for double speak.
...have rejected the legislature’s attempt to reinstate racial preferences... a 1998 voter referendum outlawed the use of racial preferences by the state of Washington, but this year the legislature passed Initiative 1000 that would reverse that referendum. Opponents of preferences, led in large part by Asian Americans, then put a new referendum on the ballot that would allow voters to reject I-1000 and keep the 1998 ban on racial preferences in place. The doublespeak that voters needed to overcome in order to reject I-1000 was brazen. The legislature of course described racial preferences euphemistically as “affirmative action” and of course denied that the government would be implementing “quotas.”
Racial preferences are illegal and unconstitutional, even if there’s a law that “allows” them. That law is invalid and not binding.
Oh fudge.
Just waiting for the Judge.
He needs to say
“You are a bunch of racists”
And affirmative action will STAY.
Now go AWAY.
Democrats run Washington so this issue is not dead. I expect to see it addressed in the next legislative session.
I know of a number of conservatives here in eastern WA, including myself, who voted ‘no’ on the $30 car tabs. We do not deal with the Puget Sound transit situation and our tabs pretty much stay under $100. Improvements and maintenance do cost money. We are building a bridge here — badly needed - that wouldn’t have been started if the restriction had been in effect.
Also typical of most government regs and rules,"Thou shalt not, unless, except for....".
(1) I regularly work with and party with civil engineers who consult for WSDOT and Sound Transit. I have also attended both WSDOT and Sound Transit public meetings for consulting engineers to explain contracting opportunities on Public Works Projects. While not a civil engineer, I am a registered engineer. What I have heard and seen is a culture at Sound Transit and WSDOT that cares far more about politics, political correctness and the environment than on efficiently spending public money on infrastructure. Yes, there are lots of bridges and roads that need repair, but until the management of WSDOT and its culture is changed, virtually no amount of state raised money will be enough to get things repaired.
(2) WA state has one of the highest gas taxes in the USA. That money is suppose to be used to roads, bridges, etc. WSDOT is lobbying the Legislature to allow it to implement a mileage charge annually in addition to gas taxes, car tabs, and road tolls. WSDOT is working on rolling out tolling from Lacy to Marysville as an additional source of revenues. I know this from talking to people about the engineering contracts to design the tolling infrastructure. The push for greater and greater sources of money to fund WSDOT is beyond belief.
(3) Sound Transit has lied to the voters and the Legislature about the costs and funding of its various projects. It has also illegally pressured construction firms and consultant firms to politically lobby the public and Legislature on its behalf. In addition it has violated various laws in allowing its email database on riders to be used by political action committees that favor Sound Transit.
Neither Sound Transit nor WSDOT can be brought into an efficient culture with small management changes. They need to be essentially destroyed and started from scratch. I favor outsourcing both.
I agree to disagree with you. As to getting bridges fix, look at what Seattle Dept of Transportation told the Magnolia Heights folks about the old unsafe Magnolia Bridge. They didn't have the money to do the repair and had not even tried to schedule it into any budget planning cycle.
Don’t start the celebrations yet.
Current numbers...
“Rejection” leads by 13,000 votes.
At least 82,000 ballots still to be counted.
Washington state has mail in ballots.
We “count” for weeks after an election when a Hard Left candidate or ballot measure still has a chance to win.
I read an article a few days back in the Seattle Times in which a reporter wrote: “Late ballots always seem to favor the most Progressive candidates and measures.”
The reporter has no curiosity as to “why” that happens - it’s just accepted as a “fact.”
Good points, most or all of which I have heard already, but I maintain that those of us outside Sound Transit’s reach are truly in a different environs where different rules should apply. Secession, anyone? I am not employed and haven’t been for a long time but I am still willing to help pay add’l funds for that Yakima River bridge that is well underway. However, if other funds were available and were illegally diverted then there is a problem.
Washington state has mail in ballots.
Because they "count ALL the ballots", even when mailed after the official cut-off date?
They go by postmark. In a close race, there is some mandatory wait period.
Also, “provisional” ballots, which are obtained outside the normal procedure of receiving your ballot by mail at home, must be verified and counted if the vote margin falls below a certain point.
Also, Referendum 88 is close to a mandatory recount.
No Conservative candidate or Conservative measure can survive a “recount” in King County (Seattle).
To give you some idea of the political environment in my Congressional District - we have a Top Two primary system - the Republican candidate came in third - he lost to someone who ran from the Socialist Party - in the general election, the Socialist got 30% of the vote against the incumbent Liberal Democrat!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.