Posted on 08/24/2018 8:34:47 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Washington's Supreme Court has cleared the way for a gun-control initiative to appear on the November ballot.
The court late Friday afternoon reversed a judge's decision earlier this month that threw out more than 300,000 signatures used to qualify Initiative 1639, saying the petition format did not follow election law.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon had said the signature petitions did not clearly identify what would change in the law and the font was too small to be readable. He ordered the secretary of state to stop certification of the measure. But the Supreme Court ruling, written by Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst, said the secretary of state is not required to block a measure based on the readability and formatting of the proposed measure's text.
The justices said "there is no legislative mandate that the secretary must decline to certify and present to voters an initiative based on failure to comply with the requirement that a 'readable, full, true, and correct copy' of the initiative appear on the back of every petition."
The initiative would raise the age for the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle to 21. It would also expand the background checks for the purchase of these rifles. The measure would require people to complete a firearm safety training course and create standards for safely storing firearms.
In July, the campaign for I-1639 turned in the final batch of more than 360,000 petition signatures collected to the secretary of state's office. They had needed about 260,000 to be certified.
Critics had said the main problem with the petitions was that they didn't contain underlines to show what would be added to the law, or "strike-through" lines to show the parts of the law that would be removed. The National Rifle Association and Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation had filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Kim Wyman to get the initiative off the ballot, arguing the people who signed the petitions didn't know what it would do.
In a statement, Wyman thanked the Supreme Court for ruling promptly on the dispute.
"This clears the way for our preparations to put I-1639 before voters in time for ballots to be printed," Wyman said. "My priority is protecting Washington citizens' right to make informed use of our state constitution's initiative process."
The Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the group behind the initiative, describes it as a comprehensive gun violence prevention measure that addresses a number of issues.
The campaign for I-1639 has raised $3 million, with Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen contributing $1.2 million.
The question is not “must” or the existence of a mandate. The question is, does the SoS have the *authority* and *discretion* to reject a ballot measure like that?
Because all that crap will stop some insane SOB from shooting people. Eyeroll...
The state is inferior to the constitution on civil rights. Anyone wanna bet?
Well this is garbage. Nice to know leftists that shriek about "infringing on rights" when it comes to abortion regulations are all right with this.
“Let Them take Arms!”
Jefferson
“The justices said “there is no legislative mandate that the secretary must decline to certify and present to voters an initiative based on failure to comply with the requirement that a ‘readable, full, true, and correct copy’ of the initiative appear on the back of every petition.””
What the hell good is a piece of paper with a bunch of signatures accompanied by illegible and incomplete intent?
I'll bet that gun-grabbing Paul "The Front Hole" Allen has armed security thugs looking after him and his family.
If this passes, then firearms safety training should be in every high school in the state.
One thing the judges can’t overrule and that is the 2nd Amendment. You can bet we won’t be giving up our guns or our rights.
1934, 1968, 1986....
Time to recall the judge. Failure to follow the State Constitution.
Article I, Section 24 (in part):”The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired...”
If you can’t buy them, you can’t bear them. No mention of age limit.
Maybe she’s waiting for the lawsuit when/if this passes. Maybe not.
And as for all the 18 to 21-year-olds in military service?
“The justices said “there is no legislative mandate that the secretary must decline to certify and present to voters an initiative based on failure to comply with the requirement that a ‘readable, full, true, and correct copy’ of the initiative appear on the back of every petition”
And they said this with straight faces?
I am loathe to credit that they are stupid enough actually to believe that crap.
The correct word is "typeface," not font.
I’d say get it in US District Court ASAP but the 9th Circuit Breaker is even more arbitrary and capricious than the state courts. If something is to their liking they will look high and low to make it so.
” But the Supreme Court ruling, written by Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst, said the secretary of state is not required to block a measure based on the readability and formatting of the proposed measure’s text.
The justices said “there is no legislative mandate that the secretary must decline to certify and present to voters an initiative based on failure to comply with the requirement that a ‘readable, full, true, and correct copy’ of the initiative appear on the back of every petition.””
Do those legalese morons realize that they just said “Ok, In Washington anything goes”
All new laws are to be written in Ewok.
In Washington State you are suppose to be given advanced notice before a state agency decides to take your land by eminent domain. This is so you can attend public hearings and present evidence as to whether what they have in mind actually is the best plan. The requirements are very specific about what must be done to notify land owners.
My parents nearly went bankrupt taking their case to our State Supreme Court trying to prevent their property from being taken. They were vilified in the press multiple times. When they got to our State Supreme Court it had already been admitted multiple times in court that the none of the notification requirements had been met. But our State Supreme Court decided against them anyway.
And by the way they received less than a quarter of what other land that was not as good had sold for in the previous year. They received less than what they still owed on the property. They received less than what they spent in court. I could not even begin to tell you all that I learned about attorneys and our legal system from this sham.
Our State Supreme Court in Washington is a shameless leftist political body that in yet another ruling has proved once again that they have no respect for the law in any sense at all. Washington State is out of control.
I will take that bet.
Washington State will do whatever the Leftist politicians want to do and the Constitution be damned. The presumption that State law is inferior to Constitutional law only means something if the Federal Government is willing to enforce that principle. They are not.
For that matter, the Federal Government refuses to be constrained by the Constitution. Every one of the Amendments known as the "Bill-of-Rights" has been repeatedly infringed or violated outright for the last century, at least.
There are over 50,000 laws on the books which are used to restrict or forbid ownership of firearms. Every one of those laws is an infringement of the Second Amendment. The Courts refuse to hear "Constitutional" arguments for overturning them.
It might be possible to change things by elections. Or maybe not.
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.