Just to tack on to what Darryl wrote last night, as this blog will testify, Tim Eyman is just unpopular. Oh sure, people like tax cuts and don’t like red light cameras, so when the focus is off Tim Eyman and on those things, he can win some elections. But he’s also an embarrassment who has cost the state so much.
And of course the actual issues are also not on Eyman’s side. People don’t particularly want signature gathering everywhere, or all the time. I’ve done signature gathering for various things, and people are mostly cool about it, but it is taking some of their time. Making that more intrusive and for a longer amount of time can be a problem.
You know you are really unpopular when the advertising against your initiative starts off by saying “Tim Eyman’s initiative….”
Personally, as soon as I hear Tim Eyman is behind an inititive, I’m voting against it. That’s all I need to know – no matter how innocuous it’s worded, it’s bad public policy.
The sad thing is, I-517’s measures, such as a longer time for signature gathering and forcing jurisdictions to honor valid signatures, would help a lot of progressive efforts. The Good Jobs Initiative in SeaTac was almost kept off the ballot this year, for example, and a couple of years ago Richard Conlin had the city sue to keep the anti-tunnel initiative off the ballot (before a judge told him he couldn’t do that). And we would’ve had pot legalization on the ballot two years earlier if the grass roots initiatives in 2010 and 2011 had had more time to get signatures.
I-517 is self-serving for Eyman, sure, but ya know what? The state legislature and local jurisdictions ignore progressive ideas a lot more often than they ignore anti-tax ones. And its biggest boost will be for efforts that don’t have a sugar daddy (like Eyman often does, eg Dunmire) bankrolling it.
But as soon as people hear “Tim Eyman,” they tune out. Like rhp. I can’t imagine why.
If you read the fine print, I-517 has toxic features, for example making it a crime to tell the signature collector you don’t want to sign his petition because you disagree with the initiative he’s promoting. Of course, that’s blatantly unconstitutional, but we’ll have to waste taxpayer money to take it to court and get it struck down.
I voted ‘NO’ and damn proud I did.