Initiative fireworks

Tim Eyman and I met with the Seattle P-I editorial board this morning to discuss initiative reform. I don’t think he likes me. Was it something I said?

The P-I describes the confrontation as “Initiative Fireworks!” Listen to the podcast and judge for yourself.

Tim asked for the meeting, but apparently expressed some reluctance once he learned I would be representing the opposing view. So I want to personally thank you Tim, for keeping our date — I’m always happy to let you ride my coattails.


  1. 1


    All hail Goldy!
    But this is tempered, of course. My neighbor seems to win all of his arguments with his goldfish, so the way you trashed Timmy is less than totally satisfying.

    Remember, I have dibs on being ALLOWED to make the first $100 contribution toward your next “Tim Dumbass Is The Official State Horse’s Ass” initiative.

  2. 2

    disinterested observer spews:

    Eyman’s on a new jag. His sugar daddy is paying for an initiative campaign that would mandate voter approval of tax increases. What a douchebag. That would tie the hands of public institutions to meet service needs.

  3. 3

    Libertarian spews:

    I’d think the reasons Tim hates your guts would be obvious. Surely you’re smart enough to figure THAT out, aren’t you?

  4. 4

    GBS spews:

    Next time Tim should come prepared understanding Constitutional law a little better before spouting off at the mouth like a typical mornonic coservative.

    Conclusion: Goldy smacked down “Tim-ehh.” Someone get Tim-ehh a drool bucket and a wheelchair please.

  5. 7

    Reporterward spews:

    Too bad you can’t turn egotism, chest-thumping and shameless self-promotion into bio-diesel. The nation’s energy woes would be solved for the next decade by tapping this dual vein…

  6. 9

    proud leftist spews:

    I think states should have the power of deportation. Then, we could send Timmy to somewhere he belongs, like Waco, Texas. We’d be happier, Timmy’d be happier. Everybody wins.

  7. 11


    The anti-initiative bill we were discussing — SB 5182/HB 2019 — says that valid voter signatures on the front of the petition MUST BE REJECTED if the person who gathered the signatures doesn’t disclose his/her name and home address on the back of the petition.

    That’s not constitutional, so says the courts.

    The 9th circuit in 2000 struck down a 1993 Washington law that did just that.

    here’s a summary of their ruling:

    U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals


    (WIN) WASHINGTON INITIATIVES NOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 98-35412 v. D.C. No. VICKI RIPPLE, as Executive Director of the Washington Public Director of the Washington Public Disclosure Commission in her official Capacity, MELISSA WARHEIT, in her official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

    Argued and Submitted, February 16, 2000–Seattle, WA, Filed May 25, 2000

    Before: Stephen Reinhardt, David R. Thompson, and Thomas G. Nelson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Thompson


    [1] The parties agree that the only issues before us are issues of law that we review de novo. See Farr v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 151 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1998). Having reviewed those issues, we conclude that Washington Revised Code S 42.17.090(1)(g), and the State’s regulations promulgated thereunder, which require disclosure of the names and addresses of paid circulators, are unconstitutional.

    [2] There can be no doubt that the compelled disclosure of this information chills political speech. See American Constitutional Law Foundation v. Meyer, 120 F.3d 1092, 1105 (10th Cir. 1997); see also McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 356 (1995). As the Supreme Court has explained:

    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

    McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 356 (internal citation omitted). Depriving individuals of this anonymity is, therefore,”a broad intrusion, discouraging truthful, accurate speech by those unwilling to [disclose their identities] and applying regardless of the character or strength of an individual’s interest in anonymity.” American Constitutional Law Found., 120 F.3d at 1103.

    The State’s interest in disclosing (this) … information to voters is also insufficient to override the First Amendment burden imposed by S 42.17.090(1)(g). Although Washington has expressed its interest in full disclosure as a means to educate voters and promote confidence in government, see Wash. Rev. Code S 42.17.010(11), there is no logical explanation of how a voter who signs an initiative petition would be educated in any meaningful way by learning the circulator’s name or address, see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 67; nor how that disclosure would assist a voter in judging the credibility of individual petition circulators. See Buckley, 525 U.S. at 203 n.22.

    We do not reach the question of severability of the statute, because even if the statute were severable, and the requirement to disclose amounts paid to circulators were stricken, the statute would still be unconstitutional because of its requirement that the names and addresses of paid circulators must be disclosed.


    Washington Revised Code S 42.17.090(1)(g), and the State’s regulations promulgated thereunder, violate the First Amendment.

    — END —

    The state Constitution allows the Legislature to pass laws that ‘facilitate’ the initiative process, in other words to make it easier, but they are not permitted to pass laws that make the process harder — that requires a constitutional amendment. SB 5182/HB 2019 are proposed laws that the 9th circuit has already found to be unconstitutional.

  8. 13

    proud leftist spews:

    You don’t know a constitutional provision from a square of asswipe. Don’t make yourself more foolish than you are.
    Proud Leftist

  9. 14

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I do think we all owe Timmy a restrained debt of gratitude for his contribution to the success of Washington’s most popular liberal blog (this one) … in the same way we can be grateful to Ted Bundy for improved law enforcement.

  10. 15


    As to your comments on today’s discussion, my email explains it best:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Tim Eyman []
    Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:32 PM
    To: ‘Trahant, Mark’
    Cc: ‘'; ‘'; ‘'; ‘'; ‘'; ‘'; ‘’
    Subject: We’d like to reschedule the ed board …

    … on SB 5812/HB 2019 to a day and time when either of the lead sponsors of the bill can attend (Sen. Jim Kastama and/or Rep. Joe McDermott). Obviously, being that tomorrow is bill cut-off in the house of origin, you obviously had trouble getting either of them to participate.

    You’ve seen our substantive arguments against the bills and we don’t see anything to be gained from a discussion with anyone other than its legislative sponsors.

    We’d be happy to work with Sen. Kastama and/or Rep. McDermott to find a day and time that would work for them as well as the PI. We look forward to a solid public policy debate concerning these anti-initiative bills and hope to set up something very soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Mike Fagan, ph: 425-493-9127, email:

    — END —

    After the PI’s editorial page editor made clear that rescheduling meant putting it off until mid-April (which would be after the legislative session), I figured it was better than no debate at all.

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Trahant, Mark []
    Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:37 PM
    To: Tim Eyman
    Cc: Mills, Kimberly; Copeland, Joe; Horsey, David; Bunting, Ken; Parvaz, D; Connelly, Joel; Virgin, Bill

    We don’t have another slot until mid-April (I am out of town). We will have to just cancel this session if you’re not going to be there.

  11. 16

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “Evangelical Group Rebuffs Critics on Right

    “Published: March 14, 2007

    “The board of the National Association of Evangelicals has rebuffed leaders of the Christian right who had called for the association to silence or dismiss its Washington policy director because of his involvement in the campaign against global warming.

    “Prominent Christian conservatives like James C. Dobson … and Tony Perkins … had sent a letter to the association’s leaders this month accusing the policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, of ‘using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time,’ which they defined as abortion, homosexuality and teaching children sexual morality and abstinence.

    “Board members say … censoring Mr. Cizik never arose last week at their meeting in Minnesota, and that he had delivered the keynote address at their banquet. In addition, the board voted 38 to 1 to endorse a declaration, which Mr. Cizik helped to write, that denounces the American government’s treatment of detainees in the fight against terrorism. The board also voted unanimously to reaffirm the platform adopted three years ago, which enumerates seven policy priorities, including the environment, human rights and poverty.

    “In doing so, board members said they intended to convey that the evangelical movement had a broader agenda than the one pushed by Christian conservatives and segments of the Republican Party.”

    Quoted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info see

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: The righty reverends of the Church of Troglodytism (circa 1450 C.E.) think gay sex is a great moral issue, but saving the entire human race is not? No wonder their congregation is 4 million weak and shrinking.

  12. 17

    Rob spews:

    @3, Um, I think Goldy was being facetious. Goldy, you gave Lie-Man hell. Really, it was the truth, and he thought it was hell. I love how he couldn’t answer your argument that we throw out his holy “voter signature intent” all the time when certain aspects of initiative law are broken. And how he screamed that we should respect the courts’ decisions, even though he has gone through the histrionics of tearing up the Constitution when court decisons don’t go his way. Lie-man can be smooth at times, but when he starts losing he interupts and gets hysterical. The guy’s money-grubbing ways is ruining our democratic process. Fortunately the people see through his lies most of the time, and most of the rest of the time, the courts do. But we all lose because of his sleeze.

  13. 20

    rob spews:

    Re: 16, New York Times spanks Al Gore on his hype regarding global warming.

    From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

    “I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

  14. 21

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    Tim Lieman probably has another scam in mind. If he’s in the media, he’s usually finding a way to lie.