By on August 18, 2011


A Whatcom County, Washington Superior Court Judge yesterday threw the book at a photo enforcement firm for interfering with the right of the public to petition their government. Judge Ira Uhrig handed down from the bench a stinging rebuke to American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Uhrig found the firm’s lawsuit to block an anti-traffic camera initiative from reaching the ballot in Bellingham violated state law, so he slapped the Arizona-based firm with a $10,000 fine and ordered it to pay the legal fees of the initiative’s sponsors.

“This was the greatest repudiation of ATS by a judge I could ever imagine happening,” initiative co-sponsor Tim Eyman told TheNewspaper. “It was huge. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Petitions to place a ban red light cameras and speed cameras before voters have been endorsed by residents in four Washington cities. Traffic camera vendors have fought back with lawsuits. Uhrig found the legal tactics used in Bellingham violated an anti-SLAPP law which prohibits “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” These suits exploit the legal system to thwart petition drives.

Uhrig determined that ATS could not allege it would suffer any tangible harm from the measure being placed on the ballot, that the company had no standing to file the lawsuit and that the case was not ripe. ATS attorney Vanessa Soriano Power argued in papers filed with the court that the proposed initiative “involved administrative, and not legislative, matters.” Administrative matters are not subject to the local initiative power. Since the item could not properly be approved by voters, Power argued it should not be included on the ballot. This is the opposite of what Power said in oral arguments before the Washington Supreme Court in May.

Power: There’s a body of law that allows for pre-election challenges in certain instances at the local level. One, of course, is if there’s an administrative issue, which we don’t allege here.

Justice Debra Stephens: But you agree this is legislative?

Power: Correct, this is legislative.
Eyman believes the total loss for ATS in Bellingham will send a message to cities like Monroe that intend to pursue lawsuits to block anti-camera efforts.

“What is exciting is the ripple effect you’re going to get from this ruling,” Eyman said. “To find out now that you sue your own citizens and there are judges out there who will fine you for doing so, it’s kinda nice. It has a magnificent deterrent effect when it comes to these obnoxious anti-vote lawsuits.”

Not all judges agree with Uhrig. On Monday, a Cowlitz County Superior Court judge ruled against all but one section of an identical anti-camera initiative in Longview. The effect of the ruling is that a vote will be held in November on whether to put an advisory vote on the ballot in November 2012 on banning cameras. Judge Stephen Warning’s ruling, however, is on less solid ground than Uhrig’s. Last year, the state supreme court rejected an attempt to block the anti-camera referendum in Mukilteo. ATS has already said it will appeal Uhrig’s verdict.

“The good news is their appeal is just increasing the attorneys fees for our guy who’s eventually going to be awarded that stuff if it’s upheld,” Eyman said. “They’re going to be hard pressed to not come up with the exact same outcome as Mukilteo.”

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

5 Comments on “Washington Judge Issues $10,000 Ticket Against Red Light Camera Firm...”


  • avatar
    CarPerson

    It was pretty obvious this was going to happen if the people could raise enough money to hire a good attorney to get it into court. They could and it did.

  • avatar
    vvk

    Wow, what a great man! Obviously he cares about the people.

    Ira Uhrig for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • avatar
    RangerM

    Maybe they could vote out the officials who invited ATS there in the first place (assuming they haven’t already) while they’re voting to ban the cameras.

  • avatar
    obbop

    The evils of corporate capitalism are, at times, quelled via the legal system but not enough to sate me, a Disgruntled Old Coot who is already aware of the flood, the BARRAGE of ingrained pro-corporate toadying by those influenced by the pay-offs personally obtained via corporate distributions.

    Yes, yes, yes ye brainwashed deluded ones.

    I KNOW and am aware of the positives of corporations.

    The barrage of denunciations that typically follow my GENERAL proclamations of anti-corporate beliefs merely are indicative of the knee-jerk rhetorical blathering of the well-indoctrinated servants of their corporate masters.

    • 0 avatar
      friedclams

      obbop, I usually agree with you, but here I don’t think the enemy is corporate power. It’s government power using a corporation’s technology to immorally levy fines against its own citizens, for the purpose of gaining revenue.

      ATS is indeed a corporation but if the government didn’t want the revenue they would have never gotten a foot in the door. It’s kind of like blaming Blackwater for problems and letting DOD off the hook.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India