Washington: City Sued for Blocking Anti-Camera Referendum

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
washington city sued for blocking anti camera referendum

Opponents of red light cameras and speed cameras are taking the offensive against city councils and camera vendors who have been taking extreme measures to keep the issue of automated ticketing off the ballot. A Cowlitz County, Washington superior court judge will hear arguments later today in a countersuit that accuses the city of Longview of violating an anti-SLAPP law. The state last year banned what are called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” with a measure that grants expedited court procedures to initiative sponsors and a $10,000 penalty against anyone found to be exploiting the legal system to thwart a petition drive.

After losing fifteen straight ballot contests, photo enforcement companies and their customers have redoubled efforts to keep camera issues from ever being presented to voters. On May 23, Mike Wallin had submitted 3628 signatures from voters wanting the camera issue to be decided at the next citywide election. Instead of forwarding the signatures to the county auditor for verification as required by law, the city council decided to file suit against Wallin on June 7.

“The initiative process is hard enough for citizen-based efforts without the city utilizing its tax-supported resources to impose additional obstacles to ballot access,” Wallin’s attorney, Richard M. Stephens, wrote in his countersuit. “If the city can do this without consequence every time that political leaders oppose a petition to government, it will fundamentally undermine not only the initiative process, but the constitutionally protected right and civic value in citizen communication with their elected representatives… At its most fundamental level, the city’s suit and motion are nothing more than political tactics to detract petitioner Wallin from his signature gathering process to force him to expend funds for purposes other than informing the public of the message Initiative No. 1 is designed to send.”

Under the statute, the city has the burden of proving by convincing evidence that it is likely to prevail in its lawsuit. Wallin argues that this is impossible because the city does not even having standing to sue at this stage because it has suffered no tangible harm.

“Citizen petitioners should not have to carry the additional expense of hiring lawyers to defend themselves and their initiative simply because elected officials oppose the measure and do not want to see petitions signed by their constituents on their desk,” Stephens wrote.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

Join the conversation
2 of 3 comments
  • CarPerson CarPerson on Jul 11, 2011

    The City of Longview, WA City Council has pulled a number of things trying to derail the people's voice in this issue. With little doubt, ATS is helping "guide" the city so that if the camera's are given the boot prior to the end of this "trial" period, they will still have the city liable for the full 18-month expense. Five of the six on the council should not only be run out of the council but run out of town for setting a level of arrogance so extreme as to be unfathomable. Since the mayor is in on it, he needs to go.

  • MarcKyle64 MarcKyle64 on Jul 11, 2011

    July 14th is Bastille Day, it's time to start greasing those guillotine rails with sweaty councilman neck fat now!

  • JamesGarfield What charging network does the Polestar use?
  • JamesGarfield Re: Getting away from union plantsAbout a dozen years or so ago, Caterpillar built a huge new engine plant, just down the road here in Seguin TX. Story has it, Caterpillar came to Seguin City council in advance, and told them their plans. Then they asked for no advanced publicity from Seguin, until announcement day. This new plant was gonna be a non-union replacement for a couple of union plants in IL and SC, and Cat didn't want to stir up union problems until the plan was set. They told Seguin, If you about blab this in advance, we'll walk. Well, Seguin kept quiet as instructed, and the plan went through, with all the usual expected tax abatements given.Plant construction began, but the Caterpillar name was conspicuously absent from anywhere on the site. Instead, the plant was described as being a collective of various contractors and suppliers for Caterpillar. Which in fact, it was. Then comes the day, with the big new plant fully operationa!, that Caterpillar comes in and announces, Hey, Yeah it's our plant, and the Caterpillar name boldly goes up on the front. All you contractor folks, welcome aboard, you're now Caterpillar employees. Then, Cat turns and announces they are closing those two union plants immediately, and will be transporting all the heavy manufacturing equipment to Seguin. None of the union workers, just the equipment. And today, the Caterpillar plant sits out there, humming away happily, making engines for the industry and good paying jobs for us. I'd call that a winner.
  • Stuki Moi What Subaru taketh away in costs, dealers will no doubt add right back in adjustments.... Fat chance Subaru will offer a sufficient supply of them.
  • Dartdude Lorenzo, the reason for low manual transmission here is that most dealers won't stock them. I wanted a 2012 Kia Koup with manual tranny it was available, but no dealers ordered any from the factory hence there was none available. Go on any car manufacture's web site and price and build and build your model and you would be lucky if the model existed and was available.
  • The Oracle Good news is that based on the model years many of these have already been junked or experienced terminal engine failure.