Tuesday, July 08, 2008
What Qualifies for the Ballot?
It's 4:30 a.m. as I type this, and surely all the good little politicians should be tucked into their beds. What's got yours truly up and sipping warm milk in his spiffy Tacoma Historical Society coffee mug is a question.
It's the next interesting question related to the minicasino debate. Supporters of a ban on them are trying to gather enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Last night in their speeches and applause, the supporters were pretty clear that they expect the Lakewood council to put the question up no matter whether they collect the signatures they need to legally qualify for the ballot.
The signatures they have collected so far have not been validated yet. But just in glancing at the list of names provided by the group, the number clearly seems to number well over 2,000. The number before validation is 2,400. Should the number be enough to put the question on the ballot? The threshhold right now is about 3,700, based on a percentage of overall voters.
As I've said often enough to qualify as a genuine target for these folks, I do support the right of minicasinos to exist. But to me, it's a lot less clear at what point a measure should qualify for a ballot. It's a question that has less to do with gambling and minicasinos, and more about at what people the voters should be voting directly on issues.
If the council puts the minicasino measure on the ballot without requiring the stated number of signatures, it's a pretty clear sign that we're willing to put pretty much anything up for initiative and referendum if folks put up a good showing to gather signatures. Clearly, one can dig in one's heels and demand consistency and that people follow the rules as stated now. But is that good? Should there be a lower threshhold, so people can vote directly more often on matters? Should Lakewood have lots of initiatives and referendums?
I offer no answers at 4:30 a.m.. That's good because most times I tried to come up with answers at this hour, I haven't been super successful. But the question of when something belongs on a ballot is a good one. The question will be around for a few more weeks until the deadline comes to get measures on the ballot.
What do you think?
Forward this post
It's the next interesting question related to the minicasino debate. Supporters of a ban on them are trying to gather enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Last night in their speeches and applause, the supporters were pretty clear that they expect the Lakewood council to put the question up no matter whether they collect the signatures they need to legally qualify for the ballot.
The signatures they have collected so far have not been validated yet. But just in glancing at the list of names provided by the group, the number clearly seems to number well over 2,000. The number before validation is 2,400. Should the number be enough to put the question on the ballot? The threshhold right now is about 3,700, based on a percentage of overall voters.
As I've said often enough to qualify as a genuine target for these folks, I do support the right of minicasinos to exist. But to me, it's a lot less clear at what point a measure should qualify for a ballot. It's a question that has less to do with gambling and minicasinos, and more about at what people the voters should be voting directly on issues.
If the council puts the minicasino measure on the ballot without requiring the stated number of signatures, it's a pretty clear sign that we're willing to put pretty much anything up for initiative and referendum if folks put up a good showing to gather signatures. Clearly, one can dig in one's heels and demand consistency and that people follow the rules as stated now. But is that good? Should there be a lower threshhold, so people can vote directly more often on matters? Should Lakewood have lots of initiatives and referendums?
I offer no answers at 4:30 a.m.. That's good because most times I tried to come up with answers at this hour, I haven't been super successful. But the question of when something belongs on a ballot is a good one. The question will be around for a few more weeks until the deadline comes to get measures on the ballot.
What do you think?
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
IMHO, the initiative process -- at the state level -- is to be used when the government is unresponsive to their citizenry, and a method is needed to bypass the legislative process. Appropriately, it should have a high threshold to be placed on the ballot, otherwise, minority opinions that deserve majority protection would get eviscerated.
By analogy, the Lakewood initiative process should be used when the city council is unresponsive to the citizenry. Similarly, it has a high threshold to success.
That said, the underlying principle of our federal, state, and city governments is representation. We elect people to represent us so that the general population doesn't have to pore over budgets, learn about school district politics, and, yes, weigh the valid arguments on both sides of the gambling issue.
Placing an issue on the ballot other than through the initiative process means that the city council is punting. Council members were elected to analyze conflicting data and to make tough decisions. Delegating that responsibility back to the lesser-informed citizenry is, in part, a shirking of responsibility.
(Yes, I've posted in opposition to the proposed gambling ban before, but I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if an initiative I'd support was failing.)
By analogy, the Lakewood initiative process should be used when the city council is unresponsive to the citizenry. Similarly, it has a high threshold to success.
That said, the underlying principle of our federal, state, and city governments is representation. We elect people to represent us so that the general population doesn't have to pore over budgets, learn about school district politics, and, yes, weigh the valid arguments on both sides of the gambling issue.
Placing an issue on the ballot other than through the initiative process means that the city council is punting. Council members were elected to analyze conflicting data and to make tough decisions. Delegating that responsibility back to the lesser-informed citizenry is, in part, a shirking of responsibility.
(Yes, I've posted in opposition to the proposed gambling ban before, but I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if an initiative I'd support was failing.)
What Travis said with regards the Initiative and Referendum Process is true in that the danger to said process is the oversimplification of complex issues normally the purview of the day-to-day decision-making, deliberation processes of our elected representatives.
But when those elected representatives, in this case the Lakewood City Council, delegate the responsibility to study all aspects of the impact of gambling upon a community and that committee, in this case the Planning Advisory Board, does not discuss as part of their assigned duties, over a two-year period, the social consequences of local convenience gambling, and the city council accepts their homework as having been comprehensive and complete, then enters Initiative to do the job they thought they had elected their representatives to do.
Further, for lack of a second on a motion to send the issue to the voters, the council bypassed any discussion; avoided having to voice their individual opinion; and thus subverted the peoples right to both know and to vote, which is akin to blogging on public time.
But when those elected representatives, in this case the Lakewood City Council, delegate the responsibility to study all aspects of the impact of gambling upon a community and that committee, in this case the Planning Advisory Board, does not discuss as part of their assigned duties, over a two-year period, the social consequences of local convenience gambling, and the city council accepts their homework as having been comprehensive and complete, then enters Initiative to do the job they thought they had elected their representatives to do.
Further, for lack of a second on a motion to send the issue to the voters, the council bypassed any discussion; avoided having to voice their individual opinion; and thus subverted the peoples right to both know and to vote, which is akin to blogging on public time.
I was at the rally and yes, I'm part of Save Lakewood.
How many signatures to get it on the ballot? That's the wrong question. Instead, ask: What actions can the council take?
1. Second the motion by Ron Cronk and have the debate.
2. Put on the ballot for voting
3. Put on the ballot for advisory voting (I probably have incorrect terminology)
4. Create an Economic Development Advisory Board to study adn report on the impact on economic development when casinos are present in the city
5. Convent a forum of leaders from the many cities in WA that have already made the decision to exclude commercial card rooms (Casinos) -- find out why they made that choice and how they adjusted their budgets. List of cities at this site: http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/docs/tax_prohibited.pdf
6. Send the issue back to the PAB and this time hold them accountable to report on the findings they rec'd as represented by the large notebook and book (and other sources) held up at the July 7 meeting
7. Hold an open mic event limited to this topic. I've heard both McGovern and Thomas say, "I want the people to bring me their wishes." If the City Council sponsored such an event then everyone in town would know the council is open to debate.
How many signatures to get it on the ballot? That's the wrong question. Instead, ask: What actions can the council take?
1. Second the motion by Ron Cronk and have the debate.
2. Put on the ballot for voting
3. Put on the ballot for advisory voting (I probably have incorrect terminology)
4. Create an Economic Development Advisory Board to study adn report on the impact on economic development when casinos are present in the city
5. Convent a forum of leaders from the many cities in WA that have already made the decision to exclude commercial card rooms (Casinos) -- find out why they made that choice and how they adjusted their budgets. List of cities at this site: http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/docs/tax_prohibited.pdf
6. Send the issue back to the PAB and this time hold them accountable to report on the findings they rec'd as represented by the large notebook and book (and other sources) held up at the July 7 meeting
7. Hold an open mic event limited to this topic. I've heard both McGovern and Thomas say, "I want the people to bring me their wishes." If the City Council sponsored such an event then everyone in town would know the council is open to debate.
Oh what a list!
Washington Cities which Prohibit Gambling, including:
Bellevue 1993
Bonney Lake 1999
Bothell 2000
Burien 1999
Covington 1998
Dupont
Edgewood 1999
Edmonds 2000
Fircrest 2000
Gig Harbor 1999
Issaquah 1977
Kent 1999
Mercer Island 1991
Mill Creek 1998
North Bend 5/2008 (recently)
Port Orchard 2001
Puyallup 1999
Redmond 1999
Seattle 1974
Tacoma 1999
Wenatchee 2001
Woodinville 1993
What factors about gambling did the governments of these municipalities understand that Lakewood's city government has failed to even study or discuss publicly for the record? Isn't this a list of high quality cities? They are definitely not bankrupt or mired in lawsuits from gambling cessation. Let's talk to them and find out!
Post a Comment
Washington Cities which Prohibit Gambling, including:
Bellevue 1993
Bonney Lake 1999
Bothell 2000
Burien 1999
Covington 1998
Dupont
Edgewood 1999
Edmonds 2000
Fircrest 2000
Gig Harbor 1999
Issaquah 1977
Kent 1999
Mercer Island 1991
Mill Creek 1998
North Bend 5/2008 (recently)
Port Orchard 2001
Puyallup 1999
Redmond 1999
Seattle 1974
Tacoma 1999
Wenatchee 2001
Woodinville 1993
What factors about gambling did the governments of these municipalities understand that Lakewood's city government has failed to even study or discuss publicly for the record? Isn't this a list of high quality cities? They are definitely not bankrupt or mired in lawsuits from gambling cessation. Let's talk to them and find out!
Links to this post:
<< Home
