Sue Lani Madsen: November initiatives expose system’s flaws

Populist myth says a small group of Washington citizens gathered around a kitchen table can write better law than 147 members of the Legislature. It’s unlikely. The give-and-take of the Legislature may be messy, but the process is designed to encourage thoughtful compromise. Initiatives are tunnel-visioned and readily manipulated.

This year’s initiatives provide a perfect set of object lessons into the six major flaws of the initiative process.

Oversimplification: I-1433, minimum wage and benefit requirements. One size does not fit all in a state as diverse as Washington. The current minimum wage meets or exceeds the living wage requirements for a single adult in every county in the 5th Congressional District, according to the MIT Living Wage Calculator. Yet in King County, it’s 25 percent too low.

Even Western Washington isn’t monolithic. While the current state minimum of $9.47 is lower than a living wage in King County, it’s 5 percent higher than a living wage in Grays Harbor County. Variations in labor pricing are directly tied to local economic conditions. Oregon recognized this in passing regional minimum wage rates, consequences as yet unknown. Flawed legislation can be adjusted in the next session, but flawed initiatives are frozen for two years before the Legislature can fix them without clearing a two-thirds vote hurdle.

Outside money: I-1464, campaign finance reform. I-1464 proposes transparency in campaign finance by mandating public funding of elections. Ironically, it is heavily funded by outside money from special-interest groups that are not transparent about their own funding. It speculatively revises tax laws while adding yet another spending mandate to the Legislature, which must remain focused on fully funding education. The proponents objecting to too much money in politics have raised over $2.6 million in a national fundraising campaign. That’s worth thinking about.

Emotional appeals: I-1491, extreme risk protection orders. When something tragic happens, initiatives like I-1491 appeal to our drive to “just do something.” Unfortunately, emotionally driven initiatives are rarely balanced to handle complex situations. Whenever an emotional initiative hits the ballot because supporters couldn’t get it through the Legislature, ask why.

Misleading titles: I-1501, identify theft and consumer fraud. Politically motivated groups buy influence through initiatives hidden behind false fronts. I-1501 isn’t about keeping anyone safer from identity theft. It is funded solely by over $1.4 million in donations from SEIU, a union representing home health care workers, through a front group cheerfully named Campaign to Protect Seniors.

SEIU is ticked off over losing a U.S. Supreme Court case to the Freedom Foundation. Freedom Foundation requested caregiver addresses from the state so they could send out letters explaining that SEIU could no longer force them to pay dues. SEIU doesn’t want to be transparent with caregivers and came up with a cleverly worded initiative. I-1501 gets the Red Riding Hood award for hiding a wolf in grandmother’s clothing.

Strange bedfellows: I-732, carbon tax. When groups normally at odds with each other oppose an initiative, it often means a bad idea, not bipartisanship. A carbon tax is usually a pet cause of progressives while an anathema to conservatives, and they oppose it for different reasons. The likelihood of unintended consequences increases the diversity of the opposition. The normal legislative process is better suited to negotiating compromises to avoid unintended consequences.

Election grandstanding: I-735, symbolic support for opposing Citizens United. This initiative does precisely nothing. Grandstanding initiatives are targeted at infrequent voters who might be passionate about a single partisan talking point, with high hopes they’ll vote other races on the ticket for the same party.

I’m not an advocate for eliminating the initiative process but am interested in reducing the numbers and improving the quality. After the ban on paying per signature was struck down by a U.S. District Court in 1994, there has been an incentive to focus paid petition drives in dense urban areas and downplay building a legitimate grass-roots movement across the state.

So keep the paid signature gatherers, but make one change to ensure initiatives have broad citizen support: Tally signatures by legislative district. An initiative earning support from 8 percent of the active voters in each legislative district might be worth considering. Until then, be skeptical. Be very skeptical.

Columnist Sue Lani Madsen can be reached at rulingpen@gmail.com or on Twitter @SueLaniMadsen.