We lost a battle on I-1639

State Supreme Court orders gun control initiative back on Washington’s November ballot

Washington voters will get to vote on a gun control initiative this November after all.

The Washington Supreme Court today reversed a lower court’s decision blocking Initiative 1639 from the November ballot, ruling that Secretary of State Kim Wyman does not have the legal authority to reject it.

State law governing the acceptance of intiative [sic] petitions is narrow, Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst said. “It does not allow for pre-election review of the form, process, subtance [sic] or constitutionality of an initiative petition,” she wrote.

Instead, it only allows a court to examine whether the petitions have the required number of signatures from voters.

“There is no actual challenge to the county of signatures,” Fairhurst wrote.

Wyman can’t be ordered to keep an initiative off the ballot “based on readability, correctness or formatting of the proposed measure printed on the back of the petitions.”

See Encouraging news on I-1639 for background material.

I look forward to someone using the argument “does not allow for pre-election review of the form, process, substance or constitutionality of an initiative petition” when the wording on the back of petition says it will ban all guns while the official wording says it will repeal all gun laws.


3 thoughts on “We lost a battle on I-1639

  1. We know from experience that the standards will change as soon as it favors the left’s agenda. The opposite of what they claim with certitude today will be declared with equal certitude tomorrow, and with no sense of irony or acknowledgement of hypocrisy.

    All we’ll do in response is what we always do; we’ll point out the blatant contradiction, get angry, those on our side will agree, and the other side will say we’re crazy, stupid and evil for not seeing the wisdom in what they do.

    If we had common principles there’d be no disagreement, and therefore no conflict. Minor disagreements (all disagreements being minor ones when both parties have the same basic principles) would be solved amicably.

    Since we lack common principles in this country it will come to push verses shove; the loudest, most irrational, dishonest and violent side gets their way. Since we are neither irrational nor violent, nor dishonest, yet at the same time we’re unable to assert with absolute certainty and fortitude the foundation of our principles, we will lose. If we were irrational, loud, dishonest and violent, we’d be on the other side and would therefore also lose.

    The enemy, being scholars of deceit, understand these things far better than we do and are therefore able to herd us in the direction necessary. When we jump to the “conservative” or “libertarian” “side” we’re jumping into a position pre-determined for us by the enemy. We’re rallying to their friends for help.

    Thesis, antithesis, pre-determined synthesis. Choose the “good cop” or the “bad cop”, it doesn’t matter. They both work for the same department, having the same boss. They pretend to oppose one another, even bitterly, but once we’re out of sight they have dinner and drinks together, and plan their next moves. They know we will rally to the controlled opposition, the artificially lighted paths of false hope and of the least resistance, which lead into a trap we helped them build.

    This is Babylon. But the truth is more powerful still.

    “But you’re crazy, Lyle; obviously the good cop is on our side, and will defeat the bad cop! If you don’t support the good cop then YOU’RE the problem! Come and help pull the wagon, freeloader!”

    Right. See what I mean?

  2. So, what the WA Supreme Court has said is that the initiative process, which exists under the purview of the WA Constitution and incorporated parts of US Constitutional limitations, does not permit any limitation to initiative language. An initiative could effectively re-impose general slavery (and might pass if couched in appealing progressive language), and it could be voted upon, passed and IN EFFECT until challenged in court and an injunction passed.

    I think the practical effects of this ruling will have extensive results. The next phase is to craft a broadly worded and very appealingly phrased progressive initiative with lots and lots of terms, clauses, phrases and codicils, and somewhere in the middle in very very fine print and evasive language but unambiguously means, “Anyone espousing progressive values is barred from public service in the state of Washington at the moment of utterance and prohibited from presence within its jurisdiction upon threat of immediate execution. Any challenge to this must be made in person by the individual themselves.”

    This will be a brave new world we’re going to live, possibly briefly, in.

    • It’s worse than that.

      ANY gibberish can be passed. What it means is decided by a judge when it’s challenged AFTER it’s passed. What a judge decides is whatever the judge wants. The result is rule by decree of a judge.

Comments are closed.