From Stephanie Johnson O’Day, Attorney
Today, December 4, 2012, in Skagit County Superior Court, three San Juan County residents, Michael Carlson, Jeffrey Bossler and Jerrold Gonce have filed a complaint arguing that Propositions 1, 2 and 3 should be declared void as a matter of law.
The Plaintiffs allege that grossly unequal districts that result from the redistricting scheme contemplated by Proposition 1 violate their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by both the U.S. and Washington State constitutions.
Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the changes to the County Charter proposed in the Voters’ Pamphlet ran afoul of the “one subject” rule that is mandated by Article II, Section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. This rule is designed to prevent voter confusion and limit propositions to one topic. Plaintiffs point out, for instance, that Proposition 1 changed a variety of unrelated sections of the San Juan County Charter, and is thus invalid.
Additionally, Plaintiffs point out that the Voters’ Pamphlet identified the some identical line-by-line changes for Propositions 1, 2 and 3 which made it possible for voters to cast conflicting and therefore unintelligible votes.
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that it is a clear violation of state law
to commence seating all council members at the same time and that the term for all council members be four years. The election scheme contemplated by Proposition 1 provides for neither as all members will be seated at one time and not all will serve for four years.
The complaint asks the court to declare Propositions 1, 2 and 3 void as a matter of law and requests a temporary injunction be issued against San Juan County to prevent any election proceedings while the court studies the issues.
Most of the arguments made would apply equally well to the Charter as it was approved in 2005. And Washington State law specifically allows for the districting under Proposition 1. Hopefully the Superior Court Judge will review this sensibly and these grinches will not be able to steal San Juan County Home Rule.
Yes because the county spending more money in court is a great idea. Way to go you 3. Sad that I am tired of us spending money on this.
Actually, as the article makes pretty clear, the plaintiffs have made a number of legal challenges based on due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by both the U.S. and Washington State constitutions; therefore, the existence of a state law that singles out our County for special voting treatment is legally irrelevant if the court finds the result constitutionally prohibited. Further, the judge is bound to review the legal arguments on their legal merit; “sensibly” is not a criterion (and a good thing, too, because I am sure it means different things to different people). A good number of our citizens (a majority on Orcas and San Juan) apparently thought the Grinch looking to steal Home Rule was the CRC. It seems worthwhile to have a judge rule on the civil rights of those citizens. As for expense, of the $50 million or so that our tiny County manages to spend each year, I expect that the legal defense of this straightforward legal challenge will be less than the cost of holding a whole new set of primary and general elections in 2013.