Article by Erik Smith. Published on Thursday, June 10, 2010 EST.

Judge Changes Two Words in Ballot Summary – Court Battle Delays Campaign a Week, When Every Second Counts



By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, June 9.—By the time you read this, a second liquor-store privatization initiative should be hitting the streets. Initiative 1105, backed by liquor distributors, made it through its courtroom ballot challenge largely intact Wednesday – a judge required changes to two words in the ballot summary – and the campaign was off and running, literally.

            Political consultant Paul Berendt dashed from the courtroom once the gavel fell. He was on his way to the printers.

            Campaign spokeswoman Charla Neuman said petitions should be on their way to signature gatherers within a matter of hours. One side of the sheets had been printed already. Now the pages just had to be sent through the presses a second time.

            There was a good reason for the rush. The campaign has just three weeks to collect 241,000 signatures. No initiative in state history has ever qualified for the ballot that quickly, even with paid signature gatherers. Neuman said I-1105’s campaign organization is set to go. Do they have a chance?

            “I think so,” Neuman said. “I think if anyone can, we’re set up to do it.”

            The funny thing is that her campaign won’t be the only one trying. Another late-starting initiative, I-1107, a tax-rollback measure sponsored by soda-pop distributors, has a similar court hearing today. Like the liquor-store measure, it also is backed by a big-buck war-chest and is planning to use paid signature gatherers.

            Title Includes ‘Hard Liquor’

            After hearing an hour and a half of argument, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee ruled that the ballot description for 1105 should include the term “hard liquor.” The initiative would end the state’s liquor-store monopoly and allow sales in grocery and convenience stores.

            There’s a big difference, though, between I-1105 and I-1100, a competing liquor-store privatization measure that is already collecting signatures. 1105 would require that all sales go through distributors. The other would allow retailers to buy directly from manufacturers, which would eliminate a big portion of the distributors’ potential business.

            That explains the big bucks: Recent filings show both campaigns close to the $400,000 mark, distributors backing one, retailers the other.

            One interesting thing: Although judges and lawyers have spent hours agonizing over the precise wording of the ballot descriptions and summaries, the only things voters normally read, the titles don’t clearly explain the differences between the two measures. Ultimately the two will sound very similar.

            In his ruling, McPhee said a ballot title should stand alone, and it shouldn’t be written in a way that points up a contrast with another measure that might also make the ballot. On the other hand, he noted that the attorney general’s office had written a ballot title for Initiative 1100 that included the term “hard liquor,” and so he said Initiative 1105 should use the same terminology. The attorney general’s office had urged that the title for 1105 simply use the word “spirits.”

            “It seems that there would be a clear benefit to a consumer, especially where there is some uncertainty about the meaning of a word, such as ‘spirits.'”

            Wording is strictly limited in a ballot title – 30 words for the description that appears on the ballot, and 75 words for the summary that appears in the voters’ pamphlet and on petitions. To make the change, the judge had to strike two other words somewhere, and after lengthy discussion of proper usage of commas and semicolons, McPhee finally found two words he could strike.

            A Delaying Tactic?

            The two words kept the petition from hitting the streets for more than a week. Challenges had been filed by the backers of I-1100, and by Seattle attorney Knoll Lowney, who had represented a different client last month in a challenge to the I-1100 ballot title.

            “We see this as a delaying tactic by I-1100,” Neuman said.

            Not so, said I-1100 campaign manager Sharon Gilpin. “We think it’s important to be consistent.”

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.