OLYMPIA, Wash. - Washington state citizens don't have the right to file initiatives allowing voters to ban red-light cameras in cities, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a 5-4 ruling, the state justices struck down a recent initiative, known as Proposition 1, that required the city of Mukilteo to hold a public vote before it adds red-light cameras. The Tim Eyman-inspired initiative was passed by more than 70 percent of Mukilteo voters on 2010.
The court ruled Proposition 1 "exceeds the scope of initiative power" and is therefore invalid because only the city council of Mukilteo is authorized to enact ordinances governing the operation of red-light cameras. The state Legislature specifically granted that power to cities and not to voters, the justices ruled.
The court's decision stems from an appeal of a trial court's earlier ruling that Proposition 1 was legal and binding.
The four dissenting justices wrote, however, that the point is moot because the Mukilteo City Council later repealed the red-light camera ordinance after seeing the results of the initiative.
"The people exercised their right to petition. The city council put a relevant advisory issue on the ballot. The voters expressed a strong position and the city council repealed a disfavored ordinance. As there is no justiciable controversy for us to resolve, the appeal is moot," the dissenters wrote.
Mike Reitz of the Freedom Foundation said the majority's ruling striking down Mukilteo's Proposition 1 sends a strong signal to citizens of other cities, discouraging them from trying to ban red-light cameras through the initiative process.
"This ruling definitely sends a signal to other individuals that are attempting to repeal red light cameras through initiative that it might be a difficult path," he said.
Reitz said many citizens have realistic concerns about red-light cameras, that they are more about generating revenue than they are about enforcing safety.
"So there's a certain amount of public distaste for red-light cameras, not to mention the 'Big Brother' aspect of being spied on," he said, adding that those concerns will now have to be addressed through some other channel than an initiative.
Tim Eyman, who sponsored Mukilteo's Proposition 1, said every city where there has been a public vote on red-light cameras has shown great opposition to them.
"Now we have the government and the courts saying, 'You're not allowed to vote on this issue.' So it's pretty clear that they do not like the idea of voters having a chance to vote on this - because they vote against it every time," Eyman said.
Eyman said it sounds "un-American" for the court to say "there are certain issues that you, the unwashed masses, should not be able to weigh in on, to give us advice on, to discuss, debate and have a public vote on," Eyman said.
"It's just the height of arrogance, and it doesn't even sound like we live in a free country when they say, 'We're going to decide what you're allowed to vote on and what you're not allowed to vote on. From that perspective it is an incredibly arrogant ruling."
In a 5-4 ruling, the state justices struck down a recent initiative, known as Proposition 1, that required the city of Mukilteo to hold a public vote before it adds red-light cameras. The Tim Eyman-inspired initiative was passed by more than 70 percent of Mukilteo voters on 2010.
The court ruled Proposition 1 "exceeds the scope of initiative power" and is therefore invalid because only the city council of Mukilteo is authorized to enact ordinances governing the operation of red-light cameras. The state Legislature specifically granted that power to cities and not to voters, the justices ruled.
The court's decision stems from an appeal of a trial court's earlier ruling that Proposition 1 was legal and binding.
The four dissenting justices wrote, however, that the point is moot because the Mukilteo City Council later repealed the red-light camera ordinance after seeing the results of the initiative.
"The people exercised their right to petition. The city council put a relevant advisory issue on the ballot. The voters expressed a strong position and the city council repealed a disfavored ordinance. As there is no justiciable controversy for us to resolve, the appeal is moot," the dissenters wrote.
Mike Reitz of the Freedom Foundation said the majority's ruling striking down Mukilteo's Proposition 1 sends a strong signal to citizens of other cities, discouraging them from trying to ban red-light cameras through the initiative process.
"This ruling definitely sends a signal to other individuals that are attempting to repeal red light cameras through initiative that it might be a difficult path," he said.
Reitz said many citizens have realistic concerns about red-light cameras, that they are more about generating revenue than they are about enforcing safety.
"So there's a certain amount of public distaste for red-light cameras, not to mention the 'Big Brother' aspect of being spied on," he said, adding that those concerns will now have to be addressed through some other channel than an initiative.
Tim Eyman, who sponsored Mukilteo's Proposition 1, said every city where there has been a public vote on red-light cameras has shown great opposition to them.
"Now we have the government and the courts saying, 'You're not allowed to vote on this issue.' So it's pretty clear that they do not like the idea of voters having a chance to vote on this - because they vote against it every time," Eyman said.
Eyman said it sounds "un-American" for the court to say "there are certain issues that you, the unwashed masses, should not be able to weigh in on, to give us advice on, to discuss, debate and have a public vote on," Eyman said.
"It's just the height of arrogance, and it doesn't even sound like we live in a free country when they say, 'We're going to decide what you're allowed to vote on and what you're not allowed to vote on. From that perspective it is an incredibly arrogant ruling."