REJECT Kimsey's Charter Amendments #17 & #18

The proposed charter amendment to alter Clark County's redistricting process represents a serious threat to fair representation and democratic integrity. If passed, it would drastically change how council districts are redrawn, shifting power away from a bipartisan, collaborative approach and concentrating it in the hands of the County Council’s majority party. This amendment undermines the checks and balances that are necessary to ensure that district boundaries are drawn fairly, without favoritism towards one political party over another.

Currently, the redistricting process in Clark County ensures that both major political parties have an equal voice. Each party submits candidates for the Redistricting Committee, and the County Council appoints two members from each party. This bipartisan system helps prevent any single group from having too much control and ensures that a broad spectrum of political perspectives is represented in the redistricting process. However, the proposed amendment would do away with this balanced structure. Instead, it would allow the controlling party on the County Council to stack the committee with members of their choosing, leading to a one-sided process where the party in power has complete control over how district boundaries are drawn.

This is a textbook case of gerrymandering waiting to happen. Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate the boundaries of electoral districts to gain an unfair advantage. It allows the party in control to draw lines that protect their incumbents or create districts that dilute the opposition's voting power. In essence, it allows politicians to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to choose their representatives. By giving the majority party full control over the Redistricting Committee, this amendment would make it easier for political elites to rig the system to their advantage, ensuring that they remain in power regardless of how the public votes.

The proposed amendment goes even further by introducing a new role: the so-called "redistricting master." This unelected county employee would be granted significant authority to draw the initial district boundaries. Even more concerning is that any changes proposed by the Redistricting Committee would require a supermajority vote to pass, meaning that the committee’s ability to make meaningful alterations would be severely limited. In practice, this amendment would centralize most of the power in the hands of one individual—the redistricting master—while reducing the role of the committee to little more than a rubber stamp.

This centralization of power is especially alarming given the recent history of redistricting in Clark County. In 2021, the Charter Review Committee proposed a controversial five-district map, which redistricted three Republican councilors into the same district, despite lacking updated census data. That map was rushed onto the ballot without an opposing statement, highlighting how easily the process can be manipulated when checks and balances are not in place. The proposed 2024 amendment would only make such manipulations easier by removing bipartisan input and giving more control to the majority party and county employees.

Furthermore, the amendment introduces new redistricting criteria that are not found in Washington state law. The state’s redistricting laws, outlined in RCW 29A.76.010, have been carefully crafted and debated in public hearings over many years. They provide a fair and reasonable framework for drawing district boundaries that has stood the test of time. By contrast, the new criteria in this amendment are untested and could introduce confusion and bias into the process. There is simply no justification for abandoning the state’s well-established redistricting standards in favor of vague and potentially harmful changes that have not been subject to the same level of scrutiny.

The current redistricting process, while not perfect, offers a more fair and balanced approach by ensuring that both major political parties have input and limiting the influence of any single political entity or person. By shifting power to the majority party on the County Council and an unelected bureaucrat, this amendment threatens the balance that is essential for a fair redistricting process. Over time, it could lead to a situation where the entire County Council represents only one primary viewpoint, marginalizing large segments of the population and undermining the principle of fair representation.

In short, this amendment is not about improving the system; it is about consolidating power and giving political elites the tools to manipulate district boundaries for their own benefit. It would diminish the role of the Redistricting Committee, concentrate power in the hands of a few, and introduce new, untested redistricting criteria that could further distort the process.

Voters must reject this dangerous amendment to preserve the integrity of our redistricting processes and protect the fairness of our elections. The right to fair representation is fundamental to our democracy, and we cannot afford to let partisan interests take control of the redistricting process.

We urge voters to vote NO on this amendment. Let’s keep the process fair, balanced, and transparent, and ensure that our elections reflect the will of the people, not the interests of politicians or unelected bureaucrats.

The initiative process is one of the most powerful tools available to citizens in a democratic society. It is a means by which the people can directly propose and enact laws when elected officials fail to act. This process of self-governance allows citizens to take matters into their own hands, ensuring that government remains accountable to the public. As the Washington Supreme Court has noted, “the initiative process is an exercise in direct democracy and represents the people’s right to legislate,” reaffirming that the courts should tread carefully when interfering with this constitutional right. In Coppernoll v. Reed, the Court emphasized that "pre-election challenges to initiatives are disfavored because they often unnecessarily interrupt the democratic process."

This is especially relevant in the case of Clark County's proposed charter amendment, which would significantly alter and restrict the initiative process. Historically, courts have generally ruled against prematurely interfering with the legality of initiatives. For instance, in Washington Citizens Action v. State, the courts reiterated that "the judiciary should only intervene after an initiative has been enacted into law," highlighting that it is inappropriate to block initiatives before they have been given a chance to be heard by voters. Yet, the amendments being pushed in Clark County seek to undermine this principle by expanding government officials' powers to intervene in the initiative process, allowing them to block or alter citizen-led proposals before they even reach the ballot.

This charter amendment threatens to concentrate authority in the hands of a few unelected officials, making it more difficult for everyday citizens to use initiatives to address important issues. Clark County already imposes more restrictions on initiatives than other charter counties in Washington. If this amendment passes, it would allow the Prosecuting Attorney to inject legal opinions into petitions and ballots—an idea that was already rejected by voters in 2022. This is a backdoor attempt to restrict the initiative process by placing more power in the hands of government insiders, who could manipulate the legal framing of initiatives to favor their interests over the will of the people.

Moreover, the County Auditor would gain unprecedented control over the initiative process, including the ability to estimate costs and approve petition formats. The Auditor could require petition signers to include their birthdates—an extra hurdle that is not required by state law. These new layers of bureaucracy would make it harder for grassroots campaigns to succeed, limiting the ability of citizens to propose changes to their government.

Beyond adding administrative hurdles, both financial and legal estimates provided by government officials in these scenarios have frequently been used to influence voter perception, often to manipulate public opinion. In many past instances, cost estimates and legal opinions have been framed in partisan or biased ways to dissuade voters from supporting initiatives. For example, opponents of initiatives have historically inflated cost projections or exaggerated legal risks to sway voters against popular grassroots measures. In this context, the new powers granted to the Auditor and Prosecuting Attorney could allow biased opinions and forecasts to be injected into the initiative process, leaving citizens vulnerable to skewed, partisan assessments designed to manipulate their votes.

The initiative process is not just a tool for citizens—it is often the only method of self-governance available when elected officials fail to listen to their constituents. Courts have recognized this critical role, and voters should be wary of any attempts to limit this right. The proposed amendment expands the list of topics that can be blocked from initiatives, further narrowing the range of issues that citizens can address through direct democracy.

Rather than enhancing democracy, this amendment would restrict it, allowing the County Prosecuting Attorney and County Auditor to exert undue influence over the initiative process. These officials would have the power to delay, revise, or block initiatives before they even reach voters, effectively undermining the people’s right to self-govern.

Clark County voters have rejected similar attempts to limit the initiative process in the past, and they should do so again. The amendment represents an unnecessary and harmful consolidation of power that would stifle the ability of grassroots campaigns to succeed. Protecting the integrity of the initiative process is crucial to maintaining a government that serves the people, not a handful of government officials.

As courts have consistently ruled, initiatives should be allowed to proceed unless and until they have been enacted into law, at which point their legality can be properly reviewed. Premature interference, as this amendment seeks to enable, disrupts the democratic process and undermines the foundational right of citizens to petition their government. We urge voters to reject this amendment and preserve the people’s right to self-governance.

Voting against this amendment is crucial to ensuring that the initiative process remains a viable and powerful tool for all citizens, protecting their ability to shape the laws and policies of their government.