Futurewise, SEIU 775 appeal I-960 decision to state Supreme Court

Regular readers of this blog will remember that just over a week ago our executive director liveblogged the Superior Court decision in Futurewise v. Reed, where Judge Catherine Shaffer refused to act to prevent I-960 from being certified for the ballot. Futurewise and SEIU 775, the plaintiffs in the case, have filed an emergency motion for accelerated review with the state Supreme Court because the Superior Court refused to actually consider the issues at hand:

The King County Superior Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' case failed to properly consider the subject matter raised by Appellants. The Court refused to consider whether I-960's supermajority and voter approval requirements were within the scope of the initiative process.

If I-960 is beyond the scope of the initiative process, it serves the interest of the People, the initiative process, and the judiciary to so rule before the election. Should the measure gain approval of a majority of voters, post-election invalidation would likely cause some voters to feel that their voice was ignored or overruled, and the People disenfranchised, when in fact the measure should never have been placed before them for consideration.

We applaud our allies Futurewise and SEIU 775 for fighting to take this case to the next level. The way to defeat the destructive policies proposed by ideologues like Tim Eyman is to constantly fight back and not cede an inch. Eyman thinks he won a victory in court on June 13th, but this lawsuit is not dead yet.

We hope the Court will take this case and recognize the importance of setting a firm precedent for protecting our Constitution - the organic laws of this state approved by the people - from abuse of the initiative process.