NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014

With I‑1325 in the dustbin, it’s once again time to update Tim Eyman’s Failure Chart

Many years ago, dur­ing Per­ma­nent Defense’s ear­ly years, we launched a resource for jour­nal­ists and cit­i­zens called Tim Eyman’s Fail­ure Chart, which con­tains a list of every ini­tia­tive and ref­er­en­dum Eyman has attempt­ed to qual­i­fy for the bal­lot, along with the year, the num­ber of the mea­sure, and the out­come.

The chart was cre­at­ed to illus­trate that most of Tim Eyman’s ini­tia­tives have been fail­ures in one way or anoth­er. We peri­od­i­cal­ly update it dur­ing the course of each year, usu­al­ly in the wake of a Novem­ber elec­tion or a court rul­ing. This year, the Fail­ure Chart is receiv­ing a wel­come ear­ly update to account for the fail­ure of I‑1325, Tim Eyman’s unsuc­cess­ful 2014 ini­tia­tive, which will not be on the bal­lot.

In a threat analy­sis assess­ment released last week, we con­clud­ed that I‑1325 was dead because we could­n’t find any evi­dence of an active I‑1325 sig­na­ture dri­ve. That pre­dic­tion was ful­filled today when Tim Eyman final­ly admit­ted to his fol­low­ers that I‑1325 would not be mak­ing on the bal­lot. (“We fell short,” Eyman said).

Each year, as long­time sup­port­ers know from read­ing our cov­er­age here on the Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate and on Per­ma­nent Defense, Eyman files dozens of ini­tia­tives. Of these, Eyman usu­al­ly only attempts to qual­i­fy one (at most, two) for the bal­lot simul­ta­ne­ous­ly. He has come up short on five oth­er occa­sions since 1999:

  • Ini­tia­tive 267, in 2002
  • Ini­tia­tive 807, in 2003
  • Ini­tia­tive 864, in 2004
  • Ini­tia­tive 917, in 2006
  • Ref­er­en­dum 65, also in 2006

Of the ini­tia­tives that Eyman has qual­i­fied for the bal­lot, six have been reject­ed by vot­ers (most by large mar­gins). Those are:

  • Ini­tia­tive 745, 2000
  • Ini­tia­tive 892, 2004
  • Ini­tia­tive 985, 2008
  • Ini­tia­tive 1033, 2009
  • Ini­tia­tive 1125, 2011
  • Ini­tia­tive 517, 2013

NPI’s Per­ma­nent Defense was involved in the cam­paigns against all of the above Eyman ini­tia­tives, except for I‑745 in 2000. (PD was­n’t found­ed until 2002).

There have also been six Eyman ini­tia­tives that were passed by vot­ers, but which were lat­er struck down in whole or in part by the courts:

  • Ini­tia­tive 695, 1999
  • Ini­tia­tive 722, 2000
  • Ini­tia­tive 747, 2001
  • Ini­tia­tive 690, 2007
  • Ini­tia­tive 1053, 2010
  • Ini­tia­tive 1185, 2012

The first three were struck down by sep­a­rate Supreme Court deci­sions and the lat­ter three were declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in the same rul­ing, released last year.

Syn­opses of all the afore­men­tioned mea­sures are in the Fail­ure Chart.

There have been two oth­er Eyman ini­tia­tives passed by vot­ers: I‑776 in 2002 and I‑900 in 2005. I‑776 sur­vived a legal chal­lenge, but failed to accom­plish its main intent, which was pre­vent­ing Sound Tran­sit from build­ing Cen­tral Link, the region’s first line rail line. The Supreme Court upheld a Supe­ri­or Court rul­ing in 2006 that pre­vent­ed the state from enforc­ing the pro­vi­sion of I‑776 that would have repealed Sound Tran­sit’s motor vehi­cle tax, which had already been pledged to pay off bonds by the time that Eyman wrote I‑776. For this rea­son, we clas­si­fy I‑776 as a fail­ure.

That leaves I‑900, Eyman’s ini­tia­tive on per­for­mance audits. I‑900 has nev­er been sub­ject­ed to a legal chal­lenge and remains in effect today, so we clas­si­fy it as a suc­cess, though it’s impor­tant to note that I‑900 was part­ly redun­dant (by the time I‑900 had qual­i­fied for the bal­lot, the Leg­is­la­ture had already passed a bill empow­er­ing the state audi­tor to con­duct per­for­mance audits).

In total, Tim Eyman has attempt­ed to qual­i­fy twen­ty mea­sures to the bal­lot since 1999, but aston­ish­ing­ly, just one of those mea­sures passed and remains ful­ly in effect. I‑695 and I‑747 were rein­stat­ed by the Leg­is­la­ture after the Supreme Court struck them down, but that was their doing, not Eyman’s.

The beau­ty of our Fail­ure Chart is that it illus­trates a point we have been con­sis­tent­ly try­ing to make for over a decade: Tim Eyman is ter­ri­ble at leg­is­lat­ing. Most of his ini­tia­tives have been fail­ures. That said, the ones that were declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al are still on the books, because accord­ing to the Code Revis­er’s office, an ini­tia­tive that has been struck down remains part of the Revised Code of Wash­ing­ton until it has been repealed. It’s just not enforced.

A true end to the Tim Eyman error will not come until Eyman’s ini­tia­tive fac­to­ry is per­ma­nent­ly out of busi­ness and the ini­tia­tives that got past the vot­ers are wiped off our books. We are already doing what we can to accom­plish the for­mer, and in 2015 and beyond, we’ll be part­ner­ing with State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Gael Tar­leton (NPI’s vice pres­i­dent!) and her col­leagues in the Leg­is­la­ture to accom­plish the lat­ter.

Read about pre­vi­ous updates to Tim Eyman’s Fail­ure Chart:

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation


    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local pol­i­tics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for mon­ey.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy jour­nal­ism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time dona­tion