CRWM Legal Challenge to Initiative 713:

I-713 Constitutional Flaws & Deceptive Campaign Practices

Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management, PO Box 14245, Tumwater, WA 98511-4245, June 2001

 

When Initiative 713 was introduced Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM) warned of multiple legal flaws contained within the measure including the observation that I-713 violated Article II, Section 19 and Article II, Section 37 of the Washington State Constitution.[1]  The text of the warning publicly distributed by CRWM stated (in part):[2]  

“Despite multiple, intense and often repeated warnings from environmental, governmental, civic, labor, business, public opinion leaders and the media from across Washington State the voters approved Initiative 695 in November 1999.  Within days of passage many of these same constituencies moved to challenge the constitutionality of the measure in court.  The League of Women Voters of Washington, for example, argued that I-695 violated Article II Section 19 (multiple title subjects), Article II Section 1 (reserved powers) and Article II section 37 (enacting law without specific reference).  The League position was representative of the position of most of the entities challenging I-695 in court. 

On March 14^th, 2000 Initiative 695 was overturned as unconstitutional and the Washington State Supreme Court is expected to uphold the lower court ruling.  I-713 appears to contain similar fatal flaws with respect to at least two sections of the Washington State Constitution (Article II, Section 19 and Article II, Section 37).  Specifically:

Article II Section 19 of the Washington Constitution provides that "no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." This applies to the initiative process. The I-713 ballot title contains two subjects: 1) the capture of animals with certain body-gripping traps and 2) use of sodium cyanide or sodium fluoroacetate to poison animals. Further, the measure contains a third subject not addressed within the published ballot title.  Specifically, Section 3, Sub-Section (2) makes stipulations regarding the sale of fur in a manner that appears to be intended to disrupt interstate commerce.

Article II section 37 provides that "no act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length." This also applies to the initiative process.  I-713 would require numerous changes in city and county ordinances across the state, as well as the Revised Code of Washington, that pertain to public health issues (local wildlife control for management of animal borne pathogens harmful to humans) and nuisance animal control to cite just two examples.  The act is silent about such impacts and hence misleads the voter.”

The I-695 ruling provided several very clear rulings applicable to Initiative 713:  the court reaffirmed earlier court rulings on other issues in upholding the constitutional mandate that an initiative may address only one subject; an initiative is unconstitutional if it fails to identify all subjects in the text of the ballot title, and; an initiative is unconstitutional if it is not a complete text of the other laws that it necessarily amends, nor explains how those amendments are worded or would be implemented. 

Throughout the 2000 campaign the 713 proponents argued that trapping and the use of certain poisons were the same subject.  Common sense argues that the use of poisons and the use of traps are clearly two different activities (subjects of law).  Trapping and the use of poisons are regulated through two, distinctly separate, bodies of law in Washington State.  These issues are discussed in greater depth in the CRWM Constitutional legal challenge to I-713  (see Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. [3]

The proponents of 713 repeatedly misled the voters of Washington state by claiming (during the signature gathering stage of their initiative) that 713 would “ban all traps” to the claim that 713 would not ban mole and gopher traps to television ads that were intentionally deceptive resulting in many television stations in Washington state pulling Pro713 advertisements off of the air, and more.  This intentional pattern of deception was so egregious that it has also become a part of the legal challenge to I-713 (see Amicus Curiae Brief of Washington State Farm Bureau, Washington State Grange, Washington Cattlemen's Association, and Washington State Sheep Producers Association. [4] 

After the election, I-713 proponents attempted to convince the legislature to “fix” the very things they had lied to the voters of Washington State about via Senate Bill 5831.[5]  The primary sponsor of I-713 (Lisa Wathne of HSUS), in public testimony before the Washington State Senate Natural Resources, Shorelines and Parks Committee on February 15, 2001 asserted that the real intent of the initiative “was to ban certain traps for recreation or commerce in fur.”[6]  An assertion not reflected in most (if not all) of the Pro713 signature gathering material, in statements made to many newspaper editorial boards, media advertising by the Pro713 campaign or the ballot title of the initiative placed before the voters of Washington State for their consideration.  In fact, Pro713 campaign television ads were so deceptive and misleading that they were pulled off the air by virtually every TV station in Washington State that originally aired them.  Some stations refused to even air the ads.[7] 

Significant confusion over the intent of Initiative 713 and of its sponsors was clearly evident in the February 21, 2001 legislative hearing (see the Declarations of Senators Bob Morton, Ken Jacobson and Val Stevens.[8]  Senator Morton states in his declaration that “ Much of Ms. Wathne’s testimony was inconsistent or factually incorrect.”  Senator Loveland notes in her declaration “If the sponsor of I-713 could not adequately explain the initiative, I wondered how voters could determine its intent.” And Senator Jacobsen, the Chair of the Senate Committee hearing SB 5831, says in his declaration “I agreed to hold hearings concerning SB-5831 because there was confusion regarding the original intent and subsequent effect of I-713.”

The Natural Resources Committee passed SB 5831 to the Senate Rules Committee where it died due to competing amendments (a single sponsor amendment to “fix” technical errors and an amendment with ten sponsors to repeal I-713).  The competing amendments split the vote in Senate Rules so that the Constitutionally required super majority to modify an initiative within two years of passage could not be achieved.

On July 13^th, 2001,  the judge assigned to hear the challenge ruled in favor of the state. Following a review of his written opinion and consultation with our attorney and the affected parties, a decision has been made to appeal.

---