WPC: The Parental Rights initiative just passed, but some lawmakers are telling school officials to ignore it

The Washington Policy Center writes The Parental Rights initiative just passed, but some lawmakers are telling school officials to ignore it

On Monday the state legislature passed Initiative 2081, the Parental Rights initiative, by wide bipartisan margins. It passed by a vote of 82 to 15 in the House and by 49 to zero in the Senate. You can see how your representative voted here.

As a citizen initiative it doesn’t need the governor’s signature and will become law in 90 days. The popular measure will require public schools to inform parents about what is happening to their own children in school.

Passage of Initiative 2081 is a very positive first step for parents and students. It was signed by over 454,000 people. It is an important indicator of the public’s broad dissatisfaction with the public schools.

The purpose of the initiative is to get the state legislature to listen to the public’s widespread frustrations with public education. Some Democratic lawmakers, though, still haven’t gotten the message.

During floor debate Monday, Senator Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle) said (time stamp 55:10):

“…I was comforted to hear from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and from school directors that they plan to implement the initiative narrowly and consistently with the other law we have passed over time protecting the rights of young people [to hide information from their parents]…

“We’ll be watching very carefully to watch how this rolls out on the ground in our 295 school districts is consistent with that understanding.”

Representative Sharon-Tomiko Santos (D-Seattle) said angrily (time stamp 1:12:53):

“…this law doesn’t do much to change the underlying laws…. I am very happy to know from our counsel and professional staff that the measure before us does not repeal any of the important protections and safeguards that the legislature has enacted for our youth…I understand the concerns that reverberate throughout our community about unintended consequences, so Mr. Speaker I will remain vigilant that students rights are not abridged and that districts do not misinterpret or misapply the law.”

Parents are not stupid. They will quickly figure out that hardliners in the legislature are resisting change. They’re the ones who will be “watching very carefully” to see if there’s any real improvement in the way school officials treat them.

My prediction is the trend of families pulling out of the public system will continue. Already 46,000 families have left. If the new Parental Rights law is ignored, as some hold-out legislators intend, it is unlikely the measure will slow the exodus from public education.

Parents are dismayed by consistently poor academic outcomes, with schools failing to adequately educate 61 percent of students in math, and failing to adequately educate 49 percent of students in English. Parents oppose pushing harmful CRT and DEI ideology in the classroom, with teachers informing white students they are oppressors while telling black and brown students they are automatic victims. Likewise, parents don’t want age-inappropriate sexualized content in schools, nor do they like being lied to about personal problems their child may be experiencing in school.

Parents want public schools that are open and honest. Passing the Parental Rights initiative is a sincere effort to reassure families and rebuild trust, but it will all be for nothing if some lawmakers are telling school officials to ignore it.

Liv Finne is the director of the Center for Education at the Washington Policy Center.

16th District Town Hall, Prosser, WA, APR 2

There will be a 16th Legislative District town meeting on Tuesday, April 2nd with Rep. Skyler Rude, Rep. Mark Klicker and Sen. Perry Dozier. It will be held in the Prosser Community Center at 1231 Dudley Ave at 5:30 p.m. The main purpose is to discuss six initiatives introduced in the 2024 legislative session.

During these gatherings, we aim to provide you with comprehensive updates on the outcomes of these initiatives, shedding light on what transpired and what remains on the horizon. Additionally, we will delve into the broader legislative landscape, including insights into the supplemental budgets passed and the impact of these investments on families and communities across the district. Moreover, we’ll touch upon both the positive strides and setbacks encountered during the session.

Our town halls aren’t just about relaying information. They’re about fostering meaningful dialogue with our community. We want to hear from you! Your questions, thoughts, and perspectives are invaluable to us. We encourage you to join us in this interactive exchange.

Below are the details for the upcoming town hall meetings.

Tuesday, April 2
5:30 – 7:00 p.m.
Prosser Community Center
1231 Dudley Ave. (Prosser)
Wednesday, April 3
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Columbia Basin College (room to be determined)
2600 N. 20^th Ave. (Pasco)
Thursday, April 4
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Walla Walla Community College
Performing Arts Auditorium
500 Tausick Way (Walla Walla)

WA Policy Center: Bills Introduced to Ban Initiatives and Referendums in Odd Years

Politicians in Washington State have been so angered by the people’s approval of I-976, limiting one small section of taxation on vehicles, that they have introduced house and senate bills to limit voting on initiatives and referendums to only even numbered years. The bills in question are HB 2529 and SB 6503.

The Washington Policy Center sums up the bills:

Key Findings

House Bill 2529 and Senate Bill 6503 would ban the people’s right to vote on initiatives and referendums in odd-numbered years.

Bill sponsors say they want to ban the people’s right to vote on initiatives and referendums in odd-numbered years because of lower voter turnout.

The bills, however, would still allow local government officials to hold special elections to raise taxes without restriction in all years.

It is difficult to see why it would be acceptable to allow tax increases to appear on the ballot in odd-numbered years while denying Washingtonians their constitutional right to vote on initiatives and referendums in those same years.

Testifying on the proposal, Secretary Wyman noted the bills would limit the people’s right of initiative and referendum and could add to voter fatigue by causing exceedingly long ballots.

Introduction

Two bills have been proposed that would prohibit the right of the people to vote on initiatives and referendums in odd-numbered years. Although House Bill 2529 and Senate Bill 6503 would ban the people’s right to vote on initiatives and referendums in odd-numbered years, they still would allow local government officials to hold special elections to raise taxes without restriction in all years.

Download the full legislative memo here.

The Lens: Lawmakers propose to limit elections

We the Governed: AG Ferguson’s Persecution of Tim Eyman

Glen Morgan at We the Governed has an interesting article up, detailing some of the vindictive strangeness of Attorney General Ferguson’s case against Washington state initiative backer Tim Eyman — AG Ferguson’s Persecution of Tim Eyman, Eyman’s Plea, and a Creepy AG Employee.

…Depending on how one views Eyman’s successful initiatives over the years, they have reduced the amount average citizens would have paid on their taxes by close to $40 billion over 20 years (see link here). Since Eyman is so clearly a guy identified with depriving the state of this cash which they could have squandered by now, then the wrath and resources of the state is focused entirely against this one guy…

…this current case is unique in almost every measure. In THIS case, unlike every other campaign finance case filed by the AG in Washington State’s history, the state is uniquely concentrating the full force of the government to destroy one man over violations that are commonly made by many of AG Ferguson’s campaign donors and allies. There is no proportionality in this lawsuit against Eyman compared to the violations that he may or may not have committed.

How many regular people would think the AG is being fair or honest in the Eyman case?

Here are just a few unique elements to the Eyman case:

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has stated from the beginning that he would never settle this lawsuit with Tim Eyman. For context, the State settled with the Green River killer, but they will “never settle” with Tim Eyman.

Ferguson has spent more on pleadings, staff costs, and investigative costs on this case than any other campaign finance case in state history. (See article for reference here)

The level of harassment against Eyman is unique in the AG’s history. For example, tossing out Eyman’s attorney using the fact the AG is the only creditor in Eyman’s bankruptcy court hearing to force his attorneys to resign and the unique legal attacks targeting Eyman’s wife.

The AG (and PDC before them) did not even bother to meet or contact his treasurer (the guy legally responsible for the reporting) for the first few years of this investigation (normally this is the first person they would interview in this type of case), and this failure to meet with the treasurer was particularly tragic because the treasurer, Stan Long, died in a car accident two years after this case started. There was plenty of time for the state to have interviewed the guy. They did not because they don’t care about the truth. Their focus is only on stopping Eyman.

The AG has planned 35 3^rd party depositions on supporters of Eyman. This has NEVER happened in any other campaign finance case.

When Eyman’s attorneys have tried to reach out to the AG to ask for a settlement demand (See here), the AG refused to respond and just went to the media. See article here.

Unique in the history of campaign finance lawsuits, the AG wants to deny Tim his rights to participate in the political process with a lifetime ban for participating with initiatives – the only thing he has done for the past 20 years. (for more on this you can read an editorial published by a small paper in Washington State – the Leavenworth Echo (linked here). The AG tried to convince the paper to change their article, which, to the credit of this paper, they refused (linked here)…

…The AG has played pat-a- cake litigation with everyone from the Spokane County Democratic Committee to the Democrat Speaker of the House Frank Chopp (see partial list here for comparative examples) who also violated the campaign finance laws and the AG never bothered to harass these people in this way. Not even close… Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson appears to be using his office to settle personal vendettas and to assist him with political payback for his friends…

Click here to read the entire article at We the Governed.

Anti-gun WA Initiative 1639 Information

Initiative 1639 will be on the ballot this fall (2018) unless it is stopped by lawsuit. Titled “AN ACT Relating to increasing public safety by implementing firearm safety measures, including requiring enhanced background checks, waiting periods, and increased age requirements for semiautomatic assault rifles and secure gun storage for all firearms,” this billionaire-funded initiative is much more dangerous than that language implies. The initiative is facing lawsuits over reported illegal petitions.

Washington Arms Collectors published the following facts about I-1639.

Initiative 1639 – An Attack on Every Firearm Owner

Initiative 1639 has been filed with the Washington Secretary of State:

“AN ACT Relating to increasing public safety by implementing firearm safety measures, including requiring enhanced background checks, waiting periods, and increased age requirements for semiautomatic assault rifles and secure gun storage for all firearms.” We should all be informed of the contents so please go to the official copy online and read it, download it and print it out to share with others. Here is the web address:

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

This initiative is now in the signature gathering phase and if enough signatures are collected it will go directly to the voters, not to the legislature. If passed I-1639 will become law on July 1, 2019.

Every Semiautomatic Rifle is an Assault Rifle

Let me start with the initiative language that will do the most harm, the definition of an assault rifle.

I-1639 creates the following definition:

“Semiautomatic assault rifle” means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”

The age of your rifle, collectability, ATF definition of the firearm as a Curio or Relic, caliber, rimfire or centerfire, tube or box magazine—none of this makes any difference, ALL semiautos are defined as assault rifles. Your kid’s .22 LR plinker is an assault rifle. Your Garand collection is a collection of assault rifles. Turn of the 19th to 20th century semiautos are assault rifles.

You say that you hate those black plastic stocked AR-style rifles and wouldn’t have an “assault rifle” in the house? Too bad, the anti-gun community has outflanked you this time by including all of your wood stocked semiauto hunting rifles, all 22 semiautos and just about every rifle created from 1900 to now. Oh, antiques and inoperable firearms are generously exempted. So it’s not just Modern Sporting Rifles that have been included but all semiautomatic rifles.

Registration of Rifles

How will this affect collector transfers, private transfers and all FFL dealer sales? Semiauto rifle transfers will be handled like pistols are now with additional forms, State registration and waiting periods.

The Department of Licensing is authorized to keep, “copies or records of applications to purchase pistols or semiautomatic assault rifles.”

Firearm Storage is Criminalized

We all secure our firearms the best we can. Some can afford safes and others lock them up or use locking devices. I-1639 defines safe storage as follows: “Secure gun storage” means: (a) A locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm.” Oddly this definition excludes gun locks! Yet the initiative itself requires gun locks be provided with every sale. It appears that if one secures a firearm using a locking device it is by definition not in “secure gun storage.” Read the definition again—a secure storage SPACE seems to be required. And if you fail to have such a space and someone uses your firearm to do harm, you are the criminal.

A new crime of “community endangerment” is created that will allow you to be charged and jailed if your firearm is taken and misused. Yes, if you have secured your firearms you may not be charged and in this section gun locks are mentioned along with secure storage. We all strongly support safe firearm storage but changing the law to shift the blame for a crime onto the victim of a crime is wrong. The message to the public and the legal system is that your formerly law-abiding gun ownership is a threat to the community.

Annual Verification of Eligibility

I-1639 will institute a system that annually reviews your record to determine your eligibility to own firearms. You should expect that medical records, mental health issues, and social security disability will all be reviewed to determine whether you can possess that old semiauto hunting rifle. And you thought we were trying to scare you with visions of the police at your door to confiscate your firearms.

Out of State Purchasers

Residents of other states have been able to purchase rifles and shotguns here in Washington. 1639 will end this reasonable practice for semiauto rifles. Our WAC members in Idaho and Oregon will be unable to come to our shows and collect these firearms.

No Longer an Adult at Age 18

At age 18, you can vote, you can be charged with a crime as an adult, be imprisoned or drafted and do other adult things but you can’t take your 22 rifle into the woods to plink and you can’t go hunting with a license and a semiauto. I-1639 judges you to be too immature to do these adult activities. Thinking about taking your semi to the range for practice or a DCM shoot Forget it—that would be illegal.

What can a 18 year old do with a semiautomatic rifle? Stay at home on your own property. That’s it. The initiative states that a person, “ eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a semiautomatic assault rifle only: (a) In the person’s place of abode; (b) At the person’s fixed place of business; (c) On real property under his or her control.”

Seriously…if this becomes law you can’t take your children to the range to have some shooting fun with the 10-22.

Government Safety Training Required

This initiative has costs that will be borne by firearm purchasers and owners. A new regimen of “safety” training to be delivered by government agencies is defined. Will it be free? Of course not and the price is not stated or limited. Firearm accidents are near zero in Washington. Death by firearm is either a criminal act or a suicide—neither is preventable through any kind of safety training. Hunter Safety classes teach safety and public and private firing ranges all provide safety training. This requirement is a bogus attempt to incorporate public safety into 1639 and increase the costs and create obstacles to firearm ownership.

Trigger Locks required

And you thought that trigger locks were already required? Well yes they are—by Federal law every firearm sold must have with a locking device. This section appears to exist only so that the initiative can masquerade as a safety measure. Nothing changes.

Rifles are Taxed

Sure they call it a fee but this is a tax on semiauto rifles. A fee of $25 is to be assessed by dealers for the Department of Licensing to use in their registration of firearms.

Multiple Initiative Subjects

Washington law requires that an initiative deal only with a single subject. In I-1639 we have changes to the age of firearm ownership, fees which are really taxes, storage requirements, changes to the definition of rifles and more. Most of the law changes would be in RCW 9.41. Still, there are obviously multiple separate and significant issues,not a single subject. This initiative is also falsely titled as dealing with “assault rifles.” These are flaws that may allow challenges but will not necessarily prevent a ballot vote. Don’t count on our courts to protect your rights–begin the fight now.

This article from the GunNews magazine, Washington Arms Collectors, may be reprinted and distributed by all those acting in opposition to I1639.

See also https://saveoursecurity.net/ for more information about I-1639.

UPDATE: As of November 6th, 2018 it appears that Initiative 1639 has been voted into law. The age restrictions go into effect January 1, 2019 and the rest on July 1, 2019.

UPDATE 2: The SAF and NRA File Lawsuit Challenging I-1639. Click here for article.

The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.

“We are also considering additional legal challenges,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb confirmed. “We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.

“We’re determined to fight this egregious measure because constitutionally-protected rights should never be subject to a popularity vote,” he stated. “The wealthy elitists behind I-1639 want to turn a right into a regulated privilege. This measure was only designed to have a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right by honest citizens while having no impact at all on criminals, and we cannot let it go unchallenged.”