Eyman vows lawsuit on initiative to downsize county council

By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

In an e-mail to the media and his supporters, Eyman said the County Council's vote to delay redistricting by two years was not a "technical" change, as proponents described it, but rather "naked, self-serving job protection."

Eyman urged voters who signed Initiative 18 last year to join him in a yet-to-be-filed legal challenge.

I-18, signed by 71,000 voters, will be on the November ballot. The original initiative language, intended for a November 2003 vote, called for redistricting in 2004 and elections under new districts in 2005.

Amendments adopted earlier this month would delay the first nine-district elections until 2007.

The public vote on the initiative was delayed by a legal challenge by the county, which contended the county charter gave the council sole authority to propose charter amendments. After the state Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the right to initiate amendments, the council voted to put the measure on the ballot this year.

But a bipartisan majority of the council members this month proposed what it called "technical changes" to the charter amendment, saying there wouldn't be time after the November vote to complete redistricting by the end of this year.

The members also proposed reducing the size of three regional committees that deal with water policy, public-transit policy and other policies to reduce the workload of a smaller council. Despite warnings by other council members that the proposals would invite a legal challenge, both passed on a 9-4 vote.

The changes were supported by the King County Corrections Guild, which sponsored I-18. The guild's attorney, Jared Karstetter, said he was not aware of the composition of the regional committees when the initiative was written.

Eyman, who was hired by the guild as a consultant to promote the initiative, made clear yesterday he didn't agree with the guild's decision to support the changes.

After Eyman sent his e-mail yesterday, he said he had been advised by an attorney not to talk with reporters about the planned lawsuit.
 
His e-mail said the "Cadillac Council" had "purposely infected I-18 with legal booby-traps that may result in a double-subject violation."

Initiatives may address only one subject. County Council members opposed to revising the initiative said the composition of the regional committees was a separate subject that should have been dealt with through a separate charter amendment.

The County Council met with lawyers in executive session for about half an hour before voting to change the initiative. Attorneys told the council in public session that the county charter doesn't make it clear how far the council may go in modifying an initiative.

When an initiative proposes an ordinance, the County Council may adopt it, put it on the ballot or let voters choose between the initiative and a council-written substitute.

But the initiative to shrink the council is a charter amendment, rather than an ordinance change. Because the county charter did not envision citizen-initiated charter amendments, procedures for handling such amendments are not clear.

Under the timeline originally laid out in the initiative, the four-year terms of six council members would have been shortened to two years: Democrats Dow Constantine, Bob Ferguson, Larry Gossett and Larry Phillips, and Republicans David Irons and Rob McKenna.

The revised timeline would shorten the terms of members elected next year to the seats now held by Democrats Carolyn Edmonds, Julia Patterson and Dwight Pelz, and Republicans Jane Hague, Steve Hammond, Kathy Lambert and Pete von Reichbauer.

Council members who voted against rewriting the initiative were Ferguson, Irons, McKenna and Hammond.

Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com