Poll

By | May 6, 2019
Referendum Measure 88 - The legislature passed laws of 2019 chapter 160 (Initiative Measure No. 1000) concerning affirmative action and remedying discrimination and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this act. This measure would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting. Should this measure be

“Let People Vote” PAC has been formed to drive the Referendum Measure 88 campaign. You can donate online

44 thoughts on “Poll

  1. Mike Nykreim

    That is a confusing title.
    Instead – ‘restore non discriminatory policies as implemented by the voters of our state 20 years ago ‘

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Referendum Measure 88 actually has the exact same language as I-1000. By qualifying Referendum Measure 88, we are basically putting I-1000 (in the form of Referendum Measure 88) to the ballot and to be voted by the people.

      Reply
    2. Katy Albrecht

      I din’t know how I voted. I voted in favor of Ref 88.

      Reply
      1. asianadmin Post author

        Referendum Measure 88 has the exact same language as I-1000, which seeks to repeal voter approved I-200. By putting RM 88 on the November ballot, we are putting I-1000 on the November ballot. And a reject vote on RM 88 in November will be a Reject vote on I-1000. I know this is very confusing. Unfortunately, this is how referendum measure works.

        To sum up, we need to qualify RM 88 ( simply I-1000 takes the form of RM 88) for the November ballot. And to defeat I-1000 in November, we need to vote Reject on the November ballot.

        Reply
  2. Zhiyuan Hu

    The I-1000 is important and should be put under vote of all WA residents.

    Reply
  3. Jackie Yin

    So confusing. It is like a GRE sentence and costs me long time to read. Dose this sentence actually describe i1000?
    I want to reject i1000

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Referendum Measure 88 actually has the exact same language as I-1000. By qualifying Referendum Measure 88, we are basically putting I-1000 (in the form of Referendum Measure 88) to the ballot and to be voted by the people.

      Reply
  4. Jin Lu

    I believe everyone has equal right of education. If a student’s academic performances is qualify of a college, then he/she should have a right to go to college. It has nothing to do with his/her race, only because that he/she has abilities and meets the necessary requirements for the higher lever of educations. If a college lower the requirements for some certain races of students, or if a college choose their students based on their races, is that fair to some students who work hard to achieve higher goals? I think this is Race Discrimination. It’s against Constitutions!

    Reply
  5. Samuel Liang

    Notes to the organizer:

    I believe many Asian audiences are confused by the languages and terms. It took me some time to understand it too.

    We should make it clear that:
    Support measure 88 = against I-1000 = support I-200 = good for Asian

    Reply
    1. SL

      State this in simple english instead of legal terms, keep in mind there are many immigrant audiences.

      Reply
    2. asianadmin Post author

      Actually, Reject Referendum Measure 88 == Against I-1000 == Support I-200.

      Referendum Measure 88 actually has the exact same language as I-1000. By qualifying Referendum Measure 88, we are basically putting I-1000 (in the form of Referendum Measure 88) to the ballot and to be voted by the people.

      Reply
  6. John Alberti

    The AG”s title is utterly fraudulent. A classic example of Clintonspeak, whereby racial preferences and discrimination are arbitrarily and dishonestly defined as not discrimination or preferences, if any trivial or irrelevant factor other than race is ostensibly “considered”.

    For example if the job description says that the applicant should be alive (not a racial parameter) then the decision of which applicant to hire may be made based on race since a non-racial parameter was “considered “.

    De facto outright racial discrimination will be allowed and will occur on a massive scale . We will have to make that case.

    People who have not followed this issue closely will be tricked by the AG’s dishonest title . This is not an accident .

    Reply
  7. ROBERT

    Yup, confusing as heck (on purpose). Ferguson for governor? I wouldn’t even vote him for dog catcher!

    His Initiative 1000 title (“to remedy discrimination”) was bad, his Referendum 88 title is even worse.

    An honest title might be: “To roll back (or nullify) Initiative 1000”

    Reply
    1. Emily

      The language is confusing and cheating! Can the title be changed?

      Reply
  8. SL

    The language is definitely confusing, maybe purposefully. Can’t tell if the subject is I-1000 or sth else.

    Reply
  9. John Frederick

    title is fine but the initiative wording is confusing

    Reply
  10. John Uhn

    I-1000 is an unfair initiative. It’ll punish people who study hard, work hard. It’ll damage the future generation and makes Americans less competitive worldwide.

    I-1000 is such a stupid idea!

    Reply
  11. Rex Stickle

    The wording above (Referendum Measure 88….) is extremely confusing and begs the question as to how the state would remedy discrimination without the use of quotas or preferential treatment. As I read it the state would remedy discrimination by discriminating itself in favor of certain groups. That being said I would to reject this measure.

    Reply
  12. Dennis

    This is confusing. Does it return the I 200 Ban on race based discrimination or not?

    Reply
  13. Ron Davis

    Wording is misleading. Uses an expression “to remedy Discrimination” but in reality it creates discrimination.

    Reply
  14. Shari

    Based on the wording, I would have approved. It is misleading. They are giving handouts without people earning these positions. Instead of getting the best and brightest, we end up getting people based on skin color so they can meet their quota. This weakens our country. Everyone has the same opportunities if they want it. Some do have to work harder to achieve them.

    Reply
  15. No AA

    There is no such a thing AA without quota. Misleading!

    Reply
  16. John L

    I bet the democrats have spent hours, if not days, crafting this beautiful mask and trying to hide what it’s intended for.

    “This measure would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting.” The democrats never mention how they actually would implement AA??? How would they achieve it without using quotas or preferential treatment????!!!

    Reply
  17. Charles

    The language is too hard to understand. I opposed I-1000 anyway.

    Reply
  18. Christopher

    What a confusing bill… how can you implement affirmative action without giving certain ethnic groups preferential treatment? Those are two contradictory concepts… Liberals will do anything to discriminate against Asians.

    Reply
  19. JUN QIAN

    The I-1000 is important and should be put under vote of all WA residents.
    I-1000 is an unfair initiative. It’ll punish people who study hard, work hard. It’ll damage the future generation and makes Americans less competitive worldwide.

    I oppose I-1000 and against (Referendum Measure 88).

    Reply
  20. Amber Krabach

    Which measure are we voting to approve or reject? Measure 88 or measure 1000…

    This is absolutely unclear…shame of the AG!!

    You can get around this with good, clear messaging on whether to approve or reject the measure…but I cannot tell at this point whether we’re voting on 88 or 1000…

    Reply
  21. David Quentin Dauthier

    The community should be helped to understand what to DO and not how to understand this crap.

    They should be helped to understand how it will affect their lives and their children’s lives.

    I have spent the last 30 minutes reading your website AND the articles on Ballotpedia, and I am still left wondering exactly what I should do concerning this referendum measure!

    While I am not sure, and this is only an educated guess, what I gather is that I should REJECT 88, thereby, keeping I-1000 from going to a state-wide vote, thereby keeping 1-200 in place. Is that right? Can you tell me if I’m right in 10 words or less?

    If rejecting 88 is what you hope to achieve, then I suggest get some clear messaging out there.

    REJECT REFERENDUM MEASURE 88, OR IT WILL BE HARDER FOR YOUR CHILDREN TO GET INTO COLLEGE!

    Get that message out to the old ladies, and 88 will die in its crib!

    Let me know what else I can do to help!

    Q.

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Yes, we need to qualify 88 for November ballot, then reject 88 (really I-1000 takes the form of 88) in November.

      Reply
  22. Emily

    I voted approve because I thought I was opposing I 1000. The title is misleading and needs to be changed

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Referendum Measure 88 has the exact same language as I-1000, which seeks to repeal voter approved I-200. By putting RM 88 on the November ballot, we are putting I-1000 on the November ballot. And a reject vote on RM 88 in November will be a Reject vote on I-1000. I know this is very confusing. Unfortunately, this is how referendum measure works.

      To sum up, we need to qualify RM 88 ( simply I-1000 takes the form of RM 88) for the November ballot. And to defeat I-1000 in November, we need to vote Reject on the November ballot.

      Reply
  23. Chris Waldorf

    Agree this this is confusing. You need a lawyer to put this in much simpler legalese.

    Reply
  24. Martin Li

    The language is so proud I1000, make it sounds so harmless and the right thing to do.

    Based on the language soly, if I don’t have know much knowledge of I1000, I would vote Yes.

    It should add the part that compare i1000 to i200.

    Don’t let them fool the voters with fancy language.

    Reply
  25. Clair Bourne

    The wording is making my head spin! Why can’t they just put it in plain English? Based on that I would probably vote the opposite to what I wanted to. It is so disingenuous. This is how our state passes all sorts of measures including gun control, by using confusing or emotive language…

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Referendum Measure 88 has the exact same language as I-1000, which seeks to repeal voter approved I-200. By putting RM 88 on the November ballot, we are putting I-1000 on the November ballot. And a reject vote on RM 88 in November will be a Reject vote on I-1000. I know this is very confusing. Unfortunately, this is how referendum measure works.

      To sum up, we need to qualify RM 88 ( simply I-1000 takes the form of RM 88) for the November ballot. And to defeat I-1000 in November, we need to vote Reject on the November ballot.

      Reply
  26. Sherry

    The wording is so confusing. When it asks “ Should this measure be approved or rejected,” I am not clear it is a question regarding I1000 or Ref 88. If the AG cannot speak decent English, ask one who can to help him.

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Referendum Measure 88 has the exact same language as I-1000, which seeks to repeal voter approved I-200. By putting RM 88 on the November ballot, we are putting I-1000 on the November ballot. And a reject vote on RM 88 in November will be a Reject vote on I-1000. I know this is very confusing. Unfortunately, this is how referendum measure works.

      To sum up, we need to qualify RM 88 ( simply I-1000 takes the form of RM 88) for the November ballot. And to defeat I-1000 in November, we need to vote Reject on the November ballot.

      Reply
  27. DR

    Can you not also run a companion initiative that makes it crystal clear such as re-run I-200 so it remains as law?

    Reply
  28. Tara

    The language is confusing and not necessarily in the best interest of those against I-1000. Just my opinion.

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      Referendum Measure 88 has the exact same language as I-1000, which seeks to repeal voter approved I-200. By putting RM 88 on the November ballot, we are putting I-1000 on the November ballot. And a reject vote on RM 88 in November will be a Reject vote on I-1000. I know this is very confusing. Unfortunately, this is how referendum measure works.

      To sum up, we need to qualify RM 88 ( simply I-1000 takes the form of RM 88) for the November ballot. And to defeat I-1000 in November, we need to vote Reject on the November ballot.

      Reply
  29. Dietmar

    The title is misleading and confusing. If it could be changed that would help but I am afraid we won’t have this luxury.

    Reply
    1. asianadmin Post author

      You are right, we don’t have the luxury of making the title less confusing for voters. However, we can educate voters. And we need everyone’s help.

      Referendum Measure 88 has the exact same language as I-1000, which seeks to repeal voter approved I-200. By putting RM 88 on the November ballot, we are putting I-1000 on the November ballot. And a reject vote on RM 88 in November will be a Reject vote on I-1000. I know this is very confusing. Unfortunately, this is how referendum measure works.

      To sum up, we need to qualify RM 88 ( simply I-1000 takes the form of RM 88) for the November ballot. And to defeat I-1000 in November, we need to vote Reject on the November ballot.

      Reply
  30. BR

    As I understand it, it is necessary to convince people to sign the initiative FOR Measure 88–in effect voting for it. Then they need to reverse themselves once it is on the ballot and vote against it. It is going to be extremely difficult to get people to understand this. Only a great advertising campaign has a hope of explaining this to voters.
    The language of Measure 88 is like something from the novel “1984”–you know “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery.” The measure promises affirmative action without preferential treatment. As the whole idea of affirmative action is to increase members of some races at the expense of others (whites and Asians) the idea that this is not preferential treatment for some races is absurd.
    Of course the media will be on the side of affirmative action. So white and Asian businesses need to be mobilized to inform customers and give them a chance to sign RM 88. Twenty years ago my wife and I collected signatures for I-200. We found that a winning argument was to tell people that the future of their children depends on this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *