Last year, WA voters rejected I-1000/R-88 which would allow preferential treatment. This Tuesday, CA voters rejected Prop. 16, a similar attempt to bring back preferential treatment. The only path for initiatives seeking to allow preferential treatment to be passed by the voters is by hiding the truth, and misleading voters. And this is exactly what I-1000 sponsors are trying to do this year with the help from the AGO.
We exposed the AGO Bent Over Backward to Political Insiders and Issued Misleading Ballot Titles to Mollify Initiative Sponsors in September. Despite a moment of nervousness at the court hearing on September 25th, Deputy Solicitor General Alan Copsey showed no sign of stopping in burying the lede from voters. He later issued ballot titles and summaries for I-1268, I-1269, I-1271, and tried every trick to hide the fact that all three initiatives would permit preferential treatment in some circumstances while prohibiting it in others
When we learned that Mr. Copsey was assigned to draft ballot title and summary for I-1300, we sent a letter to Solicitor General Noah Purcell, requesting the removal of Deputy Solicitor General Alan Copsey from participating issuing ballot titles for I-1300 and similar/related measures. Below is our letter.
I am writing to request the AGO to remove Deputy Solicitor General Alan Copsey from participating issuing ballot titles and summaries for I-1300 and similar/related measures. We have strong evidences that Mr. Copsey cooperated with I-1300 sponsors (the same sponsors for I-1234) when issuing I-1234 ballot title and summary, and he remains to be biased. As a tax payer money funded state agency, the AGO should act unbiased and in the interest of the public, not initiative sponsors.
1) I-1234 PRA records show that Mr. Copsey worked with I-1234 sponsors through “a whole lot of back and forth” and issued misleading ballot title that the sponsors “would be comfortable with”.
2) Judge ruled against Mr. Alan issued I-1234 ballot summary, and ruled that I-1234 would “remove a prohibition on preferential treatment by government’.
3) Judge also ruled that I-1120 would “limit the current prohibition on preferential treatment”.
4) Judges have repeatedly ruled that measures similar to I-1300 would either remove or eliminate prohibition on preferential treatment.
5) I-1234 sponsor admitted that they could not run the measure with a fair ballot title like that of the I-1200’s (identical to I-1234).
6) Yet, when issuing ballot titles and summaries for I-1268, 1269, I-1271, all similar measures to I-1120, I-1234, I-1300, Mr. Copsey repeatedly buried the lede by not mentioning the limiting/removal of a prohibition on preferential treatment.
Mr. Copsey clearly is not willing to issue true and impartial ballot titles and summaries so that when voters vote on the laws they know what is in them.
I am attaching I-1234 court file for your reference.
The AGO has till next Tuesday, November 10th, to issue ballot title and summary for I-1300. Mr. Purcell has yet responded to our request. We even sent a follow up letter yesterday. We will post the AGO’s response if they care to act on our request.