I-1300 is the I-1000 sponsor’s latest attempt to repeal the voter-passed and reaffirmed Initiative I-200, and to bring back racial preferences. Unlike I-1000, which was a clear attempt to repeal I-200, I-1300 is hiding the I-200 repeal language deeply between some hot topics: availability of a COVID 19 vaccine, use of deadly force and unemployment.

Without reading through 20 pages of text, voters would have no idea what I-1300 actually does!

The Attorney General’s Office completely omitted the critical fact that I-1300 would allow preferential treatment in hiring, public contracting, and education in its Ballot Title. Judges have repeatedly ruled that similar initiatives would either limit or remove the current prohibition on preferential treatment.

Our Press Release last Tuesday, November 10^th, detailed what internal documents revealed:  Deputy Solicitor General, Alan Copsey, knowingly and improperly re-wrote a ballot title to mollify I-1300 sponsors. And Mr. Copsey continued writing biased ballot titles, including the one for I-1300, even after having been caught. The AGO was fully aware of Mr. Copsey’s breach of public trust.

Last year’s rejection of I-1000/R-88 in Washington, and the recent resounding rejection of Prop. 16, a similar measure to bring back racial preferences in deep blue California, underscores the importance of alerting voters that I-1300 would bring back racial preferences in its ballot title.

On November 3^rd 2020, California voters rejected a racial preference measure like this by a 57-to-43 percentage landslide – despite the reject side being outspent by more than 15-to-1.  Voters in Washington and California, and across all political spectrums, have sent a strong message: “Don’t bring back discrimination and preferential treatment!”

In a disingenuous and desperate attempt, I-1300 sponsors renamed their initiative using Manuel Ellis’ name to give people the false impression that I-1300 is about the use of deadly force and chokeholds by police. If they had actually cared about Manuel Ellis’ cause, they would have sponsored an initiative that only focuses on the usage of deadly force and chokeholds by law enforcement.

I-1300 supporters know they cannot win if the voters are not fooled by a grossly misleading ballot title.  Their fraud will be exposed, and their trick will not work.   

We will, once again, defeat all efforts to bring discrimination and racial preferences back to Washington State.  It is time to unite our country, not divide it further as the I-1300 proponents are trying to do.  

####

The post PRESS RELEASE – I-1000 opponents file lawsuit challenging misleading I-1300 ballot title appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Facts of the case to date:

I-1000 sponsors from last year filed two identical initiatives this year: I-1200 and I-1234.

Initially, the Washington State AGO issued a decent ballot title for I-1200 on September 2^nd.  They properly alerted voters that I-1200 would: “Remove a prohibition on preferential treatment by government”.

The initiatives’ sponsor, Jesse Wineberry, saw the ballot title for I-1200, and called Deputy Solicitor General, Alan Copsey on the morning of September 3^rd.  According to a public records act disclosure that was obtained by our group, Mr. Wineberry told Mr. Copsey that with the new AGO I-1200 ballot title, they “could not run the measure”. 

In an internal email, Mr. Copsey specifically mentioned that Mr. Wineberry was a former State Representative, and he clearly was concerned that “it reaches a higher level in the office”.

Less than 6 hours, Mr. Copsey worked with Mr. Wineberry, through “a whole lot of back and forth”, and reversed the course expressed in the original ballot language, and issued a completely different ballot title for I-1234.  In Mr. Copsey’s own words that the sponsors “would be comfortable with”.

The new and reissued I-1234 ballot title completed removed the language that I-1234 would “remove a prohibition on preferential treatment by government”.

Deputy Solicitor General, Peter Gonick raised his objection and said, “I think our version was better, and I am not fond of revising ballot titles to mollify sponsors, unless of course we think it makes the ballot title better (or at least no worse). For the reason we’ve previously discussed, I prefer mentioning the removal of preferential treatment.”

Notwithstanding that opposition from within the Attorney Generals own office, they went with the improperly influenced version that Mr. Copsey and Mr. Wineberry agreed upon.

American Coalition for Equality challenged the I-1234 ballot title, and a Judge ruled that I-1234 would “remove a statutory prohibition on preferential treatment by state and local government”.  One would think that with this history, and much more importantly, the Judge’s ruling, the AGO would adopt the Judge’s ruling for similar initiatives.  Knowingly abandoning a standing legal precedent and going so far as documenting improper influence from political connections, in writing, is deeply troublesome.    

The I-1234 sponsors could not run the measure with the Judge’s ruling, so they decided to file more initiatives.  Mr. Copsey was tasked with issuing ballot titles for those initiatives.  After watching several ballot titles issued by Mr. Copsey that intentionally misled voters and hid the fact those initiatives would limit or remove preferential treatment, we contacted Solicitor General Noah Purcell.  We were demanding Mr. Copsey to be removed from issuing ballot titles for any initiatives related to I-1234.  We even sent a follow up email to Mr. Purcell.  Our emails continue to go unanswered. 

Not only has Mr. Copsey not been removed from issuing misleading ballot titles related to I-1234, but he also was able to improperly rush the ballot title process.  The AGO standard process is 6 days to allow peer review.  Mr. Copsey cut the process short by two days in an attempt to hide what he is doing from public scrutiny and proper review.   

Solicitor General Noah Purcell was sent Mr. Copsey’s email about his discussion with Mr. Wineberry.  The AGO was quick to address Mr. Wineberry’s request, yet when our group tried to request fair treatment, the AGO ignored Asian Americans in Washington State, as they have in the past.  

From a public policy point of view, last year, by rejecting R-88, Washington voters clearly reaffirmed our state’s ban on preferential treatment that has been in place since 1998.  Just last week, voters in California rejected Prop. 16 by a 56-to-44 percentage landslide, — despite the reject side being outspent by nearly13-to-1 — and reaffirmed California’s ban on preferential treatment that has been in place since 1996.

It is crystal clear what the voters want.  Our AGO is supposed to support those voters and their wishes.  I-1000 sponsors know that if informed, voters will reject any attempt to bring back racial preferences and official discrimination here in Washington State. The only way to get voters to pass an initiative that would re-introduce preferential treatment and discrimination based on race is to mislead voters via an improperly written ballot title.

A ballot title is a center piece of the initiative process. The taxpayer funded AGO should remain neutral and unbiased when issuing ballot titles.  Clearly, the AGO should always follow legal precedent and the past lawful determinations of judges.  Improper political influence in this process by special interests and friends is completely improper.  The cooperation in this case with I-1234 sponsors is a gross betrayal of public trust and shakes the foundation of our initiative process.  There needs to be a full public investigation of this matter by the media and an outside agency to determine if any laws, ethics, procedures or operating standards were broken in this process.   

PRA records available upon requests.

####

The post PRESS RELEASE – Internal documents reveal that a Washington State Assistant Attorney General knowingly and improperly re-wrote a ballot title to mollify a “friendly” initiative sponsor with political connections appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Fast forward to this year, the Democrat Party is not happy with a senator that has independent thoughts and votes. They recruited a progressive candidate, and with the backing of many unions, they want to replace Senator Mullet. On Senator Mullet’s opponent’s website, they are attacking Senator Mullet as having “regularly bucked the Democrat caucus, often being the only member to cast certain votes”. His NO vote on I-1000 is listed as a proof of his disobedience of the Democrat party. Yet, Senator Mullet’s vote clearly represented the will of his constituents. Last November, 55.3% of voters in the 5th LD voted to Reject I-1000.

Washington State Labor Council (WSLC), the main backer of last year’s I-1000, endorsed Senator Mullet’s opponent, Ingrid Anderson. And 41st Rep. My-Linh Thai also endorsed Anderson citing Senator Mullet’s vote on I-1000 as the reason for her endorsement.  

King County Democrats and the 5th LD Democrats are helping Anderson. Unions who back Anderson are dumping in money to help her campaign. Therefore Senator Mullet needs our support to pull a big win over Anderson, and beat back union interests and Seattle craziness in the coming Primary.  

If you are a registered voter in the 5th LD, please vote for Senator Mullet and turn in your ballot today. If you have friends or families who are registered voters in the 5th LD, please urge them to vote for Senator Mullet and turn in their ballot ASAP.

Even if you are a life-long Republican, please still consider voting for Senator Mullet. There is no Republican candidate running for this seat. The 5th LD Senate race is a race between a moderate, independently minded Democrat and a party Democrat.  Senator Mullet speaks to both sides of the aisle and is fiscally conservative. We need him in Olympia to fight back against those crazy progressive legislation. 

The post Call to Re-elect Senator Mark Mullet of the 5th LD appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Although not surprised, it is definitely disappointing that NW Asian Weekly added another biased assaulting piece towards Asian Americans who refused to obey and follow the state’s Asian political establishment. Ms. Ng’s opinion piece was both biased and misleading.

1. Political differences aside, Reject R-88 campaign was the first in Washington history that Asian Americans played a significant role in Washington politics. Instead of recognizing the significance of Asian Americans’ political participation, Ms. Ng chose to attack those who stood on the other side of her political friends.
2. Referendum 88 is not a partisan issue. Ms. Ng’s attempt to link Reject R-88 to the Republican party was desperate and pathetic. Washington state has long been a blue state. R-88 won statewide election. Without supports from Democrats, Independents, R-88 would not be able to carry 34 out of 39 counties, 30 out of 49 Legislative Districts.
3. Reject R-88 raised most funds from individual donors, many of them were first time political donors. Ms. Ng did not tell her readers that R-88 supporters, on the other hand, got funds from political establishments: Unions, secret moneys funneled through foundation such as Group Health Community Foundation where Martha Choe serves as a board member.
4. R-88 campaign, and their spokesperson, Gary Locke, claimed our existing law prohibits outreach, and used that as their excuse to promote R-88. Yet, after R-88 failed, Crosscut came out with an article, and government agencies quickly claimed that our existing law allows outreach programs.  R-88 was a big fat lie.
5. And lastly, let me make it clear, Washington voters voted to enact the principle of Equality for All in 1998, and voters reaffirmed the same principle again in 2019. Race has no place in American life or law. Let everyone who dreams big to have an American Dream.

The post In Response to NW Asian Weekly’s Blog appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

National Association of Scholars (NAS) has been a strong supporter of Reject R-88 campaign. Not only they worked to bring national attention to the fight to protect equality for all in Washington, but also they called on their members to provide much needed financial support in October. We are grateful to have such a national ally on our side.

Mr. Peter Wood, president of NAS, sent below congratulation letter after we defeated R-88 this month.

Congratulations on the successful effort to stop Referendum 88. You voted against this effort to restore racial preferences in Washington. I couldn’t vote because I live and work in New York City. But I did the next best thing. My organization, the National Association of Scholars (NAS), worked to bring national attention and financial support to the Stop 88 campaign. NAS can’t take credit for the campaign’s success—that credit belongs to you and other sensible voters. But we did our part.
The campaign succeeded despite the intentionally confusing language of the bill and despite what looks like a substantial number of suspicious ballots that were counted. That makes the victory even sweeter.
The NAS isn’t new to this fight. We were the folks who originally proposed what became California’s Proposition 209, the successful ballot proposition in 1996 that ended racial preferences in that state and that became the model for what Washington did two years later. We have helped to carry the fight to other states as well, most recently Michigan. We believe that college admissions, jobs, public contracts, and all public decisions should be based on merit, not on race or ethnicity.
And we know this fight isn’t over. The Pro Referendum 88 crowd in Washington will sooner or later try again, and the fight will continue in other states and nationally. Please consider joining us. We welcome all who support us in this important struggle for genuine civil rights, and against race-based favoritism.
Yours,
Peter Wood
President
National Association of Scholars

The post A Letter from NAS appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Crosscut published Glenn Nelson’s racist op-ed towards Chinese Americans on October 8th, 2019.

Glenn’s op-ed was crazy and insulting. After our protest through social media and email, Mason Bryan of Crosscut offered below:

“I also want to offer you the opportunity to share your own thoughts on the affirmative action debate, either in our comment section or through a letter to the editor. We don’t always publish letters to the editor, but if it speaks to the issues and arguments you support, we would be happy to consider it. We ask that it be no more than 500 words. Let me know if this is of interest to you, or if you have any questions.”

We sent below op-ed to Mason Bryan.

     All people of Asian decent should be shocked by your recent opinion piece on Chinese immigrants.   In response to the Op-ed by Glenn Nelson in Crosscut on October 8th, we must respectfully disagree with the basic premise that Asians who oppose I-1000 are somehow uninformed, racist and/or disloyal to “leaders” who represent Asians as a whole.  Additionally, we also reject the premise that Asians cannot actually understand racism because, as your op-ed states,  “Asians have escaped centuries of slavery” a statement which is grossly offensive.

     Your concept that any person of Asian descent who is not in lock step as an unthinking supporter of I-1000 is deeply offensive as well.  You go on to state that this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from opposition to I-1000, yet any objective analysis of the construction of I-1000 itself would actually shine a light on the deep flaws in this measure that have given rise to such strong opposition by many groups, including ours.  We do not oppose I-1000 because we are uninformed, we oppose it because we have read and understand it. 

     I-1000 will fail at the ballot box in November when people find out what it does and how it works.  The proponents clearly knew this when they wrote it, so they put in language that seeks to misinform voters.  Stating that it will accomplish its goals without quotas, does not make it so.  A careful analysis of the mechanics of how it will be implemented leads any thinking person to see that quotas are the only possible outcome.  The proponents know how dangerous and divisive this would be, so they just keep saying that quotas do not exist, but there are no “alternative facts” in this case, I-1000 will create quotas at a time our society can least afford to be more divided on racial lines.

     Another nonsensical fiction in I-1000 is how the creators included veterans.  Veterans already have significant benefits in employment and education by both state and federal law, far beyond anything that they could possibly receive under I-1000.  The writers of I-1000 knew that their measure would be defeated unless they tricked voters into believing that it helps someone they generally support, like veterans.  So in I-1000 they seek to make veterans a class of citizens that are equated with race, sex or sexual orientation, as if that makes any sense, just so they can say that they are offering them benefits that they already do not receive under current law.  But veterans would lose existing benefits and have to compete against these other groups for benefits that they already have today.  This was done to trick voters. 

     The failure of I-1000 will not occur because Asians of Chinese descent are unformed, racist or disloyal.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We come from all political beliefs and are united because we are informed and see the dangers of this ill-conceived and deceptive measure that would divide us on racial lines.     

Then we received below response from Mason Bryan:

“Thank you for sending this to us. Unfortunately, as I said in my initial note, we do not publish direct rebuttals to Op-Eds.
 
We do occasionally publish letters to the editor in support of an initiative or candidate. If you are willing to amend the response you sent me so that it lays out a positive case for your cause, we would consider it. I’m sorry to say that we cannot publish the response you sent as it currently reads.”

     Total B.S. ! Yes. Luckily, we are living in 21st Century. Crosscut can’t silence us.

Crosscut thinks it is totally OK to publish Glenn Nelson’s racist piece, but refuse to publish a much more polite and calm piece from us. Why? Crosscut has a Chinese American problem. In particular, Chinese Americans who think independently and refuse to be a puppet.

As Yvonne Ward summed up in her brilliant commentary piece

“Those groups have dismissed us in the past, and now they expect us to support discrimination against our children. To this we must say no. In honor of those who came before us who sacrificed so much, and on behalf of our children who have done nothing wrong to warrant discrimination, we must stand our ground and fight this prejudice. We must take our stand at the ballot box because there, the anti-Asian Establishment cannot ignore us. With your ballot in hand, focus on our children’s future, their right to dignity, their right to fairness, and their fundamental right to respect. Reject racism. Reject I-1000.”

The post A Response to Crosscut and Glenn Nelson’s Racist Op-Ed Towards Chinese Americans appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“The other side has tried to portray this extraordinarily successful campaign as a group of Asian Americans worried about losing spots at UW.  This is clearly about a much larger issue.  This is about a basic fundamental American value:  Individual rights for every person!  Race has no place in American life or law,” Yang continued.

The campaign raised nearly $1 million dollar, mostly from individual donors.  “Close to 2,000 people donated to this Referendum.  This is a true grassroots campaign,” said Yang.  “The other side is dishonest.  They owed signature collectors $1.3 million dollar in pay and launched a new PAC to avoid paying down the debt.”

“Senator Bob Hasegawa arrogantly challenged us to collect 200,000 signatures to make a statement that the people actually wanted a referendum on I-1000, “said Yang.  “Our campaign did even better than that.  We obtained more than 200,000 signatures in this campaign.  The voters of Washington State have spoken:  We want to reconsider this vote of the legislature and put it in front of all the people.”

R-88 sponsors have already launched phase 2 campaign.  A new campaign website, RejectI1000.org, is up and running.

####

The post THE SECRETARY OF STATE CERTIFIED REFERENDUM MEASURE 88, NEW CAMPAIGN SITE LAUNCHED TO DEFEAT I-1000 IN THE FALL appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Thank you!

The post R-88 Signature Collection Feedback Form appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“The other side have tried to paint this as a group of Asian Americans worry about losing spots at UW. This is a much broad issue. This is about the fundamental American value: Liberty and Justice for All! Race has no place in American life or law.” Yang continued.

The campaign raised more than $900K mostly from individual donors. “Close to 2,000 people donated to the campaign. This is a true grassroots campaign.” Said Yang.

Nearly 60 supporters gathered at Olympia Center on Saturday, 7/27, afternoon to celebrate this historical achievement. Mr. Ward Connerly, John Carlson, and John Alberti, all were actively involved in I-200 back in 1998, attended the event. Mr. Connerly said “I regret that we have to do this all over again… I-1000 is one of the worst bills…It will make you want to throw up almost… Poorly written, poorly designed, fundamentally at odds with the most cherish value of America, which is individual rights for every person.”

At the end of the event, the campaign announced its phase two website: RejectI1000.org. ‘Now, we’ve sent R-88 to the ballot, let’s Reject I-1000 in November.” Said Yang.

####

The post R-88 SPONSORS SUBMITTED A RECORD NUMBER OF SIGNATURES AND KICKED OFF REJECT I-1000 CAMPAIGN appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

The secretary of state certified Referendum Measure 88 (R-88) for the November ballot on August 7, 2019, after finding through a random sample verification that R-88 sponsors had submitted 184,239 valid signatures. To qualify for the ballot, 129,811 valid signatures were required.

R-88, the vote on I-1000, is on the November ballot as a veto referendum.

An approve vote supports allowing Initiative 1000 to go into effect, thereby allowing the state to bring back racial preferences.
A reject vote supports blocking divisive I-1000 from going into effect, thereby continuing to ban racial preferences in Washington.

What’s next? Reject R-88 and Stop Divisive I-1000 in November!

Initiative 1000 seeks to repeal Washington Civil Rights Act (I-200) and was enacted by the Legislature on the last day of the session in order to deny a public vote on the matter. Senator Bob Hasegawa arrogantly challenged opponents of I-1000 to collect 200,000 signatures to make a statement that the people actually want a referendum on I-1000. Well, R-88 campaign did even better than that. The campaign obtained 213,268 signatures. And voters of Washington State have spoken: “We want to reconsider this vote of the legislature and put it in front of all the people.” Senator Bob Hasegawa, and all the legislators who voted for I-1000 are out of touch with voters！

I-1000 can be summed up in one sentence: It would abolish the standard of equality for all, regardless of race, as required by I-200, and replace it with a system that uses different rules for people of different races. There is too much division in our society today.  We should minimize, not magnify our racial differences. That’s why all of us need to Reject Referendum 88 in the Fall.

The passage of Initiative 1000 is a slap in the face to veterans. One of I-1000’s unintentional consequences is that I-1000 would actually eliminates veterans’ preference in public employment that has been provided in Washington State since 1895. See RCW 41.04.010 and 73.16.010. At the April 18th public hearing on I-1000, non-partisan staff said “The initiative (I-1000) will now prohibit the use of preferential treatment with respect to veterans” .

The I-1000 proponents have no moral compass. They lied, and will continue to lie. We need your help to educate general public why I-1000 is a bad policy, and needs to be rejected in November. Please sign up below to help us win the battle to Reject I-1000 in November.

You can donate to support rejecting R-88 in November at Reject88.com .

The post Reject Referendum Measure 88 (R-88), Stop Divisive I-1000 appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.