Dear Mr. Patterson,

Recently, we received reports from the Chinese American community about a Washington Civil Rights Act violation at LWSD. After trying to resolve this violation concern with LWSD without success, we are now following the steps listed on the OSPI site (https://www.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/equity-and-civil-rights/complaints-and-concerns-about-discrimination ) and filing a formal discrimination complaint against LWSD for violating the Washington Civil Rights Act.

RCW 49.60.400 (Washington Civil Rights Act) states:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” 

What happened at Blackwell Elementary School surrounding the incident of teaching Chinese culture and tradition during Chinese New Year clearly violated RCW 49.60.400. 

Background: 
On February 1st, the Chinese New Year, Mrs. Nicholson wore a Chinese gown to teach Chinese traditional culture to her class. According to the information we obtained, it was a very high-quality lesson. Mrs. Nicholson explained to her students that the outfit was gifted to her by a former student family. She talked about the student family and how she developed a relationship with them. The students watched Discovery Education videos about the Lunar New Year, then talked about Chinese tradition, talked about why things are red in Chinese culture, wrote numbers one to ten in Chinese, made Chinese lanterns, etc.  

The school and district leadership, none of whom are of Chinese heritage, not to mention having lived experience of Chinese culture, later claimed that Mrs. Nicholson’s act of wearing a Chinese gown while teaching Chinese traditional culture was “cultural appropriation” and offended the Chinese American community. Mrs. Nicholson was made to issue both a verbal and a written apology to her class on February 11th.  

Contrary to the school and district leadership’s false claim, “cultural appropriation” is a foreign concept to Chinese culture. Through its thousands of years’ development, Chinese culture has always been open and inclusive. Chinese culture actually welcomes people learning and experiencing their culture by wearing their traditional clothes, especially during the Chinese New Year. 

WA Asians For Equality website has more than 100 comments from the Chinese American community supporting Mrs. Nicholson wearing the Chinese gown while teaching Chinese traditional culture.  

More than 60 parents of the Chinese American students at Blackwell Elementary signed a letter supporting Mrs. Nicholson and requested the school and district issue an apology to Mrs. Nicholson and the Chinese American community.

We have identified the following violations of RCW 49.60.400:
1) Withholding information in an attempt to cover up discrimination against Chinese culture and the Chinese American community.
Evidence:
Many members of the Chinese American community have reached out to the school and district and requested detailed documentation on what has exactly happened since February 1st at Blackwell Elementary. None of them has received any documentation from the school or district.  Requests for clarification of the district’s standard policy and procedure were not answered either.  The school and district claimed that there were complaints against Mrs. Nicholson’s act, yet they were not able to provide sequenced details to back up their claim: When, where, and who complained? What were the exact complaints? How were the decisions made? Etc. The Chinese American community has not been treated fairly by the school and district. The school and district’s non-Chinese leadership made false claims about Chinese culture, damaged the reputation of Chinese culture, and threatened anyone who would want to experience Chinese culture, yet prohibited the Chinese American community from having equal access to the source of those false claims. 

2) Chinese culture was singled out and targeted, and the Chinese American community was made an example of. 
Evidence: 
1) Mrs. Nicholson wore the Chinese gown on the morning of February 1st. She spent most of the morning in the classroom teaching students about Chinese culture. It was a fully packed morning, and she was only in and out of the classroom very quickly.  In the afternoon, after Principal Eaton raised the concern with her, she changed back to her regular clothes. Given that not many people even had the chance to see what Mrs. Nicholson was wearing that day, and that she was cooperative after Principal Eaton talked to her, if the school’s goal was to address concerns, then anyone with common sense would agree that what Mrs. Nicholson did that afternoon timely and sufficiently addressed the concerns. Why did the school and district continue to make this an issue and make Mrs. Nicholson issue apologies to her class two weeks later? 
2) There are only two Chinese students in Mrs. Nicholson’s class. Neither the students nor their parents complained about Mrs. Nicholson wearing the Chinese gown that day. As a matter of fact, not one single student or parent from Mrs. Nicholson’s class complained about Mrs. Nicholson’s act that day. Why did the school and district make Mrs. Nicholson apologize to her class on February 11th?
3) According to many Blackwell Elementary parents, it is very common to see the school’s teachers and staff wear other cultures’ clothes. Last June, during the aloha parade, school teachers wore Hawaii Hula outfits when handing out goodie bags and waving goodbye to students on the last school day. Even Principal Eaton was caught wearing a turban while posing for a yearbook photo. No one was made to apologize in those incidents. Why was wearing a Chinese outfit for teaching purposes labeled as “cultural appropriation”, while wearing outfits from other cultures for fun or photo opportunities was acceptable?  Principal Eaton insisted that wearing a turban for a photo was acceptable, while wearing a Chinese outfit for teaching Chinese culture was not.

More than 48% of Blackwell Elementary’s students are Asian, and the majority of them are of Chinese heritage. Clearly, Chinese culture was singled out and targeted by the school and district.  They wanted to make an example out of the school’s largest minority student body. As a result, Chinese culture was portrayed as unwelcoming, and people are now scared away from even considering sharing or experiencing Chinese culture. The entire Chinese American community feels the chilling message: stay away from Chinese culture.

If the school and district truly cared about the feelings of the Chinese American community, and were truly interested in learning about Chinese culture, they would have consulted with the school’s large Chinese American community. The fact is that the school and district did not consult any members of the Chinese American student families before they made the false claim about Chinese culture. And the school even put up road blocks to prevent shocked Chinese American parents from finding out the facts afterwards.

The Chinese American community denounces the false portrayal of Chinese culture and strongly condemns the school and district for targeting Chinese culture and penalizing the Chinese American community for their own agenda. “Cultural appropriation” runs in direct contradiction with everything that Chinese culture represents and stands for.

What we demand:
1) The school and district should immediately release to the Chinese American community detailed documentation of the entire incident since February 1st. We request access to the same information that the school and district have. We request the names and contact information of every single one of those who claimed that Mrs. Nicholson’s act offended Chinese Americans and Chinese culture so that we can conduct a full interview with them;
2) The school and district should issue an open apology to Mrs. Nicholson and the Chinese American community for falsely portraying Chinese culture and for falsely labeling Mrs. Nicholson’s act and wrongfully making her apologize. The school and district should make it clear to everyone that Chinese culture is open and welcome. People are encouraged to live and experience Chinese culture. 

Regards,
WA Asians For Equality

The post Formal Discrimination Complaint Filed Against LWSD appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

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.

Our recent Public Record Request showed that instead of issuing impartial ballot titles that identify the propositions to be voted on, under the heavy influence of a “former State Representative”, the AGO, worked with initiative sponsors, through ” a whole lot of back and forth“, issued misleading ballot titles that the sponsors “would be comfortable with”.

Washington State constitution gives people the power to govern through the initiative process. And a center piece of the initiative process is the AGO issued ballot title. Court has ruled that “A ballot title must apprise a voter of the proposal being considered” (Municipality of Metro. Seattle v. City of Seattle, 57 Wn.2d 446 (1960)), because “voters will often make their decision based on the title of the act alone, without ever reading the body of it.”  (Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt., 149 Wn.2d 622, 639 (2003)). “When laws are passed, people should know what is in them, especially those voting on the laws.”) (Wash. Assoc. for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention v. State, 174 Wn.2d 642, 667 (2012),“Wiggins, J., dissenting).

On September 2nd, the AGO issued ballot title for I-1200. I-1200 strikes out the prohibition on “preferential treatment” from RCW 49.60.400 (see below).

On 9/2, the AGO issued I-1200 ballot title, and correctly captured the removal of “a prohibition on preferential treatment by government”. During their internal discussions, Deputy Solicitor General, Peter Gonick, commented ” I do get the nagging feeling that we’re burying the lede by not mentioning the removal of “grant preferential treatment” to the prohibition of discrimination. “

Below is the I-1200 ballot title.

Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1200 concerns protections against discrimination.
This measure would extend statutory protections against discrimination to public health and safety; remove a prohibition on preferential treatment by government; specify circumstances that are not prohibited discrimination; and define certain statutory terms.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would extend statutory protections against discrimination to public health and safety; prohibit discrimination in COVID-19 testing, tracing, and treatment; require the state to provide no-cost COVID-19 vaccines, when available, without discrimination; declare protection from discriminatory use of deadly force, including chokeholds, by law enforcement as a civil right under state law; remove a statutory prohibition on preferential treatment by state and local government; specify circumstances that are not prohibited discrimination; and add definitions.

On 9/3, before the AGO submitted the same ballot title for I-1234, which is identical to I-1200, Jesse Wineberry called and complained that “with that (I-1200) title, the sponsors could not run the measure“. Deputy Solicitor General, Alan Copsey, frantically sent out a high importance emergency email and asked the AGO to hold off on filing the I-1234 ballot title. Mr. Copsey stressed that Jesse Wineberry was a former State Representative. Who gave a former State Representative the power to interfere the AGO’s ballot title drafting process? Solicitor General Noah Purcell was copied on that email, yet he did nothing to stop Jesse Wineberry from interfering.

As Mr. Copsey stated in his email, “after a whole lot of back and forth with the sponsors”, they finally settled on a version that “they (I-1234 sponsors) would be comfortable with“. Mr. Copsey basically took the edits from the I-1234 sponsors and ran with it. The revised I-1234 ballot title intentionally failed to inform voters that I-1234 would “remove a prohibition on preferential treatment by government.”

Below is the revised I-1234 ballot title:

Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1234 concerns prohibiting discrimination.
This measure would expand statutory prohibitions on discrimination to public health and public safety, including responses to COVID-19 and law enforcement’s discriminatory use of deadly force; and specify exceptions to statutorily prohibited discrimination.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would expand statutory prohibitions on discrimination by state and local government to public health and public safety; prohibit discrimination in COVID-19 testing, tracing, and treatment; require the state to provide no-cost COVID-19 vaccines, when available, without discrimination; declare protection from discriminatory use of deadly force, including chokeholds, by law enforcement as a civil right under state law; specify exceptions to statutorily prohibited discrimination; and define certain statutory terms.

Deputy Solicitor General, Peter Gonick, tried to raise his objection. Mr. Gonick stated ” 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.” Despite Mr. Gonick’s objection, the AGO later issued the same misleading ballot title for I-1242, another identical initiative to I-1200 and I-1234.

To put things in perspective, noticed that Mr. Alan ignored court ruling on similar I-1120, and issued a very misleading ballot title for I-1122, through our lawyers, we presented the AGO with our proposed ballot title for I-1129 through I-1176. Deputy Solicitor General, Alan Copsey, was again tasked to issue ballot titles for those initiatives. Mr. Copsey did not give us a chance to work “back and forth” with him to reach a ballot title that we were “comfortable with”. Instead, he ignored court ruling on similar initiative, and told us to go ahead and challenge him in court, which we did. What a double standard! If you are an average Joe like us facing an opponent who is a political insider, such as a former State Representative, you have no chance of getting a fair dealing at the AGO.

State law, RCW 29A.72.050(1) clearly requires that ” The concise description (of ballot title) must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure’s essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.” By allowing Jesse Wineberry to interfere and I-1234’s sponsors to rewrite ballot title and summary to their satisfaction, the AGO clearly “created prejudice” for the measure and failed to comply with the law.

As our other Public Records Request data show, Jesse Wineberry also drafted /influenced other ballot titles. How prevalent is this unlawful abuse of power and influence at the AGO? The legislature should launch a full investigation into the abuse of public trust and failure to comply with the law at the AGO. The AGO should be held accountable for violating people’s trust and the law.

P.S. Judge Dixon made a ruling on September 25th. Although after our lawyer’s strong argument, Deputy Solicitor General, Alan Copsey, was ready to make a concession and add “preferential treatment” to I-1234 ballot title and summary, Judge Dixon already made up his mind before the hearing. He read his ruling from prepared notes.

Although Judge Dixon ruled to adopt I-1200 ballot summary, which points out that I-1234 would “remove a statutory prohibition on preferential treatment by state and local government”, he chose to NOT adopt I-1200 ballot title.  Instead, Judge Dixon adopted the ballot title of I-1120, which did not mention the removal of a prohibition on preferential treatment at all. I-1120 is a similar, yet different measure. I-1120 narrowly defines the prohibition of preferential treatment, while I-1200 and I-1234 both completely remove the prohibition of preferential treatment. It is disappointing that Judge Dixon clearly disapproved the omission of “remove a prohibition on preferential treatment” in the ballot summary. Yet, he still ruled a ballot title that isprejudiced in favor of the I-1234 sponsors. How could a ballot title of a different measure be a better fit than that of an identical measure?? If Judge Dixon has no objection to adopt the ballot summary of I-1200, he was his reason to NOT adopt the ballot title of I-1120?? Site i1234.org is up.

The post The AGO Bent Over Backward to Political Insiders and Issued Misleading Ballot Titles to Mollify Initiative Sponsors 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.

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.

The passage of Initiative 1000 is a slap in the face to Veterans, their survivors and partners because it eliminates veterans preference in public employment that has been provided in Washington State since 1895. See RCW 41.04.010 and 73.16.010. Before the passage of this initiative by the legislature, honorably discharged veterans, their survivors, and partners of 100% disabled veterans were entitled to veterans preference in public employment in the following ways.

• 1. In competitive exams, veterans are entitled to a 10% bonus added to their passing score on employment examination;
• 2.Current public employees, who deployed to war and returned to public service, are entitled to 5% bonus on promotional examination;
• 3. Veterans, their widow/er/s and the partners of 100% disabled veterans, are entitled to a general preference in employment or appointment
  that does not involve a competitive examination.

That’s all ELIMINATED by I – 1000, and those statutes will be stricken from state law once the initiative takes effect. The proponents of I – 1000, will argue that is not how the law will work. That is not true.

The new law is clear, it REMOVES veteran preference from existing state law.

Here is how the Initiative will work.
First, the I – 1000 specifically adds “honorably discharged veteran or military status” to RCW 49.60.400 (Discrimination, preferential treatment prohibited) where it never existed before. Why add veteran or military status to the affirmative action prohibitions in RCW 49.60.400 (i.e. Initiative No. 200), that the proponents want to reveres? Because veterans preference was already part of state law at the time, yet it was excluded from the I – 200 prohibitions on affirmative action. The new law purports to help veterans because it includes veteran or military status part of affirmative action. But, the trade off is not worth it for veterans.

Second, Section 3(1) of I – 1000 plainly states, “(1) The state shall not […] grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of […] honorably discharged veteran or military status in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” If that becomes the new state law, the existing veterans preference statutes will go away, i.e. RCW 41.04.010 (Veterans’ scoring criteria in examinations) and RCW 73.16.010 (Preference in public employment). Under the law, a conflict exists if one statute allows what another prohibits or prohibits what another allows. Here this means that where I – 1000 conflicts with existing laws that provide preferential treatment for veterans in employment, one of those laws has to give way to the other. How to fix that? Don’t worry, they thought of that too, see the next insidious step.

Step Three, Section 6 of I – 1000, directs that within 3 months, “the office of program research and senate committee services shall prepare a joint memorandum and draft legislation to present to the appropriate committees of the legislature regarding any necessary changes to the Revised Code of Washington to bring nomenclature and processes in line with this act so as to fully effectuate and not interfere in any way with its intent.” What does all that mean? Simple, it means to rewrite the existing RCWs (veterans preference statutes) to eliminate veterans preference so there is no conflict with I – 1000.

Don’t be fooled by people with good intentions.

Proponents of I – 1000 argue that it simply supplies a new definition for “preferential treatment” and the existing veterans preference statutes do not constitute a preferential treatment under that new definition. First, try to wrap you head around the notion that “veterans preference” is not “preferential treatment.” That makes no sense; of course, a preference in employment is preferential treatment. What else can it be?

Further, the new definition does nothing but eliminate veterans preference. The sole qualifying factor to award veterans preference points at entry and promotional testing is that person’s veteran status, a consideration which I – 1000 prohibits. Veterans preference works by adding points to a veteran’s passing score. In public employment the higher scoring candidates are hired (or promoted) before lower scoring candidates. That means the act of awarding a veteran 10 percent or 5 percent to on top of their passing score is a preference, which I – 1000 prohibits.

In sum, if I -1000 becomes effective, there is no more veterans preference in Washington. Veterans preference has been part of public employment in WA law since 1895. It was implemented to make up for the loss of experience, opportunity and the time the veteran was away while they were serving, or for those disabled and their spouses to assist in overcoming those disadvantages. While the proponents of I – 1000 desire to reverse the I – 200 prohibitions on affirmative actions, they can accomplish that without eliminating veterans preference. If you’d like to help veterans get involved with Referendum Measure 88 and help us bring this issue before a vote of the people of the State of Washington, visit:

Please sign R-88 petition and send I-1000 to the November ballot to be decided by the people.

The post The passage of Initiative 1000 is a slap in the face to veterans appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.