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.

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. 


Evidences:


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.

The post Letter: Request to remove Deputy Solicitor General Alan Copsey from participating issuing ballot titles related to I-1234 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.

1. The Secretary of State did not comply with WAC 434-379-010. The sample she drew did not represent the signature population, therefore, she could not reliably project valid, non-duplicated signature counts. The Secretary of State has no valid basis to certify I-1000. By ruling in favor of the Secretary of State, the court allowed the SoS to continue ignoring the law and wrongfully certify or reject future initiatives.
2. The law allows citizens to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision. The courts’ rulings set a precedent to shut the door down without a word of explanation and citizens’ rights have been taken away.

Nobody knows how many valid, non-duplicate signatures were actually submitted to the Secretary of State in support of Initiative 1000 (I-1000). The Secretary of State for sure does not know. She only sampled 3% of the overall signatures. By law (RCW 29A.72.230) , she is allowed to sample signatures and project the likely results, which she did. In order to project likely results from the samples, she is required to follow Washington Administrative Code (WAC 434-379-010), which she did not.

By law (RCW 29A.720.240), any citizen who is dissatisfied with the Secretary’s decision on certification may file petition to Superior Court of Thurston County. ACE president, Mr. Kan Qiu, and two other co-plaintiffs filed complaint to the Thurston County Superior Court on February 11th, challenge validity of I-1000 certification.

After examining public records data, Dr. Hubber, the statistician hired by the plaintiffs’ legal team issued a report. In conclusion, Dr. Hubber states “the SoS (Secretary of State) did not carry out an ‘unrestricted random sample’ as required by the regulations (WAC 434-379-010)” and “the ‘protection against misrepresentation of the population’ [Snedecor and Cochran] afforded by an unrestricted random sample has not been achieved. Therefore, the SoS has not shown an objectively valid basis to certify the I-1000 petition.” In plain words, the Secretary of State failed to comply with WAC requirement, and her sample failed to represent the entire signature population. As a result, her projection of likely valid, non-duplicated results is invalid.

Dr. Hubber’s report shows the clear differences between a true “unrestricted random sample” vs. the Secretary of State’s sample. And by Dr. Hubber’s estimation, “the SoS procedure produces within-page pairs at less than 60% of the rate it is required to do so.” In other words, the SoS underestimated duplicated signatures by more than 60%!

AG representing the Secretary of State filed Motion of Summary Judgement on March 4th. Mr. Qiu’s legal team filed Opposition to MSJ on March 21st. AG filed their reply on March 27th. Mr. Qiu’s lawyer received AG’s reply at 13:02 on March 27th. By 15:59 on March 27th, the court sent Mr. Qiu’s lawyer Order Granting Summary Judgement which was dated on March 26th, the day before AG’s reply was filed!

Former Managing Assistant AG and current Thurston County Superior Court Judge, Chris Lanese’s decision states “The Court agrees with each argument raised by Defendant. The bases for challenging the conduct at issue here are exceptionally narrow and Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their applicability in this case.”

The core of the legal debate is “genuine issue of material fact”. Without “genuine issue of material fact”, a judge can grant Summary Judgement. Mr. Qiu and his co-plaintiffs demonstrated with data and analyses that the Secretary did not comply with the mandatory Washington Administrative Code, and that her error rendered the projection and certification unreliable and not in compliance with the law. How could Judge Lanese not understand or ignore this genuine issue of material fact, and sided with the Secretary of State?

The I-1000 backers had planed to have a public hearing in early April. A hastily decision by lawless judge Lanese helped clear the way – well, not so fast. Mr. Qiu and his co-plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs filed appeal on March 29th, and their lawyer filed appeal brief on April 9th. AG representing the Secretary of State filed reply on April 11th. And the plaintiffs’ lawyer replied on April 12th. On the afternoon of April 17th, few hours before I-1000 backers planned public hearing on I-1000, the Supreme Court ruled “Pursuant to RCW 29A.72.240, the Court dismisses the proceedings” without a word of explanation!

What the Supreme Court Judges can’t explain to you can be found in I-1000 sponsor’s amicus brief. In his amicus brief, Nat Jackson states: “the legislative hearing currently set for 8:00 a.m. on April 18 if this Initiative’s certification is resolved”. The Supreme court did what Nat Jackson asked – dismissed the case on April 17th so that the April 18th public hearing can go on as planned. People should be outraged!

More than 2,000 people have signed the petition that demands Judge Lanese to resign. People have also filed complaints against Judge Lanese to the State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct. We will file complaints against all Supreme Court Judges to the State of Washington Commissions on Judicial Conduct!

The post Judges Ruled Based on Politics NOT on Laws in I-1000 Case appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.