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.

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.

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.

“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.

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

The post Poll appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

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.

We have till July 27th, to collect 170K signatures (129,811 valid, non-duplicated signature required) and qualify Referendum Measure 88 for the ballot. We need all the help we can get. If you are willing to participate in the fight to give voters the chance to vote on I-1000, please sign up using the form below and we’ll contact you with details.  Thanks!

If you have not registered to vote in WA, please register now so that your voice will be heard.

The post Join Referendum Measure 88 Signature Drive and Put I-1000 on the Ballot appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

We, WA Asians for Equality and American Coalition for Equality, strongly believe and support equal opportunity for all, and oppose I-1000, which will bring back different rules for different races.

In a recent letter to WA State legislature, APACE claims “This group (WA Asians for Equality) does not represent the views of most Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. “There is simply no evidence to support APACE’s claim, nor could APACE provide any.

As a matter of fact, on April 18, 2019 at the House and Senate joint hearing on I-1000, close to 300 concerned Asians showed up in opposition to I-1000, in contrast to a handful of executives from special interest organizations testified in support of I-1000. And on April 22, 2019, more than 160 concerned Asians lobbied against I-1000 in Olympia, in contrast to less than 25 I-1000 supporters showed up in support of I-1000. I-1000 supporters had to cancel their planned event in Olympia due to lack of community support.

I-1000 seeks to repeal voter approved I-200 law. In this great nation of democracy, WA State legislature must let WA voters decide whether to change I-200. Elected officials are there to represent people, NOT special interest groups.  If you decide instead to pass I-1000, and deny people the vote, then we will strongly consider filing a referendum measure to bring I-1000 to the ballot to let the people decide.  

Let people vote on I-1000!

WA Asians for Equality
American Coalition for Equality

The post An Open Letter from Asian Americans to WA State Legislature in Opposition to I-1000 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.