http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012434624_edit25mukilteo.html

Court should give green light for Mukileo's traffic-camera initiative
The Seattle Times Editorial Board opposes the lawsuit filed in Snohomish County Superior Court to remove Mukilteo Initiative 2, regarding traffic cameras, from the November ballot.

THE lawsuit to take Mukilteo's traffic-camera initiative off the ballot should fail. The signatures have been collected, and the City Council has voted to put the measure on the November ballot. Snohomish County Superior Court should let the initiative go ahead.

An initiative is like a bill in the Legislature: With few exceptions, it can be tested in court only after it is passed, not before. The Washington Supreme Court has laid down this rule twice in the past five years, both times unanimously, and there are good reasons for it.

An initiative may have political effect whether it is ultimately constitutional or not. The $30 car-tabs initiative was like that, as was the 1-percent property-tax limit. In this case, the political issue is whether the people of Mukilteo shall be the first in Washington to vote on cameras, and potentially slow their spread to other cities.

The lawsuit was filed by the Seattle firm of Stoel Rives, which has represented the camera company, American Traffic Solutions Inc., of Scottsdale, Ariz., in other cases. In Mukilteo, the law firm is filing in the name of a citizens' group, but it appears to be doing the company's work nonetheless.

Whether cameras are good or bad is another issue. This is about preserving the people's right of initiative.

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview