Apparently, the wheels of justice can turn rapidly when it comes to the rules of the road.

Less than a month after Mukilteo Initiative 2 putting the issue of traffic cameras in the hands of voters was approved for the November ballot then contested in Superior Court, a hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Friday, Aug. 6.

Should the judge rule that day, or at least before the Aug. 10 filing deadline, the initiative could still be on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Mukilteo resident Tim Eyman launched the city’s second initiative in history, asking for the approval of a two-thirds majority of the council, and a simple majority of voters, before any new cameras are brought to town.

The initiative also limits the fines to the amount of the least expensive parking ticket in town, currently $20.

The council, in response to the initiative and several public comments, reversed the ordinance allowing the cameras and didn’t complete the contract with ATS, the Arizona firm that markets the cameras nationwide.

City administrator Joe Hannan told the council it could toss out the initiative since the cameras fall outside the scope of initiative power, but the council approved it anyway, saying the voters have spoken.

Earlier this month, a group calling itself Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government sued the city and the county in Superior Court, alleging that the traffic cameras are outside the scope of initiative power.

Resident Christine Preston called herself the group’s spokeswoman before retreating behind her law firm, Stoel Rives, which has represented ATS in all of its legal action against Washington cities.

When Eyman surprised Preston last week with a home visit, not having located her phone number, she made it clear he wasn’t welcome on her property.

Later that day, Eyman said, he found a card at his own door from a Mukilteo police officer, notifying him that Preston requested all future contact be through her attorney.

Mukilteo police confirmed that Preston had called the department, and that the officer had passed on the no-contact request to Eyman.

However, Vanessa Soriano Power, the Stoel Rives attorney representing Preston and ATS, said Tuesday that her client has issued a public statement.

In it, Preston addressed only her reasons for supporting the cameras, and didn’t respond to questions.

“As a pedestrian, I have seen dozens of times where busy and important people have run red lights and turned into crosswalks where people walking and riding their bikes were waiting their turn,” Preston’s statement read.

“Although the police do a fine job protecting our city, they cannot be everywhere. Traffic cameras work 24 hours a day.”

She declined to answer even through her attorney, this reporter’s questions: whether she is the only member of MCSG; why she’s suing the city and county rather than educating the voters on the cameras; why she, as the group’s spokeswoman, won’t speak in public, and whether anyone is willing; and how ATS found her and partnered with her in the lawsuit.

Mayor Joe Marine said he doesn’t know Preston, even though they attend the same church and live less than a minute’s drive from each other.

“The initiative sponsors have financial interests in getting these cameras blocked for the busy and important people, but I have real skin in the game,” Preston’s statement read.

“These busy and important people are the same people who will vote not to be held accountable for running red lights.

“The city council was elected to make these decisions for Mukilteo, and the initiative sponsors want to interfere with the council’s business in order to protect red light runners.

“I guess we will see what the judge says. In the meantime, I will just keep hoping not to be hit by vehicles violating the traffic laws.”

Mayor Marine, in response to public criticism of the lawsuit, said the council could put its own, city-generated measure on the ballot, asking the citizens in the form of an advisory vote.
“Then we will know what people think,” he said.

However, Marine said the city’s measure specifically addresses red light cameras and does not eliminate, or ask citizens their opinion on, the school zone cameras.

Marine said most residents he’s spoken with don’t oppose the school zone cameras – even those who don’t like the red light cameras.

That’s not enough for Eyman, who said the voters approved his initiative intact, and that includes the cameras in school zones.

“Getting nearly half of active registered voters in Mukilteo to sign our petition clearly illustrates the voters won't accept a watered-down substitute,” he said. “They deserve to vote on the policies in I-2 as written. 

“Anything less would be exactly what the red-light camera company
from Arizona wants – they desperately want to stop the voters from having a
chance to vote and to remove the profit motive for the cameras by limiting
the fines.”