Mukilteo’s second initiative in city history cleared perhaps its biggest hurdle Friday when Superior Court Judge Michael Downes declined to block it from going on the November ballot.
 
Downes called it “premature” for the court to rule on the initiative before voters had their say. Should it pass in November, that would be the time to contest it, he said, and ruling at this point would be interfering with the political process.

“I want to underline the unusual circumstances of this case,” he said.

However, attorney Vanessa Soriano Power of Stoel Rives, representing resident Christine Preston and her group Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government, said the group filed an appeal with the state’s Supreme Court Monday afternoon.

City attorney Angela Belbeck said the Supreme Court might punt the matter back to Superior Court but, regardless, the initiative remains on the ballot unless and until a judge throws it out.

In his ruling Friday, Downes also held up the Mukilteo City Council’s right to place the measure on the ballot as an advisory vote, as it had discussed doing when the lawsuit was filed.
 
“It’s quite apparent that the Mukilteo City Council wants to hear from its citizens,” Downes said. “Clearly this is an ongoing political decision in the city whether traffic cameras should be an issue.”

Power had argued that I-2 is outside the scope of initiative authority.

It repeals an existing ordinance, “effectively restricting and modifying the power of Mukilteo City Council,” she argued.

Power cited RCW 4.63.170, which places the authority to approve traffic safety cameras in the hands of local municipalities such as the council.

“We are pleased to be a voice for public safety in Mukilteo,” Preston said. “Anyone who lives, works, and plays in this area has a stake in our safety as a community.

“Our focus should not be on protecting the violators; it should be on protecting and enforcing the law.”

MCSG’s lawsuit not only challenged the validity of the initiative, but also disputed the council’s right to ask its constituents how they feel about the cameras.

Washington State Legislature gives city and county municipalities the power to determine whether red light cameras are used, Power said.

“This would allow cities to contravene state law,” she said. 

City Attorney Angela Belbeck acknowledged that the state law vests the authority to the council, but argued that it doesn’t dictate how the city must adopt the law, nor does it limit the council’s right to hear what its electorate has to say.

“We appreciate the time Judge Downes gave to this matter,” Power said of the ruling. “We appreciate his thoughtful consideration of the issues.”

Earlier this year, the council voted to implement traffic safety cameras to photograph the license plates of red light runners at the intersection of SR-525 and Harbour Pointe Boulevard North, and to photograph the license plates of drivers speeding in the 20 mph school zone on SR-525 in front of Olympic View Middle School.

Mukilteo resident Tim Eyman launched I-2, which repeals the ordinance approving the cameras, and calls for a two-thirds majority of the council plus a simple majority of the voters before implementing any new cameras in town.

Further, the initiative limits the amount of any infraction to that of the lowest parking ticket in town, currently $20.

Eyman eventually gathered enough valid signatures to place I-2 on the November ballot.
In response, Preston sued the city and the county in Superior Court, alleging that the traffic safety cameras are outside the scope of initiative power.

Mayor Joe Marine and the council, noting that the voters have spoken, returned fire in the form of a proposed city-generated advisory vote, informally agreeing to put the spirit of I-2 on the ballot regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. 

The council was to have formally approved that ballot measure at a special meeting Monday, but that discussion is now moot.

Marine said he’s happy with Friday’s ruling, but wishes that the initiative’s question had been different.

I-2, if passed, virtually closes the door on the traffic safety cameras now and in the future, since it includes the language limiting the fines to $20, he said.

“This kills it; it goes beyond asking the citizens what they want,” he said. “It takes the choice away from the citizens, because the $20 is not even enough to pay for the cameras themselves.”

Marine said the next step is to write I-2’s con agreement for the voters’ pamphlet.

For more information on MCSG’s efforts, visit www.keepmukilteosafe.com.