One of the items deserves support and the other should be rejected by legislators.
The measure that has merit is a proposal to eliminate the primary election for judicial races with fewer than three candidates.
The state could save approximately $1 million every four years, if lawmakers repeal the requirement to hold a primary election when only one or two candidates have filed.
There’s another compelling reason to send these short fields of judicial candidates directly to the general election. General elections generate a much larger voter turnout than does a primary. The citizens of the state are better served by having the maximum number of voters possible to weigh in on a judicial race. In the name of representative government, eliminate the primary election, which is nothing more than a dress rehearsal for the general election in a judges’ race.
The centerpiece of Reed’s elections cost-savings legislation would allow the full text of ballot measures to be placed online for free on the secretary of state’s website, rather than printing them in their entirety in the voters’ pamphlet, which is produced by Reed’s elections division.
The state constitution requires the secretary of state to send the voters’ pamphlet to all 3 million households in the state.
The voters’ pamphlet is a valuable tool for voters to acquaint themselves with candidates and ballot measures alike and make well-informed decisions when they cast their ballots.
Reed makes the argument that few people read the text of a ballot measure. Those that want to could go to the website and read it online.
Such a move would reduce printing costs for the voters’ pamphlet, especially in those years where several referendums and initiatives appear. Reed points to Referendum 71 three years ago, which consumed 33 pages of the voters pamphlet.
The referendum, which was approved by the voters, upheld a state law that expanded state benefits for registered same-sex and some domestic partners.
Providing a measure’s text online instead of in the printed version of the voters’ pamphlet would save about $364,000 a year, he said.
Here’s the problem with Reed’s proposal. There are still countless conscientious voters who don’t have easy access to computers. In many cases, this group of voters includes senior citizens who take the time to read the text of an initiative.
An informed electorate is essential to the democratic process. Certainly, the printing costs associated with the voters’ pamphlet are a small price to pay for a more informed electorate.
The Legislature should reject any move to shuffle the initiatives and referendums online at the expense of the voters’ pamphlet presentation.
A better approach would be to see a more judicious use of the initiative and referendum process. And it would help if those deserving a place on the ballot were written more concisely, adhering to the requirement that they deal with just one topic.
Reed has also introduced legislation that would authorize the state library to charge for research requests library staff receives from nonresidents of the state of Washington.
House Bill 2222, prime-sponsored by Rep. Mary Helen Roberts, D-Lynnwood, and Senate Bill 6047, prime-sponsored by Maralyn Chase, D-Shoreline, would allow the library to recover the cost of fulfilling the request.
Reed makes the case that the state library staff level has been depleted by budget cuts. Research requests from out of state consume too much of the staff’s time. The library could add more staff with the money raised, Reed suggested.
But is it appropriate to distinguish between in-state and out-of-state requests for information? When the request comes via email, will the library staff be able to discern between a resident of the state and a nonresident?
In the grand scheme of things, this is not a high priority bill in the 2012 session.
