Court may rule today on initiative

Opponents want I-1029 to be barred from ballot

By Brad Shannon | The Olympian • Published September 05, 2008

The state Supreme Court was asked Thursday to keep off of the Nov. 4 ballot a citizen initiative that would impose higher training requirements for long-term care workers.

Opponents of Initiative 1029 say it should go to the Legislature because petitions signed by more than 300,000 voters say "initiative to the Legislature" in the text. But proponents backed by the powerful Service Employees International Union insist they intended it for the ballot all along, and state elections officials treated it that way.

The one-hour hearing drew a packed crowd, including operators of local nursing-care facilities and care providers worried that I-1029 would drive up operating costs.

"The question that is before the court is whether the words on an initiative petition, directing that it be transmitted to the Legislature, have meaning," Coalition attorney Narda Pierce told the court, adding later: "The petitions speak for themselves."

But lawyers for Secretary of State Sam Reed and I-1029, the People for Safe Quality Care, backed Reed's decision to send it to the ballot.

Jeffrey Even, deputy solicitor general for the state Attorney General's Office, said the question was really "one of form rather than substance," and he said the decision to put I-1029 on the ballot could not be made without a finding Reed acted arbitrarily and capriciously."

Elections officials are eager for a quick decision, which could come as soon as this morning. State elections director Nick Handy said his staff needs a ruling by Monday in order to keep the measure out of the general-election voter pamphlet. A decision to keep the measure off actual ballots could be made as late as Sept. 12.

I-1029 would increase training for homecare workers to 75 hours, more than double the existing requirement, and it requires federal background checks. Exemptions are written for people caring for a family member or child, but owners of care agencies say it could drive up costs for families and require training that isn't needed for people who are really are part-time companions for elderly or disabled people.