Tim Eyman is not backing down in his legal fight against the City of Redmond, despite last week’s state Supreme Court ruling that stated local voters don’t have the right to ban red-light cameras.
Eyman said he has no plans of withdrawing his appeal with Division 1 of the Washington Court of Appeals, which Eyman hopes will reverse a county court decision that blocked Redmond’s citizen-driven initiative to ban traffic-enforcement cameras through a vote of the people.
But if Redmond City Council approves an upcoming recommended joint plan by the Redmond police and public works departments, there will be no traffic-enforcement cameras to ban.
Eyman, a Mukilteo resident and state initiative advocate, has organized many anti-traffic-ticketing-camera petitions across the state that have caused legal battles in several cities, including Redmond.
Redmond’s petition effort began in early 2011, but was halted last October when a King County Superior Court judge tossed out a lawsuit that Eyman filed over the city’s refusal to hand the petition over to King County elections for verification.
“We are arguing in Redmond that the signatures should have been counted,” Eyman said. “The lawsuit and appeal will continue. It is an important principal that we continue this fight.”
NEW PLAN: NO SPEED CAMERAS
The recommended long-range, comprehensive traffic safety plan will be presented to the City Council’s public safety committee at its monthly meeting March 27 and “we are not recommending speed cameras in school zones as we move forward,” according to Redmond Police Chief Ron Gibson.
Instead, the school-zone traffic safety plan recommends using speed indicator signs — which flash the speed of oncoming vehicles, along with flash beacons at crosswalks, Gibson said. The plan will also include increased public education efforts and targeted enforcement, Gibson said.
Gibson said there are still a lot of questions concerning funding of the recommended plan and the timeline for a City Council vote on the issue is still to be determined.
“This is just the start of the process of informing Council of our plans and wish list,” Gibson said.
The city’s red-light program — the use of traffic-ticketing cameras at intersections — ended Jan. 31 of this year after City Council unanimously voted last November to end its contract with camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Council members said the cameras did not conclusively have an impact on safety, based on collision data. However, the Council decided to keep two speed cameras near Einstein Elementary through the end of the school year.
Council members also directed police and public works staff to generate a comprehensive traffic safety plan — and the formulated recommendation does not include the use of speed cameras, according to Gibson.
LEGAL BATTLE CONTINUES
Eyman said Redmond’s traffic safety plan recommendations are “a healthy development,” but that is not stopping his legal battle. He said he feels that city leaders are compromising the integrity of the city’s initiative process by not forwarding the petition to the county for verification.
Union Hill resident and Redmond businessman Scott Harlan, along with a group of volunteers, collected more than 6,000 signatures from people who opposed traffic-ticketing cameras.
In the King County Superior Court case, the judge did rule that Redmond city clerk Michelle McGehee does have a “clear duty to transmit the petition to the county auditor” within three days of receiving the petition according to state law. But the judge concluded that it would be a “useless act” for the city to turn in the petition, saying the issue concerning traffic-enforcement cameras falls under the power of city legislature rather than the initiative process, based on a September 2011 ruling in Bellingham by Division 1 of the Washington Court of Appeals.
Last week’s high court ruling was similar to the appeal court ruling in Bellingham, saying that red-light cameras are to be approved by local elected lawmakers, not local voters.
The city filed a cross-appeal to the appeals court, concerning Inveen’s decision that McGehee had a clear duty to turn in the petition.
“That duty applies to petitions that are authorized by law,” said city attorney Jim Haney, who pointed out that both the state appeals court and supreme court have ruled that initiatives concerning traffic-enforcement cameras are not authorized by law.
Haney said the city plans to send its brief to the state appeals court this week. After that, the court will set a date for oral arguments before deciding on the appeal, Haney said.
“We are confident the court of appeals will rule in favor of the city,” Haney said.
SUPREME COURT RULING
The state Supreme Court ruling concerning a 2010 ballot initiative in Mukilteo invalidates traffic-enforcement camera initiative efforts in other cities, including Redmond.
The court ruled that the Legislature gave “exclusive power” to local city and county councils to decide whether to use the traffic-enforcement cameras.
“The Legislature’s grant of authority does not extend to the electorate,” Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the five-justice majority.
In response to the ruling, Eyman filed a state-wide initiative to ban all traffic-enforcement cameras through a state-wide vote. He called last week’s ruling “arrogant,” and said “the ruling doesn’t have any impact on the litigation in Redmond.”
Redmond Mayor John Marchione said that last week’s State Supreme Court ruling “strengthens the city’s legal position and reinforces representative democracy in Redmond.”
Despite the high court ruling, Eyman said he strongly feels the City of Redmond should still have a duty to turn the petition over to the county — even if the topic of traffic-enforcement cameras is deemed invalid for the initiative process. If the city is not required to turn in the signatures in this particular case, it sets a “really, really dangerous precedent,” Eyman said. “It is destructive to the initiative process,” he said.
