Outrage continues over quiet attempt to invalidate WA initiatives

Citizen initiative supporters protest outside Washington AG Bob Ferguson's office over a legal challenge they didn’t know about until hours before a court ruling. — A protest took place outside of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office on Wednesday (Aug. 14). Photo courtesy Pete Serrano/X (Twitter)

The State Supreme Court ruling went in the favor of initiative supporters, but the surprising part came in the fact those supporters had no idea there was a legal challenge

Carleen Johnson
The Center Square Washington

Supporters of several citizen initiatives, some already adopted into Washington law, and others to appear on the November ballot are not buying Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s transparency claims following last week’s surprise ruling from the State Supreme Court.

The ruling went in the favor of initiative supporters, but the surprising part came in the fact those supporters had no idea there was a legal challenge.

Brian Heywood with Let’s Go Washington, the group behind the initiatives, and supporters held a protest rally Wednesday in front of the Seattle office of the attorney general, demanding to know why they were not notified of legal challenges that could have invalidated every single one of the initiatives.

The State Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs bringing the litigation, which was centered on challenging the process of certifying the signatures and seeking an injunction to remove the initiatives from the November ballot as Secretary of State Steve Hobbs’ office reconfirms the signatures came from legal voters.

Ferguson successfully defended Hobbs and the initiatives, and secured a unanimous ruling from the Washington Supreme Court, but Heywood and others who support the measures argue they should have known the challenges even existed.

“We didn’t even know about it until two hours before the ruling,” said Heywood. “There was absolutely no media coverage which means they weren’t aware of it.”

Pete Serrano, a candidate for WA Attorney General, and an attorney with the Silent Majority Foundation which has defended I-2081-the parents bill of rights measure-tells The Center Square Ferguson’s office had a responsibility to inform the involved parties.

“Why didn’t we know?” said Serrano.

He also suggests the fact Ferguson’s campaigns have been funded by the very people behind the legal challenges presented a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one.

“He should have done one of two things,” said Serrano. “He could have said these plaintiffs are the people who’ve funded my campaigns and I’ve made public statements against these initiatives, so I’m putting on the record and if anyone wants to raise a challenge, so be it,” said Serrano.

“Or he should have just flat out recused himself,” he said. “When you’re not transparent and you’re doing things that appear to stink of conflict of interest, it’s not good for the public appetite for the process.”

Ferguson’s office maintains the AG’s office and its nonpartisan attorneys represented the people of Washington in defending their right to vote on the initiatives.

“Our legal victory achieved the precise outcome these partisans say they wanted in the case that they’re upset about,” said spokesperson Brionna Aho in an email to The Center Square.

As to the claim the AG’s office kept the case a secret, Aho said that’s “absurd.”

“We provided multiple briefings to the Legislature about this case since February; we briefed senior legislative staff of both parties, including staff for the House Republicans and Senate Republicans,” said Aho’s email.

The Center Square reached out to Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, who is the ranking Republican in the Senate.

“I don’t have any details, understanding or knowledge of these supposed briefings,” said Braun. “But even so, briefing legislative staff does not ensure all are aware of the litigation and in particular this litigation does not involve the legislature.”

Braun said there are strict rules about those types of conversations in the legislature.

“Staff would have significant restrictions on providing information to Rep. Walsh or other legislators because that’s not allowed,” said Braun.

He was referring to Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, who chairs the state Republican party and sponsored the initiatives. Walsh said he was never informed of the legal challenges.

Braun said Ferguson may not have legally been required to recuse himself in the case but says it would have been the right thing to do.

“He gets caught keeping secrets or being non-transparent and he wants to blame everybody else instead of just taking responsibility and saying we could have done better,” said Braun. “I think if he had a clear desire to stay above the fray, that would have been the appropriate thing to do.”

This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.