Judge rules Burien Residents have no right to vote on sanctuary city status

EMNofSeattle said:

So this makes me so angry, so earlier this year the City of Burien passed an ordinance making the city a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. A group of residents didn't like that so they went through the legal channels to put it on the ballot for the residents of Burien to vote on, so it's scheduled for the ballot and some liberal advocacy group sued to keep the initiative off of the ballot. Despite a clear stream of precedent from the state Supreme Court saying that the legality of ballot measures is a question after and not before enactment of the measure, a judge who I'm certain is a democrat ruled that the citizens of Burien don't have the right to vote on sanctuary city status and ordered the elections department to remove it from the ballot.

So what really happened is, Burien is a solidly blue city with a reasonably diverse population, and if sanctuary city status was rejected (by the way this was the fist time a sanctuary city order was to be voted on ever in this country) it would undermine the democrats political agenda, so therefore you as a voting citizen have fewer rights then an illegal immigrant. You can't even vote on whether the cops should be legally barred from determining someone's immigration status during a valid investigation.

And now a judge who isn't accountable to voters of your city is allowed to determine what issues your city is allowed to vote on, the initiative process is effectively dead.
King County Judge orders sanctuary repeal measure off Burien’s Nov. ballot – The B-Town (Burien) Blog

if the measure truly exceeds the scope of the initiative process, the proper procedure is to wait until it passes then file an injunction against enforcement. The problem is, since this measure wouldn't create a new crime that wouldn't work and just having the election results rejecting the sanctuary city policy would cause other cities to rethink their policies. That's the real thing behind this

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

So put it on as a non-binding referendum then.

Let the powers that be see the wish of the people, and see if they want to pay the political price for deviation.

(unless of course your fellow Burienites are for sanctuary!)

Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:

So this makes me so angry, so earlier this year the City of Burien passed an ordinance making the city a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. A group of residents didn't like that so they went through the legal channels to put it on the ballot for the residents of Burien to vote on, so it's scheduled for the ballot and some liberal advocacy group sued to keep the initiative off of the ballot. Despite a clear stream of precedent from the state Supreme Court saying that the legality of ballot measures is a question after and not before enactment of the measure, a judge who I'm certain is a democrat ruled that the citizens of Burien don't have the right to vote on sanctuary city status and ordered the elections department to remove it from the ballot.

So what really happened is, Burien is a solidly blue city with a reasonably diverse population, and if sanctuary city status was rejected (by the way this was the fist time a sanctuary city order was to be voted on ever in this country) it would undermine the democrats political agenda, so therefore you as a voting citizen have fewer rights then an illegal immigrant. You can't even vote on whether the cops should be legally barred from determining someone's immigration status during a valid investigation.

And now a judge who isn't accountable to voters of your city is allowed to determine what issues your city is allowed to vote on, the initiative process is effectively dead.
King County Judge orders sanctuary repeal measure off Burien’s Nov. ballot – The B-Town (Burien) Blog

if the measure truly exceeds the scope of the initiative process, the proper procedure is to wait until it passes then file an injunction against enforcement. The problem is, since this measure wouldn't create a new crime that wouldn't work and just having the election results rejecting the sanctuary city policy would cause other cities to rethink their policies. That's the real thing behind this

Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:

So this makes me so angry, so earlier this year the City of Burien passed an ordinance making the city a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. A group of residents didn't like that so they went through the legal channels to put it on the ballot for the residents of Burien to vote on, so it's scheduled for the ballot and some liberal advocacy group sued to keep the initiative off of the ballot. Despite a clear stream of precedent from the state Supreme Court saying that the legality of ballot measures is a question after and not before enactment of the measure, a judge who I'm certain is a democrat ruled that the citizens of Burien don't have the right to vote on sanctuary city status and ordered the elections department to remove it from the ballot.

So what really happened is, Burien is a solidly blue city with a reasonably diverse population, and if sanctuary city status was rejected (by the way this was the fist time a sanctuary city order was to be voted on ever in this country) it would undermine the democrats political agenda, so therefore you as a voting citizen have fewer rights then an illegal immigrant. You can't even vote on whether the cops should be legally barred from determining someone's immigration status during a valid investigation.

And now a judge who isn't accountable to voters of your city is allowed to determine what issues your city is allowed to vote on, the initiative process is effectively dead.
King County Judge orders sanctuary repeal measure off Burien’s Nov. ballot – The B-Town (Burien) Blog

if the measure truly exceeds the scope of the initiative process, the proper procedure is to wait until it passes then file an injunction against enforcement. The problem is, since this measure wouldn't create a new crime that wouldn't work and just having the election results rejecting the sanctuary city policy would cause other cities to rethink their policies. That's the real thing behind this

Click to expand...

Initiatives can be challenged in court through a multiplicity of ways. They can be challenged early to keep them off the ballot or later after voter approval.'2 They can be challenged in state courts or in the federal courts, or both.'3 Court challenges to initiatives may follow a routine time schedule or an expedited schedule if the courts feel pressing issues must be resolved immediately.'4 And opponents of a voter-approved initiative may request a preliminary injunction to suspend the initiative legislation until after a full trial.'5 In short, initiatives can be challenged in court in virtually all the ways that any legislation can be legally contested.
.
.
.
Where permissible,22 in order to justify pre-election review on substantive grounds, opponents of an initiative petition must be able to demonstrate convincingly that the measure will be invalidated and that permitting a vote on the issue is likely to cause significant harm.23 Rationales for pre-election review have included prevention of fiscal waste in conducting the election, federal preemption, and judicial economy.24 In California, only six initiatives and referendums have been subjected to pre-election judicial review.25 Of these, only three initiatives have been removed from the ballot.26 These include a 1983 reapportionment initiative,27 a 1984 federal balanced budget mendment initiative,28 and a 1988 no-fault insurance reform initiative.29

Click to expand...