Results 1 to 7 of 7

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

  1. #1
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    8,922

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

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  2. #2
    Sage

    Skeptic Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,594

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

    I don't personally have a problem with sanctuary cities (assuming they are just refusing to enforce federal law rather than preventing the feds from doing their jobs). HOWEVER, the residents should absolutely have a say in it. Removing it from the ballot is wrong.
    Formerly BrewerBob

  3. #3
    #TruthTellerTribe

    Hawkeye10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Olympia Wa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    34,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    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
    You know Carlin used to claim that we have no rights...we have privileges,,,,,and they can be taken away "JUST LIKE THAT".
    Last edited by Hawkeye10; 09-15-17 at 08:43 PM.
    The American Left never had the right to try to control minds or conversations.... that is abuse....and it has to be over.
    Be not cruel, attempt to listen, and dont lie.....Civility Demands
    QUALITY MATTERS!

  4. #4
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    25,424

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

    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!)
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  5. #5
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    8,922

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    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!)
    Well that's the thing, if the people who brought the challenge believed they would win then why challenge it? There's no rebuke stronger then a decisive election.

    The problem is if it wins period in Burien or even loses but by only a few points in a city that blue, every medium size town in America would take note and Trump would even claim it a victory
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  6. #6
    Sage
    chuckiechan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    California Caliphate
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,788

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    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
    The same thing here in California, is to do what it takes to get their way and go around the legal system and the citizens to get it. There is only so much money to go around and a considerable portion is being spent of illegals.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence everywhere but here
    Trump is here because we made an existential bad bargain with China
    1975 was the last time the US had a positive trade balance.
    American students want to be "happy". Chinese students want to rule the world.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,680
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    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
    If this isn't a fine example of legislating from the bench then I don't know what is.

    That said, you are incorrect that a ballot initiative cannot be removed by the courts prior to it being voted on. Here, read this: Judicial Review of Ballot Initiatives: The Changing Role of State and Federal Courts

    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
    Personally I hope that this is appealed.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •