This year’s ballot will ask Washington voters to weigh in on gun control.
Twice.
Initiative 594, backed by wealthy well-known donors like Bill and Melinda Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Nick Hanauer, and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, is a carefully constructed effort designed to expand background checks to private gun sales and gun shows—in theory closing what’s known as the “gun-show loophole” in Washington, which proponents say allows dangerous ne’er-do-wells easy access to firearms. So far more than $7 million has been raised in support of the effort, according to state Public Disclosure Commission records.
“Our strategy is to pass 591,” Alan Gottlieb says adamantly. “If in fact they both pass, then our strategy at that point is to take it to court.”
Initiative 591, on the other hand, is being championed by gun-rights advocate (and frequent bow-tie wearer) Alan Gottlieb and his Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, which boasts 650,000 members across the country. I-591 is a succinct directive that would forbid the state from conducting background checks beyond what’s prescribed under federal law. In other words, it flies directly in the face of I-594, and, if passed, would seem to make implementing I-594 impossible. PDC filings indicate that so far just over $1 million has been raised in support of the effort. (The NRA has chosen to spend its money trying to defeat I-594 rather than support I-591.)
It’s a fascinating situation, and—as is so often the case in politics—there’s a lot of strategy at play. But while this is far from the first time Washington has seen competing ballot-initiative efforts, this year the implications stretch beyond the usual voter-confusion narrative. In fact, one potential outcome is unprecedented, adding to the intrigue.
If, as some early polling has suggested, both I-591 and I-594 pass on the first Tuesday of next month, it will set up a scenario never before seen in Washington: two completely contradictory initiatives approved by voters at the same time.
It could happen. In April, a poll showed I-594 enjoying 72 percent support from likely voters, and I-591 holding strong with 55 percent support. An Elway poll taken in early October showed I-594 with 60 percent support, while I-591 had slipped to just under 40 percent support with voters. That’s below the majority needed, but as Zach Silk, campaign manager for Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility admits, “still within striking distance.”
So what happens if both initiatives pass?
“Everybody wants to know what the answer is. The answer is, there is no answer,” says prominent state and constitutional law professor Hugh Spitzer, who currently teaches at the University of Washington.
Citing cases dating back to the ’70s, Spitzer goes on to explain that, when pushed, typically the state Supreme Court is compelled to reconcile similar initiatives into one workable law. However, as the professor points out, “That’s probably not possible here,” since I-591 “would forbid the legislature or the people from enacting 594.”
Instead, Spitzer says the court’s first move would probably be to ask the legislature to fix the mess—but that’s likely to prove difficult, since repealing, amending, or suspending initiatives requires a two-thirds majority in both houses for the first two years. He says it’s also possible that the state Supreme Court could simply go with whichever effort received the most support at the polls, a route that’s been taken in other states. What actually happens, Spitzer admits, is anyone’s guess at this point. But the bottom line is that if both initiatives pass, the court will be where the issue is decided.
“Look, Gottlieb’s been doing this for 30 years, and he’s been pretty successful at it,” says political consultant Tim Ceis. “I think he’s trying to bollocks this thing up as much as he can.”
This might be exactly what Gottlieb is banking on. Though he’s hesitant to admit it, pushing the decision to the state Supreme Court may have been the game plan all along. Yes, there’s the possibility that the two similar initiatives will confuse voters and make them hesitant to vote for either. But, with polls showing that the public strongly supports expanded background checks on gun purchases and, as expected, dollars pouring in by the millions to support I-594, Gottlieb’s best hope may be to take the issue out of voters’ hands and put it into the court’s.
To this end, Gottlieb—who founded the Second Amendment Foundation in 1974 and has on his resume a long string of pro-gun court victories across the country—tells Seattle Weekly that he sees I-594 as an initiative with “significant issues” that he nonetheless expects to pass. He insists that I-591 was not filed in response to I-594, and says he was planning to push his initiative “regardless,” pointing out that I-591 technically was filed first. “Our strategy is to pass 591,” Gottlieb says adamantly. “If in fact they both pass, then our strategy at that point is to take it to court.”
Gottlieb, who insists he’s “personally always supported background checks,” adds that he’s hopeful that such a process might result in a better law.
The pro-594 crowd isn’t buying it.
“I think they’ve been very explicit that they hope to take this to the courts,” says Silk of the strategy employed by Gottlieb and I-594’s opposition. “I think their first order of business is to defeat us…. But I think they knew all along that this had a pre-emptive legal quality to it. It is hard for me to believe that [Gottlieb] didn’t see this from the outset.”
Unlike Silk, longtime Seattle political consultant Tim Ceis has no horse in the race, so to speak. Still, he says Gottlieb’s strategy with I-591 is “pretty obvious,” and goes beyond the time-tested initiative ploy of confusing voters.
“Look, Gottlieb’s been doing this 30 years, and he’s been pretty successful at it,” says Ceis. “I think he’s trying to bollocks this thing up as much as he can…. The way he wrote it was very clever; even people who support gun legislation could see it as reasonable. I think his entire strategy was ‘If you’re going to have something on the ballot, I’m putting mine on the ballot to screw things up.’ ”
“I think they’re both going to pass,” Gottlieb concludes. “Hopefully, the court orders [the legislature] to fix the conflicts, and we get a decent background-check law…. I think we’d all be happy with that.”
That might be true, but Gottlieb would probably be happiest of all.
mdriscoll@seattleweekly.com
