Advocating on Behalf of Citizen Groups

Envision Spokane is a group of citizens working tirelessly to create a better Spokane. Over the years, these involved individuals have collaborated with City officials to develop initiatives to place on the election ballot that would allow voting citizens the ability to directly legislate on behalf of their own interests. Each year they have been aggressively opposed in these efforts by private interests dedicated to preventing the rights of people to engage in direct democracy.

Once again this year, members of Envision Spokane gathered the necessary signatures and qualified their Community Bill of Rights initiative for ballot placement. The Spokane City Council voted unanimously to approve this action. Despite these official actions, powerful private interests have sued the City and Envision to have the duly qualified initiative removed from the ballot and prevent the voting public from even having the chance to review these important measures.

In the interest of justice, the Whipple Law Group, PLLC accepted the request to provide legal representation to Envision Spokane in order to defend against this untoward attack against citizen involvement in the Constitutionally-protected electorate process. Read The Inlander article summarizing the case.

The Case

The article describes a contentious court battle in Spokane, Washington, regarding two citizen initiatives blocked from the ballot. One initiative, from Envision Spokane, proposed a Community Bill of Rights to enhance neighborhood development powers, worker rights, and environmental protections. The other, from Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution (SMAC), sought to ban corporate campaign contributions and require public meetings for interactions between elected officials and corporate employees.

A coalition of local leaders and business interests challenged the initiatives, arguing they overstepped legal boundaries and infringed on constitutionally protected rights. Spokane County Superior Court Judge Maryann Moreno ruled in favor of the challengers, stating the initiatives exceeded local legislative authority and infringed on First Amendment rights.

The case reflects broader tensions over citizen initiatives in Spokane, where recent changes to the initiative process, including requiring legal reviews and fiscal impact statements, have been seen by some as efforts to stifle grassroots efforts. This has sparked debates on the balance between citizen input and legal constraints, with critics arguing the changes suppress democratic engagement. Despite the setback, both Envision Spokane and SMAC plan to continue their advocacy, seeing the increased attention as an opportunity to further their causes.