Recall petition goes to judge

by Dan Ross, Sequim Gazette Staff Writer
from http://www.sequimgazette.com/News/CountyNews/Recallpetitionincour01103.html

       Clallam County, WA - 9/26/01 - Strike one was Judge Bill Knebes ruling Initiative 6 invalid.
       Strike two was Judge George Wood ruling there was no reason to place an invalid initiative on the November ballot.
       The count is 0-2 against Libertarians Bob Forde, Dr. John Bennett and I-6. Neither Sequim man is leaving the playing field, however, without hearing strike three.
       Bennett is pushing for a recall of county commissioner Steve Tharinger, D-Dungeness, who voted to send the initiative to the courts for a ruling on its validity.
       Forde is calling in a relief pitcher, Tim Ford of the Builders Industry Association of Washington, to argue statewide that residents of counties with home rule charters should be able to decide on their own how to handle critical areas requirements.
       Bennett's recall petition is going before Superior Court Judge Thomas Majhan on Sept. 27. Should Majhan rule there are sufficient grounds for a recall effort, Bennett can begin collecting 6,257 signatures necessary to bring to county voters the question of whether Tharinger should remain in office through his term ending in 2003.
       Gathering signatures, Bennett said, would begin quickly should the judge rule in favor of the recall going forward.
       "It will take no more than two weeks to get the petitions printed up," said Bennett.
       Majhan, a Jefferson County judge, is being called in because no Clallam County judge was going to be available. Superior Court clerk Lindy Clevenger said she knew a decision is required, under state law, within 15 days of notice being filed on the recall petition.
       "I knew there was a time limit on this, so I arranged for a visiting judge," said Clevenger.
       The judge is going to rule on whether there is sufficient grounds for a recall effort, and if the ballot synopsis prepared by county prosecutor Chris Shea is appropriate.
       Bennett said there are a few areas he wants cleaned up in the 1,410-word synopsis, but that he can live with the way it reads.
       "It is not necessary to mention he was one of two commissioners who failed to live up to the rules of the charter," said Bennett. "If it stays the way it is, that is OK with me."
       Bennett started his recall effort, claiming Tharinger violated his oath of office by sending I-6 to the courts rather than calling for a public hearing, as stated in the county home rule charter.
       Both Tharinger and commissioner Mike Doherty, D-Port Angeles, voted to send I-6 for a court ruling, but Bennett is focusing his efforts on ousting Tharinger, he said, because Doherty is up for election in 2002.
       Tharinger stated last week he chose to ask the courts for an opinion on the initiative because of a pair of state Supreme Court cases he felt showed any initiative attempting to repeal ordinances required by the state were invalid initiatives. Knebes ruling that I-6 did not qualify for the ballot agreed with Tharinger's position.
       There is a chance, according to Bennett, the fate of both Doherty and Tharinger could be on the same 2002 ballot. He is ready to begin collecting petition signatures, providing Judge Majhan rules in his favor, but knows 6,000 signatures can take a long time to gather.
       "It is going to take six months to get the signatures," said Bennett. "Maybe it will be in the (2002) primary."
       
       I-6 fails to make the ballot
       Forde started the I-6 campaign, an attempt to repeal Clallam County's critical areas code. County Superior Court judges ruled last week a local initiative cannot repeal something required by state law, so Forde's initiative is not going to appear on the Nov. 6 general election ballot.
       Forde's next step is to push his case clear to the state Supreme Court. He believes the court rulings last week were in error. The judges, according to Forde, used two previous Supreme Court cases to rule I-6 cannot be on the ballot because it calls for tossing out an ordinance required by state law.
       Washington counties are required under the Growth Management Act to highlight the critical areas of the county and develop regulations to protect those areas. Critical areas are described as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas and critical aquifer-recharge areas. County officials claim over one-half of all property in the county falls into one or more of the critical areas categories.
       The first Supreme Court case involves a critical areas ordinance in Snohomish County, then another involving Whatcom County. Forde believes the courts failed to look at each county's charter in determining if the critical areas ordinances could be tossed out by residents of those counties.
       Bennett was one of the people who gathered petitions to try and place I-6 on the ballot. He is still interested in Forde's actions but plans to only be an observer this time around.
       "I am going to watch it closely but I am not going to be involved."
       Forde wants to continue arguing in courts that counties with home rule charters should be able to vote on their own ordinances, whether those ordinances are required by state law or not.
       "When you have a bad foundation, everything you build is going to be bad," said Forde, laying a foundation for his own argument to the state Supreme Court.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]