Court stays Proposition 2 from appearing on General Election ballot

DAYTON–A Columbia County Court Commissioner has granted an injunction, ordering County Auditor Will Hutchens to withhold a ballot initiative which would have dissolved the Columbia County Rural Library District (CCRLD), had it been voted upon and approved by Columbia County voters on November 7.

In a related action, defendant Jessica Ruffcorn, who was named in the action along with Columbia County, Auditor Hutchens and Director of Elections Cathy Abel, was dismissed from the suit. Both parties stipulated Ruffcorn dismissed with prejudice. All parties further stipulated that any stay in this matter may be in place as a result of defendant Ruffcorn's Notice of Special Motion pursuant to RCW 4.105 is inapplicable, terminated, and/or waived by Ruffcorn, and that the temporary restraining order, granted September 6, remains in place and effective.

Proposition 2 sought to dissolve the CCRLD over an administrative issue within the Dayton Memorial Library concerning placement of books with content complainants Neighbors United for Progress, a Washington political committee, Elise Severe and Gerald Kaiser, both private citizens residing in the county, termed "educational", contending that legislation by local initiative has not been granted by Columbia County, that the proposition exceeds the cope of initiative power because it relates to administrative action governed by contract between governing municipalities and violates Washington and Federal law, court documents indicated.

The suit also objected to the fact that residents within the Dayton City Limits would be excluded from voting, and contended that some of the signatures were fraudulently obtained.

Court Commissioner Julie Karl granted the injunction.

"I have read this all," Karl said. "All the briefings, everything, multiple times."

"This court sits in equity under the authority of the state and, more specifically, the authority of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, which is RCW 7.24.

"This means that this court has to balance these competing issues in this case and make a decision.

"This court is cognizant of the impact of this decision on all concerned and its reach beyond the borders of this city, county or even the state.

"The court finds that the plaintiff has met its burden to obtain injunctive relief, under RCW 7.40.4. Plaintiff has, one, shown that they have a clear legal or equitable right; two, that they have a well-grounded fear of imminent invasion of that right; and, three, that the acts complained of will result in actual or substantial injury to them.

"The court also finds that under Civil Rule 65, the inclusion of Proposition 2 on the ballot impacts citizens of this county's clear, legal and equitable rights, that inclusion will result in actual and substantial imminent injury to the citizens of this area as well as the city and county as legal entities with millions of dollars in taxes, real property, personal property, that would be lost if this were to pass. The city and county would lose a valuable resource that would disproportionately affect the poorest members of our community that depend on this library as a meeting place, a safe place, and the only place to use a computer, a fax machine, or they can email, they can print, they can sign up for public programs and receive assistance with those applications by the library staff.

"The library protects the homeless in our community as a warming and a cooling center, and as I said, a safe and free place for parents to take their children.

"The library provides e books, houses a historical collection that is absolutely fascinating, and this would be an irreparable loss to this community.

"The City has an equitable right to performance of the annexation agreement of 2009 as a lawful and binding contract.

"It would be an absurd result to the drafters of the dissolution petition statute intended to exclude the electors whose property taxes are appropriated to support the library.

"If you look to the legislative history, it is clear that the legislature intended for the entire district to vote to dissolve the library, if, in fact, that were to happen.

"This court finds that the initiative does not meet the procedural requirements to be on the ballot as administrative matters are not subject to initiative or referendum, and that local districts may not enact legislation that conflicts with Federal and State laws.

"The court finds that Neighbors United have standing in this matter as they would collectively suffer injury if it were to pass.

"The Washington State Constitution provides only for state initiative or referendum and does not establish a right to a local initiative or referendum unless expressly stated in the local county code.

"This is a threshold matter as it appears as though this initiative cannot be placed on the ballot as that permission is not in this county code as I could find it.

"The court also finds that this initiative fails for exceeding the initiative power scope because it is related to an administrative matter and is not proper for direct legislation.

"Finally, there is good cause to believe that there were persons that willfully and unlawfully engaged in fraud by giving deliberate misinformation regarding this petition. It's telling that in the initial petition presented, two thirds of the signatures were invalid.

"The court finds declarations filed are persuasive, and even if this petition could some how overcome all of the legal and constitutional hurdles there should be an investigation into the potential criminal acts engaged in to collect these signatures for the petition.

"The court believes that the county election officials followed their procedures and did what they felt they needed to do under the law, and as per direction from the Attorney General's office.

"This court hereby grants the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and hereby enjoins the County from including or placing Proposition 2 on the November 76, 2023 ballot, and that includes the Auditor, or their designees, or their agents, any county agent basically from placing that on the ballot.

Karl stated that it doesn't make sense that people who live in the county be the only ones that vote on something that so much affects the citizen of the City. We did away with taxation without representation a long time ago."