106 Newhouse Building ● P.O. Box 40404 ● Olympia WA 98504-0404

Report from Olympia |  May 13, 2015

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

We are in the third week of the 30-day special session. So far there is not much to report on the budget negotiations. The House of Representatives has yet to pass a budget that balances over four years, as is required by law. Instead they have used this time to bring up one bad tax-increase idea after another – including a new version of the cap-and-trade energy tax the governor has been asking for all year.

The Senate has spent this time passing some of the bills necessary to implement the budget. Because we are in a new session, that means bills like the felony-DUI measure, which passed the Senate during the regular session, had to be passed out of our chamber again.

We’ve also used this time to hold work sessions and public hearings on important issues that need attention. You can read more about that below.

Special sessions can last up to 30 days; the 30th day of this special session will be Thursday, May 28.

Thank you, as always, for the opportunity to serve as your state senator. If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know. I appreciate hearing from you! 

Best Regards,

Senator Mike Padden

District office is now open!

Although the special session means that I have to continue to be in Olympia for a bit longer, last week we officially reopened our legislative district office. It’s in Suite 305 at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, in the Spokane Valley City Hall building, and is staffed by my legislative assistant, Mike McCliment (pictured right). The phone number is 921-2460. I look forward to being back in the district full-time soon, but in the meantime, Mike will hold down the fort and will be happy to assist you in the office. If you did not receive the hard copy of our 2015 Government Guide, Mike still has a limited supply available at our district office. You can also find copies at our local libraries and senior centers. The 4th Legislative District guide to government provides information on how to contact federal, state and local government offices and services. It also has some great information about our legislative district. To get your online copy of the guide, click here.

Senate examines litigation concerns tied to proposed state voting rights act

Last Thursday, the Senate Law and Justice Committee held a joint work session with the Senate Government Operations and Security Committee to examine concerns that a proposed state version of the Voting Rights Act could increase litigation and costs for local jurisdictions.

I support removing any barriers to local governments that wish to change their form of government from an at-large system to one based on districts. That is one of the goals of the legislation, and one I think has broad bipartisan support. Local governments should be able to respond to their citizens' needs and make changes that they believe will help them better reflect their communities.

House Bill 1745, however, does more than just grant authority to districts to voluntarily restructure; it would create a legal cause of action – meaning a basis for filing a lawsuit – when local and district elections exhibit “polarized voting between voters in a protected class and other voters, and where members of the protected class do not have an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidate or influence the election.”

HB 1745 could be named the Lawyers Full-Employment Act. The language of the bill is too vague to be decided anywhere but in the courts, and that is not the solution. We don't want courts writing laws; that is the legislative responsibility.

Again, the answer is local control. Local governments should be able to address concerns of proper representation and fair elections. Unfortunately, this bill is less about local control, and more about judicial control, as it will undoubtedly lead to more litigation.

John Safarli, an attorney with the firm representing the city of Yakima in a federal VRA case, testified at the work session that the Washington measure would unnecessarily duplicate the federal process, increase cost for local jurisdictions and, if the experience in California – which changed its law several years ago – is any indication, attract trial lawyers eager to pursue litigation. He discussed the mechanics of the proposed state law, and how it would impact cities and school districts. Although the bill allows local governments to voluntarily change their election systems, Safarli said that benefit is “outweighed by the harms that would arise from creating an unnecessary and costly new cause of legal action.” If the Yakima case demonstrates the problem, the case also shows federal law is sufficient to deal with it. Click here to watch the Senate work session on the proposed state VRA.

Law and Justice Committee hears testimony on Victims’ Voice Act

On Tuesday the Senate Law and Justice Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 6099, a bill I introduced to help provide a representative to speak on behalf of a deceased crime victim when there is no one else to speak for them.

The bill, known as the Victims’ Voice Act, is in response to a controversial ruling by the Washington Supreme Court in April that a detective’s testimony on behalf of a murder victim, urging the court to reject a plea agreement and give her killer a harsher sentence, violated the defendant’s due-process rights.

In 1978 Arlene Roberts was found dead in her King County home. She was 80 years old. The cause of death was asphyxiation by strangulation. In 2010 county detective Scott Tompkins reviewed the case files and matched fingerprints from the crime scene to Ronald Wayne MacDonald.

MacDonald agreed to a plea deal with a five-year suspended sentence for second-degree manslaughter. The victim had no estate or surviving family to speak on her behalf. At the sentencing, Detective Tompkins spoke as the representative of the victim and asked the court to impose the maximum sentence.

Detective Tompkins was among those testifying at the Law and Justice Committee hearing.

“She didn’t have any family – anyone who knew her, and the judge would have had no idea of who she was as a person or how her life came to a brutal end,” he said. “I wasn’t trying to undermine any plea deals. I simply wanted to have the process be fair for the victim.”

Under my bill, if a crime victim is deceased and has no estate or surviving family or any other representative, a prosecuting attorney may appoint an investigative law enforcement officer to serve as a representative of the victim during the sentencing hearing. The officer would be permitted to make a sentencing recommendation that is different from that provided in a plea agreement.

You can read more about the MacDonald case in this Seattle Times article.

You can also watch the Law and Justice Committee hearing here.

Here is the Spokesman-Review's coverage of the hearing.

* * *