Time: Fri Jul 18 13:14:21 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA27960 for [address in tool bar]; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:10:46 -0700 (MST) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28551; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:01:47 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:01:21 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: New County Movement Threatens Establishment (fwd) <snip> > >The following is from the 4th of July issue of the Modern Militiaman, #6, >edited by : W. K. Gorman <nitehawk@nethawk.com> >The rest of the issue (still under construction) is at: >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1076 > >If anyone is unable to access the web, or wants a complete copy of the >issue, just email me. >Patty > > > >New County Movement Threatens Establishment > >- Citizens in Washington State work to reestablish primacy of local >government - > >We live in the era of big government: huge federal government, big state >government, even big local governments. >Citizens in Washington state, however, are using a provision in the state >constitution to rein in government by >seceding from their counties and forming new counties within the confines of >the old parent counties. > >Citizens committees to form new counties have sprung up across the state and >are spreading like wildfire. There are nine new >counties being proposed in Washington. Four of them have gained signatures >from a majority of voters within their jurisdiction, >which is required to break away. Five others are still collecting signatures >but seem poised to soon achieve their goals. > >Cedar, Skykomish and Freedom counties are being created out of King and >Snohomish counties around Seattle. On the >Canadian border, Pioneer County is being created out of Whatcom County. The >five others are River (near Vancouver), >Puget Sound, West Seattle and Vashon (near Seattle), and Liberty County (out >of Grant County in central Washington). > >Why are they seceding? Lois Gustafson, president of Cedar County Committee, >says the bid to create new counties aims "to >bring thegovernment close to the people." Joe Ahrend, of Citizens for River >County, says "taxes are out of control. Every time >someone wants to do something with their land it seems there's some >endangered bug on it. We have no say on how money is >spent, finally we said enough is enough." Amy Hansen of Skykomish County >Committee says the movement is about >"representation, local control, less bureaucracy, more responsive officials, >and smaller government." > >In the view of these leaders, county govemments have become too distant, too >bureaucratic, too large, too meddlesome and >too entrenched, and have forgotten that local officials are supposed to >serve the people rather than other bureaucracies in >Olympia and Washington, D.C. Many of the issues that have brought this >movement into being involve restriction on >development and use of private property. > >Leaders say they plan to eliminate most of the local regulations. Another >issue that has thrown the establishment into panic is >the new county leaders' stated intent to reassert local control over things >like law enforcement and education, which have >come increasingly under control of state and federal government.The mission >statement of Citizens for River County, for >example, says that the new county will accept no federal or state education >funds. Rather than trying to maintain an expensive >public school bureaucracy, they say they will actually encourage >alternatives like home schooling. > >Secession as a Check on Government > >It has-been said that the ultimate voting power is the power to vote with >your feet. When governments become too >burdensome, people leave their jurisdiction. To stem the loss of revenue >government then either must become less >burdensome, or extend its jurisdiction to make it impractical for anyone to >leave. This being true, the easier it is to leave a >government jurisdiction the less burdensome that government can be. The >ultimate extension of this principle is the ability for >small communities to leave a govemment's jurisdiction without having to move >geographically. > >As one would expect, the political establishment in Washington state does >not look favorably on these movements, but >supporters are using a provision of the Washington constitution which seems >to allow for the creation of new counties on fairly >easy terms. > >Article I 1, section 3 of the Washington constitution reads: > >New Counties. No new counties shall be established which shall reduce any >county to a population less than four >thousand (4,000), nor shall a new county be formed containing a less >population than two thousand (2,000). There >shall be no territory stricken from any county unless a majority of the >voters living in such territory shall petition >therefore and then only under such conditions as may be prescribed by >general law applicable to the whole state. > >What is unique about this provision is that unlike many constitutions which >require the permission of the old county in order to >create a new one; here, all that is required is a petition by a Majority of >voters in the territory to form the new county. > >Theoretically, if you are not happy with the way your local government is >running things, all you have to do is get together with >a couple thousand of your neighbors, and you can secede and start your own >county. It is never quite as easy as that. The >political establishment in the state has being doing everything it can to >prevent the formation of new counties. > >The Establishment Fights Back > >Although the secretary of state's office has certified that the petitions >have achieved the number of signatures needed, the new >counties cannot come into existence until the state legislature enacts >legislation specifying how these splits are to take place. >The legislature will divide up the assets and liabilities of the old county, >and set the official county boundaries. Last spring, >State Rep. John Koster, a Republican from the district of the proposed >Skykomish County, introduced bills to bring into >existence three of these new counties. > >The bills faced the united opposition of Democrats in the state legislature, >but Republicans have a majority in both houses. >Nevertheless, Republican support for the new counties proved lukewarm. Only >the one bill to create Skykomish County was >actually brought up for a vote in the House, and passed. Pressure from >Democrat Gov. Gary Locke prevented any such bill >from being considered in the state Senate, despite its Republican control. >One of the staffers on the committee handing the >creation of new counties said he believes the passage of the Skykomish >County bill through the House represented a sop >thrown to supporters of the new counties rather than any senous, commitment >from most members. > >The official creation of the three counties remains in limbo until next >year, when the state legislature can resurrect the >measures. But supporters of the new counties insist that they will never >rest until the new counties come into existence. The >other proposed county with enough signatures, Cedar County, is pursuing a >slightly different route. The Cedar County >committee has maintained that the petition process constitutes a special >election. > >The committee has filed suit with the state Supreme Court, asking the court >to order the secretary of state's office to certify >the petition process as an election. They feel that if the process is >certified as an election, the legislature will have no choice but >to pass legislation bringing the county into existence. John Stokes, one of >the founders of the new county movement, has taken >an even more creative approach. > >In a move which is controversial even within the new county movement, Stokes >has filed a petition with the United Nations >Human Rights Commission arguing that "the right of self-determination and >self-government.are being denied by the state of >Washington." Supporters hope the complaint will embarrass Gov. Locke enough >to get him to drop his opposition. > >While the opposition of the political establishment may delay the creation >of new counties, it has done nothing to dilute the >ardor of the new county movement. If anything, such resistance has energized >the movement even more, and has shown the >need for more representative government. Citizens for River County started >their movement in the summer of 1996 and in less >than a year the committee has collected more than 4,000 signatures - about a >third of the total needed. > >Success Stories > >While secession has always been opposed by existing establishments, there >have been a couple of notable successes in recent >years. In 1983, through a petition process very similar to that being used >in Washington, the northern half of Yuma County, >Ariz. broke away to form the new county of La Paz. The political >establishment in Arizona apparently was caught off guard by >the move and was unable to stop it. Nevertheless, after La Paz came into >existence and it appeared that other counties might >also break apart, the state changed its law to make county secession much >more difficult. > >Another success story in progress is the secession of the San Fernando >Valley from the city of Los Angeles. Los Angeles has >a population larger than many states, and larger than many countries; it is >a huge, sprawling city. The size and population of the >city has meant that local government does not really exist in the ordinary >sense of the word. For years the population of San >Fernando has sought to break away from Los Angeles and become its own city, >but the Los Angeles city council has had >veto power over loss of any section of the city. > >Finally, this spring, because of public outcry, the city of Los Angeles has >dropped its veto of the new proposal and is >accepting a compromise bill in the California legislature, which will remove >the veto power of the city council. Senate bill 176 >and assembly bill 62 sailed through committee and seem ready to pass the >full legislature, to be signed by Gov. Wilson. This >proposal will allow San Fernando to secede from Los Angeles with a majority >vote of the Los Angeles residents. > >That vote is not assured, but supporters feel that they finally have a real >chance. > >Secession of any sort has never been easy. The American colonies fought a >long war for their independence. Madison >remarked in Federalist 14 that one of the advantages of the American federal >system, provided for in Article 4 Section 3, was >that when states became too populous for effective self-government they >could divide and form new states. > >Jealousy among states for representation in the Senate, and the desire of >established governments to keep as many subjects as >possible, has prevented this from happening. Nevertheless, on the local >level we are beginning to see a revival of the old idea >that self-government means local government. > >At a time when politicians are increasingly moving towards large, >centralized government, citizens are finding an effective tool >in returning to smaller, more local government. The United States was >founded on the idea of self-determination and local >control - just maybe we have a chance to get back to it. > >Paul Clark is chairman of the Coalition for Local Sovereignty, and tracks >citizen efforts to gain more local control >over their affairs. For more information on this burgeoning movement or >related issues, contact Clark at 58 >Crescent Road, Suite B, Greenbelt, MD. 20770, or call (301) 982-1360. . > > >. > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com> > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail