Time: Tue Jun 17 14:56:11 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20601;
Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:54:22 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA00891;
Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:54:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:52:47 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: New County Movement Threatens Establishment (fwd)
<snip>
>
>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 fon-nitig 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 the
>government 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 govemment's
>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 majofity 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 fon-n 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 thatn 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-govemment 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.
>
<snip>
========================================================================
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 3.0.2 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