The 1st Washington State Appeals Court ruled that the Red Light Camera Initiative can only be advisory. It can still be on the ballot - and we can still vote on the Red Light Cameras - but it will be only advisory for the Bellingham City Council.

Here is the key paragraph from the Appeals Court decision:

"Because Initiative No. 2011-01 is beyond the scope of the initiative power, it is invalid. Even if placed on the ballot and passed by a majority of the voters the initiative would have no legal force. Consequently, it cannot result in actual and substantial injury to ATS's contractual interests, and ATS cannot demonstrate any injury justifying injunctive relief. ATS's request to enjoin the election is therefore denied.

"We affirm the denial of ATS's request for a preliminary injunction, but otherwise reverse the trial court."

So - the Council could request the initiative be taken off the ballot. And we might expect someone to exclaim about the expense of this initiative. But the Appeals Court clearly says it can stay on the ballot. ATS - the red light camera company from Arizona - is denied its request for a preliminary injunction - that is,removing the initiative from the ballot. 

I think we can assume the Bellingham City Council will leave this initiative on the ballot.  After all, they do want to be reelected.  And taking it off would only leave voting on council members as a way to express our discontent with the Red Light Camera issue. It will be interesting to see how Dan Pike now wiggles around as this was his baby from the start.

Later Note: Bellingham Herald article is in error on the key legal point.

The Herald states: "In Appelwick’s view, the initiative has no legal force because it wrongfully aims to restrict the city’s authority to install traffic cameras — an authority granted to Washington cities under state law approved by the legislature."  (Appelwick is the Appeals Court judge who wrote the rulng.)

The Appeals Court ruling actually states: "An initiative is beyond the scope of the initiative power if the initiative involves powers granted by the legislature to the governing body of a city, rather than the city itself." In other words, if authority was granted to "… Washington cities …" as the Herald states, then the initiative would be valid.  However, state law gives the city council the authority on these cameras, and thus the initiative cannot overturn the council action.