Family Values Voter Summit” in September. This effort is already going strong, with more than a dozen groups signing on. This isn’t the first time an organization formed in opposition to a referendum has filed a lawsuit. In 2005, voters approved a measure that allowed county commissioners to determine the number of members of a local board of adjustment, after county commissioners determined they would be too expensive for some smaller municipalities. The group against the measure, the Association of Counties, then brought a lawsuit against the county commissioners, resulting in a statewide precedent affirming that counties must follow the state law regarding boards of adjustment. The groups behind the lawsuit against the Voter Initiative have called for the groups involved in the initiative to agree to not spend any money on collecting signatures in the counties, including King County, where a judge issued a restraining order to stop the initiative group’s signature-gathering campaign. According to the complaint filed against the initiative group, the group behind the referendum is the “Community Alliance.” The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The other plaintiff in the lawsuit is King County Elections Director Wayne Stahl, whose office oversaw the filing of Initiative 1123. According to the lawsuit, Stahl is a resident of the King County city of Burien, but that his office is in Seattle. When the Washington Secretary of State’s office issued the group behind the referendum the certificate of sufficiency to begin collecting signatures, it identified four of the group’s five members as King County residents, even though their names did not appear on any publicly accessible voter registration records. The county also did not receive any request from these two groups to be included on the ballot. The counties, including King County, must decide whether to include referenda and initiatives before collecting signatures from petition circulators. “They took a shortcut, they knew there were certain people in the city that no one knew about,” said John McKay, spokesperson for the No on 1123 Campaign, “and they knew these people were living in King County.” “Initiative 1123 does not impose any new taxes,” McKay said, “or create any new agencies. Instead, it allows the people of King County to vote for representatives.” In order for the groups behind Initiative 1123 to have a chance of gathering enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, and have the referendum put on the ballot, McKay said the groups are still working on a plan. “Our best chance is to talk with them,” McKay said. “They were the ones that started this lawsuit, so I’d expect them to work with us.” Though the campaign against Initiative 1123 was started by two King County residents, the county will also be defending itself against an argument that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are making, that Initiative 1123 creates a countywide tax increase. Voters in King County are currently paying a $4 fee for every five years of a resident’s voting eligibility on absentee ballots. Initiative 1123 would remove the $4 fee for six-year voters and any voters turning 18 after the first Tuesday of November. In order to gather enough signatures, the initiative group is not only in the process of meeting with the counties, but is also looking into other signature-gathering methods, such as petitions that can be emailed and filled out. McKay said the groups behind the referendum were asking for the initiative to be placed on the ballot for a vote on March 6, 2016, so it could be put on the November 2016 ballot and be put to a vote by January. According to the lawsuit, that would be illegal, because the signature gathering deadline in King County is Aug. 1, 2015. “A referendum cannot be submitted to voters later than 45 days after its introduction and adoption,” reads the lawsuit, “unless an extension of the 45 day period is granted by the legislative body of the county.” According to McKay, after receiving the lawsuit, the initiative group has agreed to cease signature gathering and instead wait until the January 2016 meeting of the county’s Legislative Board, the advisory committee of county commissioners. At that meeting, the group is expected to seek a special permit from the county to gather signatures for its initiative. The lawsuit states that if the initiative group does not have enough signatures by July 15, it would be placed on the November 2016 ballot. However, it would have to be placed on the ballot in November 2016 regardless of how many signatures are collected. The groups behind Initiative 1123 will make their response to the lawsuit on Thursday, August 29. Update: Aug. 28, 11:00 a.m.: A previous version of this story indicated that Initiative 1123 could be up for a vote in the fall, but was actually an amendment to the King County charter, which has already been placed on the ballot. We regret any confusion.