No changes will need to be made to the Initiative 1185 language in the upcoming state Voters’ Pamphlet for this fall’s General Election after a judge Friday morning dismissed a lawsuit brought by I-1185 sponsor Tim Eyman.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon denied Eyman’s challenge to the Office of Financial Management’s fiscal impact statement on I-1185 and his attempt to prohibit the Office of Secretary of State from publishing it in the Voters’ Pamphlet.  Judge Dixon denied Eyman’s request for a writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition, ruling that Eyman was arguing against OFM’s exercise of discretion.

Eyman questioned the way the state Office of Financial Management depicted I-1185’s cost impacts. Steve Dietrich, the Attorney General’s attorney who represented OFM and the Office of Secretary of State, argued that fiscal impact statements inherently require discretion and there is no statute authorizing court challenge of a financial statement.  Eyman argued that his latest initiative I-1185 was essentially the same as the one passed by voters two years ago and that OFM should replace the fiscal impact statement with the one it gave to his 2010 initiative, I-1053.  Dietrich mentioned that I-1053 has had an impact on fees since its passing that warrants the new financial statement.

Eyman represented himself in the court hearing. He is shown above talking with reporters after the lawsuit was dismissed.