I saw another closed thread on this subject from last year that spiraled out of control, hopefully this won't happen here.

Reading the previous thread, and from discussion with Rich "TheEngineer" Muny, it's clear that the PPA is not willing to take the lead on a ballot initiative. It's not for me to tell them what is the best approach, but I do feel that regardless of legislation at the Federal level, without a change to the law in the State of WA, we will be left out in the cold. There is no indication that the State Legislature has any interest in changing the law themselves, so it is up to us to do it.

I am personally working on an Initiative to the Voters of Washington State that would allow for licensed and regulated online poker for players in this state. I have been in touch with Rich, and with Steve McNulty of the PPA, and they are aware of my intentions and are somewhat supportive.

It is my intent to file the initiative in the first week of January, at the earliest date to file for the 2013 election year. The benefit of doing it in an off year, in my opinion, is that while turn out is lower than in even years, if we can get our supporters to the polls, it makes getting the required 60% majority vote needed for a gambling related issue to pass.

Filing the initiative is the easy part. Once we have a ballot title, we have six months to get around 300,000 signatures. I will need a small army to accomplish this, and I am looking to the poker community for help. I also feel that once the PPA sees this is a serious effort, the will be even more supportive. It would hardly look good for them to dismiss an effort by poker players to change the law themselves, when they are billing themselves as representatives of the players now would it?

I have appealed to the PPA for help with getting the word out, getting contact information for members in WA State, and while they have offered words of support, I definitely need more substantive help.

We need volunteers. I have drafted a proposal, but it needs some work. Some input from players, some legal input would be great as well. I also need contact info from players willing to help with signature gathering.

If we can qualify this for the ballot, then we can mount our campaign. Then will be the time to implore the PPA to jump on board and help us get the word out to the voters.

This is a poker only Initiative, and it will stay that way. So lend your support, visit the Washington Online Poker Initiative on Facebook, like the page and tell your friends, give your input, leave a message of support and I will get with you about how you can help.

It's up to us, and we can do it!

http://www.facebook.com/WashingtonOnlinePokerInitiative

Links to initiatives:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...ZIg99lhl-s/pub

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1..._ylgm2Eafk/pub

Try posting your initiative in the comments section here:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/0...sing-game.html

They may delete it, but worth a shot.

As a WA state resident I commend your efforts and will help when the time comes.

I am not sure how aware you are of the current possibility that a federal bill will be passed during the lame duck session, but if that happens, I disagree that we will be left out in the cold.

It was the Tulalips that pushed the 2006 law and it is the Tulalips that will probably be the ones to flip the switch in the opposite direction when a federal bill happens.

Consider recent testimony by the Tulalips at the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs hearing:
Testimony

Also, from an AP article: Glen Gobin, secretary of the Tulalip Tribal Council, reminded the committee that he previously testified against legalizing Internet gambling. But on Thursday, Gobin said that with states ready to start their own Internet gambling, "tribes must have equal footing to participate."

Gobin said his tribe, in Tulalip, Wash., plans to move forward as gambling evolves because the revenue pays for many of the tribe's government services. The Tulalip do not have regulations ready because tribes' participation has not been decided.

"To say we are ready for the full regulatory aspect, we are not, but I have full confidence we have the capabilities," Gobin said.

The key takeaway from this is that he wants the tribes to have equal footing to participate and compete. Meaning, they want to offer online poker when the day comes and know they can only do so by changing the laws. I think he even referenced that the law would need changed in the testimony but I couldn't find it. We may even see the tribe lobbying the state next legislative session even without federal action.

I watched the testimony from the gentleman representing the Tulalip's and am keenly aware they were the driving force in the online gambling ban enacted in 2006. I did not come away from his testimony very optimistic about their position. Also, that discussion again is about "gaming" not just poker. I don't support widespread "gaming" online, poker is a different beast and I will work hard to always make that distinction.

I have reached out to the Tulalip leadership to feel out their position on this initiative . . . I have been told to expect a response from their legal department in the coming days.

As for Federal legislation, I don't see it happening in the lame duck session. I know, that is very pessimistic, but a realistic view point. The problem is that the monied interests are looking for more than just poker.

If the Barton bill does somehow get enacted, we will still need to change State law to allow our players to participate, as WA will automatically be opted out due to current law.

We need to be ready regardless, if things change in January, great. No harm done. It will be July before a serious campaign needs to be mounted. In the mean time, be supportive. We will need lots of help gathering signatures

I applaud your efforts and will be there when you need signatures. PM sent with contact details.

Im a WA state voter PM me if there is anything me and my friends can do to help!!!

I'm friends with t90 irl and I've talked with some representatives and stuff, might be able to get them to listen to us. Chris Reykdal is mine - don't know where you are located. I'm going to try to get a hold of our senators as well for a sit down still.

Hit me with a PM.

I was involved with the PPA lobbying day in Olympia this past spring. I've had several other contacts with the our legislators from the 40th district (Buys, Overstreet, and Erickson).

Side note: I got a handwritten note from my GOP (eastside) state senator the other day after sending the PPA form letter to her through the post. She voiced her support for opting into HR 2366 if it passes (what the form letter was about) and said it sounded quite sensible to her. If you haven't written yours by a hard copy through the post office, I recommend it, it draws better responses than when I send emails.

You can post info here:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/143216675722896/

Thank you!

I live in Bellevue and am willing to assist in anyway that I can. Please feel free to shoot me a PM when the time comes!

This effort is still alive and well. We shifted the focus to an Initiative to the Legislature for a couple of reasons. I will submit my proposals to the Secretary of State on March 18th. We should be in full-fledged signature gathering mode by early April.

Volunteers are needed in droves, contact me here if you can help.

How can we get this initiative into mainstream conversations? Have you reached out to media outlets with this idea? The more people see this on television, hear on the radio, see people outside gathering signatures, the easier it will be to gather the 300k signatures from April to December. Anyone have any contacts?

I can still help; check old PMs.

Unfortunately, as of now this effort has largely not been taken seriously. That is likely to be the case at least until I actually have an Initiative number and printed petitions in my hand. It's unfortunate, because the contribution of some I have reached out to for help would have been valuable in these early stages.

I should have petitions in hand the first week of April, at which time this will be a "real" Initiative drive. Perhaps then it will be taken seriously and we can get the help with outreach and the exposure we are looking for.

I'll be in touch

Get Eyman to back it. The guy is slime, but he will definitely get the word out. Of course, he will want 7 figures to bother, so maybe not.

it's not out of the question to enlist his help, but as you said he will need to get paid. That would mean we would have to solicit a lot of special interest money, which I would like to avoid.

If we can get it to the Legislature, there is a good chance they will act on. That is the best case scenario.

I'd like to help closely with this. I own saveipoker.com and am finishing a site to put up. I'm a web designer, marketer, facebook marketer, and can leverage the internet to help us a LOT. Let me know how I can help. Would love to help direct some people and what not, have a lot of resources I can throw around.

Was just going to start a thread like this until I found this one. It feels like April is really late. Have you written the initiative yet or anything? Let me know if I can help there at all either.

I also have TONS of connections in the gambling industry and can even get some local card rooms to probably back something like this with a little effort just because I know the owners and explaining the possibility of profits from future online endeavors to them will be ultra appealing.

There's lots of angles we can take to try to get friendly with the non-tribals but I definitely think finding leverage is going to be key to getting this passed. So either way, I want to help, let me know what I can do, or where you're at. If you have Skype we should connect cause forums are ineficient.

Just a word about the effect of HB 1824 on this proposed Initiative drive.

If the bill has not passed out of the State House by March 13th, it is dead for this session. So that is the date to watch while following this bill. You can follow the progress of this bill by searching 1824 here - - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/

March 13th is also the first day an Initiative to the Legislature can be filed. Our target filing date is the following Monday, the 18th.

The first part of our Initiative is an elimination of the felony provision, actually to eliminate all player penalties. If HB 1824 passes in it's current form, then our measure still goes forward to eliminate the civil penalty. If it passes in a form that eliminates all penalties, then we will eliminate that chapter from our effort and continue to put a regulatory framework before the next session of the legislature.

If it doesn't pass the House, it is dead, and we go full steam with the Initiative. But it is important that we don't become complacent and assume we are skipping our way to legislation based on this first hearing. We still have work to do.

I just wanted to mention that I've been speaking with curtinsea via Skype since we're both in WA and I'm going to be helping him out with this. I'm taking notes on the initiative we have written as well as other ideas that you guys may have for the initiative. I think once it gets closer to a final draft/once it's submitted he may be willing to post it, we'll see though, that's up to him.

Any ideas as far as things you guys would like to see addressed?

Definitely let PX/Skall/ta have a look before submitting it.

I've made repeated requests to the PPA for input and they have declined. ta follows me on twitter and keeps up to speed on this effort. The drafts are online and anyone can review if they wish. They are formatted for easy viewing and editing, not in their final form.

anyone who wants a link to these can e-mail me or check in on the facebook page linked in the OP

I wholeheartedly support your efforts. From a quick read, I do see problems with your draft proposal as published, imo:

1. "where the player’s skill is the primary determinant of the outcome" should be changed or removed. Without defining how one would determine if skill is the primary determinant of the outcome, there could be all sorts of interpretations and challenges. For instance, while a player's skill might be the predominant determinant in the long-run outcome of amounts won or lost, the cards dealt is the primary determinant in which player's cards are superior. As it is worded, you could potentially be shutting out any card game from fitting the definition.

2. In general, ballot initiatives I have seen of this nature direct the legislature to pass legislation by a certain date to fulfill the specified requirements of the initiative, as opposed to your method of the initiative itself changing the laws.

Your initiative creates legal rules and regulations for Internet poker operators. I think it is more correct to direct the legislature to do so, e.g. (very rough) "The state legislature shall introduce and pass a bill, and the Governor shall sign into law, by the end of legislative session #__, which implements a state authorized licensing and regulation of Internet poker with the following:"

The problem with your method is that there is so much missing in terms of implementation, it may never be done. All the missing parts can be filled in by the legislative bill. For instance, you have no mechanism for businesses to apply for a license and no method for the gambling commission to process such applications. Your initiative should be a general outline for a bill, with the requirement that the legislature pass, and the Governor sign, such a bill.

3. Your change to RCW 9.46.240 doesn't de-criminalize the playing of Internet poker. It only makes it legal to play on Washington licensed sites.

4. Your use of the term "proprietary software" could be problematic. Does this mean that any entity offering Internet poker must own all of the software used? Most online poker operators will sub-contract with service providers for game software, back-end management, payment processing, etc.

how current is the version you are looking at? There have been many changes over the months. I believe you are looking at an old draft. But I will address your points . . .

1) this line is no longer in the measure
2) My research on Initiatives in the State of Washington shows a range from what you suggest to specific statutory language. The more specific we are about what sections of the RCW we are changing, the better. If we leave it up to the Legislature to make all of the decisions, it's very easy to end up with something other than what we intended, defeating the effort.
3) We exempt those participating in player versus player games from the felony provision. It's not limited in scope to licensed sites. The current version is identical to HB 1824 except it eliminates all penalties, criminal and civl.
3) Proprietary software doesn't have to be owned, it can be licensed. The purpose of this is to limit play to a closed server-client program as we are all familiar with. This language could probably be tweaked stll.

There are three measures I intend to submit . . .

The first deals strictly with the penalties on players, and is virtually identical to HB 1824, except it removes all penalties, not change it from criminal to civil

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...j4-w4ezpI/edit

The second includes the first, but also lays out a framework for regulating an open internet poker market

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...bPs0VklR8/edit

The third includes the first, but lays out a framework for a partnership with the Lottery office and a contractor, with the Tribes given right of first refusal

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...e1eUjoL80/edit