GOP lawmaker loses post after backing gun control

[Bob33]

GOP lawmaker loses post after backing gun control

The state House Republican Caucus removed Rep. Mike Hope from the Judiciary Committee, a move some Democrats say was retaliation for Hope joining with them last year to support universal background checks for gun sales.

By Brian M. Rosenthal Seattle times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA — The state House Republican Caucus has removed Rep. Mike Hope from the Judiciary Committee, a move some Democrats say was retaliation for the moderate member joining with them last year to support universal background checks for gun sales.

Hope, a former Seattle police officer from Lake Stevens, was replaced on the committee by the more conservative Larry Haler, a Hanford contractor from Richland.

The change, which was made at the beginning of this year’s legislative session, likely doomed the prospects of several bills establishing more gun restrictions — including the chances of Initiative 594 being approved in the Legislature instead of going to the November ballot.

The initiative, which would expand background checks to cover all gun sales, is similar to a bill that moved through the committee last year on a 7-6 vote, with Hope voting yes and moderate Tacoma Democrat Steve Kirby voting no.

The bill eventually failed, leading to the initiative that is going first to lawmakers and then, if it does not win approval there, to the voters.

Besides Hope’s removal, the only change on the committee this year is that two members moved to the state Senate and were replaced by the members who were appointed to replace them in the House.

Because it is rare for members to switch committees in the middle of a two-year term, some say the move shows how far caucuses in Olympia can go to ensure loyalty.

House Republican Leader Dan Kristiansen disputed that notion, saying he made the change because Hope is not seeking re-election this year and the committee would benefit from a more permanent presence.

“We knew these were issues that are going to come up for years, and we want people that can be there for that,” said Kristiansen, R-Snohomish.

Hope himself also said he did not feel the move was made out of retaliation.

But Jamie Pedersen, who chaired the House Judiciary Committee last year before moving to the state Senate this year, said he has heard from several Republicans that it was retaliation.

“That’s my understanding, yes,” said Pedersen, D-Seattle, who described the switch as “unusual.”

The current committee chairwoman, Tacoma Democrat Laurie Jinkins, declined to speculate.

“I’ve heard the same rumors,” she said. “But honestly, I have no idea how those decisions are made. I barely understand how the Democrats make those decisions.”

Jinkins acknowledged that “Mike not being on the committee makes it harder” for Democrats to pass universal background checks or other measures related to gun restrictions.

But she said she has chosen not to hold a vote on Initiative 594, not because she doesn’t think it could pass her committee but because she doesn’t think it could pass the overall divided Legislature.

[ICEMAN]

Good.

[Lucky1]

  Thanks for posting the article. It's nice to know what is going on in Olympia. I think his voting record is a good reason for the conservative leadership to remove him from the position.

[SemperFidelis97]

I have a feeling not seeking re-election may be a smart move on his part as well.  Maybe he should just quit faking the funk, and switch parties.

[sakoshooter]

Good news.

[blackdog]

This reporter has a clear agenda.

[bigtex]

I've met Hope several times, from what I can tell he votes by his personal views and not his party views, which I personally prefer. It shows the guy can actually think on his own, rather then just follow what party leadership says. Unfortunately for him, you just cant go against the party in such "hot" topics such as gun control.

[Lucky1]

I've met Hope several times, from what I can tell he votes by his personal views and not his party views, which I personally prefer. It shows the guy can actually think on his own, rather then just follow what party leadership says. Unfortunately for him, you just cant go against the party in such "hot" topics such as gun control.

Good for him that he stands up for what he believes. But not only is he going against his party, he is also going against the constitution and many of his constituents. To me the second amendment is more than just a hot topic.

[grundy53]

I've met Hope several times, from what I can tell he votes by his personal views and not his party views, which I personally prefer. It shows the guy can actually think on his own, rather then just follow what party leadership says. Unfortunately for him, you just cant go against the party in such "hot" topics such as gun control.

He is supposed to vote for how his constituents feel. Not how he personally feels. He was elected by a lot of folks that are against gun control.

sent from my typewriter

[snowpack]

I've met Hope several times, from what I can tell he votes by his personal views and not his party views, which I personally prefer. It shows the guy can actually think on his own, rather then just follow what party leadership says. Unfortunately for him, you just cant go against the party in such "hot" topics such as gun control.

If he represents from his personal views, I would think he should have run as an independent. 

[huntnphool]

I've met Hope several times, from what I can tell he votes by his personal views and not his party views, which I personally prefer. It shows the guy can actually think on his own, rather then just follow what party leadership says. Unfortunately for him, you just cant go against the party in such "hot" topics such as gun control.

He is supposed to vote for how his constituents feel. Not how he personally feels. He was elected by a lot of folks that are against gun control.

Spot on right there!!!

 I couldn't care less what his personal feelings are on the issue, his position is a privilege, entrusted to him by his constituents to voice their collective opinions, not his!

 This is a classic example of what is happening across the country, all the way to the top. Its gotten way way way out of hand and needs to be changed, starting with our locally elected officials!

[bigtex]

So should every Republican who votes for higher fees be ran out of office? We all know R's are against higher fees/taxes

The main sponsor of legislation to raise snowmobile license fees by $20 over two years is a Republican.

Republicans in Olympia this year voted to give illegal immigrants financial aid for schooling. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/31/3022116/senate-oks-immigrant-financial.html

A Republican sponsored a bill to require the submission of DNA by any person charged with a crime (note I said charged, not convicted)

A Republican sponsored a bill that would prevent public access to waterways via public lands if there is no parking.

Last week all Republicans on the House Healthcare Committee voted in favor of making it illegal to offer medical efforts to change sexual orientation (in this case gay) for those under 18. This vote shocked many http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022868445_therapybanxml.html

So lets see we have a Republican in favor of raising fees, requiring DNA be provided for people arrested, blocking off public land access, and protecting gays... Last time I checked that isn't really "the Republican way" So why aren't people going after the Republicans who are sponsoring/backing those bills?

[Lucky1]

The republican party has a platform that most republicans agree with and that is why they are republicans. Yes there are people that say they are republicans and vote for bills that are contrary to the platform. Maybe they agree with most of the platform and not all of it. Politics is messy. The constitution and rule of law are supposed to be what controls us as a people. Some politicians ar forgetting the constitution part.

[ICEMAN]

Bigtex, Ok, we get it, Republicans occasionally sponsor laws or vote for issues not supported by other fellow republicans. Got it, thanks.

This is a different animal. To cast a vote for anything that reduces our gun rights is tantamount to a declaration of war against Republicans.

[bigtex]

This is a different animal. To cast a vote for anything that reduces our gun rights is tantamount to a declaration of war against Republicans.

I am sure we all remember the "firearms offender registry" which passed last year and was originally sponsored by Hope. Yet by the time the bill passed some very pro gun Republicans such as Klippert, Kretz and Orcutt were signed in as co-sponsors. The bill passed 89-8 in the House and 41-7 in the Senate.

Just about every gun rights group (including the NRA) was either completely against the bill, or had concerns with it. And the large majority of the members on this site was against it.

So why aren't we going after every Republican that voted for that bill?

ps yes I do vote R