Legislators heard testimony this morning on two initiatives that received enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

Initiative 522 would require labeling of most raw farm commodities, processed foods and seeds if genetically engineered. If adopted, the legislation would make Washington the first state in the nation with GMO labeling. A similar measure was defeated in California three months ago.

Supporters of the measure say it’s a public health issue about informing the public.

“We believe people should have the freedom to choose what they put into their bodies,” said Nick Pascoe with the Natural Products Association Northwest. “They should be free to make that choice through mandatory labeling.”

Opponents of the initiative told lawmakers the new labeling standards would create big problems for farmers and food processors and say it is an attempt to scare people away from food that doesn’t present a health risk.

Lawmakers also heard testimony on a I-517, a measure backed by longtime initiative activist Tim Eyman. Dubbed the “Protect the Initiative Act,” the measure would set penalties for interfering with signature-gatherers. It would also require that all measures receiving sufficient signatures appear on the ballot and extend the time sponsors have to collect signatures, from less than half a year to one full year.

Legislators have three options for each initiative – pass it into law as is, take no action and send it to the ballot for a public vote, or send it and a legislative alternative to the ballot. The Legislature typically takes no action.

An initiative that would require labels on food and seeds produced with genetic engineering has advanced to the Legislature.

The Secretary of State’s office says Initiative 522 was certified Thursday afternoon with more than enough signatures.

The initiative would require GMO labels starting July 1, 2015. If adopted, the legislation would make Washington the first state in the nation with the labeling requirements.

A similar measure was defeated in California last November.

The Legislature has the option of passing the initiative or sending it to a public vote in November. Lawmakers can also send it to a public vote with an alternative.

The start of the 2013 Washington State Legislature is still a few days away but an initiative that would require genetically engineered food to be labeled is already grabbing headlines across the state and nation.

Supporters of Initiative 522 turned in 350,000 petition signatures to state officials last week, almost assuring the measure will have the required signatures of registered state voters needed for certification.

The initiative would require labels on food and seeds produced with genetic engineering starting July 1, 2015. If adopted, the legislation would make Washington the first state in the nation with GMO labeling. A similar measure was defeated in California two months ago.

Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien, is one lawmaker who has already voiced support for the initiative.

“I think people should have the right to know more information about the food they are eating,” Fitzgibbon said. “For me, it’s not about whether or not genetically modified foods are good or bad, but I do think that families and individuals should have the right to know.”

Fitzgibbons doubts the legislature will adopt the measure, likely leaving it to a vote on the November 2013 ballot. Lawmakers also have the option to send an amended initiative to voters.

California’s initiative was defeated 53 percent to 47 percent after showing strong support in early polls. Food and agriculture companies opposed to the labeling measure spent more than $40 million in advertising claiming the initiative would raise food prices and hurt farmers.

Fitzgibbon said those opposed to California’s initiative relied on studies with questionable assumptions and said the actual cost of labeling the products would be marginal.

“I think legislators will be taking a close look at it. Proponents see a state ripe for a vote,” he said.

Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, who chairs the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, expects this issue to attract plenty of attention.

“It’s a global debate and there are some foreign countries banning GMO foods. It is interesting because it’s not a right or left issue,” he said.

Forty-nine countries, including all European Union member states, have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods on labels, according to the initiative.

Blake said he worries the labeling rules would come at a cost, both to consumers and the state’s agricultural industry.

“I think you can make the case that it would raise food prices,” he said. “I am personally not afraid of GMO food and I am concerned that it will drive food processors out of the state if we are the first to adopt this.”

He also sees a broader agenda from backers of the initiative, who delivered the signatures to the secretary of state’s office inside an ambulance with a sign reading “Label GMO Food” on the side.

“It is very clear that this is a campaign to smear GMO foods and so I would hope they would be more up front about that.”

Blake said the House Ag committee will convene a hearing after the initiative is certified.

The Washington State Liquor Control Board today voted 2-1 to deny a request from the city of Seattle to allows bars to serve alcohol past 2 a.m., the current cut-off time for selling booze.

Board chair Sharon Foster said she was concerned about extending hours at the same time the state’s new liquor privatization law is set to go into effect, increasing the availability of liquor by five-fold starting June 1st. Foster voted no, along with board member Ruthann Kurose.

Board member Chris Marr voted yes, saying the board needs to start thinking about redefining its mission in the wake of Initiative 1183, the voter-approved measure that privatized the state liquor business.

Watch the full half-hour meeting here.

A judge ruled today that an initiative requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Legislature to raise taxes is unconstitutional.

Initiative 1053, which was brought to the ballot by conservative activist Tim Eyman, was approved by 64 percent of voters in 2010. The League of Education Voters, Washington Education Association and several legislators sued to overturn the law, arguing that the initiative hampered the Legislature’s ability to raise revenue for schools.

King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller said in his ruling the initiative is a “clear restriction on the Legislature’s power,” and it violates a provision in the state Constitution that outlines whether a law needs a simple majority or a supermajority to pass. You can read the full decision here.

The plaintiffs said they expect the decision to be appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, and they will ask for it to be expedited so a final ruling comes before next year’s Legislative session. Meanwhile, Eyman is gathering signatures to put  Initiative 1185 on the fall ballot, which would renew the two-thirds requirement.

The League of Education Voters filed an initiative with the Secretary of State’s office today asking voters to allow charter schools in Washington state. The initiative would allow up to 40 charter schools to be established over the next five years. Students would be admitted by lottery, and the schools would be run by non-profit groups approved by the state.

The initiative filing comes late in the game — backers of the initiative must collect more than 241,00 valid signatures by July 6th to qualify for the November ballot.

If supporters collect enough signatures, it’ll be the fourth time Washington voters will be faced with the question of whether or not to allow charter schools. Voters have rejected the idea three times, and a bill proposed in the Legislature this session to allow charter schools didn’t make it to a vote.

The Washington Education Association immediately issued a statement opposing the initiative, saying state education dollars shouldn’t be diverted to a “failed concept like charter schools.”