I agree, as I hope I've made clear during my analysis thus far in this thread.it does not contain adequate due process provisions,
That's an major overstatement.If this dealt with any other civil right, it would never have gotten off the ground.
I have a basic human right to walk around unmolested. But if I'm suspected of breaking the law, a police officer can take that right away from me with force, handcuffs, and a cell. It's temporary, until I can see a judge. We accept that infringement on a basic human right because the world can't work properly without some reasonable give-and-take in these matters.
The same principle is at work with ERPOs. The problem with ERPOs isn't the denial of due process; it's the delay of and foreshortened nature of the due process that's built into the statutes.
The Washington law kinda sucks because it's stacked against the "respondent". However, the concept of the ERPO, just like the concept of an involuntary psychiatric commitment or an arrest, isn't bad. It's the implementation that's sub-optimal.