Washington ballot news

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Ballotpedia News
Propositions • Recall • Law

Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from Washington.


Washington's Tim Eyman may return for 2010 ballot

OLYMPIA, Washington: According to reports, Tim Eyman may return to the statewide ballot in 2010. Despite Initiative 1033's, his latest proposed measure, failure to pass Eyman said the legislature's tax decisions in January will determine his actions. Initiative 1033 failed 55% to 45%. Eyman, Mike and Jack Fagan, supporters of I-1033, said they plan to "try to read the tea leaves, like everybody, from 1033. We’ll do a tax initiative for next year...If the Legislature goes hog wild, we could put 1033 on the ballot again and it would likely pass." Lawmakers will be facing an approximately $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion budget gap in January 2010. House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, said that despite tax increases being one possible solution, they are not a certainty. Additionally, Kessler noted that any tax increases may be on the 2010 ballot.[1]


Washington voters said "yes" to domestic rights and "no" to I-1033

Washington's Referendum 71 was approved by voters on November 3rd with 51% of the vote in favor of domestic rights. On the other hand, I-1033 failed to pass after garnering only 45% of the vote. According to state officials approximately 395,000 ballots still remain to be counted, therefore Referendum 71 will not go into effect until the election is certified. Official results are expected by the end of November.[2]

Ballot measure Outcome Yes % No % Precincts Reporting
Initiative 1033 Defeated 434,051 (44.62%) 538,768 (55.38%) 39 of 39
Referendum 71 Approved 511,651 (51.03%) 490,948 (48.97%) 39 of 39

Source: Washington Secretary of State - 2009 election results at 9:40 a.m. EST, November 4, 2009


Opponents raise millions against Washington's I-1033

OLYMPIA, Washington: According to the latest reports opponents of Washington Initiative 1033 (2009) have raised a grand total of $3.46 million.[3] Supporters, on the other hand, have raised approximately $340,000 in cash and has $250,000.00 in loans.[4] If opponents spend all of the funds that they have raised, it will be the fifth largest sum spent in opposition of an initiative in Washington history, according to the Herald Net.[3]

State law stipulates that during the 21-day period prior to an election, contributors may not donate over $5,000 to a ballot proposition group.[5]


Six states prepare to face off in November 3rd elections

Maine, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington: The clock is ticking - there are only 5 days left until election day. In this off-year election only six states will face off on November 3, 2009. There's a total of 26 propositions on the ballot this November.[6] Earlier this year, Californians voted on six statewide measures, bringing the total number of statewide ballot measures in 2009 to 32 - the lowest number of statewide ballot measures in 20 years.

Review upcoming ballot measures HERE!

Additionally on November 3rd, there will be hundreds of local ballot measures in at least 24 states.


Washington judge rejects increase of donor limit

OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Judge Ronald Leighton denied a request by Referendum 71 opponents to allow Family PAC to accept contributions of more than $5,000 and to be exempt from disclosing donor's names. According to Family PAC the state law was preventing the group from collecting last-minute political contributions.[7] According to campaign finance laws in Washington, no contributions over $5,000 may be made during the 21-day period prior to the election.[8] Family PAC calls the law a violation of free speech rights.[7]

A full hearing date regarding the campaign finance challenge has not yet been set.


Washington finance campaign law to be discussed in court

OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Family PAC filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Tacoma. Family PAC is requesting that the court allow the PAC to accept contributions of more than $5,000 and to be exempt from disclosing donor's names. Family PAC is an opponent of Washington Referendum 71, which is scheduled to appear on the ballot this November 3rd. According to campaign finance laws in Washington, no contributions over $5,000 may be made during the 21-day period prior to the election. The group has not yet registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.[9]


SCOTUS upholds R-71 ban on petition names

OLYMPIA, Washington: In an 8 to 1 vote the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold the ban on releasing Referendum 71 petition signatures. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. According to reports the injunction on the signatures, which is expected to remain until at least the November election, will remain in place unless new motions are filed.[10] On Monday Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary injunction.[11] Kennedy's ruling came only days after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to release the names on R-71 petitions. [12]


Supreme Court Justice temporarily blocks R-71 names

OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked state officials from releasing any names on Referendum 71 petitions.[13] Kennedy's temporary block comes only days after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to release the names on R-71 petitions. [14] Kennedy's Monday ruling resulted after Protect Marriage Washington requested that the United States Supreme Court review the recent ruling by the Court of Appeals.[15]


R-71 signature privacy case continues

OLYMPIA, Washington: Referendum 71 opponents announced late last week that they want the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the signature privacy case.[16] Earlier last week the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle. Settle ruled that releasing the names of Referendum 71 petition signers could violate their First Amendment rights.[17]


Washington Court of Appeals lifts ban on R-71 petitions

OLYMPIA, Washington: Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle. Settle ruled that releasing the names of Referendum 71 petition signers could violate their First Amendment rights. The 9th Circuit Court began listening to arguments yesterday.[18] In response to the court ruling, state elections director Nick Handy said,"The winner here is open government."[19]

The three-member panel consists of Judges Harry Pregerson, A. Wallace Tashima, and N. Randy Smith. Washington courts have been listening to arguments since July 2009 regarding the signature privacy of R-71 petition signers.

After listening to arguments yesterday, Judge Tashima said,"Can we take judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiffs represent people who are in the majority? This isn’t a persecuted minority." However, plaintiff attorney responded by saying that the majority cannot be determined just yet. Referendum 71 is scheduled for the November 3, 2009 ballot. "You’ve won all the elections around the country so far," responded Tashima. The judge later noted that he believes the case revolves around "politics."[20]

Timeline:


Eyman petitions to stay private for now

OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Judge Richard Hicks of the Thurston County Superior Court granted a temporary restraining order blocking the release of petition signatures relating to approximately 11 initiatives (including this years I-1033), most of which were filed by Tim Eyman.[21] Eyman filed the lawsuit earlier this week citing that signers' identities are protected by the freedom of speech, however state officials argue that an injunction will threaten open government and impact campaign disclosure laws.[22] Judge Hicks said on Wednesday that he wants to wait for the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Referendum 71. Earlier this year, R-71 signatures were also temporary blocked.[21]


Tim Eyman files lawsuit to block release of petition signatures

OLYMPIA, Washington: Tim Eyman, a political activist in Washington who has sponsored or worked on at least 15 initiatives in the state of Washington since 1997, filed a lawsuit to block the release of petition signatures relating to approximately 11 initiatives (including this years I-1033).[23] Eyman argues that the signers' identities are protected by the freedom of speech. According to reports a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in Thurston County Superior Court. Prior to the lawsuit, Bryan Wahl, a lobbyist and political consultant, paid for copies of petition signatures. He is expected to receive the copies on Monday, unless the court rules otherwise. [24] State officials, however, disagree with Eyman's lawsuit and argue that an injunction on petition signatures would threaten open government and impact campaign disclosure laws. The lawsuit comes in the midst of a similar signature debate relating to Washington Referendum 71.[21]

The 11 initiatives mentioned in the lawsuit include:[21]


Washington's I-1033 opposition receives funding boost

OLYMPIA, Washington: According to recent reports Washington's I-1033 opposition has just received a significant amount of new donations. The recent boost in funding has brought the No on I-1033 to a reported balance of $2.5 million.[25]

Recent donations include:[26]

  • $200,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
  • $200,000 from the National Education Association
  • $290,000 total from the Service Employees International Union ($150,000 donated last week)
  • $100,000 from Bill Gates

On the other hand reports revealed that the I-1033 campaign has raised about $670,000.


New poll shows I-1033 with a lead, many undecided

OLYMPIA, Washington: With a month to go before the November 3, 2009 vote, a new poll by KING5/SurveyUSA indicates that the "Yes on I-1033" side is leading by 3% points, with 22% of those surveyed undecided.[27]

The survey included 1,050 adults and was taken between October 3-October 5. [28]

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided
September 2009 Tom Kiley 51% 31% 18%
Sept. 22, 2009 Rasmussen Reports 61% 31% 8%
Oct. 3 - 5 KING5/Survey USA 45% 32% 22%
Oct. 14 – 26 Washington Poll 41% 46% 13%

Washington's I-1033 likely to pass, according to polls

OLYMPIA, Washington: Washington's I-1033 is far in the lead and likely to pass, according to the latest poll released this month by Rasmussen Reports. According to the poll 61% of voters plan to vote "yes" in the November election, whereas 31% plan to vote "no." Another 8% of polled voters said they were "undecided" on the issue.[29] A total of 500 people were polled on September 22nd.[30]

The question asked by Rasmussen Reports reads as follows:[30]

A statewide initiative will be on the ballot this November. We'd like to ask if you support it or not: The initiative concerns state, county and city revenue. Here is the ballot title: This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Do you definitely favor, probably favor, probably oppose, or definitely oppose this initiative?

Below are the latest polls:

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided
September 2009 Tom Kiley 51% 31% 18%
Sept. 22, 2009 Rasmussen Reports 61% 31% 8%

Washington tax increases possible, voters to decide on spending limit

OLYMPIA, Washington: State legislators are still struggling to balance the state budget and today Gov. Christine Gregoire announced that future tax increases are still a possibility.[31] But with an upcoming November 2009 election and Initiative 1033 on the ballot, tax increases may prove to be difficult, said Sen. Rodney Tom. I-1033 is a measure that would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases.[32] Should I-1033 pass, Tom said,"I think we just all go home and bury our heads in the sand."[31]

In the last legislative session the governor opposed tax increases when the state faced an approximately $4.5 billion budget deficit. According to current revenue reports officials estimate that the state may face an additional $1 billion budget gap.[33] Gov. Gregoire said, "At some point, the people, I assume, don't want us to take any more cuts. I mean, I'm already hearing about, 'Why did you cut education?' Well, there weren't any options. We're without options."[31]

However, Sen. Joe Zarelli suggests legislators should focus on making government more efficient before implementing tax increases. Zarelli said,"We've got to understand that as difficult as it is for us, it's even more difficult for the average man or woman on the street."[31]


R-71 returns to court regarding signature privacy

OLYMPIA, Washington: This week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled the hearing for Referendum 71 case about signature privacy. In light of two filed appeals, one by the state of Washington and the other by Open Government activist Arthur West, the court combined both appeals.[34]

The briefing schedule is as follows, according to state officials:[34]

  • September 18: the state filed its opening brief
  • September 23: the Washington Coalition for Open Government's brief is due
  • September 25: Plaintiff-Appellees’ answering brief is due
  • September 28: the state may file a reply brief
  • September 30: the Washington Coalition for Open Government may file a reply brief

Additionally, the court granted Attorney General Rob McKenna's request for a fast-track appeal. The hearing is scheduled to begin October 14, 2009 in Pasadena, California.[35]


Washington coalition aims to defeat I-1033

OLYMPIA, Washington: In Washington a coalition of business, labor, education and senior citizens formed this week in an effort to defeated Washington Initiative 1033, which is scheduled to appear on the November 2009 ballot.[36] I-1033, referred to by supporters as the "Lower Property Taxes" initiative and by opponents as the "Jobs Killing" initiative, proposes to limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth.[37][38] The No on 1033 campaign has not yet disclosed their financial goals for the campaign but did note that they plan to purchase TV time in the coming weeks. AARP state director, Doug Shadel, said,"1033 is bad for jobs and it would greatly diminish access to health care."[37]


Court lacks authority to change I-1033 language, says judge

OLYMPIA, Washington: Last week, days after a lawsuit was filed in Thurston County against Washington state officials in order to halt the use of ballot language that they argue is "erroneous" and "misleading," Judge Richard Hicks ruled that the ballot language for Washington I-1033 won't be changed.[39] According to Judge Hicks, he doesn't have the authority to change the language unless there is evidence of an egregious error. Hicks said,"There may be differences of opinion. I can’t say there is a clear error in the fiscal impact statement."[40]

The lawsuit, filed by a group called Voters Want More Choices, Tim Eyman and Jack and Mike Fagan, argues that the ballot language is intended only to provide examples of revenue sources rather than an exclusive list of revenue sources covered by the initiative. Additionally, they want to remove exclusions from the revenue limit of state and federal grants received by cities and counties.[41] However, on Friday, the judge said that if state officials had assigned an arbitrary financial figure then the he would have the authority to change the ballot language. Hicks added that he cannot force state officials to change their estimates.[39]


Signatures on R-71 will remain private for now

OLYMPIA, Washington: On September 10, federal judge Benjamin Settle continued a restraining order against the Washington Secretary of State that forbids that office from releasing to the public the names of those who signed the petition to qualify Washington Referendum 71 for the November 3 ballot.[42],[43]

Protect Marriage Washington argued to the judge that releasing the signatures would chill "free speech ... particularly when it is reasonably probable that those exercising their First Amendment rights would be subjected to threats and harassment."[42]

The organization WhoSigned.Org and several others had asked that the Washington Secretary of State release the names to them.

The preliminary injunction entered by Judge Settle was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on September 11 by Open Government activist Arthur West.[44]


Washington R-71 lawsuit dismissed a second time

OLYMPIA, Washington: A lawsuit filed by Washington Families Standing Together has been shot down for a second time. Yesterday, Thurston County Judge Thomas McPhee dismissed the case.[45] The lawsuit called for an injunction on R-71 and challenges the referendum's valid signature count. It was first heard by King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector but was dismissed on a technicality - it was filed in the wrong county.[7] The group argued that some of the signatures should be dismissed on the basis that some petitions do not include the gatherer's signature on the affidavit on the back of the petition as required by law and although some petition signers registered to vote at the time they signed the petition, they were not registered prior to signing as required by law. However, Judge McPhee dismissed both arguments. "When a legal voter has signed a petition, his vote must be counted even though the person soliciting the signature has violated the law," said McPhee. He also noted that so long as the voter is registered at election time the signature may be counted.[46]

According to reports, Washington Families Standing Together is likely to appeal the Tuesday decision.[47]


Washington I-1033 supporters file lawsuit regarding ballot language

OLYMPIA, Washington: Supporters of Washington Initiative 1033 (2009) filed a lawsuit last week in Thurston County against Washington state officials in order to halt the use of ballot language that they argue is "erroneous" and "misleading." The lawsuit was filed by a group called Voters Want More Choices, Tim Eyman and Jack and Mike Fagan. Initiative 1033 proposes to "limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases."

According to the lawsuit, ballot measure supporters argue that the ballot language is intended only to provide examples of revenue sources rather than an exclusive list of revenue sources covered by the initiative. Additionally, they want to remove exclusions from the revenue limit of state and federal grants received by cities and counties.[48]

A hearing is scheduled for Friday, September 11, at 9 a.m. in Thurston County Superior Court. Judge Anne Hirsch will be hearing the case. The deadline for accepting ballot language is September 18.


Federal judge maintains ban on R-71 petition release

OLYMPIA, Washington: Although the Washington Secretary of State had intended to release copies of submitted Washington Referendum 71 signature petitions, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle announced that he is going to keep the existing ban on releasing the petitions. Judge Settle is expected to make an official decision on September 10, 2009.[49] In August 2009, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission ruled that the names of donors to Protect Marriage Washington, in favor of R-71, are a matter of public record. In July the group filed a request for a temporary restraining order in order to not release the names. They argued that the disclosure of donors' names might put those signers at risk of harassment.[50] On July 29, 2009 a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order.[51]

In other news, a hearing of a lawsuit by Washington Families Standing Together will take place today at 1:30 pm in Thurston County. The case will be heard by Judge Tom McPhee.[52] Just last week, Referendum 71 challengers presented their case to King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector, however, Judge Spector dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong county.

A Second Superior Court Certification Challlenge, challenging the action as unlawful under the 11th Amendment and as the product of a system of unconstitutional prior restraints, was dismissed on September 11 by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Hirsch, without the examination of any signatures. Plaintiff West will file an appeal with the Supreme Court on September 14. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19398403/Open-Government-Suit-targets-Washington-State-domestic-partneship-referendum


Superior Court judge dismisses R-71 challenge but states concerns about signatures

SEATTLE, Washington: King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector dismissed a lawsuit against Washington Referendum 71 Wednesday morning, on the grounds that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong county. The lawsuit specifically calls for an injunction on R-71 and challenges the referendum's valid signature count. According to state law, however, any challenge to the secretary of state must be filed in Thurston County, where the state capitol in Olympia is located.[53]

In addition to Judge Spector's dismissal of the case, Spector highlighted areas of "deficiency" in the signatures and petitions accepted by Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed.[7] Just this week, Reed announced that R-71 had 121,847 valid signatures, enough to place the measure on the November 2009 ballot. [54] On Wednesday, Spector noted, however, that several thousand signatures may in fact be invalid because some petitions do not include the gatherer's signature on the affidavit on the back of the petition as required by law; there may have been misrepresentation of the petition; and although some petition signers registered to vote at the time they signed the petition, they were not registered prior to signing as required by law. Despite the questionable status of the petitions and the dismissal of the case, Spector said, "under Washington case law it is unclear whether there are any limits to the Secretary of State's discretion as long as he has chosen to accept petitions rather than reject them."[7]


Washington R-71 qualifies for November ballot

TACOMA, Washington: The signature count is nearly over but by Monday evening state election officials confirmed that sponsors of Washington Referendum 71 (2009) have submitted the minimum number of valid signatures to place the measure on the November 2009 ballot.[55] Referendum supporters needed a minimum of 120,577 valid signatures and by Monday had reached 121,617.[56] In July, a grand total of 137,689 signatures were submitted and by August 30, 130,000 signatures had been reviewed.[57] A total of 16,264 total signatures have been rejected, according to the secretary of state's office.[56]

However, the signature update comes parallel to challengers attempting to block the measure from reaching the ballot. Washington Families Standing Together filed a lawsuit last week requesting an injunction that would block R-71.[58] The secretary of state's office reports that King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector will rule on Wednesday if she plans to take the case.[56]


Washington's "Top-Two" debate will go to court

OLYMPIA, Washington: Last week U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour ruled that challenges by the state Democratic and Republican parties against the state's “top-two” system will go to trial. The suit, originally filed in 2005, was filed in reaction to a 2004 vote on Washington Top Two Primaries, Initiative 872 (2004), which created a new "top two" election system and ousted the "blanket primary system." The new system, first used in 2008, allow for whichever two candidates get the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. The previously used "blanket primary" allowed for voters to split their tickets.[59] In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "top-two" system does not appear to violate the freedom of association for political parties but left open the possibility that it might be a violation in practice.[60]


Washington R-71 signature count 2/3 complete

TACOMA, Washington: This week, Washington state officials announced that approximately two-thirds of the total submitted signatures to place Washington Referendum 71 (2009) on the November 3, 2009 ballot have been counted. Referendum 71 is an attempt to overturn Washington's new "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law.[61] According to the latest reports, of the 103,898 signatures checked 91,716 have been accepted and 12,182 have been rejected. In order to place the measure on the ballot R-71 supporters must have a total of 120,577 valid signatures. Brian Zylstra of the secretary of state's office reported on Monday, August 24 that the rate of error is currently 11.72%. In order to reach the 120,577 signature goal, it is estimated that the rate of error cannot exceed 12.4%. The count is expected to be completed by next week.[62]


Pierce County ballot language suit goes to court

PIERCE COUNTY, Washington: Last week a lawsuit was filed regarding a ballot language challenge in Pierce County. Specifically the challenge questions three proposed charter amendments scheduled for the November 3 ballot.[63] The suit was filed by Sherry Bockwinkel, a term-limit supporter, and Kelly Haughton, a ranked choice voting supporter, in Pierce County Superior Court. Specifically, Haugton and Bockwinkel argue that the use of the terms “approve” or “reject" is a departure from the more commonly used "yes" or "no" options and may cause confusion. Additionally, they argue that the language on Proposal 1, regarding the extension of term limits, is argumentative and favors the proposal.[64]

A hearing is scheduled for August 31, 2009.


Seattle voters say NO to plastic bag tax

SEATTLE, Washington: Nearly a year after the Seattle City Council approved a 20-cent tax on plastic bags, in a referendum vote the tax was defeated by voters. The Seattle Plastic Bag Tax, also known as Referendum 1, called for voters to affirm or reject the council's 2008 decision, which if approved would have imposed a 20-cent tax on on every carryout bag distributed by grocery, drug and convenience stores in Seattle.[65]

According to King County election results the tax received 27,021 (41.91%) votes to approve the tax and 37,455 (58.09%) votes against the tax. [66]

Supporters cited large donations and a heavily funded campaign against the tax as the main reason for the loss. "Big money can come in and run deceptive scare campaigns, but in the end, people who care will defeat the people who scare," said Green Bag Campaign spokesman Brady Montz.

However, plastic bag tax opponent, Adam Parmer, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop the Bag Tax said, "I think the results confirm what the coalition has said from the beginning, that it was a costly and unnecessary tax. I think you saw Seattle voters saying that this was not the right approach to protecting our environment."[67]

As of August 9, 2009 the American Chemistry Council's total contributions towards the campaign against the tax was $1.4 million.[68] According to published reports the total contributions to the Green Bag Campaign were $95,134, as of August 17, 2009.[69]

The campaign to defeat the proposed bag tax was managed by Goddard Claussen. Direct mail services were provided by the Michael D. Meyers Company. [70]


Washington R-71 donor names to be made public

TACOMA, Washington: Yesterday, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission ruled that the names of donors to Protect Marriage Washington are a matter of public record. Protect Marriage Washington is the primary sponsor of Referendum 71. Referendum 71 is an attempt to overturn Washington's new "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law. Just last week Referendum 71 supporters requested an emergency hearing to seal the names after claims were made that some supporters had been threatened. The commission denied the request.[71]

In July the group filed a request for a temporary restraining order in order to not release the names. They argued that the disclosure of donors' names might put those signers at risk of harassment.[72] On July 29, 2009 a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order.[73]


Federal judge grants signature privacy TRO

TACOMA, Washington: Federal judge Benjamin Settle issued a temporary restraining order on July 29, 2009 to halt the public release of a list of those who signed the Referendum 71 petition in Washington. Referendum 71 is an attempt to overturn Washington's new "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law.[74]

The request for the temporary restraining order came from Protect Marriage Washington based on their knowledge that WhoSigned.Org is planning to put on the internet the names of those who signed the petition, if the names of the signatures are made publicly available.[75]

Supporters of R-71 said in their TRO request that releasing the identity of petition signers might put those signers at risk of harrassment, leading to a situation where their First Amendment rights are chilled.

A hearing on whether to make the TRO permanent will take place on September 3, 2009.[76]


Washington sales tax proposal to not be on ballot

SEATTLE, Washington: In a recent four-to-two decision, the King County Council voted to keep a proposal of a one-tenth of a cent sales tax increase off the ballot in November. Analysts said that the tax would have provided revenue for services already dependent on public funds, such as public health, criminal justice and human services. The council members who voted against it, however, marked the recession as the main reason behind their opposition. "While well-meaning, in this difficult economy, we cannot ask the public to pay more in taxes for a premature proposal," said council member Bob Ferguson shortly after the decision was made.[77] He further criticized the organizers of the proposal for not getting it to the council in its finished form until twenty-four hours before they were to vote on it, not giving enough time for a proper review of the intended and unintended consequences.[78]

Proponents of the measure expressed their disappointment after the voting finished, citing important programs that remain key points of support for low-income families and communities. Jan Patterson, one of the council members who voted for the proposal, said, "It is so severe - the budget cuts that we're going to consider this year - that it made sense to me that we should allow the people the opportunity to express their opinion about those cuts."[77]


Support for Washington annexation referendum dropped

OLYMPIA, Washington: Late last week, Jerry Galland, a King County resident and supporter of Washington Senate Bill 5808, also known as Washington Referendum 72, announced that the effort to place the measure on the November 3, 2009 statewide ballot was dropped. Galland said, "We are in a position where we do not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot."[79]

Under SB 5808, if a city, a county and a fire district come to an agreement about annexing a neighborhood, that annexation can happen without a vote of the people who live in the annexed neighborhood. Supporters were required to submit a minimum of 120,577 valid voter signatures by July 25 in order to qualify the measure for the November 2009 statewide ballot.[80]


Foes of expanded domestic partnership rights file signatures

OLYMPIA, Washington: On Saturday, July 25, opponents of a new law in the State of Washington that expands domestic partnership rights filed signatures with election officials in the hopes of overturning the law through the state's veto referendum process.

In order to succeed at putting the question on the November 3 ballot, they must have 120,577 valid voter signatures.[81],[42]

The new domestic partnership law was slated to go into effect on Sunday, July 26. Since signatures have been submitted, the law will not go into effect, at least until election officials have scrutinized the signatures for validity. If election officials determine that sufficient signatures were filed, the law will not go into effect until after a statewide vote has taken place in which voters approve it. If election officials determine that an insufficient number of valid signatures were filed, the law will go into effect when that determination has been made.[82]

The process of verifying the signatures may take until the last week of August.[42],[83]


Washington domestic partnership law likely to be put on hold

OLYMPIA, Washington: Supporters of Washington Referendum 71 have scheduled an appointment this Saturday, July 25, to submit the required number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The new domestic partnership law is scheduled to take effect Sunday, July 26, but if the petitions are submitted then the law will be placed on hold until the election. A grand total of 120,577 valid voter signatures are required but election officials have suggested a minimum of 150,000 to ensure that the measure is placed on the ballot.[84]


Olympia property tax levy proposal dropped

OLYMPIA, Washington: Olympia Mayor Doug Mah announced on July 1, 2009 that he was discontinuing his proposal for the $33 million property tax levy that would have been used to buy an isthmus park and rebuild Percival Landing, a park located in Olympia city limits.[85]

In an interview, Mah stated that there were three reasons for his decision to drop the proposed ballot measure: too much uncertainty in the economy, unanswered questions about partnerships that could bring more money for the work, and lack of support from advocates for an isthmus park.

“I think it was the right property, the right vision, the right compromise for the area, but occurring at the wrong time,” he said.

The proposal would cost the owner of a $250,000 home about $105 per year for the 20-year period. After that, the tax would expire.[86]


Washington budget initiative to be on this year's ballot

OLYMPIA, Washington: Tim Eyman, a state-based political activist and limited-government supporter, has succeeded in getting Initiative 1033 on this year's ballot. The ballot measure summary reads as follows:

This measure would limit growth in state revenues deposited in funds subject to the state expenditure limit, and limit growth in county and city revenues deposited into the county and city current expense funds. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population. The limit also would apply to revenues transferred out of these funds. The limit would exclude voter-approved revenue increases. Revenues above the limit would reduce property tax levies.[87]

Eyman and his partners in organizing the initiative, Jack and Mike Fagan, say the measure is necessary to stem invasive government growth and eliminate large swings in spending, further claiming that the current economic recession is a perfect example of why such an initiative is necessary. Opponents, however, essentially say the exact opposite, saying that because the economy will rebound faster than the initiative's growth cap, the state government will be unable to restore pre-recession services that were cut to meet lower revenue.[88] Many also point to the fact that other states that have capped state spending to the previous year's budget creates a permanent budget shortage. Colorado, for example, since 1992 when they passed such an initiative, has declined significantly in providing funding for public education and affordable avenues for health insurance.[89]


Washington legislators increase use of emergency clause

OLYMPIA, Washington: This year the Washington Legislature attached the "emergency clause" to 68 bills during the legislative session, the fourth lowest year of it's use. In the past 12 years, lawmakers have attached it to a grand total of 813 bills, according to a report by the The Snohomish Times newspaper.

As stated in the Washington Constitution, citizens have a right to bring legislation to referendum through the petition process. The "emergency clause," however, exempts legislation from repeal through the referendum process. The clause is applicable to a bill that is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions."[90]


Washington's King County primary election a month away

KING COUNTY, Washington: The King County primary election will be held on Tuesday, August 18, 2009. Two ballot measures will appear on the ballot. Both measures require to be approved by a simple majority of those voting.

  • Proposition 1 (Proposed Annexation to the City of Burien): The measure calls for voters to vote for or against the annexation of the North Highline South Annexation area to join the city of Burien.[91]
  • Referendum 1 (City of Seattle): The referendum calls for voters to approve or reject a 20-cent fee on disposable shopping bags. If approved the stores with annual gross sales of under $1,000,000 could keep all of the fees they collected. All other stores, however, could keep 25% of the fees they collected and would send the remainder to the City. [92]

Seattle city council approves $145 million property-tax levy

SEATTLE, Washington: The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to put a $145 million, seven-year property-tax levy on the November 2, 2009 ballot. Jan Drago was the only council member to voice her concerns about the proposed levy and suggested a $120 million levy. She couldn't get another council member to second her motion.[93]

The council's proposal would allot the tax money to five areas. Most of the money, $104 million, would go to construct or renovate apartment buildings The council also voted that no more than 10 percent of the $104 million could be spent on people making up to 80 percent of the median income, which is $44,800 for a single person.


Washington property tax initiative likely to move to ballot

OLYMPIA, Washington: Last week, property tax initiative, also known as Initiative 1033, supporters submitted 314,000 petition signatures in order to qualify an initiative that calls for lower property taxes. Specifically, the initiative, if approved by voters, would tie revenue increases to the rate of inflation plus population growth and any revenue that exceeds the cap would be used to lower property taxes in the following year. According to state law, proponents of the measure needed 241,000 valid voter signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.[94] Opponents argue that the measure would be too restrictive on government, would make recovery difficult after a recession and that population growth is too simplistic as a measure. However, Tim Eyman, a political activist, said that the initiative still allows for a "rainy day fund" and added, “If you need more, make your case to voters.”[95]


Washington immigration initiative unlikely to make ballot

Washington: The Washington ballot initiative, Initiative 1043, also called the "Respect for Law" initiative, does not look like it will have enough of the 241,000 required signatures by July 3, 2009 to make it on the November 2010 ballot, officials say. Sponsor Wendell Hannigan, a Yakama tribal member, said it was extremely "doubtful" that they would have enough, citing the fact that generally you would need nearly 300,000 actual signatures as a cushion against so-called spoilage.[96]

The initiative would require:

  • All public and private employers and labor organizations to utilize the online E-verify "instant check" of name and Social Security number for workplace eligibility purposes.
  • State and local governments to verify legal presence through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements(SAVE) program prior to giving out taxpayer-funded benefits, as well as doing the same prior to drivers' license issuance.
  • All persons charged with a felony or DUI to have their immigration status checked.
  • That no public employee be inhibited from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.[97]

Despite the national attention the issue has received, supporters had to revert to unorthodox means of collecting signatures, such as putting petitions as inserts in newspapers and local publications. Still, there has been very little fanfare over the issue.


Washington group withdraws ballot challenge

THURSTON, Washington: Just days after filing a challenge to the ballot title for Washington's Referendum 71, the Washington Values Alliance has withdrawn its objections. As previously reported, the group had challenged the ballot summary language, hoping to draw a clearer connection between domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. [98]


Lawsuit filed against Referendum 71 ballot title

OLYMPIA, Washington. The Washington Values Alliance (WVA) filed a lawsuit on May 26, 2009 against the Washington Attorney General challenging the ballot title written for Washington Referendum 71 (2009).[99]


King County man files veto referendum against annexation law

OLYMPIA, Washington. Jerry Galland, a King County resident, has launched a petition drive to collect signatures to force a veto referendum vote on Washington Senate Bill 5808.[100]

Under SB 5808, if a city, a county and a fire district come to an agreement about annexing a neighborhood, that annexation can happen without a vote of the people who live in the annexed neighborhood.

Galland will need to collect 120,577 valid voter signatures by July 25 to qualify the measure for the November 2009 statewide ballot.

Darlene Fairley sponsored SB 5808 and the Association of Washington Cities lobbied hard for it.[100]


Referendum 71 language filed in State of Washington

OLYMPIA, Washington. The same day that State of Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5688 (2009), which grants same-sex domestic partners in Washington all the rights of married couples, the Washington Attorney General released the ballot title and summary for Washington Referendum 71 (2009).

Referendum 71, sponsored by the Washington Values Alliance, is proposed as a veto referendum that would nullify the law signed by Gregoire.

Sponsors have until July 25 to collect 120,577 valid voter signatures to get the measure on the Nov. 3 ballot.[101]


Frank Chopp endorses sales tax hike

OLYMPIA, Washington: Frank Chopp, speaker of the Washington House of Representatives, has indicated that he is in favor of a proposal to put a sales tax increase on the November 2009 ballot.

According to a statement from Chopp, "To meet the challenges of the most difficult national recession in decades, we have worked hard to cut spending, make government more efficient and keep the priorities of our people foremost in mind. I strongly support this referendum to meet the needs of our people for critical care in hospitals, nursing homes and basic health. “At the same time, we must bring a greater sense of fairness to our revenue system. That is why the Working Families Tax Credit is so important – to give a break to those who need it the most. As we move forward to a stronger economy, we must not leave anyone behind and must appeal to the goodness of our citizens to care for all."

The measure favored by Chopp would raise the state portion of the sales tax by three-tenths of a percent starting January 1, 2010, lasting for three years.[102]

See also

References

v • d • e
Ballot news from around the country and The Ballot Initiative Gazette
Retrieved from "http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_ballot_news"
Personal tools