Category Archives: Washington State Legislature

Pass ESSB 5082 to end Push Polls on Washington State ballots

Testimony To Washington State Legislature  supporting ESSB 5082  – encouraging electoral participation and making ballots more meaningful by abolishing advisory votes 

My name is Steve Zemke, speaking for Majority Rules. Please pass ESSB 5082 to end these phony advisory votes on our ballots.  

As written Advisory votes are really an anti tax, anti revenue  push poll on Washington state ballots. The ballot format was written by Tim Eyman as a means to influence public opinion and promote his anti-tax initiative business. 

All other ballot measures are written by the Washington State Attorney General’s office. The ballot title is meant summarize what the public is voting on. It is not supposed to present a bias one way or another. 

Yet Eyman’s ballot language  starts with  “the legislature imposed, without a vote of the people” is hardly an  unbiased or neutral statement. 

“costing _____ over 10 years”  likewise is meant to inflate what is happening. State budgets are two year budgets, not ten year budgets.  

“for government spending” likewise insinuating that anything the government does is bad.  

No other state has advisory votes on their ballots. End these push polls on our ballots. They mislead and misinform the  public in what they are voting on. They do not repeal any legislation. That is what referendums are for

Michigan begins campaign to join National Popular Vote to elect US President and Vice President

An initiative late last year was filed in Michigan on signature gathering on a ballot measure to join the National Popular Vote. So far 15 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 195 electoral votes have joined the National Popular Vote.
On November 3, 2020, Colorado became the first state in the country to approve the National Popular Vote at the ballot box.  Other states that have the initiative process that haven’t yet signed on can follow Colorado’s example and do what Michigan is doing.
Michigan has 15 electoral college votes. When states with a total of 270 Electoral Votes join the National Popular Vote,  the President and Vice President winners will be those with the largest popular vote across the country.
The National Popular Vote would mean every vote of citizens across the country will be equal and  not dependent on which state you live in. One-person, one-vote is what other democratic nations around the world rely on. The US Electoral College is an outlier.
Washington state is one of the 15 states already signed on – a bill was passed in the Washington State Legislature in 2009 and was signed by  Governor Gregoire.

NPI Media Advisory – “Advisory votes” are propaganda and can’t be used to “gauge public opinion”

“Advisory votes” are propaganda and can’t be used to “gauge public opinion”

MEDIA ADVISORY

DATE: Wedsnesday, November 3rd, 2021TO: Washington State Reporters, Editors, and ProducersFROM: Andrew Villeneuve, Executive Director, Northwest Progressive Institute  media@nwprogressive.org)

In the last fifteen hours, our team at the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) has seen several stories published or aired that incorrectly describe statewide “advisory votes” as a means of allowing voters to express a viewpoint on recently-enacted tax increases.

For example, a KING5 story contained this line: “Advisory Vote 37 is meant to gauge public opinion” while The Seattle Times characterized “advisory votes” as allowing “voters to sound off on tax bills passed by the Legislature.”

These characterizations are incorrect. “Advisory votes” are in reality propaganda conceived by Tim Eyman to undermine public confidence in the work of the people’s elected representatives. They aren’t meant to gauge anything, and they can’t be used to measure public opinion.

Because they are prejudicially worded, the responses are worthless. The “results” simply don’t tell us how voters truly feel about the state’s new capital gains tax on the wealthy or the other two bills the Legislature passed last session that happened to increase state revenue.

As any reputable pollster knows, asking a loaded question in public opinion research produces garbage data.

Here are three essential facts about “advisory votes” that should be included in any reporting about them:

#1: The format and wording of “advisory votes” is prejudicial and was devised by Tim Eyman

Real ballot measures (like initiatives) are represented on the ballot with titles written by the Attorney General’s office. The title is intended to be a synopsis of what the measure is and does; it is the official representation of the measure on the ballot.

However, unlike real ballot measures, “advisory votes” are not written by the Attorney General’s office. They follow a formula created by Tim Eyman which is spelled out in RCW 29A.72.283. Eyman’s formula, as mentioned, is loaded with prejudicial language:

  • “The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people…” (It’s actually the Legislature’s job to make fiscal decisions on the people’s behalf.)
  • “… costing $_____ (amount over ten years) … ” (Ten year cost estimates are deceptive and misleading; budgeting isn’t done in ten year increments. Any number sounds more impressive when you take it out over ten years.)
  • “… for government spending.” (When the Legislature raises revenue, there’s always a reason or a purpose for its action; for example, the new state capital gains tax funds the Education Legacy Trust.)

Then there are two responses: “Repealed” and “Maintained”.

“Repealed” is shown first, because that’s the oval Eyman wants voters to fill in. “Maintained” (which is also weak, nonstandard verbiage) is shown second.

Ordinarily, “Yes” or “Approved” is shown first, and “No” or “Rejected” is shown second for a ballot measure. If you’ve covered politics for any length of time, then you’re familiar with this dichotomy. Since Eyman’s goal with “advisory votes” is to influence how people think instead of measuring public opinion, he flipped the standard dichotomy on its head, all to serve his agenda of using propaganda to generate even more propaganda for attacks on our elected representatives.

#2: Voters aren’t informed that regardless of which oval they fill in, nothing will change

Real ballot measures have binding outcomes. When an initiative passes, it results in a new law being created. When a referendum is rejected, it results in a law the Legislature previously passed being repealed. When a constitutional amendment or charter change passes, it means our plan of government is being altered.

“Advisory votes,” on the other hand, aren’t binding. 90% of voters could fill in the “Repealed” oval and no tax would be repealed.

The coverage of “advisory votes” that we’ve seen has responsibly stated that “advisory votes” are not binding.

But it’s important to go a step further when writing about “advisory votes” and explain that voters are not told that their collective responses will not change fiscal policy. There is no disclaimer anywhere. The only clue is in the heading: “Advisory Vote.”

Voters should not have to find out from news coverage that something they’re being asked to vote on isn’t going to have any impact, unlike with a real ballot measure.

#3: There is an active effort underway to repeal “advisory votes” and replace them with information that’s actually useful in the voter’s pamphlet

Legislation is currently pending in the Washington State Legislature that would not only permanently abolish “advisory votes,” but replace them with useful information about the Legislature’s recent fiscal decisions in the voter’s pamphlet. Passage of this legislation (Senate Bill 5182, prime sponsored by Senator Patty Kuderer) would remove a barrier to voting and get Tim Eyman’s anti-tax propaganda off our ballots while making the Legislature’s work more transparent.

Polling commissioned by NPI shows Washingtonians favor this legislation.

We have asked three times whether voters want to get rid of “advisory votes.” Since, as explained above, we can’t know what people really think if we ask a loaded question, we wrote a question that presents some of Tim Eyman’s arguments in favor of “advisory votes” followed by some of our arguments against them. The wording for Eyman’s arguments was sourced right out of his email missives… it’s wording he actually uses himself.

Each time we’ve asked, in three different statewide polls, we have found that a plurality of voters support repeal, while a smaller number are opposed and a significant percentage aren’t sure.

Here’s the text of our question:

QUESTION: The Washington State Legislature is considering legislation that would abolish the non-binding statewide advisory votes that are triggered whenever a bill is passed that increases state revenue. Proponents of advisory votes say they allow voters to vote on tax increases and transform the voter’s pamphlet into a tax increase report card, enabling voters to find out what Olympia is doing to them. Opponents say that advisory votes are actually costly push polls designed to confuse the public, which ought to be eliminated to save valuable tax dollars and prevent legitimate measures and candidate elections from being pushed to the back of the ballot. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose abolishing non-binding advisory votes?

The last time we asked, in October of 2020, we found 42% in support of abolishing advisory votes, 22% in favor of keeping them, and 35% not sure. Net support for repeal increased to 20% from 17% in 2019. Our October 2020 survey had a sample of 610 likely 2020 voters, was conducted between October 14th and 15th for NPI by Public Policy Polling using calls to landlines and text messaging, and has a margin of error of +/- 4.0%.

We know this particular survey had a truly representative sample because every single electoral result from this survey foreshadowed the subsequent statewide results several weeks later. See our retrospective on that here.

Additional information about “advisory votes”

About Permanent DefensePermanent Defense is a project of the Northwest Progressive Institute that protects Washington by building a first line of defense against threats to the common wealth and Constitution of the Evergreen State.

About NPIThe Northwest Progressive Institute is a regionally focused nonprofit working from Washington, Oregon, & Idaho to constructively transform our world through insightful research and imaginative advocacy. NPI was founded in 2003 and is based in Redmond, Washington.

Northwest Progressive Institute8201 164th Avenue NE, Suite 200, Redmond, WA 98052-7615 |media@nwprogressive.org | Twitter: @nwprogressive

Urge Washington Legislators to End Eyman Push Polls on Our Ballots

Washington State Legislators – Pass SB 5182 now!

Washington State needs to end Washington taxpayers subsidizing Tim Eyman’s anti-tax initiative campaigns. They need to stop putting his so called Tax Advisory Votes  on our ballots. They are really anti-tax push polls.

Why are legislators allowing this abuse of our ballots to continue? It is time to end this abuse of our electoral process.

The language used to write the ballot titles for these so-called advisory votes was written by Tim Eyman, not the State’s Attorney General as all other ballot titles are.

Eyman’s ballot titles inflammatory language biases voter’s opinions. Requiring phrases like “legislature imposed”, “without a vote of the people”, “costing …in the first 10 years” and “for government spending” are phrases that are not neutral but are meant to bias against a “maintain” vote and all taxes and revenue increases in general.

Special interest polling does not deserve a place on our ballot. The fact that these push polls benefit a private initiative business and were written by that business to promote its anti-tax political agenda is even more objectionable.

End this abuse of our ballot. End this taxpayer subsidy of these Eyman push polls on our ballot.

Pass SB 5182 introduced by Senator Patty Kuderer!

Send Washington State legislatures an e-mail today supporting SB 5182.

Go to Action Network Now.

2021 Bill to End Tim Eyman’s Push Poll Tax Advisory Votes Filed in Washington State Legislature.

Time to End Eyman’s Push Polls on Washington State Ballots

Senator Patty Kuderer has again introduced a bill, SB 5182,  in the Washington State Senate to remove Tim Eyman’s phony anti-tax push polls on our November General Election ballots. These so called “Tax Advisory Votes” are really taxpayer funded advertising supporting Eyman’s anti-tax initiative business.

The language of the ballot title of each was written and prescribed by Eyman,  All other ballot titles for issues on the ballot are written by the Washington State Attorney General.

Senate Bill 5182 is scheduled for a public hearing before the Senate Committee on State Government and Elections at 8 AM on Wednesday Jan. 20, 2021

Public testimony can either be orally given via zoom or comments can be submitted to the Committee in written form. Go to Participating in Committee hearings  to register to speak or submit written comments.  The Committee is the Senate Government and Elections Committee  and the bill number is SB 5182  

The bill sponsors are Senators Kuderer, Hunt,Conway, Darneille, Das, Dhinga, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Nguyen,Pedersen, VanDe Wege and C. Wilson.

Urge WA Legislators to Pass SB 6610 to End Push Poll Advisory Votes on our Ballot

Help end Tim Eyman’s use of our ballots

to promote his business!

Why is Washington State  allowing Tim Eyman to have access to our ballots to do anti tax push polls done under the guise of so called “tax advisory votes”?

These advisory votes are really free advertising, paid for by Washington State taxpayers, to express opposition against the Washington State Legislature raising revenue or repealing outdated tax exemptions. The ballot language was written by Tim Eyman, not Attorney General Bob Ferguson who writes all other ballot title language.

Its time to end this abuse of using our ballot and taxpayer money to subsidize the profit interests of an anti-tax initiative business run by Tim Eyman.  

Senator Patty Kuderer has introduced legislation to end the use of Tax Advisory votes on our ballots. SB 6610 is in the Senate State Government, Tribal Relations, and Elections Committee. It is scheduled for a hearing this Wed, Feb 5 2020 at 8 AM in Olympia. It must be voted out of committee by Friday Feb 7, 2020to stay alive.

Can you please send an e-mail to the members of the committee expressing your support for this legislation?  Urge they vote to pass it out of committee to get a floor vote by the State Senate. You can also make a quick call to their Legislative offices. The members of the Committee and their contact information is below. Thanks.

Hunt, Sam (D)
Chair
sam.hunt@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7642
Kuderer, Patty (D)
Vice Chair
patty.kuderer@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7694
Zeiger, Hans (R)
Ranking Member
hans.zeiger@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7648
Muzzall, Ron (R)
Assistant Ranking Member
ron.muzzall@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7618
Hasegawa, Bob (D) bob.hasegawa@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7616
Hawkins, Brad (R) brad.hawkins@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7622
Takko, Dean (D) dean.takko@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7636

Steve Zemke
Director – Tax Sanity
www.taxsanity.org

 

WA State House of Representatives Rules Committee 2019 – Democrats

 

Washington State Legislature – Democrats on House Rules Committee 2019

Name Phone Email Leadership Position LD
Frank Chopp (360) 786-7920 Frank.Chopp@leg.wa.gov House Speaker 43
Pat Sullivan (360) 786-7858 Pat.Sullivan@leg.wa.gov Majority Leader 47
Eric Pettigrew (360) 786-7838 Eric.Pettigrew@leg.wa.gov Majority Caucus Chair 37
John Lovick (360) 786-7804 John.Lovick@leg.wa.gov House Speaker Pro Tempore 44
Tina Orwall (360) 786-7834 Tina.Orwall@leg.wa.gov House Deputy Speaker Pro Tempore 33
Marcus Riccelli (360) 786-7888 Marcus.Riccelli@leg.wa.gov Majority Whip 3
Monica Stonier (360) 786-7872 Monica.Stonier@leg.wa.gov House Majority Floor Leader 49
Larry Springer (360) 786-7822 Larry.Springer@leg.wa.gov House Deputy Majority Leader 45
Lillian Ortiz-Self (360) 786-7972 Lillian.Ortiz-Self@leg.wa.gov House Majority Caucus Vice Chair 21
Christine Kilduff (360) 786-7958 Christine.Kilduff@leg.wa.gov House Deputy Majority Floor Leader 28
Mike Chapman (360) 786-7916 Mike.Chapman@leg.wa.gov House Deputy Majority Whip 24
Kristine Reeves (360) 786-7830 Kristine.Reeves@leg.wa.gov House Deputy Majority Whip 30
Bill Ramos (360) 786-7852 Bill.Ramos@leg.wa.gov House Assistant Majority Whip 5
Jared Mead (360) 786-7892 Jared.Mead@leg.wa.gov House Assistant Majority Whip 44
Steve Bergquist (360) 786-7862 Steve.Bergquist@leg.wa.gov 11
Lauren Davis (360) 786-7910 Lauren.Davis@leg.wa.gov 32
Noel Frame (360) 786-7814 Noel.Frame@leg.wa.gov 36
Sharon Wylie (360) 786-7924 Sharon.Wylie@leg.wa.gov 49

see also as google document:  House Rules Committee  Democrats

Testimony in support of SB 5224 to end Eyman’s Anti-Tax Push Polls

Testimony in support of SB 5224 – concerning advisory votes 

 Eliminating Eyman’s push poll tax advisory votes from the ballot

Washington State House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations

Steve Zemke – Tax Sanity           March 11, 2019

The Washington State Ballot for the last ten years has been cluttered with nonbinding push poll questions on tax measures passed by the Legislature.

These so called “tax advisory” questions” were put there as part of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960 as an attempt to increase public resentment to any “tax” measures despite their benefit to  the larger public. The ballot title for each is basically written as an anti-tax push poll based on Eyman’s ballot title language in Initiative 960 that stipulated the polling question wording.

They carry no Legislative weight as they only record voters’ opinions. They are like a public opinion poll paid for by taxpayers. But Eyman tries to use them to build public opposition to funding public services by wording them such that voters will be inclined to respond negatively to any tax increase. Under Eyman’s definition of tax increases he also includes any efforts by the Legislature to repeal any tax exemptions or tax expenditures even if they are no longer needed or are no longer meeting the state priorities of government.

Deciphering Eyman’s ballot title language is very tricky and confusing to voters. They seem purposely written to try to get voters to vote to repeal any tax increase passed by the Legislature.   And unlike initiatives, the write-up on these so-called tax advisory votes in the voter’s pamphlet contain no explanatory statement, no pro and con statements, and no fiscal impact statement.

In fact, the State Attorney General has no real ability to even try to fairly explain the issue in the ballot title since Eyman’s initiative 960 required that the ballot title be worded as he wrote it:

The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, (identification of tax and description of increase), costing (most up-to-date ten-year cost projection, expressed in dollars and rounded to the nearest million) in its first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:
Repealed . . .[ ]
Maintained . . .[ ]

Please end this waste of taxpayer dollars to promote Tim Eyman’s anti-tax propaganda and misuse of the public ballot to further his self-serving anti-tax initiative promotion business. Vote to move SB 5224 out of committee to Rules and to the House floor for passage by the full House. Push polls to promote a private business deserve no place on Washington State’s ballot.

Update Information SB 5224 was prime sponsored by Senator Patty Kudder and Senators Hunt, Takko, Keiser, Nguyen, Darneille, Das, Wellman, Saldana, McCoy, Hasegawa, and Pedersen. The bill has been heard in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations. Please contact your Representatives and urge they vote for this bill by clicking on this link  SB 5224 and then clicking on “comment on this bill.”  Thanks.

Washington State Democratic Party 2019 Legislative Priorities

Washington State Democratic Party 2019 Legislative Priorities

Washington State Democrats, as citizens of the planet, place the well-being of the people as our highest priority. We believe in the values of community, empathy, equality, tolerance, opportunity, and the common good of the
interdependent world we share.

These are our 2019 Washington State legislative priorities.

Climate Action & Environmental Protection
• Protect our salmon, orcas, and tribal fishing rights by speeding up removal of barriers to fish passage
• Mandate a transition to a one hundred percent clean electric grid by 2045
• Restrict the use of neonicotinoids to save our pollinators from annihilation
• Require single-use plastic bags, straws, and containers to be phased out of stores and restaurants
Fiscal Responsibility & Revenue Reform
• Levy a capital gains tax on the wealthy to fund K-12 schools and higher education
• Develop a fair and equitable property tax code to replace Eyman’s I-747 and the 2017 levy swipe scheme
• Create the Washington State Investment Trust so we have our own publicly-owned state bank
• Abolish indefensible corporate tax loopholes and impose accountability measures for those that remain
Healthcare
• Create the Washington Health Security Trust to bring single-payer healthcare to all Washingtonians
• Adopt legislation to address prescription drug cost transparency
• Provide help to those struggling with opioid addiction by expanding substance abuse treatment programs
• Make substantive mental and behavioral health investments to end the practice of psychiatric boarding
• Ensure everyone has affordable and equitable access to reproductive and sexual health care, including  contraception and abortion, regardless of gender, gender identity, citizenship status, or income
Technology
• Reduce the “digital divide” in Washington State authorizing public utility districts and rural and urban port districts to provide retail ISP and telecommunications services
• Adopt the Washington Internet Privacy Protection Act
• Strengthen our state’s digital defenses to protect critical data like our voter rolls
• Secure public cyber resources and means of gathering public input against abuse by bots
Economic Security, Labor, and Corporate Accountability
• Increase monetary penalties for crimes committed by corporations
• Empower local governments to fight homelessness and protect renters by investing in affordable housing
• Strengthen fines for wage theft and bolster employment and training standards
• Protect good jobs and voter-approved Sound Transit 3 projects by fully replacing (on a 1:1 basis) any revenue lost due to vehicle fee formula changes
Public Safety
• Advance human rights and community safety by abolishing the death penalty
• Implement recommendations of the Use of Deadly Force in Community Policing task force, including the establishment of crisis intervention response team pilot projects • Increase funding for geologic hazards mapping plus earthquake, tsunami, and landslide readiness
• Create a civilian review board to implement sentencing reforms
Education
• Fully fund special education and ramp up our investments in early learning and preschool
• Enact the Washington Promise free community college tuition initiative
• Amend the State Constitution to lower the threshold for passage of school bonds to a simple majority
• Empower schools to offer more vocational training opportunities and better civics courses
• Establish disciplinary protocols that eliminate the practice of educational exclusion for children of color
• Track the impact of RCW 28A.600.015 and its effect on the school to prison pipeline (rates of suspension and expulsion) in the state of our schools
• Enact Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids (LEAD-K) legislation to ensure Washington’s deaf and hard of hearing children have a fluent first language by the time they start kindergarten
Electoral Reform
• Improve Washington’s presidential primary so it protects our First Amendment right to free assembly
• Repeal Tim Eyman’s push polls (erroneously called advisory votes)
• Make postage-free ballot return envelopes permanently available to all Washington voters
• Increase funding for the PDC and expose dark money with tough new transparency laws

Approved by the Washington State Democratic Central Committee on September 16th, 2018

Updating Washington State RCW’s to remove 2/3 vote to raise taxes

Dear Representative Javier Valdez,

Thanks for agreeing to look into this and push to update the current RCW’s to reflect the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in 2013 that it is unconstitutional to require a 2/3 vote as needed for the Legislature to raise taxes. It is amazing that 5 years after the Washington State Supreme Court ruled, that the RCW’s have not been updated.  Anyone looking at them to get guidance on Washington State law would assume that the 2/3 vote is still required to raise taxes. One has to wonder how many other Washington State laws have not been updated to reflect Washington State Supreme Court decisions.

I would urge Representative Pollet and Senator Frockt to join you in an effort to update our RCW’s to reflect current law and remove language that has been declared unconstitutional by our Washington State Supreme Court. I know they support this effort and Senator Frockt was instrumental in helping to get the Washington State Supreme Court decision  but 5 years is a long time since the Supreme Court declared the 2/3 vote requirement as unconstitutional.

Thanks again.

Steve Zemke

https://q13fox.com/2013/02/28/state-supreme-court-overturns-23-vote-to-increase-taxes/

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article26261110.html

Here is what comes up when I searched for current RCW:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.135.034

RCW 43.135.034

 Tax legislation—Two-thirds approval—Referral to voters—Conditions and restrictions—Ballot title—Declarations of emergency—Taxes on intangible property—Expenditure limit to reflect program cost shifting or fund transfer.

 (1)(a) Any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises taxes may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote in both the house of representatives and the senate. Pursuant to the referendum power set forth in Article II, section 1(b) of the state Constitution, tax increases may be referred to the voters for their approval or rejection at an election.

(b) For the purposes of this chapter, “raises taxes” means any action or combination of actions by the state legislature that increases state tax revenue deposited in any fund, budget, or account, regardless of whether the revenues are deposited into the general fund.
(2)(a) If the legislative action under subsection (1) of this section will result in expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit, then the action of the legislature may not take effect until approved by a vote of the people at a November general election. The state expenditure limit committee must adjust the state expenditure limit by the amount of additional revenue approved by the voters under this section. This adjustment may not exceed the amount of revenue generated by the legislative action during the first full fiscal year in which it is in effect. The state expenditure limit must be adjusted downward upon expiration or repeal of the legislative action.
(b) The ballot title for any vote of the people required under this section must be substantially as follows:
“Shall taxes be imposed on . . . . . . . in order to allow a spending increase above last year’s authorized spending adjusted for personal income growth?”
(3)(a) The state expenditure limit may be exceeded upon declaration of an emergency for a period not to exceed twenty-four months by a law approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature and signed by the governor. The law must set forth the nature of the emergency, which is limited to natural disasters that require immediate government action to alleviate human suffering and provide humanitarian assistance. The state expenditure limit may be exceeded for no more than twenty-four months following the declaration of the emergency and only for the purposes contained in the emergency declaration.
(b) Additional taxes required for an emergency under this section may be imposed only until thirty days following the next general election, unless an extension is approved at that general election. The additional taxes expire upon expiration of the declaration of emergency. The legislature may not impose additional taxes for emergency purposes under this subsection unless funds in the education construction fund have been exhausted.
(c) The state or any political subdivision of the state may not impose any tax on intangible property listed in RCW 84.36.070 as that statute exists on January 1, 1993.
(4) If the cost of any state program or function is shifted from the state general fund to another source of funding, or if moneys are transferred from the state general fund to another fund or account, the state expenditure limit committee, acting pursuant to RCW43.135.025(5), must lower the state expenditure limit to reflect the shift. For the purposes of this section, a transfer of money from the state general fund to another fund or account includes any state legislative action taken that has the effect of reducing revenues from a particular source, where such revenues would otherwise be deposited into the state general fund, while increasing the revenues from that particular source to another state or local government account. This subsection does not apply to: (a) The dedication or use of lottery revenues under RCW 67.70.240(1)(c), in support of education or education expenditures; (b) a transfer of moneys to, or an expenditure from, the budget stabilization account; or (c) a transfer of money to, or an expenditure from, the connecting Washington account established in RCW46.68.395.
(5) If the cost of any state program or function and the ongoing revenue necessary to fund the program or function are shifted to the state general fund on or after January 1, 2007, the state expenditure limit committee, acting pursuant to RCW 43.135.025(5), must increase the state expenditure limit to reflect the shift unless the shifted revenue had previously been shifted from the general fund.
2015 3rd sp.s. c 44 § 421; 2013 c 1 § 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1185, approved November 6, 2012); 2011 c 1 § 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1053, approved November 2, 2010).]
NOTES:
Effective date—2015 3rd sp.s. c 44: See note following RCW 46.68.395.
Intent—2013 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1185): “This initiative should deter the governor and the legislature from sidestepping, suspending, or repealing any of Initiative 1053’s policies which voters approved by a huge margin in 2010. The people insist that tax increases receive either two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval and fee increases receive a simple majority vote. These important policies ensure that taxpayers will be protected and that taking more of the people’s money will always be an absolute last resort.” [2013 c 1 § 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1185, approved November 6, 2012).]
Construction—2013 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1185): “The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.” [2013 c 1 § 7 (Initiative Measure No. 1185, approved November 6, 2012).]
Short title—2013 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1185): “This act is known and may be cited as “Save The 2/3’s Vote For Tax Increases (Again) Act.”” [2013 c 1 § 9 (Initiative Measure No. 1185, approved November 6, 2012).]
Contingent effective date—2011 c 1 §§ 2 and 3 (Initiative Measure No. 1053): “Sections 2 and 3 of this act take effect if, during the 2010 legislative session, the legislature amends or repeals RCW 43.135.035.” [2011 c 1 § 9 (Initiative Measure No. 1053, approved November 2, 2010).]
Intent—2011 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1053): “This initiative should deter the governor and the legislature from sidestepping, suspending, or repealing any of Initiative 960’s policies in the 2010 legislative session. But regardless of legislative action taken during the 2010 legislative session concerning Initiative 960’s policies, the people intend, by the passage of this initiative, to require either two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases and majority legislative approval for fee increases. These important policies ensure that taking more of the people’s money will always be an absolute last resort.” [2011 c 1 § 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1053, approved November 2, 2010).]
Construction—2011 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1053): “The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.” [2011 c 1 § 6 (Initiative Measure No. 1053, approved November 2, 2010).]
Short title—2011 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 1053): “This act shall be known and cited as Save The 2/3’s Vote For Tax Increases Act of 2010.” [2011 c 1 § 8 (Initiative Measure No. 1053, approved November 2, 2010).]