Tag Archives: Washington state Initiatives

Press Release – Initiative 735 Passes 254,000 Signatures, Moves Closer to Qualifying

Tuesday, December 8th, 2015

Contact Gabe Meyer                                                                                              Campaign Director, WAmend
gabemeyer@wamend.org                                                                                                   or Steve Zemke
Field Director, WAmend

SEATTLE — WAmend, the sponsor of Initiative 735, announced today that supporters have now collected over 254,000 signatures to get on the 2016 ballot in Washington State. A minimum of 246,273 signatures are required by December 31st to file with the Secretary of State. WAmend is aiming to submit 320,000 signatures to cover duplicate and invalid signatures and assure success in qualifying. Continue reading

Washington State Anti-Tax Initiatives and the Shrinking of Public Services

Conservative anti-tax proponents pushing initiatives like I-1053 and I-1107 on this year’s Washington State ballot are pushing lies about our ever-expanding state government.  The fact is that the percentage of our state’s resources (as measured by collective personal income) devoted to public services like education and health care for seniors and children continues to decline.

The following is taken from a post by the Washington State Budget and Policy Center and deserves wide distribution to help educate the public:

Despite the claims being made by Initiative 1107 and Initiative 1053’s proponents, Washington actually devotes a smaller share of its resources to public services like education and health care than a decade ago. And given the magnitude of the recession, the state will likely continue to devote a smaller share of its economy to public services than before.

Typically, economists measure changes in government spending over time by analyzing how much of a state’s total personal income – or the sum of its collective resources – goes for public services. But as the graph below shows:

•The share of our resources that are spent on education, health care, public safety, and other important services has actually dropped since the late-1990s;

•As of June 2010, state spending in the current 2009-11 biennium is projected to fall to about 5.4 percent of total personal income in Washington – lower than the 6 percent share that went for public priorities the late-1990s.

This percentage will decline even further due to the recently-announced, 6.3 percent across-the-board budget cuts.

In other words, a smaller share of our collective resources is going to public priorities like educating our kids or providing health care than before.

And it is declining.

The post adds a link to get more detailed information. See the full report by Andy Nichols entitled Budget Claims Lack Context, Belie Deep and Painful Cuts. 

I urge Washington Voters to vote No on Tim Eyman and Oil Industry giant BP’s Initiative 1053 – which would give 17 out of 147 Washington State Legislators veto power over our state budget. Vote No on I-1107 which would repeal a short term tax on bottled water and soda. The American Beverage Industry is bankrolling this effort.
For more information on the initiatives on the November ballot go to http://www.protectwashington.org/ and http://www.stopgreed.org/.

King County Democrats Nov 2, 2010 General Election Endorsements

The King County Democrats at their monthly meeting in September finalized their endorsements for the Nov. 2, 2010 General Election ballot.  King County will be an all mail in election so ballots need to be postmarked by Nov 2, 2010 at the latest.

You can see the King County ballot pamphlet here and can taylor it to your specific Legislative District.


Position Candidate

United States Senator – Patty Murray

United States Representatives:

District 1 – Jay Inslee

District 2 – Rick Larsen

District 7 – Jim McDermott

District 8 – Suzan DelBene

District 9 – Adam Smith

Washington State:

Legislative District 1, Position 1 – Derek Stanford

Legislative District 1, Position 2 – Luis Moscoso

Legislative District 5, Position 1 – Gregory Scott Hoover

Legislative District 11, Position 1 – Zack Hudgins

Legislative District 11, Position 2 – Bob Hasegawa

Legislative District 30, Senator – Tracey Eide

Legislative District 30, Position 1 – Mark Miloscia

Legislative District 30, Position 2 – Carol Gregory

Legislative District 32, Senator – Maralyn Chase

Legislative District 32, Position 1 – Cindy Ryu

Legislative District 32, Position 2 – Ruth Kagi

Legislative District 33, Senator – Karen Keiser

Legislative District 33, Position 1 – Tina Orwall

Legislative District 33, Position 2 – Dave Upthegrove

Legislative District 34, Senator – Sharon Nelson

Legislative District 34, Position 1 – Eileen Cody

Legislative District 34, Position 2 – Joe Fitzgibbon

Legislative District 36, Senator – Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Legislative District 36, Position 1 – Reuven Carlyle

Legislative District 36, Position 2 – Mary Lou Dickerson

Legislative District 37, Senator – Adam Kline

Legislative District 37, Position 1 – Sharon Tomiko Santos

Legislative District 37, Position 2 – Eric Pettigrew

Legislative District 39, Position 1 – Eleanor Walters

Legislative District 41, Senator – Randy Gordon

Legislative District 41, Position 1 – Marcie Maxwell

Legislative District 41, Position 2 – Judy Clibborn

Legislative District 43, Senator – Ed Murray

Legislative District 43, Position 1 – Jamie Pedersen

Legislative District 43, Position 2 – Frank Chopp

Legislative District 45, Senator – Eric Oemig

Legislative District 45, Position 1 – Roger Goodman

Legislative District 45. Position 2 – Larry Springer

Legislative District 46, Senator – Scott White

Legislative District 46, Position 1 – David Frockt

Legislative District 46, Position 2 – Phyllis G. Kenney

Legislative District 47, Senator – Claudia Kauffman

Legislative District 47, Position 1 – Geoff Simpson

Legislative District 47, Position 2 – Pat Sullivan

Legislative District 48, Senator – Rodney Tom

Legislative District 48, Position 1 – Ross Hunter

Legislative District 48, Position 2 – Deb Eddy

King County County Council District 8 – Joe McDermott


Washington State Supreme Court:

Justice Position 5 – Barbara Madsen

Justice Position 6 – Charlie Wiggins

Court of Appeals, Div 1, District 1 – Michael Spearman

King County District Court

Northeast District, Position 6 – Michael Finkle

Northeast District, Position 7

Donna Tucker Dual Endorsement

Larry Mitchell Dual Endorsement

Shoreline District, Position 2 – Marcine Anderson

Southeast District, Position 2

Darrell Phillipson Dual Endorsement

David Meyer Dual Endorsement

Southeast District, Position 6

Matt Williams Dual Endorsement

David Tracy Dual Endorsement

Southwest District, Position 2 – Susan Mahoney

West District, Position 5 – Anne Harper

City of Seattle – Municipal Court

Position 1 – Ed McKenna

Position 3 – Steve Rosen

Position 5 – Willie Gregory

Position 6 – Karen Donohue

Initiative 1053 – NO

Initiative 1082 – NO

Initiative 1098 – YES

Initiative 1100 – NO

Initiative 1105 – NO

Initiative 1107 – NO

Referendum 52 -YES

HJR 4220 – YES

SJR 8225 _ NO

King County

Charter Amendment 1 -YES

Charter Amendment 2 -YES

Charter Amendment 3 – NO

Proposition 1 – YES

Seattle School District

Proposition 1 – YES

for more information on the initiatives and propositions go to the endorsements page.

You can get more information on the King County Democrats by going to their website. 

Did Eyman Forget to Turn in all His Petitions for Initiative 1033?

I guess its time for another Eyman Initiative 1033 grassroots joke. In two separate comment threads over on Crosscut on Initiative 1033 Tim Eyman makes the following statement:

out of 48,148 supporters who were mailed a I-1033 petition in February, an extraordinary 34,588 sent back a partially filled or fully filled petitions

Over at the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate, Andrew reported that:

“The Secretary of State’s office tells NPI that they received 19,317 petitions, not all of which are full. Eyman claimed to have submitted 314,277 signatures. “

So what happened to the remaining 15,271 petitions from his grassroots supporters? Did Eyman lose the extra petitions? Or is it again just another example of Eyman trying to falsely hype what is really a dismal grassroots effort? Didn’t Eyman get into trouble for something like this before? I think it was about not being paid when he was because he thought it sounded better to say he was working for free even when he wasn’t.

I’m sure Eyman’s not in any legal trouble on this, it’s just another one of many times that he is fast and lose with facts and figures, trying to put a spin on something to say what he thinks people want to hear or what he thinks sounds better for his self image. In this he is trying to convince people what a tremendous grassroots effort this campaign is when in reality it was mostly a paid signature gathering effort funded over 86.5% by 3 individuals.

I suspect the truth is that he sent out 48,148 petitions and only received back 34,588 signatures. That means that out of the final 315,444 signature count, the rest were probably from paid signature gatherers.

34,588/315,444 = 10.96% of signatures turned in from mailing to “grassroots”
Could it be true that only 11% of Eyman’s signatures were from the “grassroots” supporters?

Maybe as many as 1700 petitions came back if all were full. This seems like a much more realistic return rate based on Initiative campaigns I’ve been involved with.

Money wise it also seems accurate. 315,444 signatures total – 34,588 from grassroots leaves 280,856 he paid for. He spent $598,081 to get his signatures, including mailing, which is about $1.89 per signature for the total amount. This is in the ballpark for cost per signature in campaigns these days.

While we’re at it we should actually note that Eyman did not collect 315,444 valid signatures. A small point but I am tired of Eyman’s misrepresentations of fact. He had a 12% invalid rate which means that only 277,591 signatures were declared as valid. A minor point but lets keep our figures straight for the record.

List Growing of Organizations Opposing Initiative 1033

The list is growing of organizations opposing Eyman’s Initiative 1033 which will be on the November 2009 ballot. I-1033 is Eyman’s latest attempt to impose his Orwellian view of hogtying and limiting state, county and local government spending by ratcheting down revenues available every time there is a recession.

When times are good he will transfer funds mainly derived from sales taxes everyone pays, to reduce real estate taxes for the wealthy. The more property you own the more of a real estate tax break you will get. It’s sort of a reverse perverse Robin Hood scheme that benefits large corporate land owners like Boeing and Weyerhauser and shopping mall owners and real estate developers and owners of McMansions and second homes.

Here’s the latest list of organizations opposing I-1033. They would rather see our tax dollars go to provide services for everyone, not just wealthy property owners getting another tax break at the public’s expense.

AARP Washington
Amalgamated Transit Union 1015
American Federation of Teachers Washington, AFL-CIO
Alzheimer’s Association, Western and Central Washington Chapter
Asian Pacific Islander Coalition of King County
Central Washington Progress
Heart of America Northwest
King County Democrats
Lutheran Public Policy Office
Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
Fuse Washington
The Nature Conservancy of Washington
Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington
Puget Sound Sage
Raising Our APA Representation
SEIU 775
Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter
Statewide Poverty Action Network
Surfrider Foundation
Transportation Choices Coalition
UFCW Local 21
Washington Association of Churches
Washington Bus
Washington Education Association
Washington Low Income Housing Alliance
Washington State Council of County and City Employees, AFSCME Council 2
Washington State Hospital Association
Washington State Labor Council

You can go to the No 1033 campaign website to add your organizations name to the list and learn more about the campaign.

Why You Should Vote No on Initiative 985

Initiative 985 is the 2008 incarnation of Tim Eyman’s Annual Initiative Campaign as he plays citizen legislator. Eyman basically buys his spot on the November ballot each year by hiring a slew of paid signature gatherers to collect enough signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.

Most voters never read the back of the initiative and the fine print of what Eyman wants them to vote into law. They should because Initiative 985 is another one of Eyman’s Trojan Horse Initiatives. Hidden in the text of I-985 is language that directs so called congestion relief money to building more roads and opposing spending money for transit.

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office has done a terrible job of assigning a ballot title and summary to Initiative 985. It is misleading and misses the main use of the money appropriated under I-985.

Reading the ballot title lulls you into believing that this measure might actually reduce traffic congestion as Eyman’s seems to claim. It sounds like the $145 million or so Eyman wants to appropriate from the General Fund and red light fines each year will be used to open car pool lanes, synchronize traffic lights and add emergency vehicles to clear roads.

After you put up a few signs saying car pools lanes are open after rush hour to traffic, get your computer synchronized lights set up and add a few more tow trucks in the first year what happens to the bulk of the $145 million collected each year in Eyman’s dedicated fund?

This is when you find out what Eyman’s plan really is. It is to dedicate millions of dollars more each year to just building more roads. This is above and beyond the already dedicated funds collected from gas taxes that is restricted to roads.

I-985’s purpose is not to solve traffic congestion but to eliminate all measures to reduce congestion except road building. It is another one of Eyman’s Trojan Horse Initiatives.

Hidden in the fine print of Initiative 985 is the fact that after you’ve synchronized traffic lights, opened car pool lanes and added some more emergency vehicles, the remainder of the $145 million collected each year can only be spent on “reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles

This may sound O.K. until Eyman’s I-985 adds “Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail.”

The money collected to reduce congestion is put in a dedicated fund but can’t be used for buses or park and ride lots or bike paths. The state gas tax is already dedicated to road building and Eyman wants to add more money for road building.

I-985 reflects Eyman’s is anti-transit bias and his support for more roads. This measure will not reduce congestion but add to it by spending more money on road building rather than alternatives to get people out of cars and into more efficient modes of transportation like buses.

Initiative 985 needs to be rejected by voters. The public needs to vote no on more road building at the expense of other proven methods of actually reducing congestion.

I-985 is not good public policy but is just another Eyman attack on public transit.
Vote No on I-985.

for more information go to the official No on 985 campaign at www.noon985.com .

November 4, 2008 Washington State Ballot Measures

11/05/2008 8 AM Update:

Initiative 985 has been decisively defeated by the Washington voters while Initiative 1000 and 1029 have been passed by wide margins.

Initiative 985 41% yes/59% no
Initiative 1000 59% yes/41% no
Initiative 1029 74% yes/26% no

For latest update and specific vote numbers go to the Washington State Secretary of State’s election webpage for statewide initiatives.

previous post:

Three statewide initiatives will be on the November 4, 2008 Washington State ballot.

Majority Rules Blog recommends you vote:

No on Initiative 985
Yes on Initiative 1000
Yes on Initiative 1029

Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 985 concerns transportation.

This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would: open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all vehicles Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday; require traffic light synchronization, and mandate increased funding for roadside assistance. Certain existing revenues, including 15% of state sales and use taxes on vehicles, certain traffic infraction penalties, and certain tolls would be dedicated to traffic-flow purposes.

No on 985 – http://www.noon985.com/

BALLOT MEASURE I-1000 (Death With Dignity)
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns allowing certain terminally ill competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions.

This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents medically predicted to die within six months, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician. The measure requires two oral and one written request, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of an informed patient decision. Physicians, patients and others acting in good faith compliance would have criminal and civil immunity.

Yes on I-1000 http://itsmydecision.org/

Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1029 concerns long-term care services for the elderly and persons with disabilities.

This measure would require long-term care workers to be certified as home care aides based on an examination, with exceptions; increase training and criminal background check requirements; and establish disciplinary standards and procedures.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
Beginning January 1, 2010, this measure would require certification for long-term care workers for the elderly and persons with disabilities, requiring a written examination, increased and additional criminal background checks. Continuing education would be required in order to retain certification. Disciplinary standards and procedures would be applied to long-term care workers who are certified as home care aides. Certain workers would be exempt based on prior employment, training or other circumstances.

Yes on I-1029 – http://www.yeson1029.org/

Note – State Ballot Measures Nov 2008 – for actual text go to http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2008

Washington Initiative Process not the Problem!

It seems that the in thing to do these days in Washington State is to criticize the initiative process as what is wrong. That misses the larger picture.

Over on Horsesass.org Goldy continues to pitch for so called “initiative reform” as if that will send the Tim Eyman’s and Farm Bureau’s and Evergreen Legal Foundation’s running with their tails between their legs and we’ll never see them again.

The attack on the initiative being focused on the initiative process rather than the issues and voters involvement means focusing on small details rather than viewing the larger picture. What is needed are more voters who take signing the initiative seriously. It requires that they take the time to read and understand what it is they are signing in support of before they sign.

The initiative is a legal process, written into the Washington State Constitution – a right of voters to petition either the citizens or the Legislature to enact a law to address concerns of a voter or voters. Getting voters to sign to put an initiative on the ballot is akin to getting sponsors on a bill being introduced in the Legislature. The same as sponsors of a legislative bill are saying to fellow legislators, please vote for this bill, signers of an initiative are helping those who wrote ther initiative ask voters to support their initiative.

While there is no legal requirement on the number of sponsors on a bill, the initiative process requires that at least 8% of those who voted in the last Governor’s race sign the initiative. Voters need to view their signature as being akin to being a sponsor of the initiative.

Signers of an initiative are, by signing the initiative, indicating their support for the initiative by asking that this issue be put on the ballot. Printed on all initiatives are the following words “We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the state of Washington, respectfully direct that the proposed measure known as Initiative …(ballot title)… a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be submitted to the legal voters of the state of Washington for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on …”

As a result of signing, among other things, voters are asking the state to commit state tax dollars to verify that an adequate number of registered voters have signed the measure. They are asking state taxpayer dollars be used to put the measure on the ballot and to commit state and local taxpayer dollars to hold the election, count and certify the election results. By signing an initiative, whether they understood it or not, voters are committing tax dollars to aid in the passage of an initiative.

Signers, by default of signing, are also letting the sponsors of the initiative use their signature as a sign that the initiative has their support and the support of thousands of others. Signers are not just signing to put this measure on the ballot. Sponsors of an initiative use the number of signers as an indication that voters see the need for this new legislation.

The problem is that many voters do not know what they are signing because they have not read the text of the initiative on the back of the petition. Too often they believe what a paid out of state signature gatherer tells them about the measure.

While we in Washington State have to live with the law if the initiative passes, the paid signature gatherer is off in some other state collecting signatures. We wouldn’t sign to buy a used car without understanding what it is we are signing yet voters repeatedly sign measures, without reading the fine print, that can have wide ranging impacts on their daily lives. Examples this year include measures to eliminate zoning for developers and reduce tax dollars for transportation. (The sponsors of these measures say they are to prevent government from taking your property and for $30 license tabs)

The mistake that progressives and others made regarding Tim Eyman’s anti-tax initiatives was ignoring the fact that he was and is running his initiative mill year round – 12 months, 52 weeks, 365 days out of the year. You can not let someone organize and work the media that way and the grassroots that long and expect to come in a month before the election and spend a few dollars and stop him.

Fighting bad initiatives and bad policy and wrong headed ideas requires year round response. It requires rebuttal. It requires vigiliance and involvement. It requires that we propose  . It requires offense as well as defense. So far progressives and Democrats and labor and good government groups and others have been playing a lot of defense, but defense at best means things stay the same, and any score by the opposition means you lose.

So it’s necessary to be active, to participate, to commit time and effort and money and go on the offense. At best so called “initiative reforms” are likely to be few and only slightly change the rules.

The calls for initiative reform are not what is needed. It’s like crying “Three strikes and you’re out? What do you mean, we need 4 strikes before you’re out.” Meanwhile the other side is continuing to play.

Crying you don’t like the rules is not going to beat the opposition which continues to play. Get with the game folks! Its still being played.

Fat in the State Budget

Eyman has filed his annual “money maker for the sponsor” initiative to decry once again the evil villains of state government who want poor carowners to pay more than $30 a year for the priviledge of driving their car. One fee for all he says, even motorhomes and trucks.

Vehicles up to 20,000 pounds or 10 tons would now pay only $30 instead of $171. The problem is heavier vehicles do more wear and tear on roads and should pay more. Eyman is trolling for votes. Eyman wants taxpayers who have smaller vehicles to subsidize the road system for those doing the most damage.

Eyman has actually filed 5 initiatives to the people this year:

I-913 relating to revenue and fee increases
I-914 relating to prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment
I-915 – relating to motor vehicle charges
I-916 – relating to transportation
and an unnumbered one relating to motor vehicle charges

The reason he does this is to try to get a “good ” ballot title from the Attorney General’s office.
He uses taxpayer dollars to try to perfect a ballot title and summary he likes.