If you live in Washington state, here’s a list of the initiatives, referenda, and resolutions we’ll be voting on this year – along with my opinions about how I’m planning to vote. Even if you’re not from WA, you might be curious about what’s on our ballot.
When that’s all done, I’ll end with rant a bit about ballot measures.
The Voter’s Pamphlet
Before every election, the WA Secretary of State publishes a voter’s pamphlet which is mailed out to every voter. If you’d like to see the online version for this year, it’s here: 2010 General Election Online Voters' Guide. Click on "Measures" to see the initiatives and referenda.
It’s boring (and arbitrary) to list them numerically, so I decided to arrange the various measures in the order of importance, starting with the measures I feel most strongly about.
In the list below, I’ll give you one sentence of how I’m voting, then I’ll list the exact words that will appear on the ballot, then I’ll explain you why I like or dislike it. (And if you didn’t notice the link above, you can read the exact words of the proposed laws at this link).
The state constitution requires the legislature to wait two years before repealing an initiative passed by the people. So if a majority of people vote yes, we’re stuck with it for two years or more.
I-1053: Institutes a 2/3 rule for tax increases
I’m voting ABSOLUTELY NO on 1053.
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.
This is a typical Tim Eyman initiative. Washington is a blue state. The state senate currently has 31 Democrats and 18 Republicans (which means Democrats have 63% of the senate). The state house currently has 61 Dems and 37 Reps (Dems have 62% of the house). Democrats might lose a few seats this election (but probably not very many). This initiative would require supermajority of 2/3 of both houses to raise taxes. That’s 66%.
Plus, I-1053 has a requirement about fees. If some state agency decides to charge more for a fishing license or a camping-in-a-state-park fee or entry-to-a-museum fee or plumber’s license or whatever, the legislature would have to approve it.
In effect, this initiative would make it almost impossible to raise taxes – the two possibilities are 1) both parties would agree on some sort of bipartisan happy compromise, or 2) Republicans (in the minority) would say "No, no, and no." Guess which one is more likely?
This is a horrible, horrible initiative. If you live in WA, vote no. It would turn us into California.
One more thing: I-1053 and the British Petroleum (BP) connection
1053 has been funded heavily by BP and other oil companies (article here: BP gives big bucks to Eyman initiative).
While burdened with Gulf of Mexico cleanup costs, the North American subsidiary of BP found $65,000 to pour into the campaign that put Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053 onto Washington's November ballot.
BP is the third big oil company to underwrite the campaign for I-1053, which would require a supermajority legislative vote to raise taxes. Tesoro and ConocoPhillips contributed $50,000 apiece earlier this spring. Equilon, a refining and fueling joint venture of Shell Oil and Texaco, also gave $50,000.
That shouldn’t surprise anyone. BP is supporting an anti-tax initiative that the Republican Teabagger Party loves.
But what’s funny is I’ve been seeing ads on TV that try to link Patty Murray with BP – claiming that Murray wants to raise taxes on American oil companies, so she’s trying to help oil companies from Venezuela (picture of Hugo Chavez) and "even BP." Which is a ridiculous idea; as if voting for Rossi is a vote against BP. I think the ads are actually sponsored by one of those "Concerned Citizens" astroturf groups, not by the official Dino Rossi campaign.
I-1098: Establishes a state income tax
I’m voting ABSOLUTELY YES on 1098.
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1098 concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.
This measure would tax "adjusted gross income" above $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.
Income tax is often called the third rail of WA politics. We currently don’t have a state income tax, so rich people such as Bill Gates (from Microsoft – maybe you’ve heard of Microsoft) can make a lot of money and not pay any income tax to the state. Yes, he’ll pay income tax to the feds, but not to Washington.
So, who started Initiative 1098? Here’s the website for Yes on 1098. It was started by Bill Gates, Sr. (the father of the Bill Gates from Microsoft). They’re both rich and they think it’s time to start an income tax. Because the current system is extremely unfair to poor people.
Here’s an article from "The Stranger" about why you should vote YES on 1098: Tax the Filthy Rich!. And here’s a graph from the article that shows what percentage of their income poor people pay in (WA state) taxes:
Look at that graph. By relying on sales taxes and property taxes (and various other things like gasoline taxes, sin taxes, and so on), the state collects way too much money from the poor and not enough from the rich. I have to admit that the state isn’t horribly nasty to poor people; we do have the highest minimum wage of all 50 states and the safety net is sort of OK.
But taxing poor people is just the opposite of what’s right and just. It’s horribly wrong. In fact, a recent P-I article said this:
The Institute on Taxation & Economic labeled Washington's tax system the most regressive in the nation.
In other words, taxes in Washington take a greater proportion of poor people's income than wealthy people's and do so more than any other state.
Also this initiative would lower or eliminate taxes on small businesses (the B&O tax) and it would lower property taxes.
So I strongly suggest that you vote YES.
The Republican Teabagger Party says, "Yeah, but it’s the camel’s nose under the tent. Once we allow an income tax for people over 200K, the evil Democrats will change the rules." And I say, "That’s fine with me." We need to move away from the sales tax.
I-1107: Eliminates the tax on soda, candy, and bottled water
I’m voting NO on 1107.
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1107 concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.
This measure would end sales tax on candy; end temporary sales tax on some bottled water; end temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages; and reduce tax rates for certain food processors
In WA, the sales tax isn’t applied to food. To balance the budget last year, the legislature decided that cookies are food, but chocolate bars and sugary hard candy aren’t. Fruit juice is food, but Coca-Cola isn’t. The water you get from the tap is (almost) free, but companies that put water in plastic bottles should be taxed by a few pennies (they also jacked up the taxes on alcohol and tobacco). But that riled up the manufacturers of candy, Coke, and bottled water, so they spent a bunch of money to put this on the ballot.
This is a good example of how the initiative process has been hijacked by corporate interests.
I-1082: Privatizes workers’ comp
I’m voting NO on 1082.
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1082 concerns industrial insurance.
This measure would authorize employers to purchase private industrial insurance beginning July 1, 2012; direct the legislature to enact conforming legislation by March 1, 2012; and eliminate the worker-paid share of medical-benefit premiums.
This initiative is an attempt to privatize workers’ compensation, written and paid for by the insurance industry. Unions are against it. The State Insurance Commissioner is against it. The State Auditor is against it.
If you get injured on the job – let’s say you break your leg while you’re at work, doing a work-related thing – you’re covered by worker’s comp, which is currently run by the state of WA (although large companies can self-insure). This initiative would give employers a third option: to go to private insurance companies, whose main raison d’etre is to make a profit. So they’d have an incentive to pay slowly, pay less, or to refuse claims. It’s a bad, bad, bad idea to privatize workers’ comp.
ESHJR-4420: Denies bail for people accused of a heinous crime
I’m voting NO on 4420. (By the way, ESHJR is "Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution" and this would be a Constitutional Amendment.)
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on denying bail for persons charged with certain criminal offenses.
This amendment would authorize courts to deny bail for offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison, on clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence that would likely endanger persons.
I’m not voting for this because I like basic rights such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect it might pass (because people like to "lock ‘em up and throw away the key.")
R-52: Authorizes bonds for energy efficiency in schools
I’m voting YES on 52 (but I won’t cry if it loses).
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
The legislature has passed Engrossed House Bill No. 2561, concerning authorizing and funding bonds for energy efficiency projects in schools.
This bill would authorize bonds to finance construction and repair projects increasing energy efficiency in public schools and higher education buildings, and continue the sales tax on bottled water otherwise expiring in 2013.
It’s about schools and energy efficiency. How could you be against it?
JR-8225: Adjusts the state debt formula
I’m voting YES on 8225 (but I won’t cry if it loses).
Here’s how it will look on the ballot:
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment concerning the limitation on state debt.
This amendment would require the state to reduce the interest accounted for in calculating the constitutional debt limit, by the amount of federal payments scheduled to be received to offset that interest.
This is an accounting thing. The state constitution sets a limit on bonds issued by the state – when the state borrows money, the amount paid in principal and interest (per year) can’t go above a limit of 9% of the average revenues from the last three years. This amendment wouldn’t change the 9% rule, but it would allow the state to subtract the interest and principal paid for by federal funds.
I-1100, 1105 – Privatize liquor sales in slightly different ways
I haven’t decided, but I’m leaning towards voting YES on one or the other or maybe both.
Here’s how I-1100 will look on the ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1100 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributers (sic) and producers.
Here’s how I-1105 will look on the ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1105 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
This measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. It would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues from distribution and sale of spirits.
I haven’t decided, but I’m leaning towards voting YES on one or the other or both.
Currently in WA you can buy beer and wine in grocery stores and convenience stores, but if you want hard liquor, you have to find a state-run liquor control store. Bars and restaurants are also required to buy liquor from state stores. If a distillery sells a bottle of booze for $4, the state adds $3 (for retail markup) and then $7 (for taxes). The state liquor stores make enough a profit on the markup to pay for themselves. The taxes go to the state, although some percentage is distributed to local governments.
I-1100 is the "Costco" initiative. 1105 is the "distributor" initiative. The Seattle Weekly had a fairly good article about it (Battle of the Booze). As far as I can understand it, 1100 would let a store like Costco become both a retailer and distributor, whereas 1105 would set separate the retailers and distributors. If both initiatives pass, I’m not sure if the one with the most votes would take effect or if the legislature would have to blend them together somehow.
If either one passes, the price of liquor would go down and the availability would go up. If 7-11s are selling booze, it might be easier for underage kids to buy it. Some restaurants like the initiatives, some unions don’t like them. Small wineries in the state don’t like the initiatives, for some reason.
I just don’t know. It’s a complex issue and I haven’t decided how I’ll vote.
Finally, here’s the rant I promised:
Why I Hate Initiatives
At one time, maybe 100 years ago, initiatives and referenda were a good progressive idea, but in the last 20 years or so, they’ve been taken over by corporate interests and teabaggers and religious nuts.
First, I have to express my utter disgust with Tim Eyman. He’s the most evil, most regressive political force in WA. If you want to know more, here’s the Wikipedia description, which will tell you what you want to know about him. Eyman was a teabagger before it was even a word. He started out selling wristwatches with logos of college fraternities and sororities. Then he figured out he could make a lot more money by sponsoring initiatives to lower taxes and screw up the state government. And he does it every goddamn year. Year after year. Sometimes he doesn’t get enough signatures. Sometimes the voters vote no on his crappy ideas. Sometimes the voters say yes, but the state supreme court says his proposal is unconstitutional. Sometimes his idea becomes law for two years and then the legislature cancels it. As a voter, I’m sick and tired of him and his politics of selfishness.
Second, I believe in representative democracy. The voters should choose a legislature and a governor and then the voters should trust them to set up various laws and rules and taxes. If you don’t like what they do, vote them out. That’s the way the system works.
Third, I hate the idea that some industry or interest group with a lot of money can bypass the legislature to pass a law that’s favorable to their industry. Several years ago we had to vote yes or no on the idea that dental assistants should be able to perform a teeth cleaning without the supervision of a dentist. Isn’t there some state agency that makes rules about dentists and cleaning teeth? If this is a problem, shouldn’t we trust the legislature to pass a new law or something? Why am I voting on teeth cleaning? Oh, yeah, because the Royal Guild of Professional Dental Assistants (or whatever they’re called) spent money to put it on the ballot. I don’t even remember if it passed or not.
Fourth, I hate the idea that small-minded prejudiced people can make everyone in the state vote on questions of what they call "morality." In 2009, the voters of Washington voted Yes for LGBT rights (Referendum 71), which affirmed the "Everything But Marriage Law." Why the fuck were we voting on gay rights? The voters are majority straight people. But they get to vote on "giving" rights to gay people. If I recall correctly, rights are inherent and can’t be taken away (especially not by the majority). Speaking of majorities voting on rights for minorities, back in 1910 the (male) voters of WA extended the right to vote to women. The idea was first proposed in 1854. In WA, it took women 46 years to get the vote (I recently wrote a diary about it here).
Fifth, I hate initiatives because voters don’t always consider the consequences. Several years ago, the voters voted for an initiative to lower taxes (because everybody hates taxes) and also to spend more money on schools (because everybody likes education). But how do you reconcile those two ideas? How do you lower taxes and simultaneously spend more? The next year, the legislature had to sort out the mess.