2016 Voter Information. Statewide Ballot Measure Summaries. Brought to you by: League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund

Transcription

1 2016 Voter Information Statewide Ballot Measure Summaries Brought to you by: League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund Copyright 2016 The League of Women Voters of Washington ver. 1.0 rel

2 League of Women Voters of Washington Voter Notes: Page 2 of 11

3 Page 3 of 11 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Initiative 732 Relates to taxes, including a Carbon Tax I-732 Initiative Measure No. 732 concerns taxes. This measure would impose a carbon emission tax on certain fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity, reduce the sales tax by one percentage point and increase a low-income exemption, and reduce certain manufacturing taxes. This measure would impose a carbon emission tax on the sale or use of certain fossil fuels, including gasoline, and fossilfuel-generated electricity, at $25 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2017, and increasing gradually to $100 per metric ton. This tax will be phased in more gradually for some users. It would reduce the sales tax rate by 1% over two years, increase a low-income tax exemption to as much as $1500, and reduce some manufacturing taxes to promote energy sources other than fossil fuels. Immediate Effects, if Passed: The cost of gasoline and other fossil fuels with the tax added will increase significantly for the consumer and businesses. By increasing the cost of fossil fuels and electricity generated using those fuels, use of fossil fuels is expected to decline, and electricity generation to shift from carbon-intensive coal toward hydro, wind, and solar. This may reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Higher fuel costs will be partially offset, for lower income people, by the reductions in sales taxes, and the increase in the tax rebate program of up to $1500 for 400,000 low income households. Fiscal Effects, if passed: I-732 was intended to be revenue-neutral that is, so that overall Washington State tax revenues would be unchanged. However, its effects on revenue are controversial, and very difficult to predict. The Washington State Department of Revenue estimates a loss of state General Fund revenue by a net amount of $797.2 million. This results from implementing a new carbon tax, reducing the state retail sales tax rate by 1 percentage point and reducing some business and occupation taxes. State expenditures would increase by $37.4 million. However, local tax revenue would increase by $156.1 million to offset some of the losses. This all would happen while the state still has shortfalls in basic education funding identified in the McCleary decision by the Washington State Supreme Court. People who support the measure argue that time is of the essence, and we must start addressing the causes of climate change now. Passing I-732 will make Washington State a global leader in climate action. Reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will slow the pace of global warming, and reductions in other kinds of air pollution resulting from fossil fuel use might also result, with health benefits. Economists who drew up this initiative predict this tax will eventually raise $2.2 billion per year; these revenues will be returned to the public by lowering taxes. As a result of these changes, state tax burdens may become somewhat less regressive, shifting the burden toward higher income residents. Job losses in manufacturing due to increased energy costs are expected to be limited by the reductions in manufacturing taxes. Thus, the state economy and family incomes could benefit, despite increased energy costs. Some people who oppose the measure state that it is difficult to rule out the negative effects of the proposed carbon tax on the Washington State economy, including job losses in energy industries that could move to other states. They also argue that this tax would have a much harder effect on poor people since gasoline costs would rise significantly. Other opponents of I-732 strongly support reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, but argue that this measure is badly designed and would substantially reduce State tax revenue when it is sorely needed and the courts have found that Washington schools are under-funded. They also object that carbon tax revenues, which will be put in the state general fund, would not be targeted toward developing clean-energy jobs, infrastructure, and industry. Some opponents of 732 argue that a cap-and-trade system like those currently implemented in California and the European Union would reduce carbon dioxide emissions more effectively and efficiently.

4 Page 4 of 11 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Initiative 735 Relates to amending the United States Constitution relative to corporate personhood, campaign contributions, and political speech I-735 Initiative Measure No. 735 concerns a proposed amendment to the federal constitution. This measure would urge the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a federal constitutional amendment that constitutional rights belong only to individuals, not corporations, and constitutionally-protected free speech excludes the spending of money. The measure would urge the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a US constitutional amendment clarifying that federal constitutional rights related to free speech belong only to individual human beings, not corporations; that spending money is not considered free speech under the First Amendment; that governments have the right to regulate political contributions and expenditures to prevent excessive and unfair influence of elected officials due to the ability of corporations to make very large political campaign contributions; and that political monetary contributions and expenditures must be promptly disclosed to the public. The measure would urge the Washington state legislature to ratify such an amendment if forwarded by Congress. Immediate Effects, if Passed: This is primarily a measure to show public support for amending the constitution to refine and clarify the concept of corporate personhood, a legal concept which allows corporations to be sued for wrongdoing, just like a real person, but also allows corporations an unlimited amount of contributions to political candidates under the first amendment right to free speech, as outlined by the recent Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Fiscal Effects, if passed: There would be no primary fiscal effect, as the measure simply asks for action on the part of the Washington state Congressional delegation, and the state Legislature. A secondary fiscal effect could be created if any government agencies encountered expenses related to enforcing new campaign financial disclosure laws, but this cost would be very small relative to the overall Federal and state budgets. The supporters of this measure want an amendment to the US Constitution in which corporations would be declared non-persons for the purposes of political speech, and in which a distinction would be made between free speech about political issues and candidates, and money contributed to political issues and candidates. The supporters advocate that unchecked money flowing into political campaigns from corporations can have an unfairly large influence on policy. Corporations are in a much better position than the average individual to make very large contributions to many politicians. This makes the politicians more beholden to for-profit corporations and organizations who have a stated goal to make money and not consider social justice or communitarian goals. Supporters state: Initiative 735 will not limit freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It will keep corporations with a lot of money from having a louder voice than We the People. Those who oppose this measure fall into two groups: 1. Those who argue that I-735 is dangerous proposal to allow government censorship. They point out that the amendment discussed in I-735 would be the first Constitutional amendment since prohibition to take rights away. They say that silencing free speech is undemocratic, and that forbidding citizens from spending their money spreading their beliefs is totalitarian, not democratic. 2. Those who support the concept, but have concerns that the constitutional amendment proposed by this measure would not only limit corporate political donations and influence, but also would remove the opportunity for individuals or the government from suing corporations who have committed wrongdoing or harmed someone, as there would be no legal way for a corporation to be a party in a lawsuit.

5 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Initiative 1433 Concerns Labor Standards I-1433 Initiative Measure No. I-1433 concerns labor standards. This measure would increase the state minimum wage to $11.00 in 2017, $11.50 in 2018, $12.00 in 2019, and $13.50 in 2020, require employers to provide paid sick leave, and adopt related laws. This measure concerns raising the minimum wage and requiring that employers provide paid sick leave. It would increase the hourly minimum wage statewide for employees who are at least 18 years old on a gradual scale as stated in the ballot title. Increases after 2020 would be tied to the rate of inflation. The measure would require employers to provide paid sick leave starting in 2018 that employees could use in certain circumstances related to health and wellness, including caring for family members. The measure would also make the minimum wage act apply to individual care providers and adopt related laws. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. It was last increased in Twenty-nine states and Washington D.C. have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum. Washington s current minimum wage is $9.47 an hour, the fourth highest in the country. The highest state minimum wage in the country is $10.00 currently. Since 1998, the minimum wage in Washington has increased annually based on the consumer price index. A number of cities in Washington, including Seattle, have set the minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. Currently 730,000 workers in the state are estimated to earn less than $13.50 an hour. Immediate Effects, if Passed: Thousands of Washington workers would see immediate wage increases. Tips and service charges would not count toward the minimum wage. Thousands of Washington workers would begin to accrue sick leave at the rate of 1 hour for each 40 hours worked. They could use these hours to care for themselves or family members. They would become eligible to use sick leave after 90 days of employment. Sick leave would carry over to the following year. This measure does not preclude local jurisdictions from enacting labor standards more favorable to employees than those provided in this measure. Wage increases for individual providers caring for disabled individuals under contract to the state would not be affected until Fiscal Effects, if passed: Fiscal effects on the state will vary over time. General Fund expenditures are estimated to be reduced by $5.1 million in , by $10.4 million in and by $4 million in These expenditures would increase beginning in Other fund expenditures would increase. Every town, park district and school district should expect expenditure increases due to higher wage payments. People who support the measure argue that if people work hard and play by the rules they should be able to support a family; a wage of $9.47 per hour is inadequate. A higher minimum wage increases the standard of living for the lowest paid employees in society and increases incentives to take jobs rather than rely on public assistance or illegal activities. A higher minimum wage may decrease cost of government social programs and stimulate consumption by putting money in the hands of low-income people to be greater participants in the economy. The sick leave provision will improve public health, as ill employees will stay at home and get well, rather than reporting to work and spreading illness and diseases. Opponents argue that a higher minimum wage will create greater unemployment by causing employers to lay off workers, cut hours, create fewer jobs, increase prices, move to a different state or country, or close their doors entirely. The initiative does not differentiate among areas of the state to allow for different costs of living or types of work, or allow for a lower training wage. It may cause price inflation. Businesses and jobs may be displaced to states without high minimum wages. Poverty may increase due to the effects of depressing employment and discouraging business. Page 5 of 11

6 Page 6 of 11 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Initiative 1464: Concerns Elections and Lobbying Initiative Measure No concerns campaign finance laws and lobbyists. This measure would create a campaign-finance system; allow residents to direct state funds to candidates; repeal the non-resident sales-tax exemption; restrict lobbying employment by certain former public employees; and add enforcement requirements. I-1464 This measure would create a state-funded campaign finance program allowing residents to direct up to three $50 contributions to candidates for certain state offices. It would repeal the non-resident sales tax exemption, directing resulting funds to this program. It would restrict lobbying employment by certain former public employees; restrict campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors; increase penalties for campaign finance violations; increase campaign finance administration and enforcement; and revise campaign finance and disclosure laws. Immediate Effects, if Passed: I-1464 would establish a program of public campaign financing for that would allow each registered voter to give three $50 credits to qualified candidates for the state legislature who agree to abide to certain restrictions, starting for the 2018 general election. The funds for the program would come from removing a tax exemption that allows out-of-state visitors from states with state income tax but no state sales tax (such as Oregon) to be exempted from paying sales tax in Washington. This initiative would also change are campaign-finance and ethics laws in a number of ways. It would require identification of the top five actual contributors (person, organization or corporation) in political advertising, and prohibit identifying political committees as one of those contributors. It would place a $100 per candidate limit on contributions from lobbyists, and a limit of $500 per candidate on the amount a lobbyist can solicit. Public contractors would have the same $100 limit for candidates running for an office having a decision-making role over their contract. Former elected or appointed officials would have a three year cooling-off period before they could return to lobby their former colleagues. It would provide additional ways to enforce campaign finance laws, and increase penalties for violation. Half of the money from these penalties would go to the state treasury and the other half would be used by the Public Disclosure Commission to enforce campaign finance laws. It would also clarify and strengthen the law against coordination between political campaigns and individuals and political action committees making independent expenditures. Fiscal Effects, if passed: The state Office of Financial Management states that for the first six fiscal years the net revenue to the state is estimated at $173.2 million, and the net expense is estimated at $171.5 million, for a net gain to the state of $1.7million. Local sales tax revenue (which is not remitted to the state) would increase $67.3 million over the same timeframe. Supporters of the measure state that Initiative 1464 will increase transparency and accountability in government, limit the influence of big money in our elections and give regular people more power and control in their democracy. Supporters argue that lobbyists, large corporations and wealthy special interests have too much control over our political process. They claim that Initiative 1464 will start to change that by reforming money in politics and empowering regular citizens. Arguments for and against the measure continue on the next page

7 Page 7 of 11 League of Women Voters of Washington Arguments for the measure (continued): People who support the measure also state that Initiative 1464 will empower voters by giving every person the option to direct public funds in the form of vouchers to support candidates of their choice. Because these vouchers will fund candidates chosen by regular people, this system, it is argued, will encourage candidates to focus more on their constituents, and less on big money donors and special interests. This, in turn, may help new kinds of candidates, allowing more people who aren t wealthy or well connected to run for office so that regular people aren t shut out of critical decision-making in their government. Here are some of the specific things this initiative does: It requires Super PACs to include the names of their top donors in their ads so people know who is really trying to influence elections. It closes the possibility of government officials leaving office and immediately taking jobs as lobbyists or sales staff for companies. It limits big money influence and restricts campaign contributions from lobbyists and public contractors. It strengthens enforcement of ethics laws and campaign finance laws, and increases the penalties for those who I-1464 break them. It creates a voluntary, voter directed small donation system so everyone can support candidates of their choice, which has the goal of giving regular people a stronger voice in our elections. Supporters argue that Initiative 1464 is not funded by a new tax on Washingtonians. It is paid for by eliminating a tax break that only goes to people from a handful of other states, including Oregon. It will not take existing money away from other critical priorities like education. Instead, they argue, it will result in elected officials raising revenue and spending our taxes in a way that is more consistent with the voters wish and not based on the demands of special interests or big donors. Supporters conclude with the statement that big money interests and lobbyists have too much control over our political system, while regular people have very little. Initiative 1464 implements concrete, achievable reforms to make politicians and government more accountable The opponents argue that Initiative 1464 uses public money, your tax dollars, to give money to politicians, and may hurt small business owners and their employees near the border of Oregon in the process. They state that the initiative restricts free speech for small businesses but provides exemptions for corporate lobbyists. Powerful special interests get special treatment. Opponents are also concerned that the initiative allows politicians to pay themselves for lost wages using public funds. They argue that taxpayer dollars will be used to pay politicians to run for office and the system will be ripe for abuse. It s no surprise the initiative is sponsored by politicians and political consultants who will personally benefit from the use of taxpayer funds. It is funded by billionaires and out-of-state special interests trying to create an uneven playing field in their favor. The initiative allows people living in Washington who are non-citizens and cannot vote to contribute public dollars to politicians. Opponents point out that Washington state is under court order to fully fund education and is subject to a $100,000 per day fine. Instead of funding schools, the initiative gives $285 million in public funds to political consultants and politicians to spend on mudslinging and negative attack ads. Opponents state the Initiative 1464 hurts Washington businesses both small and larger in communities near the Oregon border, such as Walla Walla, the tri-cities, Longview, Ridgefield, Hazel Dell, and especially Vancouver. Currently, customers from Oregon or other states where there is no sales tax, currently do not have to pay sales tax on items they buy in Washington. This has helped Vancouver rebuild their downtown district by encouraging people from the bordering large city, Portland, Oregon, to shop and dine in Vancouver. Other border cities also have large bases of Oregonian customers. Eliminating the sales tax exemption for certain out-of-state residents, especially Oregonians, will discourage customers from shopping in Washington where they will pay about 10% more than in Oregon. Small businesses along the border will be hard hit by the loss in sales and may not be able to remain in business.

8 Page 8 of 11 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Initiative Measure No concerns extreme risk protection orders temporarily preventing access to firearms. I-1491 Initiative Measure No concerns court-issued extreme risk protection orders temporarily preventing access to firearms. This measure would allow police, family, or household members to obtain court orders temporarily preventing firearms access by persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others. This measure would allow police, family, or household members to obtain court orders temporarily preventing access to firearms by persons who, because of mental illness or other factors, may harm themselves or others. Immediate Effects, if Passed: The initiative would take effect on December 8, Washington s Administrative Office of the Courts would be required to develop standardized forms, protection orders and procedures for use by local courts when considering a petition for extreme protection orders within 90 days after the measure takes effect. The measure establishes the procedure for such a petition for an extreme risk order. Law enforcement agencies may request and the courts may issue a temporary ex parte order if it is found that there is the potential for immediate danger prior to the hearing for the extreme risk protection order (ERPO). Fiscal Effects, if passed: Total expenditures for state and local government cannot be accurately predicted because the number of extreme risk protections orders can only be estimated. Various state and local agencies responsible for implementing the new measure have, however, projected costs based on the numbers of similar or related cases that are processed annually through the courts. Very few jurisdictions expect to exceed more than $50,000 in costs annually, and those jurisdictions who do expect to exceed that amount annually have very large populations and tax revenues over which the fairly small expense, in relation to the overall budget, would be distributed. The supporters of this measure assert that existing laws of Washington State do not adequately address the needs of society to keep guns from individuals who threaten harm to themselves or others. The proposed initiative gives families and law enforcement important and needed tools to prevent further violence in our communities. Supporters argue that such a law could reduce such violent acts in the future. Evidence from other states with similar laws suggests that such laws have prevented suicides. Supporters also argue that it is reasonable for the state to limit individual rights to protect the larger community from acts of violence. I-1491 would establish a fair and equitable process which would assure that the rights of the individual are protected while our communities as a whole are protected from gun violence. The state requires an individual to pay the insurance for a car and to obtain a license to drive a car. Similarly, the individual who has had her or his firearms removed under the provisions of this measure should be responsible for the costs associated with seeking to reestablish gun ownership. People against this measure argue that I-1491 inappropriately links mental illness with gun violence, further stigmatizing those individuals who have a mental illness. They state that there is no independent evidence that extreme risk protection orders will reduce violence in our communities. The National Association of Mental Illness is concerned that the measure would inappropriately link mental illness with gun violence and deter people from getting the care they need. The American Civil Liberties Union has concerns about the impact of the provisions of the initiative on 14 th Amendment due process procedures in the state. An emergency determination that an individual is potentially dangerous to themselves or others would violate the individual s right to due process. Asking the individual whose firearms have been involuntarily removed to bear the costs associated with petitioning for the return of those firearms would be unreasonable and a further violation of the individual s right to due process.

9 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Initiative Measure No concerns seniors and vulnerable individuals, and the release of identifying data of registered in-home health care workers. I-1501 Initiative Measure No concerns seniors and vulnerable individuals. This measure would increase the penalties for criminal identity theft and civil consumer fraud targeted at seniors or vulnerable individuals; and exempt certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure. This measure would increase penalties for criminal identity theft and civil penalties for consumer fraud when persons over sixty-five or vulnerable individuals are targeted. It would exempt certain information, including names, addresses, and other personally identifying information, of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers for vulnerable populations from public disclosure. It would also prohibit the state and state agencies from releasing certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers of vulnerable populations except in limited situations. Immediate Effects, if passed: The primary effect of the measure is that the Public Records Act would be changed to prohibit disclosing "sensitive personal information" of both vulnerable individuals and "in-home caregivers of vulnerable populations." This would have the immediate effect of sealing the identities of those who are in-home caregivers for elderly and disabled individuals. The measure also requires the Department of Social and Health Services to report any additional records that should be made exempt from public disclosure to protect seniors and vulnerable individuals against victimization. Substantial penalties for criminal identity theft and civil penalties for consumer fraud when persons over sixty-five or vulnerable individuals are targeted already exist in Washington State. This measure would make minor changes in criminal and civil laws that apply when vulnerable individuals or seniors are targets of identity theft or consumer fraud. The measure would increase the criminal penalty for identity theft when a senior or vulnerable individual, as defined, is targeted. The measure would also increase civil penalties for consumer fraud that targets a senior or vulnerable individual, as defined. Fiscal Effects, if passed: Initiative 1501 would have no significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. A small amount of increased effort and expense will accompany the changes to public disclosure law and the new DSHS reporting requirements, but it is expected to be able to be absorbed by current levels of personnel and resources. People who support the measure state the intent of I-1501 is to protect those most vulnerable from identity theft. Unscrupulous persons find ever more clever ways, including identity theft, to improperly obtain, possess, use, and transfer another person's means of identification or financial information. This bill is designed to increase the penalties for theft of the identity of those most vulnerable. The supporters also state that the bill is also designed to protect the identity information of the care givers of those most vulnerable by making the licensed care giver's sensitive identity information no longer public information - exempt from the current Washington public disclosure laws. Opponents of the measure state that the advertised intent of I-1501 is to protect vulnerable citizens. However, the opponents also note that the only truly new part of the initiative is the part that prevents in-home health care workers from discovering that they do not need to be members of a union by exempting their contact information from the current Washington public disclosure laws. Prior to 2013, employees such as home care workers were forced to join a union. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn (2013) said that quasi-public employees such as home health care workers cannot be forced to join a union, nor can they be required to pay dues or fees to one. Opponents note that the highest and only registered donor supporting I-1501 is SEIU 775, a union with 44,000 long-term care workers in Washington and Montana. The Freedom Foundation in Olympia filed a public records request for the names of home health workers to send mailers about their right not to join the SEIU 775. SEIU 775 sued but lost in the courts, and is now trying to write into law new exemptions from disclosure. Page 9 of 11

10 League of Women Voters of Washington Measure: State of Washington Senate Joint Resolution No Concerns Amending the Washington State Constitution to Change the 10-Year Census-Based Redistricting Timeline. SJR 8210 The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on the deadline for completing state legislative and congressional redistricting. This amendment would require the state redistricting commission to complete redistricting for state legislative and congressional districts by November 15 of each year ending in a one, 46 days earlier than currently required. Should this constitutional amendment be: [ ] Approved [ ] Rejected The Constitutional Provision as it Presently Exists Article II, section 43 of the Washington State Constitution requires that a commission be established every ten years to redistrict state legislative and congressional districts. Redistricting means determining the geographic boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts for election purposes. The commission must be established in January of each year ending in a one. The commission is required to approve a redistricting plan by January 1 of each year ending in a two. If the commission does not approve a plan by January 1 of a year ending in a two, the Washington Supreme Court must adopt a plan by April 30 of that year. The Legislature may amend the redistricting plan by two-thirds vote within the first 30 days of the first legislative session convened after the commission submits its plan to the Legislature. The Effect of The Proposed Amendment, if Approved The amendment would require the state redistricting commission to approve a redistricting plan for state legislative and congressional districts by November 15 of each year ending in a one (eg 2021, 2031, etc.). This would shorten the time for the staff of the commission to complete a redistricting plan by 46 days, as the commission would need to approve the next redistricting plan by November 15, 2021, rather than the current deadline of January 1, All other deadlines for redistricting would remain the same. The redistricting commission employs a team of subject matter experts in demographics, geographic information systems, and election administration to complete the work in a non-partisan manner. This team produces various options for boundaries that the Commissioners review and vote upon. One of the tools the subject matter expert team uses to ensure that they are drawing the boundaries fairly is a series of public hearings, held around the state. If enacted, this measure would substantially reduce the amount of time that the professional team supporting the Commission has to hold public hearings and create the best possible plan for the people of Washington. Instead of nine months (April 1 December 31) to complete their work, they will have seven and a half months (April 1 November 14). Fiscal Effects, if passed: Fiscal effects are difficult to pinpoint. There may be some increase in personnel costs due to overtime and increased staff time needed to complete the redistricting work in 7.5 months, when in the past the redistricting personnel have had a full 9 months to complete the same work and submit it to the legislature. This cost could be substantial or minimal, depending upon the information contained in the year census year 2020 census data. People who support the measure argue that the legislature needs more time to review the proposed plan, so that the Legislature can ready their proposed changes, and vote to alter it in the first 30 days of session. Opponents argue that the legislature has no business altering the redistricting plan. Unless there is some gross oversight which will be plainly obvious when submitted, and for which there is plenty of time already for the legislature to review and change. Opponents further argue that the legislators moved the deadline up so that they can look for personal advantages in changing parts of the plan, and that what moving the plan due date up does, is reduce the amount of time for public comment while the plan is being formed. The people of the state of Washington should not be cut out of the process of redistricting. Page 10 of 11

11 League of Women Voters of Washington Measures: State of Washington Advisory Measures 14 & 15 Advisory Vote 14: The legislature extended, without a vote of the people, the insurance premium tax to some insurance for stand-alone family dental plans, costing an indeterminate amount in the first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be: Repealed Maintained Advisory Vote 15: The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, certain limitations on the retail sales and use tax exemptions for clean alternative-fuel vehicles, costing $2,000,000 in the first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be: Repealed Maintained (official as written by the Attorney General s Office) What s an advisory vote? Advisory votes are the result of Initiative 960, approved by voters in Most of Initiative 960 was declared unconstitutional by the courts, but this small piece of Initiative 960 remains. The language of the measures is strictly directed by the directive of Initiative 960, particularly the structure The legislature imposed/extended, without a vote of the people, which begins every advisory measure placed on the ballot under this initiative. This language is deceiving. Every action the Legislature takes is done without a vote of the people, not just these advisory measures, with the exception of when the Legislature sends a referendum to the people. This is the correct way representative democracy is supposed to work. Decision-makers in the form of state representatives and state senators are elected to study each issue and vote in the best interests of citizens. Different decision-makers can be elected in subsequent elections if citizens disagree with decisions. Advisory votes are non-binding. The results will not change the law or taxes in any way, shape or form, even though the measures are phrased as if we, the public, are advising the Legislature to repeal or maintain a tax increase. We are not. The action taken has already long since been implemented. At best, these are simply very expensive opinion polls taken long after the information would have been useful for the legislature s consideration. These advisory measures often concern very small taxes, or closing tax loopholes and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. In many cases, the cost of adding these advisory measures to the ballot and conducting the election for the advisory measures, is a greater cost of tax dollars to the state than the amount of money that the measure itself concerns. Immediate Effects, if Passed: None. Fiscal Effects, if passed: None. The outcome of the vote is immaterial to the current functioning of Washington state government. The outcome of the vote is immaterial to the current functioning of Washington state government. ADV 14 & 15 Page 11 of 11