Guests: Andrew Villeneuve and Steve Zemke
Topic: The Initiative Process: Friend or Foe?
Steve Zemke discussed I-1033. The No on 1033 campaign has wanted to focus on the loss of public services rather than discuss it's tax implications - like the fact that it would shift tax burden onto low and middle income families and transfer wealth to large property owners. One-third of single-family homes are rentals, so they get no break. Although the sales tax is collected from everyone, the tax break goes only to property owners. The more property you own, the more rebate you would get. About 1/3 of property is commercial, so among the biggest winners will be Boeing and Microsoft, along with Kemper Freeman, Jr., the owner of Bellevue Square.
The voters' pamphlet statement against didn't refute Eyman's erroneous statements there, particularly that we are the 8th highest taxed state. In fact, that is based on including federal income tax and I-1033 only deals with state and local taxes. We are also the 8th highest state in income per capita. In terms of state and local taxes, we rank 35th lowest (with 1 being the highest) according to the conservative Tax Foundation. We are not over-taxed. The campaign doesn't want to discuss tax issues and the papers haven't featured it. Four years ago, Eyman made this same claim, Steve corrected him at a public forum, the Seattle PI newspaper checked it and Eyman was forced to recant. Now he's claiming the same lie.
Steve blogs at www.MajorityRules.org/blog. He has posted about 20 entries against Eyman's 1033. He also writes comments in newspaper articles and other blogs with links, such as the citation to the Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org).
Per David Spring, state and local taxes have fallen to 37th as a percentage of income from 1997 to 2008. This is a major reason school funding has decreased. Since 2000, tax exemptions have increased from $20B in to $50B in 2009. That's foregone revenue that has resulted in other taxes raised and budget deficits that had to be filled.
Newspapers often report on these issues without checking their facts, per Steve. They tend to get lazy and just quote what each side says without checking it's accuracy.
There was a bill HB1696/SB5598 sponsored by Rep. Joe McDermott that didn't get a hearing in the State Government Committee. It would facilitate a statewide citizens initiative review process under the state constitution. They are doing this in Oregon, having passed a bill this year..
The bill would submit initiatives to a demographically representative, informed panel of independent Washington voters who would hold hearings and make their findings public in a attempt to provide a more informed public discussion of initiatives. It would cost an estimated $200,000 per initiative, perhaps less if done by a non-profit.
Tara asked what is the cost of having an initiative on the ballot. (Varies)
Shelly agreed with the idea of an independent review. He suggested preventing people from being paid for collecting signatures.
Steve presented a handout from www.ballotpedia.org/wiki. "Paid petition circulation has been part of the initiative process since 1904." (footnoted).
Oregon requires that you have to be a voter in the state, and that paid signature gatherers cannot be paid by the signature, because it leads to fraud. In Washington State, there has been no evidence of fraudulent signature-gathering presented to the Legislature. Andrew Villeneuve has done some work videotaping the signature-gathering process.
Jay Thomas asked if there is scholarly work done on the initiative process. Steve says there are books that go both ways. There are two Internet sites, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (progressive) and the Initiative and Referendum Institute (www.inrinstitute.org ) He suggests we need some sort of "fairness statement," based on experts, rather than just interested citizens.
Sarajane questioned the benefit of creating an elaborate structure to comment on and understand budget initiatives, when we have one already with the legislature and its hearings and committees. Steve reminded us that there have been times when citizens knew better, such as twice repealing the sales tax on food, passing the public disclosure act, shorelines protection act, toxics cleanup legislation and twice raising the minimum wage by initiative because the Legislature would not act. Much progressive legislation has been passed by initiative. There could also be citizen hearings around the state sponsored by the Secretary of State so that we could be better informed. It helps that the summary in the voter pamphlet is longer now , and that there is now a budget impact. Statement.
David Spring is bothered that there are statements in the voters' guide that are factually incorrect. These need to be challenged.
Shelly suggested that there be a requirement that the maker of the referendum must first submit it to their state representatives, something like a "right of first refusal." Andrew said that would require a constitutional.
Andrew Villeneuve got started politically in 1998 when KING 5 News covered ending the Motor Vehicle Tax, which cost us all the money for ferry construction since I-695 passed. Beginning in 2000 we have experienced a decade of initiatives, including BIAW, the Farm Bureau, the Grange, but mostly Tim Eyman. With two or three right-wing initiatives every year, we have been fighting a defensive battle every year, but not nearly so many progressive initiatives. Progressives have not been as active in trying to change the way the state works.
In 2002 Andrew started www.PermanentDefense.org, which led to the Northwest Progressive Institute. Lawrence Lessig is a professor intent on reforming copywrite law and excessive intellectual property control by corporations. Some problems are "first problems," because they need to be solved before the others.
Andrew's first problem is clean elections. How else are we going to correct all the other policy problems? The second "first problem" is revenue, specifically our state's tax structure. And the Clean Elections people are always being told we don't have enough funds to pay for voter-owned elections.
The Governor has said repeatedly that she is not interested in raising taxes. Now she is "open to the idea" if legislators bring her their ideas and persuade her..
Sarajane told about trying to find a revenue source for Clean Elections in Olympia, and talking to Speaker Chopp's staff, finance committee staff, the governor's staff and the chair of House Finance (in 2007). Finally they realized that there is no income stream that hasn't been tapped and "owned" already.
What do we do with the process? Andrew suggests that we crack down on the signature-gathering process, which is mostly paid petition-gathers. They are often from out of state and are more likely to say whatever is necessary to get someone to sign. We could propose that only Washington voters be allowed to gather signatures Several other states do this. The enforcement mechanisms proposed in the past would have resulted in throwing out valid signatures. With Ref. 71, the Secretary of State broke the law by allowing Larry Stickney to stamp his name on the back, and allowing unregistered voters to sign, and then register later. There is no way for an opponent to appeal the acceptance of a signature, whereas there is an appeal process for the proponents. The judge in Ref. 71 said the law was broken and he didn't have the authority to regulate the Secretary of State.
One solution is to regulate this businesses involved in signature-gathering like Citizens Solutions and Roy Ruffino of Lacy. Other businesses have rules they operate under. If he is breaking the law, he should get a warning, a fine, or lose his business license. This would be money out of the businesses pocket.
Shouldn't they be governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act? Or are they independent contractors? Look at this from an industry regulation viewpoint, rather than as a free speech issue.
The state is saying we need to be able to document instances of fraud. Isn't this instance of SOS Sam Reed's refusing to enforce the signature-gathering law an example of abuse? Rep. Sam Hunt is in favor of reforming the initiative process, but not in chasing down voters. The committees and committee chairs look to the Secretary of State for input, making this difficult.
There was a Sam Hunt bill in HB 2601 regulating signature-gatherers, copying Oregon's law. Ruffino is now checking the signatures prior to submitting them, so his percentage of rejection is rather low. Sam Reed is open to initiative process reform, says Andrew. But the legislators and Secretary of State could not present any clear evidence of voter fraud in the process at the last hearing on this issue in the Legislature. (as they did in Oregon). The fact that evidence existed in Oregon of signature fraud was used as evidence in Court to uphold Oregon's stricter law on regulating signature gathering, including prohibiting payment by the signature..
Getting rid of out-of-state signature gatherers, who collect signatures in many states and don't have a vested interest in telling the truth about what an initiative will do when asked, seems like one way to regulate the process at this point. The issue can be stated as requiring those petitioning the government for an initiative must be either a resident of the state or a registered voter of the state.. Could we apply this to county and city initiatives as well? David Spring says there is a moral argument to require signature-gatherers to bear the consequences of their actions by having the laws their trying to change apply to them.
Andrew says Eyman's initiatives pass because the campaigns against him are worse in odd-numbered years. The campaigns are not well run, and have started late. The messaging is poor. The Tax Fairness Coalition has gone out of existence and there is no organized group working on tax reform year round. Also lower turnout out elections usually are a higher proportion of conservative voters more amenable to an anti-tax message.
Andrew says incremental change is more likely to be successful than a full scale change.. Another issue is the filing fee, which hasn't changed in 100 years. Eyman files many drafts separately, for $5 each, and the attorney general has to write a separate ballot title for each one. This year's 1033 doesn't say anything about the state school levy eventually going to zero. The filing fee should be $100 or should cover the actual cost of processing the measure. Eyman has filed some 20 different initiatives this year, on 3 subjects.
Steve is hesitant to raise the fee a large amount, but Sarajane feels that anyone should be able to raise $100 among friends or supporters or your initiative doesn't have enough support anyway. Steve suggests we need to research other states for how much they charge to file an initiative. A second way is to require a second fee when the initiative is returned to get a ballot title. Oregon actually requires a second action for the Attorney General to assign a ballot title; the initiative filer needs to also submit the signatures of 1000 "sponsors" who are registered voters.
The constitution is pretty clear about how initiatives work. They are addressed to the people or the Legislature. The purpose is to provide a check on non-responsive legislators. Maybe ballot titles need to go before a court, as a mandatory court hearing, says Andrew.
Eyman calls I-1033 the 'Lower Property Tax Initiative." These titles aren't in the constitution. Perhaps you could require that the only language that can be put on the petition is the official ballot language, not adding as a headline "Protect Families" or "Lower Property Taxes Initiative" or "Stop the Income Tax," Eyman used that last title on a measure that didn't even mention the income tax in the text of the initiative. We could limit the ability to add language to the petitions which frequently turnout to be just campaign advertisizing.
Andrew says there is one method state legislators use to prevent a referendum which only requires half the registered voters that an initiative requires. It is an emergency clause attached to any bill.
Removing the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, a stable income source, hurt the state badly, contrary to what Eyman says. Since I-695 was repealed, the state lost funding for ferries, second to county general funds and third to county transit agencies. Since then, the state stopped replacing our ferry fleet, counties have gone into crisis and fees for light rail are no longer available from vehicle fees, not just sales tax. This is the reason we're having to raise Metro fares.
Eyman has never been defeated at the ballot in an odd year. If he loses this year, it would be a sign his support is weakening. Also it would be the first time he's lost two years in a row. It may give the Legislature the courage to raise fees or other revenue as needed, to save essential services.
Why is there such an imbalance between progressive initiatives and these government-busting ones? Progressives like representative government. We tend to use these tools, whereas the right wing is out of power and is more focused on initiatives.
We could build a volunteer progressive activist army. Voters are likely to raise revenue only if they can see where it is going. We waged a campaign for the estate tax by tying it to the education legacy trust. We had to demonstrate that it went to a worthy cause.
The progressive impulse to curb initiatives out of frustration with conservative measures sets us against the grassroots, makes us look undemocratic. What if we swamped the ballot with initiatives? Steve says initiatives were meant to be a safety valve, to allow citizens to act when the Legislature didn't. Andrew says that's the intent of the Constitution, "The people reserve the power..." People unfortunately often don't understand all the ramifications of what they vote on.
Signature-gatherers are presenting a one-sided debate to with the public. It's very hard to counter them.
What are some of the issues progressives could use initiatives to pass?
Clean Elections/public campaign finance campaigns
State income tax
Other revenue sources
Sunsetting all the tax exemptions every 10 years
Health care reform
Funding to clean up Puget Sound
Adequate funding for education (state now pays 47%)
L&I Overpayment Refunds Resolution
David Spring brought a resolution on Labor & Industries retro programs, e.g., where the BIAW amasses large funds from overpayments. The errors amounted to over $500 million, plus interest (1% per month). State laws require that these be paid back to the state. Our Attorney General advised L&I that there is a three-year limit on overpayments.
State law seems to say there is no limit on repayment for overpayments. The resolution asked the AG to enforce these state laws. The BIAW was independent funding source in getting Rob McKenna elected.
The Supreme Court says there has to be a notice filed that he isn't following the law. While anyone could file a complaint, having it come from the King County Democratic Central Committee would be more meaningful, David says
The impact would be to restore the L&I accident fund, which needs the money. It could also bankrupt the BIAW, which has $50 million campaign funds. Refunds for overpayments have exceeded premium and claims by millions of dollars, so this is taxpayer money. See www.retroreform.org The AG is willing to recover only one of the three errors, only for about $30 million. He wants to start the clock at 2008, rather than recovering the previous three years or all past years.
David had enclosed a sample draft letter of complaint to the AG, but any complaint letter could be sent. It states there is no time limit for recovery of these funds that were erroneously refunded.
The LAC voted to recommend this resolution to the KCDCC, and to the Resolutions Committee.
Public Campaign Finance
Craig Salins brought information and a resolution about the Supreme Court judicial bill financing for 2010. It would cost about $2M per year ($4M per biennium) to fund, perhaps by raising professional fees on law firms and other professional firms. The soonest it can go into effect is 2012, but we want to push it this year. We know in West Virginia a coal mining company spent $3 million to elect a state supreme court judge and that court ruled by a narrow majority in favor of the coal mining company that saved them $50 million.
The legislature needs to see support for this measure in our districts. Marko Liias, the prime sponsor, will go to any LD any time to discuss his bill, especially prior to the legislative session or even in January. We are also looking seriously at a proposed professional fee revenue source that makes sense. The supporting documents are available on the Resources page of www.washclean.org .
The LAC passed a resolution offered by Craig to support the bill on pubic campaign financing for the state Supreme Court.
There is a lot of momentum for a federal campaign finance law HR1826/ S752. It seems to have support from Sen. Cantwell. It has 107 sponsors in the House. Brian Baird told 1,000 people in Olympia that public campaign financing is necessary. It is supposed to be financed by a tax on large public contracts. McDermott and Adam Smith have signed on. We offered support for a resolution from King County Democrats to send a letter to Cong. Inslee to sign on.
We should discuss this bill and any proposed funding sources with Speaker Chopp next month.
Other items for the Speaker
SB 6035 is a sunshine law for retro reform that would require full disclosure of what's happening with the L&I retro dollars. It got stuck in House Rules.
Basic Health cut out durable medical equipment, including wheelchairs and insulin supplies, per Shelly. This is a problem for him and for many and should be addressed.
Homeowners Bill of Rights under that title is dead, Andrew says. The new incarnation is the Homebuilding Revitalization Act. It would give buyers more confidence and would help honest builders. We expect to see it in the next session.
Meeting notes by Sarajane Siegfriedt; published via email on Nov. 7, 2009
Steve Zemke and Sarajane Siegfriedt