Three initiatives will be getting explanatory statements on Washington ballots this November despite a legal challenge from state Republican chair Jim Walsh.
That's the result of one lawsuit involving ballot initiatives that was heard today in Thurston County Superior Court.
Washington law requires a public investment impact disclosure on some ballot measures — a one sentence, non prejudicial disclosure of taxes or fees that would be affected by voter initiatives.
The attorney for Walsh argued the three measures didn’t meet the criteria of the law to require disclosure statements.
Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp disagreed, issuing her ruling from the bench 10 minutes after hearing arguments.
If passed, the initiatives in question would repeal the Capital Gains Tax, prohibit carbon tax credit trading and repeal the Climate Commitment Act, and allow employees to opt out of paying a tax and receiving benefits under Washington Cares, the state’s long-term services and health care program.
Under the ruling, all three measures will be accompanied by brief explanations on November’s ballot.
The other case heard in Thurston County Superior Court today was about filing fees for such initiatives.
In March, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs changed that fee for the first time since 1913.
Citing the cost of processing initiatives that go to either the state legislature or onto ballots, Hobbs raised the fee to $156, equivalent to the original five dollar amount when adjusted for inflation.
Conservative activist Tim Eyman claimed the Secretary doesn’t have the authority to make that change unilaterally — that it falls solely to the legislature — and that such a fee is burdensome to potential filers.
"I believe any citizen, whether rich or poor, should be able to propose an initiative," Eyman said during his opening argument. "And the defendant's massive fee increase is going to cut out a lot of regular citizens."
Attorney Emma Grunberg, representing the state, said the state legislature gave the Secretary that power.
"The legislature does have the power, if it wished to, to set a specific filing fee, to raise that fee, to lower that fee, but it hasn't done so," Grunman said in her remarks. "It's chosen to give that authority to the secretary.
She also noted that that this fee is still very low compared to other states, saying, "In other states that have initiative processes, there are fees such as $2,000 in California, $1,000 in Wyoming.”
Grunberg also argued this change will discourage filers from submitting multiple essentially identical initiatives to try to get a specific initiative number, like 1776, as some filers, including Eyman, have done in the past.
The judge told the courtroom he would be issuing a written decision in the coming days.