The Washington State House of Representatives passed legislation aimed at making any ballot initiative that would impact taxes, fees, or “cause a net change in state revenue” include language that tells voters the specific fiscal effects the measure would have.
“The people are entitled to know the fiscal impact that their vote will have on public investments at the time they cast their ballots,” House Bill 1876 reads. “The legislature further finds that when a ballot measure will affect funding for public investments, a neutral, nonprejudicial disclosure on the public investments affected with provide greater transparency and necessary information for voters.”
The bill passed the House Saturday on a 55-44 vote.
Rep. Mia Gregerson, D-Sea-Tac, is the prime sponsor of the bill.
“Again, constituents and people – real people – in my district have asked over and over again how to make voting a little more easier and clear,” she said during a Jan. 26 virtual executive session hearing for the bill before the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee. “Initiatives are really important to all of us, and it’s very difficult to really understand what the impact is going to be. This is a very simple, common sense addition the voter – excuse me – the ballot itself to basically inform folks of a very unbiased way whether or not there will be a revenue impact on the initiative itself.”
Andrew Villeneuve, founder and executive director of Northwest Progressive Institute, praised the House vote passing the bill.
“With HB 1876, voters will be put on notice that a measure has a fiscal impact when they open up their ballots, giving them a head’s up that they can consult their voter’s pamphlets if they would like more information on what the proposed measure would do,” he said in a press release. “Context is incredibly helpful when making important decisions, such as what laws our state should have. HB 1876 will add valuable context that has been missing from initiative ballot titles for decades.”
Not everyone shared Villeneuve’s enthusiasm for the proposed legislation.
Last month, the Washington Research Council (WRC) came out against HB 1876 and a similar proposal, Senate Bill 5850.
“Under both bills, although the disclosure would be placed in the ballot title, ‘after the concise description and before the question,’ the disclosure would not be subject to ballot title legal requirements or appeal,” WRC reported.
“In general, such disclosures would not be useful for voters because not only do they not provide meaningful context but in many cases they would be giving false information.
“There is no direct connection between a tax change in an initiative and the appropriation of state funds. Thus, it would be factually incorrect for a ballot title to state that a measure would cut education (for example) – unless the text of the initiative specifies that that would happen. In the event of a tax initiative passing, the Legislature may very well choose to balance the budget in another way.”
Jason Mercier, director for the Center of Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center, had some advice for legislators.
“If lawmakers want to provide additional context beyond the currently required OFM (Office of Financial Management) fiscal impact statements, they should also add to the ballot title for measures proposing a tax cut the latest revenue forecast and details on state budget growth,” he said.
The bill now moves on to the Senate for further consideration.
