Linda’s Election Guide
November 8, 2016
Linda’s Recommendations
(Explanations below)
Initiative 1433: Yes
Initiative 1464: Yes
Initiative 1491: Yes
Initiative 1501: No
Initiative
732: Yes
Initiative
735: Yes
Advisory Vote 14: Maintained
Advisory Vote 15: Maintained
Senate
Joint Resolution 8210: Approved
King County Charter Amendment No 1:
Leaning Yes
King County Charter Amendment No 2: Yes
President and Vice President: Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine
United States Senator: Patty Murray
US Representative Congressional District No 7: Both good
Governor: Jay Inslee
Lieutenant Governor: Cyrus Habib
Secretary of State: Tina Podlodowski
State Treasurer: Duane Davidson
State Auditor: Pat McCarthy
Attorney General: Bob Ferguson
Commissioner of Public Lands: Hilary Franz
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Leaning Reykdal
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Kreidler
State Supreme Court Justice Position 1: Mary Yu
State Supreme Court Justice Position 5: Barbara Madsen
State Supreme Court Justice Position 6: Charles Wiggins
Superior Court Judge Position 14: Nicole Gaines Phelps
Superior Court Judge Position 26: David Keenan
Superior Court Judge Position 31: Helen Halpert
Superior Court Judge Position 44: Cathy Moore
Superior Court Judge Position 52: Anthony Gipe
Superior Court Judge Position 53: Mariane Spearman
City of Seattle Initiative No 124: Yes
Sound
Transit Proposition No 1: Yes
Initiative
Measure No. 1433 Minimum Wage and Sick Leave
What it would do: 1. Increase minimum wage all over Washington
State; 2. Require all employers to give their employees paid sick leave.
Explanation: Washington's minimum wage for employees who
are at least 18 years old is $9.47 per hour for 2016. The minimum wage is
increased a few cents every year, depending on inflation. Some cities have a
higher minimum wage for just their city.
Seattle has this. But most of the
state just follows the state minimum wage.
Initiative 1433 would increase the state minimum wage to $11.00 in 2017,
$11.50 in 2018, $12.00 in 2019, and $13.50 in 2020.
Beginning on January 1, 2018, employers would be required to provide paid sick
leave (7 days/year) to employees covered by the Minimum Wage Act. No state law
requires paid sick leave now.
The state fiscal office says that Initiative 1433 would bring in new money to
the state (higher employer taxes paid), and also save money for the state (more
families earn enough that they don’t need welfare or help paying for
insurance). But it would also cost more
in other ways. (DSHS would need to pay
more to some workers, and school districts would need to pay more to many workers.) Probably
1433 will cost more than it will save. It
is hard to know for sure (maybe workers who earn more will spend more, so the state
gets more sales tax).
People who want you to Vote YES say:
1.
$9.47 per hour is not enough to pay for
food, housing, and transportation for a single person. It is for sure not enough to support a
family.
2.
The cost of living has gone up a lot since
Washington first set a minimum wage. The
minimum wage has not kept up. The lowest
pay needs to be higher.
3.
It is not right or safe to force an
employee to work if they are sick.
4.
Communities with weaker economies will do
better if people earn more money. The
people will have more money to spend, which helps the economy.
Who
says vote YES:
Democrats; Labor Unions, especially unions representing low-wage service
workers; National Organization for Women, YWCA, and other groups representing
women; Children’s Alliance, teachers, and other groups representing children;
Low-Income Housing Alliance, Poverty Action Network, other groups representing
poor people; NAACP, El Centro de la Raza and other groups representing people
of color; Church Council of Greater Seattle, National Council of Jewish Women
and other religious groups; Newspapers in bigger cities (Seattle Times, etc); many more.
Who gave money to the VOTE YES campaign: Labor Unions (local and state unions, all
different sorts – teachers, food service workers, construction, etc)
People who want you to Vote NO say:
1.
Some types of businesses depend on low-paid
workers. For example: restaurants,
farms, grocery stores, other stores, and schools. These businesses can’t afford
to pay more money to workers.
2.
The economy in Washington is not the same
in every area. In Seattle, the economy
is strong. In many parts of Eastern
Washington, the economy is weak. It is
not fair to make businesses in weak areas pay more to their employees.
3.
If small businesses have to pay more to
employees, they will reduce hours of work.
Or hire fewer employees. The
employees will not take home more money.
4.
Small businesses can’t afford to pay more
and will close down. (Or move to other
states.) That will hurt their
communities.
Who
says vote NO: Industries that hire low-wage workers. WA Restaurant Association (restaurants); WA Food
Industry Association (grocery stores); WA Retail Association (stores); WA State
Farm Bureau; WA Lodging Association (hotels and motels); Association of
Washington Businesses. Some Newspapers
in small towns and areas with weaker economies:
Walla Walla, Longview, Vancouver, Tri-Cities, etc.
Who gave money to the VOTE NO campaign: WA Restaurant Association (restaurants); WA
Food Industry Association (grocery stores); WA Retail Association (stores); WA
State Farm Bureau.
Back to first Page
Initiative
1464: Campaign Finance Reform
Background: Right now, there are laws and rules limiting how much money any one
person can give to a candidate running for office. And there are rules about how the candidate
can use that money. But if people or companies want to use their own money to
advertise for or against a candidate, there are almost no rules. They can spend as much money as they
want. It is easy to hide where the money
came from
What it would do: The goal is to make elections more
fair. Initiative 1464 would change the
way that politicians collect money to campaign; reduce the amount that anyone
can donate to a politician; require people and groups who advertise to support
or oppose a candidate to say who actually paid for the advertising; forbid
politicians from becoming paid lobbyists after they leave office; change the
rules so that visitors from out of state have to pay the same sales tax as people
who live in Washington. The extra tax collected would be used to pay for partial
“public financing” of political campaigns for the Legislature. If this works well and there is enough money,
the tax in the future might also pay for public financing of statewide offices
(Governor, Auditor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc.).
People who want you to vote YES say:
1. I-1464 will help make sure that rich people don’t have more influence
that everyone else.
2. Right now, a politician can leave office and then become a lobbyist to try
and influence the people in their old office.
For example, Former Attorney General Rob McKenna is now a lobbyist and
tries to convince the Attorney General’s office to change rules for his
clients. I-1464 will prevent this.
3. I-1464 does not take money away from
schools or anything else in Washington. The money for public financing comes
from making visitors pay the same sales taxes as people who live in Washington.
4. Individual voters will also be able
to pick which candidates receive some of the public financing. Individuals pick the candidates for $150
worth of the money – up to $50 for each candidate.
Who says Vote Yes: League of Women
Voters; Sightline Institute; The Stranger; Progressive Voters Guide; Democratic
groups; Public Citizen; Friends of the Earth; Washprig;
Common Cause; Faith Action Network.
People who want you to vote NO say:
1. Washington needs all of its money to pay for schools and other
services. We should not use tax money to
pay for election campaigns.
2. Washington already has one of the most honest election systems in the
U.S. We don’t need to change it.
3. If we charge sales tax to people from outside of Washington, fewer people
will visit Washington. Washington will
lose money.
4. It is a bad idea to use public money to pay for campaigns. There is too big
of a risk of cheating or “corruption” if there is so much money given to
campaigns.
Who says Vote No: Seattle Times; Brian
Sonntag (former state Auditor), Sam Reed (former Secretary of State), Rob
McKenna (former Attorney General – he now works as a lobbyist), Slade Gorton. No other names or organizations are listed on
the website.
Linda’s notes: I like many things about this initiative. The restrictions on how much money candidates
can receive from big business and PACS; the limits on politicians becoming
consultants or lobbyists right after they leave office; it must be more clear
exactly where the money comes from for campaigns; etc. But the voucher system for getting money to
candidates seems like a bad idea to me. (I
had the same complaint about the campaign finance initiative in Seattle last
year.) The potential for illegal
activity and “kickbacks” is very high.
(Candidates giving money back to people who give them the $50
voucher.) I like public financing of
campaigns – but I don’t think this is the way to do it. But most of the money for this initiative
will pay for the other, very positive reforms.
I just wish they hadn’t added this silly voucher game to an otherwise
very strong set of ideas.
Initiative 1491: Extreme-Risk protection
orders
Explanation: Allows police and family members to ask a judge for an
“extreme risk protection order” if there is evidence that a person is dangerous
(to themselves or others). The Extreme
Risk Protection Order means that person is not allowed to have guns, and cannot
buy or sell guns. Police can take away
any guns from that person. The Extreme
Risk Protection Order can last up to one year.
When the person is not acting dangerous any more, they can have guns
again.
People who want you to Vote YES say:
1. The law in Washington does not allow criminals
(felons) to have guns. But it is very
difficult to take guns away from anyone else before they commit a crime, even
when police or family know the person is a danger.
2. Often,
family members are worried about the safety of someone who is acting different
than normal. Maybe that person has guns
and the family is worried about what may happen. Maybe that person has talked
about killing themselves. But if that
person hasn’t broken any laws, the family can’t do anything about it.
3. 1491
was sponsored by a family whose son was feeling angry and depressed. The parents did everything they could to
help, but there was no way to prevent their son from having a gun. The son shot and killed his sister, and then
killed himself.
4. 1491
requires evidence that the person is really a danger. 1491 makes it a crime to lie and say a person
is a danger if they are not.
5. Other
states have passed laws like 1491. In
those states, there are fewer suicides, and fewer examples of domestic violence
killings.
Who
says VOTE YES: Police,
mental health groups, organizations that help families facing domestic
violence, Doctors and Nurses, Teachers, Religious Groups, Democrats, Children’s
Alliance, League of Women Voters, Seattle Times.
People who want you to Vote NO say:
1. Everyone
has the right to have guns unless they have been convicted of a felony.
2. Someone
who is mad at their family member may ask for the protection order for no
reason. Their guns could get taken away. That’s not fair!
3. If
someone is a danger, the family can have the person “committed” to a mental
health institution.
4. 1491
is not about safety. The goal is to
limit people from owning guns legally.
5. 1491
doesn’t order treatment for the person who is acting strangely. It just takes away their guns. The person could just buy new guns
illegally. 1491 doesn’t cure the problem
that makes the person a danger.
Who
says VOTE NO: NRA (National Rifle
Association); Second Amendment Coalition
Back to first Page
Initiative 1501: Seniors and vulnerable individuals
What it would do: Change the state
public records laws so that the names, addresses and phone numbers of in-home
caregivers who are paid by the state (DSHS) become completely private. Only the SEUI Union could get the names and
addresses for caregivers. The Public
Records Disclosure laws would not apply to this group of workers anymore.
Linda’s note: I-1501 is a trick initiative. It talks about protecting senior citizens,
but Identity Theft is already illegal, and there are already extra laws to
protect vulnerable adults. I normally
support unions. But SEIU is being
sneaky. They want to make sure that no
one can contact home caregivers except them.
(They don’t want the caregivers to learn about quitting the Union.) The
Union already asked the Legislature and the Courts to change the public
disclosure laws so that only the union can contact caregivers. Both the Legislature and the Courts said
no. So SEIU wrote an initiative talking
about protecting senior citizens, so voters will say yes. (The definition of
“vulnerable adult” in the initiative is a person over age 60 who has a live-in
caregiver. The initiative doesn’t cover
most people with disabilities, for example.)
At the end of the initiative is a long section about changing the public
disclosure laws. That is the real point
of the initiative.
All of the money for this campaign is from the Service Employees
International Union 775. They gave
$1,400,000.
Back to first Page
Initiative 732: Carbon Emissions Tax
What it would do: Create a new tax
on carbon emissions (from coal, oil and gas) and reduce some other taxes (sales
tax and manufacturing tax) an equal amount. Also creates a sales tax exemption
for low income families.
People who want you to VOTE YES say:
1.
Carbon emissions are a key cause of global
warming. (85% of all greenhouse
emissions in WA are from using oil and gas.)
We must reduce carbon emissions to help reduce global warming.
2.
Initiative 732 will encourage businesses to
use less oil, gas and coal because using those fuels will cost more. Conservation and other sources of power
(solar, wind, hydro) will cost less compared to oil and coal.
3.
Initiative 732 reduces the sales tax for
everyone.
4.
British Colombia passed a Carbon Tax in
2008. It is very successful. Initiative 732 is based on the law in BC.
5.
Initiative 732 won’t solve the whole
problem of global warming. But we can’t wait until everyone in every state is
ready to change the laws in their state. Initiative 732 is a good start.
6.
If people want to propose to change the
Carbon Tax or increase other taxes later, they can. But if we wait until there is an initiative
that adds a Carbon Tax AND promises to add other services, we may never reduce
carbon emissions.
Who says VOTE YES: Audubon
Society (State-wide and many local groups); MANY politicians (mostly Democrats,
some Republicans) Jim McDermott, Ron Simms, Mayor and City Council member from
Mercer Island; Democratic groups all over the state; Seattle Business Magazine;
The Olympian Newspaper; Whidbey News-Times; American Association of Architects;
American Planning Association (city planners); Climate Action and Climate Lobby
groups all over the state. Also, there is a long list of endorsements from
economists from all over the country.
People who want you to VOTE NO say:
1.
Just having a carbon tax in Washington
won’t help. We need an energy policy for
the whole U.S.
2.
Carbon taxes don’t work as a way to reduce
greenhouse gases. There are other
changes – like changing the rules for how much pollution can come from cars –
that work much better.
3.
Initiative 732 is not fair to businesses. Maybe they will just move to other states
instead of paying the extra taxes. Some
businesses (Boeing) will pay less taxes than now.
4.
Initiative 732 was written by (white)
environmentalists. They did not work
with “Climate Justice” groups (mostly communities of color) to make sure that
I-732 was fair to everyone.
5.
People who work in or near polluting
industries would be the most affected by a Carbon Tax. The Carbon Tax should be used to change those
industries or retrain those workers.
6.
The math is wrong. Total taxes collected won’t equal the total
tax reduction. Washington State will
lose money.
7.
“Revenue neutral” is a bad idea. We should raise taxes by adding a Carbon Tax,
and use the extra money to pay for more services or schools, or to support more
renewable energy.
Who says VOTE NO: There is no official opposition group. Some organizations that say no include: Companies that depend on using lots of oil
and gas; Fuse (Progressive Voters Guide); Washington State Labor Council.
In
addition, some environmental groups have a “no opinion” or a “not support”
position: (This is not the same as
“against.”) These include the Sierra
Club; WA Conservation Voters; WA Environmental Council; Climate Action. They argue that the group who wrote I-732 didn’t
work with Climate Justice groups. They also say that the Carbon Tax money
should be used to help poor people, or used to support renewable energy,
instead of being “revenue neutral.” They
are afraid that passing I-732 means we won’t be able to pass a stronger plan in
a future year. Many people are VERY
upset that these groups are not supporting I-732.
Back
to first Page
Initiative
735: Propose an Amendment to the Federal Constitution (Constitutional rights
are for PEOPLE, not companies, and money is not speech)
Background: The Supreme Court made a decision in 2010
called “Citizen’s United.” In that decision, the Court confirmed that
companies have the same rights as people, and said that any company or group or
individual can spend as much money as they want to influence elections. The Court said that spending money is the
same as “freedom of speech.” The company
or group doesn’t have to report what they spent. No state or city can limit how much money is
spent, or what they say in the advertising.
Most people believe this decision was wrong, and that human beings
should have more rights than companies or groups, and that the money wealthy
people, companies and groups spend to advertise against elections should be
limited and open (everyone should know who is giving money to influence
elections).
What 735 would do: Ask Washington’s Representatives and
Senators in Congress to support a constitutional amendment to reverse the
“Citizens United” decision, and to make it clear that only human beings are
“people” under the Constitution.
People who want you to Vote YES say:
1.
The Bill of Rights is for PEOPLE, not
companies. Corporations are not people.
2.
If money is speech, rich people and big
companies will have much more freedom of speech than ordinary people.
3.
Companies, labor unions, rich people, and some
“secret” groups are spending millions of dollars every year to influence
elections. There is no way to find out
who is really behind that money. They
don’t have to report what they are doing. (Money that is given to candidates is
reported. But if a company decides to
spend money advertising against a candidate or against a proposed law, the company
doesn’t have to tell anyone that they are spending the money that way.)
4.
States’ Rights are important. States and Cities should have the right to
limit how much money is spent on their elections. Citizens United cancelled
laws passed in 32 states that tried to make elections more fair.
Who says VOTE YES:
Environmental groups; religious groups; Union groups (Labor); Democratic
groups; MANY individual politicians (both D and R) from all over WA
People who want you to Vote NO
say:
1.
We need MORE speech (more information) in the
United States, not less. It is good to
have more money spent to share more information.
2.
It is wrong to change the Constitution to
LIMIT free speech. We should only change
the constitution to give people more rights, not less.
3.
A constitutional amendment might allow
censorship of movies, newspapers, TV, books, etc. That is not right.
4.
Instead of changing the constitution, we can
pass new laws to require “disclosures.”
(Force companies and groups to say if they are spending money on elections.)
Who says VOTE NO:
“First Amendment Defenders.” No endorsements
listed.
Back to first Page
Senate Joint Resolution No. 8210
Background: Every ten years, there is a census in the
United States. The census counts how
many people live in each state, and in each part of each state. The number of Representatives in Congress
from each state is determined by the number of people in that state. Right now, Washington has 10
Representatives. Each Representative
stands for (“represents”) one Congressional District. Each “Congressional District” should have
about the same number of people. After
the census, it is often necessary to change the shape or size of congressional
districts, so that each still has about the same number of people. (Maybe more people moved into one city, and
people moved away from another area.)
The Legislature from each state decides the new Congressional District
boundaries in their state. In Washington
State, the Legislature sets up a “Redistricting Commission” to make these
changes to the boundaries for Congressional Districts in Washington.
Each state also has a “Legislature.” The
Legislature is like a mini Congress. We
have 49 Legislative Districts. Each of
these districts is also supposed to have about the same number of people. So, after the census every 10 years, the
boundaries for the Legislative Districts also usually change. The Redistricting
Commission is also responsible for making these changes.
What it would do: Resolution 8210 would change the deadline for
when the Redistricting Commission needs to finish their work (every ten
years). The current deadline is December
31st. The new deadline would
be November 15th. The
Legislature voted on Resolution 8210. It
passed unanimously. This means that
everyone voted yes – all of the Democrats, and all of the Republicans. (We still need to vote because it is an
Amendment to the state Constitution.)
People who want you to
vote YES say:
1.
Now, with computers, the Redistricting Commission
can finish its job faster than before.
2.
December 31st is a terrible time
to finish a big job. It is hard for
people (“the public”) to come give feedback at the end of the year – schools
are closed, families are busy. Finishing
earlier will allow more people to give feedback.
3.
Making the deadline November 15 gives the
state time to get ready for the new Legislative Districts before they take
effect.
4.
Washington has one of the best redistricting
systems in the U.S. Resolution 8210
makes it even better.
Back to first Page
City of Seattle
Initiative Measure No. 124: Seattle Hotel Worker
safety and health.
What it would do: Gives extra protections
for hotel workers (especially housekeepers).
Requires hotels to keep lists of guests who have been accused of
assaulting hotel employees, and not allow that guest to stay there again. Increases requirements for hotels to provide
health insurance for their employees.
Does not allow hotels to punish workers for reporting problems. Initiative 124 does not apply to very small
motels and hotels.
People who want you to VOTE YES say:
1.
Hotel Housekeepers are
frequently assaulted on the job.
Usually, this is a male guest who touches or tries to rape a female
housekeeper. The housekeepers are often
afraid to report what happened, because they may lose their job.
2.
I-124 requires hotels
to give each Housekeeper a “panic button.”
It is an alarm that she can push to get help right away if a guest tries
to hurt her.
3.
Hotel housekeepers are
frequently injured on the job. Their
work is hard on their bodies. But hotels
can require more and more work from each person. If the employee is injured or complains, they
may lose their job.
4.
Hotel employees are
some of the lowest paid workers in Seattle.
Plus, they often do not get health insurance at their job. 124 will improve access to health insurance.
Who says VOTE YES: King
County Labor Council, One America Votes, Casa Latina, King
County Asian Pacific Islander Coalition, LGBTQ Allyship,
Gender Justice League, Legal Voice, API Chaya, Church Council
of Greater Seattle, Puget Sound Sage, Statewide Poverty Action
Network, King County Coalition Ending Gender Based Violence. [Most of the YES on 124 money comes from
Labor Unions.] Note: The webpage for the
YES on 124 campaign shows a picture of 6 hotel employees. Most are dressed like
housekeepers, and all appear to be women of color.
People who want you to VOTE NO say:
1.
Good hotels already have ways to protect their
employees.
2.
I-124 just adds more
regulations for hotels to follow. Extra
paperwork!
3.
It is not fair to tell
a guest that he cannot come back if he is accused of assaulting a
housekeeper. Punishment should only
happen after a guest is CONVICTED of a crime.
(Same as other crimes – people aren’t put in prison for being accused of
a crime, only if they are found guilty.)
4.
It is not fair to
allow the unions to negotiate about health insurance or work hours for hotel
employees. What if the employees want
something different than the labor union?
Who says VOTE NO (and gave money to
VOTE NO campaign): WA Lodging
Association (hotels); American Lodging Association (hotels); WA Restaurant
Association; Grand Hyatt; Renaissance Hotel.
Note: the website for the “No on
124” campaign shows a picture of 4 hotel employees. All 4 appear to be white people, and are
dressed in suits or nice clothes.
Back
to first Page
Sound Transit
Proposition 3 (ST3)
Explanation: Expand Light Rail, Sounder Commuter Train, and Bus Rapid
Transit in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Costs about $50 billion. Half is new taxes, collected from property
taxes, sales taxes, and car taxes.
People who want you to Vote YES say:
1. Transportation
is the most important issue in the Puget Sound Region.
2. ST3 is
a BIG plan. When finished, Seattle will
finally have a “big city” type transit system.
Seattle has needed this for a long time.
3. Adds
Light Rail to Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, West Seattle, Ballard, Lynnwood,
Everett. When finished, we’ll have a total 108 miles of track and 75 stations.
Includes adding a second transit tunnel downtown.
4. Adds
Sounder Train stations further south (to DuPont), and add Sounder trips during
the day (not just rush hour)
5. Adds
Bus rapid ride routes all along 405: Lynnwood, Bothell, Woodinville, Kirkland,
Bellevue, Tenton, Tukwila, Burien.
6. Building
light rail takes time. ST3 is a plan for
the future of the Puget Sound region.
(Most other big cities have subways or other in-city trains.)
7. Without
ST3, traffic will get even worse than now.
Who
says vote YES: City Councils: Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah,
etc; Municipal League; Labor Unions, Housing groups;
Environmental Groups; Most Mayors and City Council members all over the region;
Business groups; Transportation groups; several hundred politicians from all
over the region.
People who want you to Vote NO say:
1. ST3 is
too expensive. $50 billion; half is new taxes.
An average family that owns a house and 2 cars will pay $350 - 390 more
per year, total.
2. Education
is the most important issue in Washington.
If people pay so much to build transit, they won’t be willing to pay
more taxes for schools. (Or other important things like police or libraries.)
3. We
could add bus rapid transit all over Puget Sound for a lot less money.
4. Most
people don’t use transit – they drive cars. We need more freeway lanes.
5. There
is no end time for the new taxes. Sound
Transit could continue collecting the new taxes for many years after ST3 is
finished.
6. ST3
only helps people who live in big cities.
Everyone else will pay higher taxes, but won’t get light rail or less
traffic.
7. It
will take too long – not finished until 2041
8. So
many people are moving to Seattle, ST3 won’t make traffic better than now.
Who
says vote NO: Tim Eyman; Seattle
Times; the “no” campaign website lists 14 politicians who are against ST3 and
another 12 “experts.”
Back to first Page
Other sources of
information for this election:
The Stranger: http://www.thestranger.com/news/2016/10/18/24627137/the-strangers-endorsements-for-the-november-2016-general-election
(Lots of swear words, but the information is very good.
Their analysis of the initiatives is the best I have read this year.)
League of Women Voters: http://www.lwvwa.org/
https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/10/11/2016-general-election-endorsements/
Municipal League: http://www.munileagueratings.org/2016-candidate-ratings/