November 4, 2014 General Election

Coming right up is a very important election. I hope everybody votes. They make it so easy these days, mailing the ballot right to your mailbox.

The last day to register was October 6.

BUT

If you are a new voter in Washington, you may register IN PERSON at the Auditor’s office, 400 N Main Street, Coupeville, up to October 27.

Ballots will be mailed no later than October 17.

Ballots must be returned no later than November 4.

            You can mail your ballot, as long as the postmark is on or before November 4.

            Or you can drop your ballot into one of 5 special collection boxes at:

                        Island County Elections Office           400 N Main Street         Coupeville

                        Oak Harbor City Hall                           865 SE Barrington        Oak Harbor

                        Trinity Lutheran Church                      18341 Hwy 525             Freeland

                        Ken’s Corner Red Apple                      4141 Hwy 525               Clinton

                        Camano Annex                                    121 N East Camano Dr  Camano

For questions, contact  elections@co.island.wa.us

or phone 360-679-7366  M-F  9:00 – 4:00

I have arranged the measures and offices as they were listed in the sample ballot provided by Island County Elections. 

General Election   November 2014

Measures, state

I-1351 concerns k-12 education          This measure would direct the legislature to allocate funds to reduce class sizes and increase staffing support for students in all K-12 grades, with additional class-size reductions and staffing increases in high-poverty schools.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[  ]  Yes
[  ]  No

The details are messy, but the bottom line is that this would increase funding for state schools, specifically to reduce class size. The Fiscal Impact Statement claims that I-1351 will not increase or decrease state revenues, but it will increase state expenditures. It will allow districts to run bigger levies. While I am not clear on the funding formula, I know that schools all over the state are underfunded.  Reducing classroom size can only help. And coincidentally, the state supreme court has directed pretty much the same thing – reducing class size. 

I’ll be voting Yes

I-591 concerns firearms           This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
[  ]  Yes
[  ]  No

You’ve got to be kidding. I can just imagine the masked bandit robbing the Wells Fargo in Clinton, and the cop (assuming there was one handy) not being allowed to confiscate his gun. And that “uniform national standard” limits background checks to licensed gun dealers. That leaves a lot of room for private deals. In fact, check I-594, below.

There’s another problem with this initiative. When Tim Eyman was having so much fun with multiple initiatives, the state supreme court ruled that an initiative could address only a single subject. This one patently addresses two different issues relating to guns. It is very likely that if this passes, it will go to court and be invalidated.

And then there’s yet another problem. If both I-591 and I-594 pass, which is quite possible, they effectively cancel each other, and its back to court to settle the inconsistency. Great way to spend our tax dollars.

I happen to have a strong dislike of guns and the mentality of people who feel a need to carry them. I believe we have a right to make sure people who buy guns are reasonably sane. 

I will be voting NO!

I-594 concerns background checks for firearm sales & transfers.          This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[  ]  Yes
[  ]  No

Here’s the flip side of I-591 above. It would expand the requirement for background checks beyond just licensed firearm dealers. This would include gun shows, on-line sales, and private transactions. Gifts within families would be exempt, as would antique firearms. I think we have a right to some assurance that people carrying guns are reasonably sane and haven’t killed anyone lately. This is totally obvious and necessary.

I will be voting Yes

Advisory votes

These require some explanation, and the best source is the Secretary of State’s office. Here is their statement:  

            “This is the third straight year that Advisory Votes have been on Washington’s General Election ballot. The first two Advisory Votes were placed on the 2012 ballot and Nos. 3 through 7 appeared last year. Because Advisory Votes are nonbinding, the result is not a repeal of the bill, as would be the case with a referendum measure. The Legislature is not required to take action based on the results of Advisory Votes.”

  So this is basically Tim Eyman wasting a lot of the public’s time and tax dollars. Thanks Tim.

AV No 8 (SB 6505) concerns marijuana excise tax.      The legislature eliminated, without a vote of the people, agricultural excise tax preferences for various aspects of the marijuana industry, costing an estimated $24,903,000 in the first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:
[  ]  Repealed
[  ]  Maintained

These advisory votes need a certain amount of decoding. Thank Tim Eyman for the convoluted language.

First of all, this is NOT a tax increase. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. What’s really going on is that agriculture enjoys a whole bunch of tax breaks, including B&O, sales, and property taxes. There was an assumption that marijuana operations would enjoy those same breaks. The legislature passed senate bill 6505 to postpone those tax breaks until the industry was up and running and the kinks were worked out. The “estimated cost” is a complete fantasy, with numbers picked out of a hat, for how much the industry as a whole would be paying in taxes each year. That “cost” is actually the amount of tax income the state expects to take in over the next 10 years. As I said, the numbers are a fantasy.

I object to being pushed toward someone else’s proposed conclusion, including the suggestion that this measure should be repealed.

I will be voting to Maintain this measure.

AV No 9 (ESHB 1287) concerns leasehold excise tax on tribal property.   The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, the leasehold excise tax on certain leasehold interests in tribal property, costing an estimated $1,298,000 in the first ten years, for government spending.
This tax increase should be:
[  ]  Repealed
[  ]  Maintained

This one gets very murky very quickly, but I think the Progressive Voters’ Guide says it about as clearly as possible. Here’s what they have to say:

“Thanks to a Tim Eyman initiative, the state legislature is required to submit any bill it passes that closes tax loopholes or raises revenues to a non-binding advisory vote. An overwhelming majority of legislators came together earlier this year to clarify that federally recognized Native American tribes must follow the same tax rules as state and local governments when it comes to privately leasing land that is owned exclusively by the tribe. The uncontroversial House Bill 1287 passed the legislature 93 to 44.”

I will be voting to Maintain this measure.