January 21st, 2016

Statement on Judge Downing’s decision in Lee v. State

In the Courts

This morning, King County Judge William Downing ruled that Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1366 is void in its entirety because it violates multiple provisions of the Washington State Constitution.

Northwest Progressive Institute and Permanent Defense founder Andrew Villeneuve released the following statement in response to the decision.

“We’re thrilled with today’s decision by Judge Downing striking down Tim Eyman’s unconstitutional I-1366,” said Villeneuve. “Judge Downing correctly concluded that I-1366 could not stand because it violates Articles II and XXIII of our Constitution, as we have said all along. Our courts have a responsibility to protect our plan of government from destructive, malicious schemes like Initiative 1366. This decision is a landmark victory for majority rule and for the rule of law.”

“We extend our profound thanks to Paul Lawrence at the team at Pacifica Law Group for ably representing plaintiffs Tony Lee, Angela Bartels, Eden Mack, Reuven Carlyle, David Frockt, Paul Bell, Jerry Reilly, and the League of Women Voters in this case.”

“The legal challenge against Initiative 1366 isn’t over yet. We expect the state and sponsors to appeal this ruling immediately to the Washington State Supreme Court. We are confident that Judge Downing’s well-reasoned decision will be upheld on appeal by the nine justices of our highest court.”

January 21st, 2016

Required reading during today’s episode of The Pam Roach Show

Legislation & Testimony

This morning, Republican State Senator and Tim Eyman ally Pam Roach is holding a hearing on a proposed amendment to the Washington State Constitution that would sabotage our cherished tradition of majority rule, which dates back to statehood (SJR 8211). It’s one of several similar amendments introduced by Republican senators so far this year.

Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution provides: “No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.”

The Supreme Court ruled in League of Education Voters (2013) that majority means “greater than fifty percent”, striking down a series of initiatives that had unconstitutionally set up a higher threshold for passage of revenue bills.

Eyman, Roach and other militant Republicans like Don Benton want to require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to pass any bill that raises or recovers revenue for the state treasury. This would allow a submajority of lawmakers — as few as seventeen senators out of one hundred and forty-seven total lawmakers (12%) — to dictate what happens to any future tax reform proposal.

Absurdly, although it would take a two-thirds vote to repeal tax breaks under the rules Eyman wants, new tax breaks could still be created by majority vote.

The principal consequence of SJR 8211, if passed, would be to lock in our state’s broken, worst-in-the-nation tax system permanently.

Other states have changed their constitutions to put control over the outcome of revenue decisions into the hands of a few instead of the many, and the results haven’t been good.

If you’re tuning in to see The Pam Roach Show on TVW this morning, here are some materials we recommend reading to appreciate the damage and gridlock that supermajority requirements have caused in other states in the Union, notably California, which has previously required a two-thirds vote to pass budgets as well as raise revenue.

  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Six Reasons Why Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes Are a Bad Idea (February 2012)
    • Key excerpt: “An argument often heard in debates over supermajorities is that state taxes should be lower. But there is little evidence that states with such requirements actually have lower taxes. The average state with a constitutional supermajority rule covering all tax increases has tax levels that are nearly identical to the tax levels in the average other state. Taxes have been flat as a share of personal income in both supermajority and non-supermajority states for the last three decades.”
  • PBS: Gridlock Grips California Government (November 2011)
    • Key excerpt: “It takes a two-thirds vote in the legislature to raise taxes, and the Republicans (like their counterparts in Washington) would not vote for any such increase. So the governor cut money for schools, universities, health care, social services, parks and practically everything else the state is involved in. This is not good news for those who depend on state aid.”
  • State Building & Construction Trades Council of California: That’s Enough Gridlock; Time to End the Two-Thirds Vote Threshold for Tax Measures (February 2013)
    • Key Excerpt: “It’s pretty clear that this arbitrary two-thirds requirement is causing great harm throughout California. It is unfair and unjust, it is thwarting the will of the people, and it is harming our quality of life by blocking badly needed improvements for transportation and other infrastructure building.”
  • Michigan League for Human Services: Supermajority Proposal: A Super-Bad Idea for Michigan (June 2012)
    • Key Excerpt: “Efforts to end ineffective and unfair tax breaks that benefit large, profitable corporations and other special interests would also be subject to the supermajority requirement since they would raise revenue. This would make it much more difficult to eliminate them even if they fail to create jobs. But only a simple majority would be needed to create or expand costly tax loopholes.”

At NPI, we believe majority rule is good for Democrats and Republicans alike. We believe we should learn from the experience of states like California, which have been paralyzed by legislative gridlock due to undemocratic, unwise schemes that allow a submajority to dictate what happens to revenue bills and budgets.

Our state’s founders discussed what the appropriate threshold for passage of bills was when they wrote our Constitution, and they decided, appropriately, that a majority vote was the only standard that made sense. Our tradition of majority rule has served us well since statehood, and we ought to keep it. SJR 8211 should be rejected.

January 19th, 2016

Bravado won’t stop Tim Eyman’s I-1366 from being struck down as unconstitutional

In the Courts

This morning, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing heard oral arguments in Tony Lee, et al. v. State of Washington, et al., the legal challenge to Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1366. I-1366 is Eyman’s most recent and most destructive initiative yet; it was narrowly passed by voters in last November’s general election, which set a record for the lowest general election turnout (38.45%) since the state began its voter registration system in the 1930s.

I-1366 is an outrageous attempt to coerce the Legislature into sabotaging Washington’s tradition of passing bills and budgets by majority rule. It would wipe out $8 billion in sales tax revenue over the next six years unless the Legislature capitulates to Eyman’s wishes and passes a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to raise or recover any revenue going forward, which would have the effect of locking Washington’s broken, regressive tax system into place permanently.

In late November, at the time the 2015 general election was certified, I-1366 was challenged in court by the League of Women Voters of Washington, State Senators Reuven Carlyle and David Frockt, Paramount Duty co-organizer Eden Mack, Gerry Reilly, Paul Bell, Tony Lee, and Angela Bartels. Plaintiffs allege that I-1366 is unconstitutional because it contains multiple subjects, runs afoul of the Constitution’s amendment process, exceeds the scope of the people’s initiative power, and improperly restricts the lawmaking power of the 2016 Legislature.

“We strongly agree with the plaintiffs in Lee v. State that Tim Eyman’s I-1366 egregiously violates our plan of government, which has served us well since statehood,” said Northwest Progressive Institute and Permanent Defense founder Andrew Villeneuve, who has been organizing opposition to Tim Eyman’s initiative factory for nearly fourteen years.

“Our state’s founders did their best to come up with a plan of government for Washington that struck a balance between majority rule with minority rights. Sadly, Tim Eyman is so obsessed with upsetting this balance that he has resorted to extortion. He has a knack for crafting deceptive initiatives that self-mask their harm, which makes mounting opposition campaigns in the court of public opinion very difficult. We worked hard against I-1366 last autumn, and while we weren’t able to defeat it then, we were successful in bolstering the no vote in the late ballots.”

“We’re very grateful to Paul Lawrence, Sarah Washburn, and Kymberly Evanson at Pacifica Law Group for taking on this case and carrying on the fight against this awful initiative. Paul was very impressive and on point during oral arguments in court this morning. He thoroughly refuted the defendants’ disingenuous arguments.”

“Tim Eyman’s incessant boasting and continued predictions of total victory have us wondering if he was at at the same hearing that we were. Bravado isn’t going to stop I-1366 from being struck down as unconstitutional.”

“We’re looking forward to reading Judge Downing’s ruling on Thursday. Regardless of what it says, we will continue to fight to uphold our Constitution and our cherished plan of majority rule, so that our state government continues to function the way our founders intended it to.”

November 18th, 2015

NPI/Permanent Defense founder Andrew Villeneuve files Majority Vote Protection Initiative

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & Advisories

This morning, at the Secretary of State’s office in Olympia, Northwest Progressive Institute founder and Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve filed a new statewide initiative, titled the Majority Vote Protection Act. The intent of the initiative is to ensure that going forward, statewide initiatives and referenda only pass if an absolute majority of the state’s registered voters weigh in on them.

Additionally, the Majority Vote Protection Act stipulates that any initiative that attempts to impose any supermajority vote requirement on the Legislature (whether three-fifths, two-thirds, three-fourths, or some other threshold) must pass by the exact same supermajority of the voters, or else it will be declared failed.

“The team at the Northwest Progressive Institute is very excited about defending our Constitution’s balance of majority rule and minority rights with the Majority Vote Protection Act,” said NPI’s Villeneuve.

“This is the very first draft of this initiative, and we look forward to refining and improving it in response to the feedback we receive from our supporters, the public, and the press. We feel strongly that the time has come to change state law to ensure that our cherished tradition of majority rule is protected.”

“Our Constitution requires that bills in the Legislature pass by an absolute majority, but our minimum threshold for passage of initiatives and referenda is merely a majority of whoever turns out to vote. That doesn’t make any sense.”

“Under the lax rules of our current system, a small fraction of the state’s electorate can impose laws on everybody else in an election with poor turnout. That is precisely what’s happening right now with Tim Eyman’s hostage-taking I-1366.”

“As of this morning, turnout in Washington’s 2015 general election stands at a measly 38.28%, with almost no ballots left to count. This is the worst general election turnout since the state began permanent voter registration in the 1930s. A little more than half of the voters who participated in this year’s election voted for I-1366, while slightly less than half voted against I-1366. As Seattle Times columnist Ron Judd astutely pointed out in his column The Wrap earlier this month, this means that I-1366 has the support of less than twenty percent of the electorate.”

“A system of government that permits a few to make decisions for the many is not a true democracy,” Villeneuve said. “The first draft of our Majority Vote Protection Act would amend the statute governing the canvass of statewide ballot measures to require that all initiatives and referenda be voted on by at least an absolute majority of registered voters in order to be declared passed. It would also amend the same statute to stop the initiative process from being used to subvert majority rule by requiring that any initiative which contains some incarnation of a supermajority vote requirement to pass by its own supermajority vote requirement — or else be declared failed.”

NPI welcomes feedback on the Majority Vote Protection Act. Questions and comments pertaining to the new initiative draft may be submitted to NPI through Permanent Defense’s contact form.

November 12th, 2015

Statement on Supreme Court’s ruling in Huff v. Wyman

In the CourtsStatements & AdvisoriesThreat Analysis

Late this morning, the Supreme Court released its ruling in Huff v. Wyman, the preelection legal challenge to Tim Eyman’s I-1366, which sought I-1366’s removal from the November 2015 general election ballot on the basis that 1366 was beyond the scope of the people’s initiative power. The Court decided on September 4th, 2015, that plaintiffs, led by King County Elections Director Sherril Huff and Thurston County Auditor Mary Hall, had not made the clear showing necessary for injunctive relief, but retained the case for a later ruling on the merits. That explanatory ruling was released today.

“We thank the Supreme Court for the timely decision it released today explaining why it did not grant an injunction removing Tim Eyman’s I-1366 from the ballot last summer,” said Northwest Progressive Institute founder and executive director Andrew Villeneuve, who has been organizing opposition to Eyman’s initiatives since February of 2002.

“We agree with King County Superior Court Judge Dean Lum that the fundamental and overriding purpose of I-1366 is to coerce the Legislature, and particularly Democratic lawmakers, into invoking the constitutional amendment process spelled out in Article XXIII, something that an initiative simply cannot do.”

“Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court did not definitively answer the question of whether I-1366 is beyond the scope of the initiative power. We believe this is a question that needs to be answered, and we hope it will be addressed in the forthcoming postelection legal challenge. As we said on Election Night, we remain committed to defeating this incredibly destructive hostage-taking initiative, so that our state’s public services and tradition of majority rule are protected. We will be fully supporting the new challenge to I-1366 that will be filed in the days to come. We urge the courts to swiftly take up this matter and uphold our state Constitution by striking down Tim Eyman’s I-1366 in its entirety.”

November 6th, 2015

Opposition to Eyman’s I-1366 surpasses 60% in King County

Election PostmortemStatements & Advisories

Opposition to Tim Eyman’s I-1366 crossed the sixty percent threshold today in King County after Elections released its 3:58:14 PM report, reaching 60.59%. This is the third consecutive day that the share of the vote against I-1366 in Martin Luther King Jr. County has significantly increased; on Election Night, the NO vote was 57.54%.

Northwest Progressive Institute/Permanent Defense founder and Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve made the following statement following the release of King County Elections’ Friday, November 6th count.

“All of us at the Northwest Progressive Institute would like to express our gratitude to the people of King County for voting so overwhelmingly against Tim Eyman’s awful, hostage-taking I-1366,” said Villeneuve. “While we are not winning statewide, to be prevailing so decisively in King County is a blessing. We are also grateful to voters in Thurston, San Juan, and Jefferson counties for recognizing that I-1366 is bad public policy, and for likewise rejecting the militant, destructive politics of hostage-taking.”

“This morning, Tim Eyman had the audacity to attack The Olympian for its praise of King and Thurston voters’ decision, quoting from the editorial and then sneering to his followers, ‘Not enough father-knows-best condescension for you?’ He also falsely assailed us, his opponents, as contemptous of voters.”

“If Eyman wants to talk about contempt, why don’t we talk about his contempt… for our Constitution, for our system of government, for our elected representatives, and anyone who disagrees with him.”

“Tim Eyman may be in a gloating mood, but we stand resolutely prepared to continue the fight against I-1366 and any other bad ideas he comes up with in the months to come. Eyman is sorely mistaken if he thinks we regard what is happening in this election as anything more than a setback. We are committed to maintaining a permanent defense against his schemes to wreck our government, as well as going on offense to raise Washington’s quality of life.”

“As the Supreme Court has ruled, we are badly underfunding public education. I-1366 would make an already grave problem much, much worse. It must not stand. We urge the Supreme Court to strike it down without delay and uphold our Constitution.”

“Tim Eyman loves to talk about the wisdom and the will of the voters, but he disregards the voters’ will when the people of Washington do not vote in accordance with his wishes. He operates by a double standard.”

“It is worth noting that most of Washington’s nearly four million voters did not even participate in this election. They stayed home. Of the few who turned out, only a narrow majority are approving I-1366. An increasingly large minority are saying NO, including a supermajority (three-fifths) of voters in King County.”

“It’s no secret that Eyman doesn’t take repudiation well. We have no doubt his losses in King, Thurston, San Juan, and Jefferson counties have left him very annoyed, because he can no longer claim that Seattle is the only place where there is a majority opposed to sabotaging Washington’s cherished tradition of legislative majority rule.”

November 3rd, 2015

Statement on the early 2015 general election returns

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & Advisories

Early returns tonight indicate that Washington voters are passing Tim Eyman’s hostage-taking I-1366, albeit not by a large margin. Northwest Progressive Institute founder and executive director Andrew Villeneuve released the following statement after analyzing the initial results.

“Though these early results are disappointing, our resolve to protect our Constitution and our common wealth from the destructive harm of initiatives like I-1366 has never been stronger. In partnership with many other organizations committed to the defense of Washington’s values, we waged the best campaign against I-1366 that we could with modest resources.”

“We are clearly doing much, much better than we did against I-1185 in 2012 or I-1053 in 2010, and that is very gratifying. We will continue to keep an eye on the results. If late voters break against the initiative, we should see the margin tighten.”

“If I-1366 does ultimately pass, we will continue to work to defeat it in the courts. I-1366 is blatantly unconstitutional and completely beyond the scope of the initiative power, as Judge Dean Lum ruled back in August. It deserves to be buried in the graveyard of Washington state politics.”

“We are heartened to see that voters in Seattle and Snohomish County are voting to invest in road maintenance, better sidewalks, and improved transit tonight. Contrary to what Tim Eyman claims, Washingtonians are willing to tax themselves to pay for vital public services. They want a government that is effective and works for them.”

“Our research shows that voters want better choices. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling for NPI shows 54% of likely 2015 voters support a capital gains tax on high earners in Washington, with 43% of respondents saying they ‘strongly support’ the idea. Voters are hungry for progressive tax reform, but I-1366 would take us in the wrong direction.”

“We’re not happy with tonight’s early results, but we’re not discouraged. At NPI, we’re in this fight for the long haul. We always have been. We will continue the fight to defend Washington’s common wealth and Constitution in the weeks, months, and years ahead. The last thing our state needs is to be paralyzed by D.C.-style gridlock, imported from our nation’s capital by Tim Eyman and his wealthy benefactors.”

October 27th, 2015

For the record, Tim Eyman’s “jaw-dropping” tax hikes figure is a big fake

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & Advisories

For the past few weeks, Tim Eyman has been peppering the emails he sends to his followers and to the mass media with references to a $17.5 billion figure — the amount Eyman claims that taxes were increased by the Washington State Legislature in 2015. This number has begun showing up in just about every message that Eyman sends. Here are some examples (note that this is not an exhaustive list, but does contain most of the various permutations we could find):

  • Eyman, September 2nd, 2015: “Certainly the $17.5 billion in higher taxes imposed by this year’s Legislature vividly illustrates why I-1366 is necessary.”
  • Eyman, September 9th, 2015: “[L]ike this year’s session without the 2/3: this year they raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion.”
  • Eyman, September 11th, 2015: “This year’s Legislature raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion because last year’s tax initiative didn’t succeed.”
  • Eyman, September 14th, 2015: ” This year’s Legislature raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion.”
  • Eyman, September 18th, 2015: “This year was different: the 2015 Legislature raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion.”
  • Eyman, September 24th, 2015: “Olympia raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion this session.”
  • Eyman, October 4th, 2015: “This year’s Legislature raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion.”
  • Eyman, October 16th, 2015: “Olympia raised taxes a jaw-dropping $17.5 billion this year…”
  • Eyman, October 20th, 2015: “He [Inslee] was the biggest cheerleader for the jaw-dropping $17.5 billion in tax hikes this session.”
  • Eyman, October 26th, 2015 (just yesterday): “[A]ll we’re hearing about from politicians is the supposed necessity of $17.5 billion in additional taxes imposed over the next 10 years for more government spending (which is on top of the jaw-dropping $17.5 billion in higher taxes from this year’s legislative session).”

Eyman never cites any source for this number, and that’s probably because our research shows it’s a fabricated figure with no basis in fact.

The 2015 Washington State Legislature did vote to raise revenue several times — and, it should be noted, on a bipartisan basis! — but the totals of those increases do not sum to $17.5 billion, not even projected out over ten years.

Whenever the Legislature considers a bill that would increase tax revenue, Tim Eyman’s I-960 (from 2007) requires the Office of Financial Management to flag the bill and calculate, over ten years, the amount of revenue that would be increased.

If the bill ultimately becomes law, Eyman’s I-960 further requires that there be an “advisory vote” on it the following November. These unconstitutional “advisory votes” (which are really akin to push polls because they ask loaded questions) have been appearing on our ballots every year since 2012. This year, there were four bills that increased tax revenue, and so became the subject of “advisory votes”:

We can calculate how much the Legislature increased taxes in 2015 by looking at the estimated fiscal impact of these four bills. Through the end of 2017, it is as follows:

  • ESHB 1449: $5,592,000
  • 2SSB 5052: $551,000
  • 2ESSB 5987: $645,188,840
  • ESSB 6138: $162,461,000

Total Through 2017: $813,792,840

If the estimates are correct, by the end of 2017, the state will collect about $813 million in additional tax revenue as a result of bills passed in the 2015 long session and subsequent special sessions, with the vast majority (over three fourths) going to transportation projects. That’s a far cry from $17.5 billion – Eyman’s phony figure.

Again, as mentioned, we can’t even replicate Eyman’s phony figure by stretching out the amount of the revenue increases over ten years, which is well beyond the period of time for which the Legislature has budgeted.

  • Ten-year total for ESHB 1449: $29,072,000
  • Ten-year total for 2SSB 5052: $4,061,000
  • Ten-year total for 2ESSB 5987: $5,221,111,220
  • Ten-year total for ESSB 6138: $1,448,570,000

Total Through 2025: $6,702,814,220.00

These ten-year totals sum to $6.7 billion, not $17.5 billion.

As we have documented, Tim Eyman has been throwing around this $17.5 billion figure for weeks, as if it is unquestioned fact. But it’s actually a fabricated number.

We arrived at the figures in this analysis by doing some simple arithmetic and showing our work, which is a basic principle of mathematics taught and emphasized to Washington’s students on a daily basis.

As we can find no basis for the $17.5 billion figure Eyman has been using, not even after checking with the Office of Financial Management, and as Eyman has produced no documentation to justify it, we’re left to conclude that Eyman made it up.

This is the latest addition to a large body of evidence that demonstrates that Eyman cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information.

October 20th, 2015

The truth about taxes in Washington: We invest less in our public services than most other states

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & Advisories

Yesterday, longtime pollster Stuart Elway revealed that his latest survey of Washington voters finds that Tim Eyman’s hostage-taking I-1366 is on the rocks, with support dropping to 42% and opposition rising to 42%, a significant shift from last July, when Elway found support for I-1366 to be at 49% and opposition at 36%.

Apparently unnerved by this news and the bad press it generated, Tim Eyman has gotten busy trying to change the subject. To his followers, he sent off a morning missive touting an endorsement from a militant, gun enthusiast outfit called The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

To the state’s press corps, he sent out a copy of a spreadsheet prepared by the Department of Revenue, which lists how much money the state has collected from property taxes every year since 1980, but is not accompanied by any analysis other than his own — which is not credible and cannot be trusted or relied upon.

Eyman’s reason for circulating the data is to prop up his narrative about Washington being a high-tax state with “skyrocketing” property taxes.

But this narrative is false.

Comparative data from the Department of Revenue shows that, as a percentage of personal income, we Washingtonians are paying less in state and local taxes than we have historically, and less than residents of most other states in the Union.

In 1980, the year Eyman is misleadingly trying to draw a comparison with, DOR data shows Washingtonians were paying a little less than $120 in state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income. As of 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, Washingtonians were paying $96.82 in state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income. That’s also less than what residents of most other states were paying at that same time. Comparatively speaking, Washington ranks thirty-fifth among the states with respect to state and local taxes.

The United States average, as of 2012, is $105.24 in state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income. And again, we in Washington pay less than that. We have been on a largely downward trend for decades, as this historical chart shows:

State and Local Taxes Per $1,000 of Personal Income: Washington and All States Average 1976 - 2012

Tim Eyman doesn’t want people to know this information. That is why he never talks about it. He deals in absolutes, because absolutes produce visuals that suit his false narrative, such as the chart from DOR he sent around. But when you deal in absolutes, you cannot make useful or truthful comparisons. It is important to utilize data that allows for relative comparisons, such as the metric of state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income. And going by that incredibly important metric, we can see that state and local taxes have been going down… not up.

1980 was a very different time: our state had a smaller population and a smaller economy than it does today. Property values and income levels were different. Washington has seen tremendous economic growth as well as an increase in population over the last thirty years. Demand for essential state and local public services has increased significantly as a consequence of population growth and new development, but funding levels have not kept up.

That’s why legislators are presently under a Supreme Court order to comply with Article IX, Section 1 of our Constitution, which stipulates that it is the paramount duty of the state to amply provide for the education of Washington’s youth.

It is true that Washington’s tax code is regressive; the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy has ranked it the worst in the nation. The sad reality is, we have an upside-down system that requires middle and lower income families to pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy do.

We at NPI think this is wrong, and we want to reform our tax code to make it more progressive. Tim Eyman doesn’t. Progressive tax reform is his worst nightmare, because it could seriously limit the appeal of future anti-tax initiatives, which he profits from qualifying to the ballot on an almost yearly basis.

It is very important that taxes be fair and equitable, because taxes are our membership dues in the State of Washington, and in the cities and counties we call home. Taxes support K-12 schools, colleges, universities, police, fire, and emergency medical response, parks, pools, hospitals, roads, transit, ferries, courts, elections, foster care, jails, prisons, courts, elections, geologic hazards mapping, and a lengthy list of health and human services. By pooling our resources together, we are able to afford these things.

But unfortunately, we haven’t been investing in our essential public services to the degree we should be. Our communities have suffered as a result, and we’ve missed economic opportunities, too. We ought to be investing more than we are. Given that our tax code is so regressive, the sensible way forward is for our state is to require the wealthy (including Tim Eyman’s wealthy benefactors) to step up and pay their fair share. Sadly, Eyman’s benefactors have no interest in being patriotic taxpayers, which is why they’re underwriting Eyman’s hostage-taking I-1366.

October 19th, 2015

Newest Elway poll indicates Eyman’s I-1366 is in trouble

Poll WatchStatements & Advisories

A new survey conducted by pollster Stuart Elway shows that support for Tim Eyman’s I-1366 is dropping, while support is rising, according to an article published this morning by The Seattle Times.

In a poll conducted from October 13th-15th, Elway surveyed five hundred registered voters, and found that 42% of respondents were supporting I-1366, while 42% were opposed and 16% were undecided. Back in the summer, from July 21st-23rd, Elway conducted a poll of Washington voters that found 49% support for I-1366, 36% opposition, and 15% undecided.

Eyman’s I-1366 would cut sales tax revenue by $8 billion over the next six years unless, by next April, the Legislature bows to the will of his wealthy benefactors and passes a constitutional amendment sabotaging our Constitution’s majority vote requirement for passage of bills and budgets.

“Stuart Elway’s new findings provide fresh evidence that our efforts to bring Washingtonians together to defeat Tim Eyman’s incredibly destructive I-1366 are paying off,” said Northwest Progressive Institute founder and Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve, who has been organizing opposition to Eyman’s initiative factory for over thirteen years. “We believe that if Washingtonians truly appreciate the costs and consequences of I-1366, most will vote no. That’s why our diverse, bipartisan coalition is working hard to connect with voters every day. We’re determined to protect our Constitution and the values our state was founded upon.”

Tim Eyman sent out an email this morning trying to minimize Elway’s findings.

“The press will certainly hyperventilate as they always do whenever an Elway poll is released, as if his numbers are printed on stone tablets,” Eyman wrote. “But without perspective, these numbers are meaningless.”

Perspective is certainly useful, but as usual, Eyman’s perspective is warped. Elway’s new findings indicate that the I-1366 isn’t going Eyman’s way… so he’s trying to dismiss them by claiming that Elway’s research is understating the true level of support for I-1366.

Eyman has made this same argument in years past. Four years ago, Eyman disputed an October Elway poll that showed his anti-tolling initiative (I-1125) losing serious ground after the opposition campaign began hitting its stride. But I-1125 ultimately went down to defeat, validating Elway’s conclusion that the measure was losing support.

And two years ago, Elway’s polling on Eyman’s Initiative 517 documented a decline in support between September and October 2013. Elway found that I-517, Eyman’s initiative on initiatives, dropped from 58% in favor and 22% opposed in September to 52% support and 25% opposed in mid-October. I-517 ultimately went on to lose in a landslide, with 62.71% of voters opposed in the only poll that mattered.

The trend is what’s important, and the trend is not going Eyman’s way, so he is trying to dismiss Elway’s research. But Elway’s findings jibe with the response we’re seeing to our campaign. It is significant to us that Elway found a substantial negative swing against I-1366 among “perfect” and “frequent” voters.

“If this survey were the election and only ‘perfect voters’ who have decided cast ballots, turnout would be about 32% and I-1366 would lose by 55% to 45%,” Elway’s memo noted. “If only ‘frequent voters’ voted, turnout would be about 53% and I-1366 would lose by 51% to 49%.”

Secretary of State Kim Wyman is forecasting statewide turnout of forty-six percent for the November 2015 general election.

“We are heartened by Elway’s findings showing a trend against I-1366, but we remain focused on reaching to voters to ensure they’re aware of the devastation I-1366 would cause,” said Villeneuve. “Voting continues until November 3rd, and there are several weeks to go. We have believed throughout this campaign that I-1366 could be defeated and deserves to be defeated. We’ll continue working as hard as we can to ensure as many Washingtonians as possible cast an informed vote against this terrible initiative.”

You are here:

Newsroom

Mobilizing for 2024 to counter new threats

Stop Greed: Vote no in 2024
Visit StopGreed.org to learn about four harmful right wing initiatives we're opposing that are on their way to the November general election ballot

What we do

Permanent Defense works to protect Washington by building a first line of defense against threats to the common wealth and Constitution of the Evergreen State — like Tim Eyman's initiative factory. Learn more.

Protecting Washington Since 2002

Newsroom Archives