Washington Increased Penalties for Crimes Against Vulnerable Individuals, Initiative 1501 (2016)

Washington Initiative 1501
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Civil and criminal trials
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Initiative 732 d
Initiative 735 a
Initiative 1433 a
Initiative 1464 d
Initiative 1491 a
Initiative 1501 a
Advisory Vote 14 a
Advisory Vote 15 a
SJR 8210 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Washington Increased Penalties for Crimes Against Vulnerable Individuals measure, Initiative 1501, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported increasing criminal identity-theft penalties, expanding civil liability for consumer fraud targeting seniors and vulnerable individuals, and exempting certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure.

A "no" vote opposed this measure increasing criminal identity-theft penalties, expanding civil liability for consumer fraud targeting certain individuals, and exempting certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure.

Aftermath

Freedom Foundation lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether or not I-1501 violates the rights of free speech, free association, and equal protection (the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and ultimately appealed
Ruling: Allowing I-1501 to go into effect
Plaintiff(s): Freedom Foundation; Bradley Boardman—Individual Provider; Deborah Thurber—Childcare Provider; Shannon Benn—Childcare Provider	Defendant(s): Gov. Jay Inslee (off. cap.), Washington Department of Social and Health Services Director Patricia Lashway (off. cap.), and Washington Department of Early Learning Director Ross Hunter (off. cap.)
Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the rights to free speech, free association, and equal protection of both providers and the Freedom Foundation by restricting access to information that allows the Freedom Foundation to contact providers and providers to contact each other while allowing unions access to the same information.	Defendant argument: Not available.

  Source: Lawsuit filing

In April 2017, the Freedom Foundation—which organized the opposition to Initiative 1501—filed a lawsuit against the state in federal court seeking to overturn Initiative 1501 and to achieve a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the initiative until the court's ruling.

The lawsuit contended that the initiative was specifically designed by SEIU 775 to prevent the Freedom Foundation from receiving lists of in-home caregivers and childcare providers whose work is publicly subsidized while allowing unions to access them and that the initiative's provisions restricting access to these lists violated Freedom Foundation's constitutional rights to free speech, free association, and equal protection (the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment). The Freedom Foundation used these lists acquired through public records requests to contact caregivers and childcare providers to communicate the results of a U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn, which ruled that unions could not require an automatic fee from these providers and that the providers could opt out of union dues. The lawsuit also contended that the initiative restricts the rights of providers to freely associate and communicate with each other.

The defendants in the case—Gov. Jay Inslee, Washington Department of Social and Health Services Director Patricia Lashway, and Washington Department of Early Learning Director Ross Hunter—were all listed in their official capacity as those tasked with enforcing Initiative 1501. In response to allegations made during the campaign before the election on I-1501 that were similar to those made in the lawsuit, SEIU representatives said that the initiative was designed to protect their clients and that the Freedom Foundation's problems with it stem from the organization's perspective.

On January 10, 2019, the court ruled in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit court on February 7, 2019.

Ultimately, SEIU and Freedom Foundation argued against each other before the Washington Supreme Court. The Washington Supreme Court reversed several lower court rulings and stated that access to public records is not a vested right. The ruling means that I-1501's changes to rules regarding access to public information were valid and could be enforced, including against requests made prior to I-1501 going into effect.

Election results

Initiative 1501
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		2,247,906	70.64%
No		934,365	29.36%

Election results from Washington Secretary of State

Overview

Initiative design

Initiative 1501 increased the criminal penalty for identity theft against a "senior" or "vulnerable individual" to a class B felony. It also increased the civil penalties by three times the amount of actual damages for anyone who commits consumer fraud against "seniors" or "vulnerable individuals." The measure defined a “senior” as a person “over the age of 65.” A “vulnerable individual” was defined as a person 60 years of age or older who cannot take care of himself or herself and is receiving home care services. Furthermore, the initiative amended the Public Records Act to prohibit disclosing "sensitive personal information," such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers, of vulnerable individuals and their in-home caregivers.

Background of Initiative 1501

Initiative 1501 was debated between SEIU 775 and the Freedom Foundation. SEIU 775 sponsored the initiative. The Freedom Foundation believed Initiative 1501 was an attempt to stop the organization from accessing the SEIU’s list of unionized caregivers to tell them union dues are elective in light the U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn. SEIU 775 responded that the Freedom Foundation’s claim was just “their perspective,” and the measure was proposed because union members wanted to protect their clients and their personal privacy.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 1501 concerns seniors and vulnerable individuals. This measure would increase the penalties for criminal identity theft and civil consumer fraud targeted at seniors or vulnerable individuals; and exempt certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This measure would increase penalties for criminal identity theft and civil penalties for consumer fraud when persons over sixty-five or vulnerable individuals are targeted. It would exempt certain information, including names, addresses, and other personally identifying information, of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers for vulnerable populations from public disclosure. It would also prohibit the state and state agencies from releasing certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers of vulnerable populations except in limited situations.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement was as follows:

The Law as it Presently Exists It is currently a crime in Washington to knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit any crime. In other words, it is illegal to have or use another person's identity or financial information to commit a crime. This crime is known as identity theft and is punishable as a class C felony. If, however, the identity theft involves obtaining credit, money, goods, services, or anything else valued over $1,500, it is considered a class B felony and is punishable with a longer maximum prison sentence and higher potential fines. A person who is a victim of consumer fraud may be able to sue the wrongdoer in court to recover money or obtain other relief. Several state laws authorize these types of lawsuits and each law establishes the criteria for bringing a lawsuit and the remedies available. For example, the Consumer Protection Act permits a person who is injured by an unfair or deceptive action by a business to sue the business to stop the harm and recover damages caused by the unfair or deceptive act. The Public Records Act generally requires government agencies to provide public records to anyone who asks for them. However, some types of records may not be disclosed by government agencies. For example, there are limitations on disclosure of certain types of financial information, including credit or debit card numbers and social security numbers. Some types of personal information may not be disclosed if the information would violate an individual's personal privacy. Disclosure of information violates personal privacy if it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the information is not of concern to the public. Generally, an individual's name, telephone number, and address are not considered personal information. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved This measure would change criminal and civil laws that apply when vulnerable individuals or seniors are targets of identity theft or consumer fraud. The measure would define a "senior" as any person over the age of sixty-five. The definition of "vulnerable individual" would include a person (1) sixty years of age or older who cannot take care of himself or herself; (2) found by a court to be unable to take care of himself or herself; or (3) receiving home care services. The measure would increase the criminal penalty for identity theft when a senior or vulnerable individual, as defined, is targeted. If a defendant were found guilty of knowingly targeting a senior or vulnerable individual when committing the crime of identity theft, the crime would be considered identity theft in the first degree and be punishable as a class B felony. The measure would also increase civil penalties for consumer fraud that targets a senior or vulnerable individual, as defined. Any person who commits consumer fraud that targets such individuals would be subject to civil penalties of three times the amount of the actual damages. The measure would change the Public Records Act to prohibit disclosing "sensitive personal information" of both vulnerable individuals and "in-home caregivers of vulnerable populations." The measure defines "sensitive personal information" to include names, addresses, GPS coordinates, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, or other personally identifying information. It would apply to the sensitive personal information of care providers contracted by the Department of Social and Health Services, home care aides, and certain family childcare providers. The measure provides specific circumstances when the government may disclose such information. For example, the measure would allow the information to be released to other government agencies or to a certified collective bargaining representative. The measure also requires the Department of Social and Health Services to report to the Governor and Attorney General about any additional records that should be made exempt from public disclosure to protect seniors and vulnerable individuals against fraud, identity theft, and other forms of victimization.

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:

Sec. 1. This act may be known and cited as the seniors and vulnerable individuals' safety and financial crimes prevention act. Sec. 2. It is the intent of this initiative to protect the safety and security of seniors and vulnerable individuals by (1) increasing criminal penalties for identity theft targeting seniors and vulnerable individuals; (2) increasing penalties for consumer fraud targeting seniors and vulnerable individuals; and (3) prohibiting the release of certain public records that could facilitate identity theft and other financial crimes against seniors and vulnerable individuals. Sec. 3. RCW 9.35.005 and 2001 c 217 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Financial information" means any of the following information identifiable to the individual that concerns the amount and conditions of an individual's assets, liabilities, or credit: (a) Account numbers and balances; (b) Transactional information concerning an account; and (c) Codes, passwords, social security numbers, tax identification numbers, driver's license or permit numbers, state identicard numbers issued by the department of licensing, and other information held for the purpose of account access or transaction initiation. (2) "Financial information repository" means a person engaged in the business of providing services to customers who have a credit, deposit, trust, stock, or other financial account or relationship with the person. (3) "Means of identification" means information or an item that is not describing finances or credit but is personal to or identifiable with an individual or other person, including: A current or former name of the person, telephone number, an electronic address, or identifier of the individual or a member of his or her family, including the ancestor of the person; information relating to a change in name, address, telephone number, or electronic address or identifier of the individual or his or her family; a social security, driver’s license, or tax identification number of the individual or a member of his or her family; and other information that could be used to identify the person, including unique biometric data. (4) "Person" means a person as defined in RCW 9A.04.110. (5) "Senior" means a person over the age of sixty-five. (6) "Victim" means a person whose means of identification or financial information has been used or transferred with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity. (7) "Vulnerable individual" means a person: (i) Sixty years of age or older who has the functional, mental, or physical inability to care for himself or herself; (ii) Found incapacitated under chapter 11.88 RCW; (iii) Who has a developmental disability as defined under RCW 71A.10.020; (iv) Admitted to any facility; (v) Receiving services from home health, hospice, or home care agencies licensed or required to be licensed under chapter 70.127 RCW; (vi) Receiving services from an individual provider as defined in RCW 74.39A.240; or (vii) Who self-directs his or her own care and receives services from a personal aide under chapter 74.39 RCW. PART I INCREASING CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR IDENTITY THEFT TARGETING SENIORS OR VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS Sec. 4. RCW 9.35.001 and 2008 c 207 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The legislature finds that means of identification and financial information are personal and sensitive information such that if unlawfully obtained, possessed, used, or transferred by others may result in significant harm to a person's privacy, financial security, and other interests. The legislature finds that unscrupulous persons find ever more clever ways, including identity theft, to improperly obtain, possess, use, and transfer another person's means of identification or financial information. The legislature intends to penalize for each unlawful act of improperly obtaining, possessing, using, or transferring means of identification or financial information of an individual person. The unit of prosecution for identity theft by use of a means of identification or financial information is each individual unlawful use of any one person's means of identification or financial information. Unlawfully obtaining, possessing, or transferring each means of identification or financial information of any individual person, with the requisite intent, is a separate unit of prosecution for each victim and for each act of obtaining, possessing, or transferring of the individual person’s means of identification or financial information. (2) The people find that additional measures are needed to protect seniors and vulnerable individuals from identity theft because such individuals often have less ability to protect themselves and such individuals can be targeted using information available through public sources, including publicly available information that identifies such individuals or their in-home caregivers. Sec. 5. RCW 9.35.020 and 2008 c 207 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: (1) No person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime. (2) Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice violates subsection (1) of this section and obtains credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value, or when the accused knowingly targets a senior or vulnerable individual in carrying out a violation of subsection (1) of this section, shall constitute identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. (3) A person is guilty of identity theft in the second degree when he or she violates subsection (1) of this section under circumstances not amounting to identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the second degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. (4) Each crime prosecuted under this section shall be punished separately under chapter 9.94A RCW, unless it is the same criminal conduct as any other crime, under RCW 9.94A.589. (5) Whenever any series of transactions involving a single person’s means of identification or financial information which constitute identity theft would, when considered separately, constitute identity theft in the second degree because of value, and the series of transactions are a part of a common scheme or plan, then the transactions may be aggregated in one count and the sum of the value of all of the transactions shall be the value considered in determining the degree of identity theft involved. (6) Every person who, in the commission of identity theft, shall commit any other crime may be punished therefor as well as for the identity theft, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately. (7) A person who violates this section is liable for civil damages of one thousand dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater, including costs to repair the victim's credit record, and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court. (8) In a proceeding under this section, the crime will be considered to have been committed in any locality where the person whose means of identification or financial information was appropriated resides, or in which any part of the offense took place, regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in that locality. (9) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person who obtains another person's driver's license or other form of identification for the sole purpose of misrepresenting his or her age. (10) In a proceeding under this section in which a person's means of identification or financial information was used without that person's authorization, and when there has been a conviction, the sentencing court may issue such orders as are necessary to correct a public record that contains false information resulting from a violation of this section. PART II INCREASING PENALTIES FOR CONSUMER FRAUD AGAINST SENIORS AND VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS Sec. 6. A new section is added to read as follows: (1) It is the intent of this section to increase civil penalties for consumer fraud targeting a senior or a vulnerable individual. (2) Any consumer fraud that targets a senior or a vulnerable individual, as defined in RCW 9.35.005, is subject to civil penalties of three times the amount of actual damages. (3) This section creates no new cause of action. This section increases penalties where a plaintiff proceeds under any existing cause of action under statute or common law and successfully proves that he or she was victim to consumer fraud that targeted him or her as a senior or vulnerable individual. PART III PROHIBITING THE RELEASE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS THAT COULD BE USED TO VICTIMIZE SENIORS AND VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS Sec. 7. It is the intent of part three of this act to protect seniors and vulnerable individuals from identity theft and other financial crimes by preventing the release of public records that could be used to victimize them. Sensitive personal information about in-home caregivers for vulnerable populations is protected because its release could facilitate identity crimes against seniors, vulnerable individuals, and the other vulnerable populations that these caregivers serve. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 42.56 RCW to read as follows: (1) Sensitive personal information of vulnerable individuals and sensitive personal information of in-home caregivers for vulnerable populations is exempt from inspection and copying under this chapter. (2) The following definitions apply to this section: (a) “In-home caregivers for vulnerable populations” means: (i) individual providers as defined in RCW 74.39A.240, (ii) home care aides as defined in RCW 18.88B.010, and (iii) family child care providers as defined in RCW 41.56.030. (b) “Sensitive personal information” means names, addresses, GPS coordinates, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, or other personally identifying information. (c) “Vulnerable individual” has the meaning set forth in RCW 9.35.005. Sec. 9. Within one hundred eighty days after the effective date of this section, the department of social and health services shall report to the governor and attorney general about any additional records that should be made exempt from public disclosure to provide greater protection to seniors and vulnerable individuals against fraud, identity theft, and other forms of victimization. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 43.17 RCW to read as follows: (1) To protect vulnerable individuals and their children from identity crimes and other forms of victimization, neither the state nor any of its agencies shall release sensitive personal information of vulnerable individuals or sensitive personal information of in-home caregivers for vulnerable populations, as those terms are defined in section 8 of this act. Sec. 11. Nothing in this act shall prevent the release of public information in the following circumstances: (a) the information is released to a governmental body, including the state’s area agencies on aging, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; (b) the information concerns individuals who have been accused of or disciplined for abuse, neglect, exploitation, abandonment, or other acts involving the victimization of individuals or other professional misconduct; (c) the information is being released as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and subject to a court’s order protecting the confidentiality of the information and allowing it to be used solely in that proceeding; (d) the information is being provided to a representative certified or recognized under RCW 41.56.080, or as necessary for the provision of fringe benefits to public employees, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; (e) the disclosure is required by federal law; (f) the disclosure is required by a contract between the state and a third party, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; (g) the information is released to a person or entity under contract with the state to manage, administer, or provide services to vulnerable residents, or under contract with the state to engage in research or analysis about state services for vulnerable residents, and the recipient agrees to protect the confidentiality of the information; or (h) information about specific public employee(s) is released to a bona fide news organization that requests such information to conduct an investigation into, or report upon, the actions of such specific public employee(s). (2) Nothing in this act shall prevent an agency from providing contact information for the purposes of RCW 74.39A.056(3) and RCW 74.39A.250. Nothing in this act shall prevent an agency from confirming the licensing or certification status of a caregiver on an individual basis to allow consumers to ensure the licensing or certification status of an individual caregiver. Sec. 12. This act shall be liberally construed to promote the public policy of protecting seniors and vulnerable individuals from identity theft, consumer fraud, and other forms of victimization. Sec. 13. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“ Summary Initiative 1501 would have no significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. General Assumptions The effective date of the initiative is December 8, 2016. Assumptions for Expenditure Analysis Increasing criminal penalties for identity theft Initiative 1501 (I-1501) increases the criminal penalties for the crime of identity theft to when the accused knowingly targets a senior or vulnerable individual when knowingly obtaining, possessing, using or transferring means of identification or financial information of another person with the intent to commit, or aid or abet, any crime. No new expenditures have been identified. Increasing civil penalties for consumer fraud I-1501 increases civil penalties for consumer fraud targeting seniors or vulnerable individuals, as defined in the initiative. Any consumer fraud that targets a senior or vulnerable individual would be subject to civil penalties of three times the amount of actual damages. No new expenditures have been identified. Public records exemption I-1501 provides a new exemption from public disclosure laws for sensitive personal information of vulnerable individuals and their in-home caregivers, as defined in the initiative. I-1501 would add the requirement that individual names, addresses, GPS coordinates, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers and other personally identifying information be protected, and thus be redacted before disclosure. These additional redactions would result in little change to workload in responding to public records requests. It is assumed the initiative would not result in a significant increase or decrease in the number of public records requests. Minimal fiscal impact to the state or local governments is anticipated as a result of the new exemption. Department of Social and Health Services report I-1501 would require the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to report to the Governor and the Attorney General “about any additional records that should be made exempt from public disclosure to provide greater protection to seniors and vulnerable individuals against fraud, identity theft, and other forms of victimization.” Reporting would be required within 180 days of the effective date of the initiative. DSHS assumes the cost of reporting will be minimal and can be absorbed with current resources. State agency prohibition on release of sensitive personal information Subject to outlined exceptions, I-1501 would prohibit state agencies from releasing sensitive personal information, as defined in the initiative, of vulnerable individuals or their in-home caregivers. This prohibition is expected to have a minimal fiscal impact to the state as the additional redactions required under the initiative will result in an insignificant change to workload in responding to public records requests. ”

Support

Yes on 1501 (Campaign to Prevent Fraud and Protect Seniors) led the campaign in support of Initiative 1501.

Supporters

Officials

• Sheriff John Urquart, King County

Organizations

• Washington State Democrats
• Spokane County Democrats
• King County Democrats
• Seattle Socialist Alternative
• Washington Senior Citizens’ Lobby
• FUSE Washington
• Washington Communication Action Network

Unions

• Washington State Labor Council
• Washington State Council of Firefighters
• SEIU

Arguments

Official arguments

Martha Corona, a child care provider in Yakima, Vera Kandrashuk, an in-home caregiver in Spokane, Jerry Reilly, a seniors' advocate, Robby Stern of the Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, and King County Sheriff John Urquhart wrote the argument in favor of Initiative 1501 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Hurt Us All You have heard the news and stories from family and friends targeted in scams. They often start with a telemarketer impersonating the IRS or a relative in distress, demanding money or personal information. With basic information, criminals can steal an identity, causing emotional stress, devastating personal finances and ruining credit. Fraud and identity theft hurt all of us and cause real financial and emotional damage. We Need to Protect Seniors and Other Vulnerable People According to a recent study, over half of scam victims are over age 50. In fact, financial exploitation of seniors costs them $2.9 billion every year. For every case that is reported, it is estimated that 43 others are not. As caregivers, advocates for seniors and retired people, and a public safety official, our priority is the health, safety and protection of our state’s most vulnerable populations. We cannot let fraudulent telemarketers and other criminals continue to prey on them. We need the protections offered by I-1501 for their peace of mind and safety. Increase Penalties and Prevent Release of Personal Information I-1501 increases penalties on criminals who prey on senior citizens and other vulnerable people. It prevents the government from releasing information that could help identity thieves targeting seniors and the vulnerable. And it protects the personal information of caregivers. Initiative 1501 is endorsed by consumer advocates, caregivers, law enforcement and public safety officials, and other community leaders. Please join us in approving Initiative 1501.

Opposition

The Freedom Foundation led the campaign in opposition to Initiative 1501. The Freedom Foundation believed Initiative 1501 was an attempt to stop the organization from accessing the SEIU’s list of unionized caregivers to tell them union dues are elective in light the U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn.

Opponents

• Freedom Foundation

Arguments

Official arguments

Brad Boardman, an in-home caregiver, Mary Jane Aurdal-Olson, an in-home caregiver, Tim Benn, a child care advocate, Deborah Thurber, a child care provider and advocate, Toby Nixon, President of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, and Maxford Nelsen, Director of Labor Policy and the Freedom Foundation, wrote the argument against Initiative 1501 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

Please vote no. Initiative 1501 isn’t what it claims to be. It was given an innocent-sounding title to deceive voters as to its true purpose. Initiative 1501 is an attack on vulnerable individuals by a powerful special interest that has poured over $1.2 million into funding it. Initiative 1501 was written by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Its goal is to rewrite the Public Records Act to prevent in-home caregivers and childcare providers from learning they no longer can be forced to pay dues to the union. Through Initiative 1501, SEIU ensures that it, and only it, will still receive caregivers’ information — even Social Security numbers — so it can continue capturing over $20 million in dues from these individuals every year. Caregivers have the right to stop paying SEIU, but the State isn’t informing them of their right. If Initiative 1501 passes, caregivers will not even be able to contact each other to discuss issues of common concern. Initiative 1501 is a shameless attempt by a powerful special interest to diminish government transparency and the rights of hard-working caregivers. Our strong government transparency laws should not be weakened to oppress low wage workers. Every person deserves to know his or her rights. Initiative 1501 empowers only the already-powerful. Our Public Records Act, one of the best in the nation, shouldn’t be manipulated for the enrichment of a wealthy special interest and for the purpose of keeping in-home caregivers and childcare workers in the dark.

Debate on SEIU’s intents

SEIU 775 is a union that represents longterm care workers, who provide care services in-home, in nursing homes, and adult day health services. The union sponsored Initiative 775.

The Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit free-market think tank, believed Initiative 1501 was an attempt to stop the organization from accessing the SEIU’s list of unionized caregivers to tell them union dues are elective in light the U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn. Because the measure includes language stating “neither the state nor any of its agencies shall release sensitive personal information of… in-home caregivers for vulnerable populations,” the Freedom Foundation contended that access to the SEIU’s list of caregivers would be prohibited.

The United States Supreme Court decided Harris v. Quinn in June 2014. In a five-to-four decision, the court struck down an Illinois law authorizing the SEIU to collect a "representation fee" from their in-home health workers' wages to cover services the union is legally required to provide. According to the majority opinion, the law violated workers' First Amendment speech rights to not provide financial support to collective bargaining.

Through a public records request, the Freedom Foundation obtained a list of workers and encouraged them to stop paying fees to the SEIU. Adam Glickman, SEIU 775 secretary-treasurer, said his union was sustaining membership in 2015. He stated, 'It’s hard to find other workers who aren’t CEOs who have seen their wages double." Glickman also called the Freedom Foundation "radically anti-union." The Freedom Foundation, however, contends SEIU 775 has not done enough to inform their workers about Harris v. Quinn.

SEIU 775 attempted to stop the Freedom Foundation from obtaining a list of its members in court. The union was unsuccessful, and the Freedom Foundation obtained a list of members in September 2016. Glickman said the conflict had more to do with members "protecting their clients and protecting their own personal privacy and security from any number of organizations" than Harris v. Quinn. Glickman claimed his union's workers "wanted to take action to protect their privacy and the privacy of their clients." He also said language protecting caregivers' "sensitive personal information" was included in Initiative 1501 because "there's a loophole where any of these scams or telemarketers could get the names and contact information of the in-home caregivers"

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

Campaign to Prevent Fraud and Protect Seniors registered to support the initiative and raised $2.2 million.

No ballot question committees registered to oppose the initiative.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$2,171,463.10	$58,526.78	$2,229,989.88	$2,171,434.10	$2,229,960.88
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$2,171,463.10	$58,526.78	$2,229,989.88	$2,171,434.10	$2,229,960.88

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) supporting the measure.

Committees in support of Initiative 1501
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Campaign to Prevent Fraud and Protect Seniors	$2,171,463.10	$58,526.78	$2,229,989.88	$2,171,434.10	$2,229,960.88
Total	$2,171,463.10	$58,526.78	$2,229,989.88	$2,171,434.10	$2,229,960.88

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committee(s).

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
SEIU 775	$1,970,050.00	$58,526.78	$2,028,576.78
SEIU Local 925	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00

Opposition

No ballot question committees registered to oppose the initiative.

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• Sky Valley Chronicle said: "I-1501 recognizes that Washington's terrible PRA is being used for fraud and identity theft - sometime against the elderly, the most vulnerable people in our society - and so it wisely increases civil penalties to three times the actual damages on criminals who defraud senior citizens and other vulnerable people."

Opposition

• The Columbian said: "The second clause reveals that the true purpose behind the measure is to protect the Service Employees International Union, which represents a large percentage of in-home caregivers. Union officials would prefer that members not be informed that they no longer can be forced to pay dues to the SEIU. If protecting seniors and others who require care is the goal, then the measure should stick to that issue. But I-1501 goes too far beyond that."

• The News Tribune said: "’s unclear whether it would have any effect on identity theft. But that’s not really why it’s on the ballot. I-1501 is a Trojan horse. It’s being run by a deep-pocketed special-interest group that wants to weaken the state Public Records Act, reducing the people’s access to government records. Don’t be fooled by I-1501’s pitch to close scary loopholes and block the release of records that enable identity theft. There are no such loopholes. The state’s Public Records Act already gives sensitive records explicit protections."

• The Seattle Times said: "I-1501 is a Trojan horse. It’s being run by a deep-pocketed special-interest group that wants to weaken the state Public Records Act, reducing the people’s access to government records. Don’t be fooled by I-1501’s pitch to close scary loopholes and block the release of records that enable identity theft. There are no such loopholes. The state’s Public Records Act already gives sensitive records explicit protections."

• Seattle Weekly said: "SEIU has a legitimate grievance with this situation. However, their proposed solution—I-1501—is ill-advised… Restricting the flow of state information to prevent people from knowing their rights is a dangerous precedent Washington voters should not be tricked into setting. Vote no, and let’s figure out other ways to help unions thrive in the state.”

• The Spokesman-Review said: "The American Association of Retired Persons says there are ways to protect seniors without touching the public records law. AARP will be advocating for a bill in the Legislature. That’s a better way to go, so vote no."

• The Stranger said: “The SEIU are good guys and the Freedom Foundation—a bunch of free-market-fellating Republicans—are bad guys. But I-1501 is a bad idea. This initiative would chip away at our state's strong public-disclosure laws and lock information about publicly funded employees out of public view.”

• Tri-City Herald said: "The true reason behind the initiative can be found in the last lines of the proposal, where it says it would “amend the Public Records Act” to prohibit disclosing information, such as names, addresses and telephone numbers of “vulnerable individuals and their in-home caregivers.” The Freedom Foundation has been trying to contact home health care workers so it can tell them they can leave their union and stop paying dues... The organization legally filed a public records request to get the contact information of those in-home caregivers so it could relay the information, but the Service Employee International Union sued to thwart the attempt.”

• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin said: "The first part of the proposal is unnecessary. Laws are already in place to protect everyone from identity theft and consumer fraud. And the second part of the measure, changing the Public Records Act to prohibit disclosing “sensitive personal information” of both vulnerable individuals and “in-home caregivers of vulnerable populations,” seems to be a move to make it easier for the SEIU."

• Yakima Herald said: "What that exemption to the Public Records Act would do is to make care workers’ contact information available to the Service Employees International Union, which wrote the measure to help it collect union dues from the workers. The Public Records Act has hundreds of exemptions; it doesn’t need another one benefit only one entity."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• In August 2016, Elway Poll released data showing 74 percent of respondents in support of and six percent opposed to Initiative 1501. About 20 percent were undecided on the measure.
• In October 2016, Elway Poll surveyed 502 registered voters. Supporters claimed 72 percent of respondents, while opponents claimed 9 percent. Undecided voters composed 19 percent of the sample.

Washington Initiative 1501 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Elway Poll 10/20/2016 - 10/22/2016	72.0%	9.0%	19.0%	+/-4.5	502
Elway Poll 8/9/2016 - 8/8/2016	74.0%	6.0%	20.0%	+/-4.5	500
AVERAGES	73%	7.5%	19.5%	+/-4.5	501
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

• Supporters filed the petition with the secretary of state on February 4, 2016.
• 246,372 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
• Supporters had until July 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
• While there were numerous versions of this measure, supporters submitted signatures only for Initiative 1501.
• On August 1, 2016, the secretary of state's office certified Initiative 1501 for the November 2016 ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants Inc. and Washington Community Action Network to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,208,731.55 was spent to collect the 246,372 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $4.91.

State profile

Demographic data for Washington
	Washington	U.S.
Total population:	7,160,290	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	66,456	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	77.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	3.6%	12.6%
Asian:	7.7%	5.1%
Native American:	1.3%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.6%	0.2%
Two or more:	5.2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	12%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.4%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	32.9%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,062	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	14.4%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Washington. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington

Washington voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Washington, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Washington had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Washington
• United States congressional delegations from Washington
• Public policy in Washington
• Endorsers in Washington
• Washington fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington Initiative 1501 2016 Seniors. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Washington Increased Penalties for Crimes Against Vulnerable Individuals, Initiative 1501 (2016) - Google News

Related measures

2016

Civil and criminal trials measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
California	California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements a
Georgia	Georgia Additional Penalties for Sex Crimes to Fund Services for Sexually Exploited Children, Amendment 2 a

See also

Suggest a link

• Washington 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Washington Legislature

External links

Basic information

• Initiative 1501
• Washington State Voter Guide 2016

Support

• Yes on 1501

Opposition

• 1501 Truth

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox