Washington Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491 (2016)
| Washington Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Firearms | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, a type of initiated state statute.[1] It was approved.
| A "yes" vote supported authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders to remove an individual's access to firearms. |
| A "no" vote opposed authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders remove an individual's access to firearms. |
Election results
| Initiative 1491 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,234,799 | 69.39% | ||
| No | 985,658 | 30.61% | ||
- Election results from Washington Secretary of State
Overview
Status of firearms in Washington
Voters in Washington approved Initiative 594 in November 2014. The measure required background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. During the same election, voters rejected Initiative 591, which would have prevented the government from implementing background checks unless a federal standard is established.
State of the ballot measure campaigns
The campaign supporting Initiative 1491, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, raised $4.18 million. Opponents organized one committee to oppose the measure, but did not receive contributions. The top donor to the “Yes” campaign was Seattle-based venture capitalist Nicolas Hanauer, who contributed $790,000. The National Rifle Association opposed the initiative. Polls indicated that around 70 percent of voters support Initiative 1491 prior to the election.
Initiative design
Extreme risk protection orders
Initiative 1491 authorized courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” which prevent a person from possessing or accessing firearms. The person would need to be considered a significant danger to himself or herself or others before an extreme risk protection order can be authorized. The measure empowered certain individuals, including police, family, and household members, to petition a court for an extreme risk protection order on a person. The initiative provided that petitions need to explain facts that demonstrate a reasonable fear of future actions by the person. It also required petitions to be filed under oath. It provided that extreme risk protection orders last one year. The measure permitted petitioners to ask for the order to be renewed for an additional year. The measure was designed to allow persons under order to request a hearing to argue that the order be terminated.[2]
Ex parte extreme risk protection orders
The measure also authorized courts to issue “ex parte extreme risk protection order,” which would hasten the process of prohibiting a person from possessing or accessing firearms. It was designed to require petitioners to demonstrate a significant and immediate risk to invoke an ex parte extreme risk protection order.[2]
Violating the law
Initiative 1491 made it a crime to file a petition with intentionally false information. It also made violating either type of protection order a crime.[2]
Text of the measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ | Initiative Measure No. 1491 concerns court-issued extreme risk protection orders temporarily preventing access to firearms.
This measure would allow police, family, or household members to obtain court orders temporarily preventing firearms access by persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][3] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure would authorize courts, upon petition by police or a "family or household member," to issue an "extreme risk protection order" to prevent an individual from accessing firearms for a specified time period, if the court finds that the individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others with a firearm. Temporary ex parte orders could be issued where there is sufficient evidence of significant danger in the near future.[3] | ” |
Explanatory statement
The explanatory statement was as follows:[2]
Washington law provides for civil protection orders in certain circumstances. These orders restrict one person from contacting another person. Civil protection orders are mostly entered in family law cases, such as divorce proceedings, where domestic violence is alleged. Protection orders also can be issued to protect victims during criminal cases and in other circumstances where a person can show he or she is in danger from another person. A person subject to a protection order may be required to surrender his or her firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol license while the order is in place. This can happen if four conditions are met: (1) the order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, a child of an intimate partner, or the person's own child (an "intimate partner" is a current or former spouse or domestic partner, a person with whom the restrained person has a child in common, or a person with whom the restrained person shares or shared a residence in a dating relationship); (2) the order includes a finding that the restrained person is a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or the child; (3) the order specifically restrains the person from using or threatening physical force against the intimate partner or child; and (4) the restrained person was given notice and an opportunity to participate in a hearing before the order issued. It is a crime for a person restrained by such an order to possess a firearm. A court sometimes may order the temporary surrender of firearms before a hearing and without prior notice. The court may do so only if convinced that "irreparable injury" could result before the scheduled hearing. This option is available to the court only for protection orders addressing sexual assault, stalking, harassment, domestic violence, dissolution of marriage, parental rights, and child support. There are other situations where a court may order a person to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and a concealed pistol license. A court may order surrender if it finds that the person used, displayed, or threatened to use them in a felony. The court also may order surrender if the person committed fourth degree assault, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, or first degree criminal trespass against a family or household member. If the evidence is clear and convincing, the court must order the surrender. A person who has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment is barred from possessing a firearm. After treatment, that person's right to possess a firearm may be restored by court order. But the law does not authorize a court to restrict access to firearms by a person experiencing a mental health crisis or exhibiting threatening behavior unless that person is subject to one of the civil protection orders summarized above. The measure would allow courts to issue "extreme risk protection orders." These orders would prevent a person who poses a significant danger to himself/herself or others from possessing or accessing firearms. The measure refers to such a person as the "respondent." The measure would create two kinds of court orders. The first type of order is called an "extreme risk protection order." A member of the respondent's family or household or a person in a dating relationship with the respondent could petition a superior court for an extreme risk protection order. The measure defines who is a family or household member and it lists specific information that must be contained in the petition. The petition must be accompanied by a statement made under oath. That statement must explain the specific facts that show a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts by the respondent. The petition would be served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer or agency also could file a petition, along with the required factual statement made under oath. The officer or agency must make a good faith attempt to notify a member of the respondent's family or household. They also must try to notify any other known person who may be at risk of violence by the respondent. Each notice must state that the officer or agency is petitioning for an extreme risk protection order. It also must include referrals to mental health, domestic violence, counseling, or similar resources. The superior court must hold a hearing on the petition for the protection order. The court may issue the order only if it finds, based on the evidence, that the respondent "poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm." If the superior court issues an extreme risk protection order, the order is served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. The order would require the respondent to immediately surrender all firearms and any concealed pistol license to the local law enforcement agency. The order would bar the respondent from obtaining or possessing firearms while an order is in effect. If the respondent does not comply, the court would be authorized to issue a warrant to compel the surrender of these items. An extreme risk protection order would last for one year. The same persons who may seek an order in the first place may ask the court to renew the order for another year. The same procedures and requirements apply to a renewal request as to the original request, and the court applies the same standard. The respondent could request a hearing to demonstrate that the order should be terminated. The respondent could file one termination request during each 12-month period the order is in effect. The respondent then must demonstrate at the hearing that he or she does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to the respondent or others by having a firearm. The person who petitioned for the order must be notified of the request and hearing. The second type of order, called an "ex parte extreme risk protection order," would be more immediate. "Ex parte" is a legal term that refers to a hearing held without notice to the other side. This type of order would be available where there is a showing of a significant risk of personal injury in the near future. A petition for this order could be filed in municipal court, district court, or superior court. The court must hold a hearing on the day the petition is filed or on the court's next business day. If the court issues the ex parte order, it would last only until there is a hearing in superior court on whether a one-year "extreme risk protection order" should be issued. That hearing must be held within 14 days. All the requirements for issuing a one-year "extreme risk protection order" explained above would apply at that hearing. The measure would impose the same notice and surrender requirements for an ex parte extreme risk protection order as for the one-year order. The measure imposes the same consequences for failure to comply. Like the one-year order, the ex parte order also would be served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. The measure makes it a crime to file a false or intentionally harassing petition. It also makes it a crime to violate either type of extreme risk protection order. If an extreme risk protection order expires or is terminated, the surrendered firearms must be returned to the respondent, but only if the law enforcement agency holding the firearms confirms that the respondent is currently eligible to possess firearms under federal and state law. |
Full text
The full text can be found here.
Fiscal impact statement
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The summary section of the fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ | Summary
Initiative 1491 authorizes the court to issue extreme risk protection orders that require the respondent to surrender his/her firearms and concealed pistol license. Total expenditures for state and local government cannot be determined. The impact depends on the number of petitions filed and granted, and the number of violations of a granted order, which cannot be estimated. This fiscal impact statement uses data from similar types of protection orders to provide estimated costs that could result from the initiative. There would be an unknown revenue increase from assessed fines.[3] |
” |
Support
Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility led the campaign in support of Initiative 1491.[4]
Supporters
Officials
- Gov. Jay Inslee (D)[5]
- U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-9)[6]
- Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-8) of Arizona
Parties
- Washington State Democrats[7]
- University of Washington Young Democrats
- Benton County Democrats
- Skagit County Democrats
- Spokane County Democrats
- Whatcom County Democrats
- 1st Legislative District Democrats
- 3rd Legislative District Democrats
- 4th Legislative District Democrats
- 5th Legislative District Democrats
- 8th Legislative District Democrats
- 10th Legislative District Democrats
- 17th Legislative District Democrats
- 18th Legislative District Democrats
- 20th Legislative District Democrats
- 23rd Legislative District Democrats
- 25th Legislative District Democrats
- 27th Legislative District Democrats
- 28th Legislative District Democrats
- 30th Legislative District Democrats
- 32nd Legislative District Democrats
- 36th Legislative District Democrats
- 37th Legislative District Democrats
- 38th Legislative District Democrats
- 39th Legislative District Democrats
- 40th Legislative District Democrats
- 41st Legislative District Democrats
- 43rd Legislative District Democrats
- 44th Legislative District Democrats
- 45th Legislative District Democrats
- 46th Legislative District Democrats
- 47th Legislative District Democrats
- 49th Legislative District Democrats
- Seattle Socialist Alternative[8]
Organizations
Civic organizations
Gun violence prevention groups
Medical organizations
Religious organizations
|
Unions
Arguments
Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s “Empower Families. Save Lives.” video. |
Official arguments
Marilyn Balcerak, Stephanie Holten, Sheriff John Urquhart of King County, Regina Malveaux, CEO of the YWCA of Spokane, Ken Taylor, CEO of Valley Cities Behavioral Health Care, and former Washington Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote the official argument in support of Initiative 1491. Their argument was as follows:[2]
Washington State has taken important steps to keep guns out of dangerous hands. But there are still gaps in our laws that make it hard to keep guns away from people threatening violence against themselves or others. We know that the majority of mass shooters and individuals who attempt suicide show signs of their intentions, but current law leaves families and law enforcement - often first to see those warning signs - unable to take life-saving action. Initiative 1491: Empower Families, Prevent Gun Violence Initiative 1491 empowers families and law enforcement to prevent tragedy -- giving them a chance to remove guns from a dangerous situation when they know someone is a threat to themselves or others. Parents of shooters at Isla Vista, Seattle’s Cafe Racer, and other tragedies have said they could have used this type of law to prevent senseless violence. Initiative 1491 would also expand protections that keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Similar laws in other states have been shown to prevent some suicides. Initiative 1491: Respect Due Process Initiative 1491 closely follows existing process for other civil protection orders. Both parties may present evidence in court. A judge determines whether evidence of danger is sufficient and issues an order, effective for one year. There are criminal penalties for false petitions. Initiative 1491: Community Support Endorsed by Washington State Public Health Association, League of Women Voters, Faith Action Network, Everytown for Gun Safety, law enforcement, domestic violence experts, gun owners, and gun violence survivors. |
Opposition
Know I-1491 led the campaign in opposition to Initiative 1491.[10] David Combs initiated the opposition campaign.[11]
Opponents
- National Rifle Association (NRA)[9]
- Sen. Dean Takko (D-19)[2]
- Rep. Matt Shea (R-4)
Arguments
Official arguments
David Combs, Linda Sherry, Sen. Dean Takko (D-19), Rep. Matt Shea (R-4), and Dave Workman wrote the argument against Initiative 1491 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:[2]
I-1491 Duplicates Existing Laws I-1491 disregards existing state laws that already require treatment and restriction of potentially dangerous individuals. I-1491 doesn’t require evaluation, treatment, or monitoring and does nothing to address underlying issues. Recently implemented laws actually provide early detection and intervention of persons at danger to themselves or others. Stigmatizes Mental Illness I-1491 associates mental illness with mass shootings and violent crime. Statistics show that only 3%-5% of violent acts are committed by people with serious mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are ten times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. Violates Rights A broadly defined set of people, including former roommates and police, can file a petition against you. Due process is undermined by allowing immediate ex parte orders; hearings and judgments without notice to the accused person. The definition of “Extreme Risk” is unclear. A judge can issue an order based on arbitrary factors and reported behaviors including simply purchasing a gun legally. To be released from an order, a person must prove he/she is not a danger to themselves or others and pay for the tremendous cost of their own defense. Gives False Sense of Security There is no evidence that such orders reduce mass shootings and violent crime. Restrictions on firearm ownership should not be based on ideological agendas manipulating public fears and misconceptions about gun violence. I-1491 is a targeted, discriminatory abridgement of Second Amendment rights. Vote No! |
Other positions
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington did not take an official position on Initiative 1491. However, the group did not support the initiative. In an e-mail from the ACLU to initiative sponsor David Combs, the organization stated:[12]
| “ | ... While keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose serious risks to safety is a reasonable public safety measure, the ACLU’s role is to evaluate such measures by their impact on civil liberties, and we have concerns that the initiative has inadequate due process procedures. Further, these deficient due process procedures could set a bad precedent for other criminal justice processes.
|
” |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions[13] as of January 12, 2017[14] | |
 Support:
|
$4,182,798.85 |
 Opposition:
|
$0.00 |
As of January 12, 2017, there was one support committee and one opposition committee registered.
Support
One ballot measure campaign committee registered in support of Initiative 1491 as of January 12, 2017. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of January 12, 2017.[15]
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Alliance for Gun Responsibility ERP Committee | $4,182,798.85 | $4,000,443.52 |
| Total | $4,182,798.85 | $4,000,443.52 |
The following are the top five donors who contributed to the Alliance for Gun Responsibility Committee as of January 12, 2017:[15]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Nicolas Hanauer | $790,000.00 |
| Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund | $550,000.00 |
| Steve Ballmer | $500,000.00 |
| Paul G. Allen | $250,000.00 |
| Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC | $250,000.00 |
Opposition
One ballot measure campaign committee registered in opposition to Initiative 1491 as of January 12, 2017. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of January 12, 2017.[15]
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Know I-1491 Sponsored by David Combs | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Methodology
In calculating campaign finance for supporting and opposing committees, Ballotpedia does not count donations or expenditures from one ballot measure committee to another since that would amount to counting the same money twice. This method is used to give the most accurate information concerning how much funding was actually provided to and spent by the opposing and supporting campaigns.
Ballotpedia subtracts out committee-to-committee contributions—both cash donations and in-kind contributions. Because of this, it is possible for certain committees to have negative contributions. Negative contributions mean that a committee has provided more contributions to other committees than it has received. If expenditures exceed contributions, it means the committee has accrued unpaid bills, has unpaid or unforgiven loans, or has contributed a certain amount of in-kind services to another committee.
Ballotpedia provides information about all reported in-kind donations. In-kind contributions are also counted towards total expenditures since, with in-kind gifts, the contribution and services or goods are provided simultaneously. Ballotpedia does this to provide the most accurate information about the cash-on-hand of supporting and opposing campaigns.
Media editorials
Support
- Tri-City Herald said: "Initiative 1491 was crafted to fill a gap in Washington’s broken mental health system, and help keep people deemed a danger to themselves or others from possessing and acquiring firearms. Among its strongest supporters are families who have been torn apart because they lacked legal options when they saw signs that a loved one was heading toward a breakdown, yet were powerless to prevent them from buying or keeping guns. ... advocates are trying to piece together separate laws that can provide families new avenues of hope they didn’t have before. This initiative is one of them."[16]
- Seattle Weekly said: "This is common-sense gun legislation… It’s a simple, and crucial, method for preventing some of the most preventable forms of gun violence—those caused by people who’ve already demonstrated clear signs of distress.”[17]
- The Spokesman-Review said: "People who see warning signs of violence should have a way to head off tragedy. We support the initiative."[18]
- The Stranger said: “It's painfully obvious that our elected officials need to tighten our gun laws. It's equally obvious that they're not going to do anything about it. So the Alliance for Gun Responsibility is addressing this problem by putting Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) on the ballot.”[19]
Opposition
- HeraldNet said: "Removing the threat that firearms pose to those with depression or other mental illness would appear to be a reasonable gun safety measure. But as addressed in Initiative 1491, the proposal to remove firearms from the possession of those deemed a threat to themselves and others, carries unintended consequences that could work against those suffering depression and mental illness and their families."[20]
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures
- In August 2016, Elway Poll released data showing 64 percent of respondents in support of and 18 percent opposed to Initiative 1491. About 18 percent were undecided on the measure.[21]
- KOMO News and Strategies 360 released a poll in early October 2016 showing support for Initiative 1491 at 78.6 percent. Opposition was around 17 percent.[22]
- YouGov conducted a poll in mid-October 2016 and found 70 percent of respondents supporting Initiative 1491.[23]
- Note: YouGov pressed "undecided" respondents to select a position. Respondents were also allowed to skip the question. In the poll table below, "undecided" respondents are those who chose to skip the question.
- In October 2016, Elway Poll surveyed 502 registered voters. Supporters claimed 67 percent of respondents, while opponents claimed 18 percent. Undecided voters composed 15 percent of the sample.[24]
| Washington Initiative 1464 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
| Elway Poll 10/20/2016 - 10/22/2016 | 67.0% | 18.0% | 15.0% | +/-4.5 | 502 | ||||||||||||||
| YouGov 10/6/2016 - 10/13/2016 | 70.0% | 29.0% | 1.0% | +/-4.4 | 750 | ||||||||||||||
| KOMO News/Strategies 360 9/29/2016 - 10/3/2016 | 78.6% | 17.0% | 4.4% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| Elway Poll 8/9/2016 - 8/8/2013 | 64.0% | 18.0% | 18.0% | +/-4.5 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 69.9% | 20.5% | 9.6% | +/-4.45 | 563 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
| Voting on Firearms |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
- See also: Firearms on the ballot
Prior to 2016, Washington had voted on ballot measures related to firearms four times, with the first being in 1997 and the most recent in 2014.
The 1997 ballot measure, known as Initiative 676, would have criminalized the transfer of any handgun not equipped with a trigger-lock and would have mandated the licensing of firearms. William H. Gates, the father of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, donated $150,000 towards the passage of Initiative 676. Bill and Melinda Gates also contributed $35,000 to the cause. The National Rifle Association, along with other gun rights groups, opposed the initiative. Voters defeated Initiative 676, with over 70 percent voting “No.”
In 2014, the Washington ballot featured two firearms-related ballot initiatives. Initiative 591 would have prevented the government from confiscating firearms without due process and implementing background checks unless a federal standard is established. Voters defeated this measure and opted to support implementing background checks with Initiative 594. Nearly 60 percent voted “Yes” on requiring background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. Supporters of Initiative 594 raised $11 million, while opponents received $603 thousand.
Path to the ballot
- Supporters filed the petition with the secretary of state on February 18, 2016.[1]
- 246,372 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until July 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- Proponents turned in the required signatures for Initiative 1491 on July 7, 2016.[25]
- On July 27, 2016, the secretary of state's office certified Initiative 1491 for the November 2016 election ballot.[26]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $993,849.45 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 $4.03.
State profile
This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on Washington, click here.
Off in the far northwest corner of the continental United States, Washington likes to think of itself as a national trendsetter and model for the rest of the nation. As the headquarters of Microsoft, Starbucks, and Amazon, Washington has been on the cutting edge of innovation for the past two decades. An unusual environment and human creativity combined to produce these achievements. Seattle’s cold, misty air and 225 overcast days a year stimulate the appetite for strong, aromatic coffee, and the torn blue jeans and flannel shirts worn year-round in this moist climate by professionals and teenagers alike created the trend made famous in the 1990s by Seattle-based grunge musicians. Boeing’s airframe business took off during World War II because the Pacific Northwest’s abundant hydroelectric power made cheap aluminum possible, and the boom in air travel in the 1980s and 1990s kept Boeing’s huge assembly lines humming. Microsoft, founded by the usually tie-less and tousle-haired Bill Gates and based in Redmond, across Lake Washington from Seattle, became one of America’s great success stories as its software ... (read more)
| Demographic data for Washington | ||
|---|---|---|
| Washington | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 6,899,123 | 314,107,084 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 66,456 | 3,531,905 |
| Gender | ||
| Female: | 50.1% | 50.8% |
| Race and ethnicity | ||
| White: | 71.3% | 62.8% |
| Black/African American: | 3.6% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 7.5% | 5% |
| Native American: | 1.4% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.9% | 2.9% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 11.7% | 16.9% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 90.2% | 86.3% |
| College graduation rate: | 32.3% | 29.3% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $60,294 | $53,482 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 13.5% | 14.8% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2014) | ||
Presidential Voting Pattern
The percentages below show Washington voter preference in general election presidential races.
Washington vote percentages
- 2012: 56.2% Democratic / 41.3% Republican
- 2008: 57.7% Democratic / 40.5% Republican
- 2004: 52.8% Democratic / 45.6% Republican
- 2000: 50.2% Democratic / 44.6% Republican
U.S. vote percentages
- 2012: 51.1% Democratic / 47.2% Republican
- 2008: 52.9% Democratic / 45.7% Republican
- 2004: 48.3% Democratic / 50.7% Republican
- 2000: 48.4% Democratic / 47.9% Republican
More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Washington
- United States congressional delegations from Washington
- Public policy in Washington
- Influencers in Washington
- Verbatim 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 1491 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.
Related measures
2016
Past measures in Washington
- Washington Gun Rights Measure, Initiative 591 (2014)
- Washington Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Initiative 594 (2014)
- Washington Handgun Trigger Locks, Initiative 676 (1997)
See also
External links
Basic information
Support
- Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility
- Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility Facebook
- Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility Twitter
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Washington Secretary of State, "Proposed Initiatives to the People - 2016," accessed May 12, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Washington Secretary of State, "Voters' Guide 2016 General Election," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- ↑ Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, "Homepage," accessed September 21, 2016
- ↑ The Seattle Times, "Inslee, Gabrielle Giffords rally Seattle voters Saturday on gun initiative," October 21, 2016
- ↑ Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, "Congressman Adam Smith Endorses Initiative 1491," May 17, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, "Endorsements," accessed September 21, 2016
- ↑ Socialist Alternative, "Seattle Socialist Alternative 2016 Ballot Initiatives Recommendations," November 3, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Northwest Progressive Institute, "NRA can expect another defeat this fall: NPI poll finds massive support for I-1491 in WA," July 6, 2016
- ↑ Know I-1491, "Homepage," accessed September 24, 2016
- ↑ KUOW, "Opponent of gun initiative 1491 running on shoestring budget," September 23, 2016
- ↑ Know I-1491, "ACLU WA Position," accessed September 25, 2016
- ↑ Note: These totals include all contributions and may include in-kind donations as well as cash donations.
- ↑ Note: This date is the most recent date on which Ballotpedia staff researched campaign finance data. The actual date through which this information is accurate depends on the campaign finance reporting requirements in this state.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Washington Public Disclosure Commission, "ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY ERP COMM," accessed January 12, 2017
- ↑ Tri-City Herald, "Our Voice: Vote yes on Initiative 1491 gun proposal," September 15, 2016
- ↑ Seattle Weekly, "The Endorsements," October 19, 2016
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "Our advice: Yes on I-1491; no on I-1501," October 18, 2016
- ↑ The Stranger, "The Stranger's Endorsements for the November 2016 General Election," October 18, 2016
- ↑ HeraldNet, "Editorial: I-1491 could work against those it seeks to protect," October 25, 2016
- ↑ Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, "Thumbs up to minimum wage, risk protection, consumer fraud initiatives: Poll," August 17, 2016
- ↑ KOMO News, "KOMO poll: Murray has double-digit lead in Senate Race, initiatives have strong support," October 7, 2016
- ↑ KCTS 9, "New Poll Finds Washington State Often Divided by Region and Political Parties on Many Key Issues," October 27, 2016
- ↑ KOMO News, "Inslee, Clinton still atop latest polls in Washington state," October 24, 2016
- ↑ KING 5, "Gun safety initiative closer to November ballot," July 7, 2016
- ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "General Election Petition Status," accessed August 3, 2016
| ||
 |
State of Washington Olympia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Ballot Measures |
List of Washington ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process | |
| Government |
Washington State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | |
| State executive officers |
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Commissioner of Public Lands | Director of Labor and Industries | Chairman of Utilities and Transportation | |
| School boards |
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction | Washington school districts | |
| Judiciary |
Supreme Court | Court of Appeals | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in Washington | |
| Transparency Topics |
Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Transparency Legislation | State budget | |
| Divisions |
State |
List of Counties |
List of Cities |
List of School Districts | |
- Washington 2016 ballot measures
- State ballots, 2016
- State Ballot Measure, November 8, 2016
- Approved, 2016
- Approved, November 8, 2016
- Firearms, Washington
- Firearms, 2016
- Certified, firearms, 2016
- Washington 2016 ballot measures, certified
- Initiated statute certified for the 2016 ballot
- Ballot measure article with polls
