Washington Initiative Funding Amendment, SJR 8201 (2015)
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
The Washington Initiative Funding Amendment was not on the November 3, 2015 ballot in Washington as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.
The measure, upon voter approval, would have required future initiatives having to do with state expenditures or state revenues avoid upsetting the budget of the state. In other words, under the amendment, initiatives would have had to propose ways to pay for themselves, where previously they could have given a mandate that would have to be enforced and implemented by the state through existing funds. If the resolution was approved by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the Washington Legislature, it would have gone to the voters, where a simple majority would have been required to pass the amendment.[1][2]
The proposed amendment was introduced into the legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 8201 on January 21, 2015.[3]
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
If approved, the proposed measure would have amended Article II, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution.[4]
Background
In November 2014, voters in the Evergreen State approved Initiative 1351, which mandated fewer students per classroom in grades K - 12. Implementing these size restrictions requires the hiring of approximately 15,000 new teachers and is expected to cost the state approximately $2 billion through mid-2017. Sen. Joe Fain (R-47), who is one of the primary sponsors of the measure, explained that the approval of I-1351 served as a "catalyst" for lawmakers. He explained, "The citizen initiative process in this state is sacred. But 1351 provided a very high-profile example that it's not working the way it's intended to. This is a fix that will help the initiative process work better."[5][6][7][8]
Support
Officials
The following state legislators sponsored or co-sponsored the amendment:[3]
- Sen. Joe Fain (R-47) - primary sponsor
- Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-43)
- Sen. Andy Hill (R-45)
- Sen. Steve Hobbs (D-44)
- Sen. Karen Fraser (D-22)
- Sen. Mark Mullet (D-5)
- Sen. Bruce Dammeier (R-25)
- Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36)
- Sen. Annette Cleveland (D-49)
- [[Ann Rivers|Sen. Ann Rivers]] (R-18)
- Sen. Steve Litzow (R-41)
- Sen. Jeannie Darneille (D-27)
- Sen. John Braun (R-20)
- Sen. Mark Miloscia (R-30)
- Sen. Andy Billig (D-3)
Arguments
- Sen. Fain said of the amendment, "The citizen initiative process in this state is sacred. But 1351 provided a very high-profile example that it's not working the way it's intended to. This is a fix that will help the initiative process work better."[8]
- Sen. Pedersen said, "From my perspective, the proposed constitutional amendment is really a way of respecting voters by giving them honest information and honest choices about the cost of their choices through the initiative process."[8]
Opposition
Opponents
Arguments
Eyman, a long-time initiative activist in the state, was vehemently opposed to the measure. In an email, he wrote:[9]
| “ | Their bill [actually, a resolution] will mean the end of the initiative process because it will give the government [actually, the offices of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General] the power to shut down any initiative they see as a threat. Any initiative can easily be found to be “out of compliance” with this bill’s [constitutional amendment’s] requirement.
For over one hundred years, citizens have had the freedom and the guaranteed constitutional right to discuss, debate and decide on issues they care about. The government couldn’t stop First Amendment activity and the exercise of free speech. Under their bill [again, actually, a resolution], for the first time, the government will have the power to block any initiative they want. And the people have no recourse. If the government says “no, we’ve determined that your initiative doesn’t balance”, then the people’s right to initiative is extinguished.[10] |
” |
| —Tim Eyman | ||
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Washington Constitution
Either chamber of the Washington State Legislature can initiate an amendment to the state's constitution. Each house - the Washington State Senate and the Washington House of Representatives - needed to approve the proposal, or a version of it, by a two-thirds vote. If this happened, the proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment would have gone on a statewide ballot at the next general election in the state. If it was approved by a simple majority of voters, it would have become part of the constitution.[11]
Related measures
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ The Bellingham Herald, "Lawmakers want to limit ballot measures without funding plan," January 20, 2015
- ↑ Washington Legislature website, "Senate Joint Resolution 8201," accessed January 28, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 OpenStates.org, "SJR 8201," accessed February 3, 2015
- ↑ Washington Legislature, "SJR 8201 - 2015-16," accessed February 3, 2015
- ↑ HeraldNet.com, "Backers of smaller class size work on ballot measure," April 7, 2014
- ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Proposed Initiatives to the People - 2014," accessed June 7, 2014
- ↑ Seattle Times, "Editorial: Voter initiatives need to include funding balance," January 26, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Bellingham Herald, "Lawmakers want to limit ballot measures without funding plan," January 20, 2015
- ↑ The Cascadia Advocate, "Proposed constitutional amendment to thwart unfunded mandates should be discarded," January 23, 2015
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ History of the Washington State Constitution
 |
State of Washington Olympia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
