Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 (2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Washington Advisory Vote 15
Flag of Washington.png
Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Taxes and Energy
Status
Defeatedd Repealed
Type
Advisory question
2016 measures
Seal of Washington.png
November 8
Initiative 732 Defeatedd
Initiative 735 Approveda
Initiative 1433 Approveda
Initiative 1464 Defeatedd
Initiative 1491 Approveda
Initiative 1501 Approveda
Advisory Vote 14 Approveda
Advisory Vote 15 Approveda
SJR 8210 Approveda
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, also known as Advisory Vote 15, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an advisory question. A majority voted repeal.

A "repealed" vote opposed House Bill 2778, thereby advising against this limitation of the tax exemption offered for certain alternative fuel vehicles.[1]
A "maintained" vote supported House Bill 2778, which limits the sales tax exemption available for certain alternative fuel vehicles, thereby increasing the tax revenue received by the state.

The tax exemption ran from July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2019, or until one month after 7,500 qualifying electric vehicles are sold in the state.

Election results

Washington Advisory Vote 15
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Repealed 1,754,489 59.90%
Defeatedd Maintained 1,174,345 40.10%
Election results from Washington Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text read as follows:[2]

“

The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, certain limitations on the retail sales and use tax exemptions for clean alternative-fuel vehicles, costing $2,000,000 in the first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

[ ] Repealed

[ ] Maintained[3]

”

Full text

The full text of House Bill 2778 can be found here.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The following was the ten-year cost projection found in the voter guide. It estimated that over $1.5 million would be lost in sales tax revenue over the period.[2]

Fiscal Year Retail Sales Tax
2016
2017 $1,696,000.00
2018 $74,000.00
2019 $2,035,000.00
2020 $-1,408,000.00
2021 $-859,000.00
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total: $1,538,000.00

Background

See also: Washington Initiative 960

A provision of a 2007 ballot measure, Initiative 960, directly led to the placement of advisory votes on taxes on the ballot. Under that approved measure, a statewide advisory vote is required on all tax increases passed by the state legislature. Initiative 960 was sponsored by Tim Eyman and originally required a two-thirds supermajority vote in the legislature or a legally binding vote of the people to approve any tax increases or eliminations of tax credits. Though the supermajority requirement was struck down by the Washington Supreme Court in 2013, the advisory vote clause was left intact.[4][5]

Support

Supporters

  • King County Democrats[6]
  • 43rd District Democrats[7]
  • 45th District Democrats[8]
  • Northwest Progressive Institute[9]
  • Fuse Washington[10]

HB 2778 "Yes" votes

Senate

The following members of the Washington State Legislature voted in favor of HB 2778.[11]

House

Arguments

House Bill 2778's chief sponsor Rep. Jake Fey (D-27)

The Progressive Voter Guide, produced by Fuse Washington, called on citizens to vote "maintain" on Advisory Vote 15. The guide stated:[10]

“ In order to encourage the use of clean alternative fuel vehicles in Washington, a broad majority of legislators voted to extend an existing tax break for customers who buy the clean energy cars. Second Engrossed House Bill 2778 passed 93 to 47 with seven excused. ... Vote to "maintain" this measure.[3] ”

Rep. Jake Fey (D-27), the prime sponsor of House Bill 2778, Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-20), Michael Mann of Nissan of North America, Cliff Webster of General Motors, and Vlad Gutman of Climate Solutions testified in the Washington House of Representatives in support of the legislation. Staff provided a summary of their arguments:[12]

“ This bill will result in more models qualifying for the exemption than do under current law.

It raises the eligibility sales price and incentivizes the advancement of technology to get to longer-range vehicles, which is important to electric vehicle (EV) purchasers. Last year, $35,000 was selected as the cut-off for eligibility because studies showed that the state sales tax exemption plus the federal tax incentive made the $35,000 price equivalent to a $25,000 gas-powered vehicle; this exemption made the price of a gas-powered vehicle and an EV about the same at this price range.

Even though the purchaser will obtain savings on fuel after an EV is purchased, many people are only looking at the up-front cost of an EV and foregoing the purchase of an EV if they cannot afford the price difference between an EV and a gas-powered vehicle. Another hurdle is that many people do not know about the two incentives. This is a consumer-focused piece of legislation rather than manufacturer focused. ...

The manufacturers of EVs are not located in the state, except for one that produces some parts here. The focus needs to be placed on the consumer because that is who needs to buy these vehicles. This is a reasonable approach. ...

This bill will accelerate EV adoption in the state. The faster adoption can be accelerated, the faster public health and environmental goals will be realized. Car emissions are the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. Electric vehicles can make a real contribution to lowering carbon dioxide emissions. Even the cleanest cars release carbon dioxide and other air pollutants that are linked to smog, aggravate asthma, lead to lung disease, and have other serious health impacts. Communities next to roadways are the most impacted communities and individuals who live in them are usually the ones who can least afford to leave.

Electric vehicles can be powered with electricity produced cleanly in the state, supporting the power sector industry and jobs in Washington, instead of paying for petroleum products produced out of state. As the price of EVs continues to fall, more people will be able to purchase EVs and benefit from their use.

Surveys show that tax incentives and exemptions are extremely important in encouraging people to buy Chevrolet Volts. Revisions to current law are worthwhile, but the cut-off prices in this bill are a little low for the Volt.[3]

”

Opposition

HB 2778 "No" votes

The following members of the Washington State Legislature voted against HB 2778.[11]

Senate

House

Arguments

Linda White of BMW Group and Daniel Witt of Tesla testified in the Washington House of Representatives in opposition to the legislation. White and Witt argued that the threshold for the tax exemption should be higher in order to make eligible their vehicles for the exemption. Staff provided a summary of their arguments:[12]

“ BMW has stepped up and brought EV vehicles to the market. ... This bill excludes BMWs from qualifying for the tax exemption and puts BMW dealers at a significant disadvantage in the state. This is about the consumer, who should be given options. With enough incentives, the BMW model will become more affordable for people.

Tesla models are expensive but exist to push this technology forward. Tesla is not a new market entrant and depends on the success of its vehicles. The high technology cost of EVs drives its price, but Tesla is dedicated to getting to a lower price. The Model 3, due out later in 2017, will have a price point in the mid-$30,000 range. But to get to that point, Tesla needs to sell the Model S and Model X in great supply. It costs close to $1 billion for a new line of a mass market vehicles and the money has to come from somewhere. Tesla needs to sell higher priced models to get to the technology for lower priced EVs. Diversity in platforms and market levels is essential to proving that the EV market is here to stay. The policies this bill puts in place are antithetical to that purpose. ...

The consumer is fickle and adding complexity to the car sale process can lead to a car not being sold. Selecting winners and losers within the EV segment based on the number of kilowatt hours of their battery pack or the purchase price of a car, which they will not know until after they finalize all their options, is not an easy way to administer a tax exemption. It will result in fewer EVs being sold and a multitude of carbon dioxide emissions being emitted by gas-powered vehicles. This legislation will also result in additional time being needed for EVs to take hold in the market.[3]

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:
Support: $0.00
Opposition: $0.00

As of February 17, 2017, no ballot question committees registered to support or oppose Advisory Vote 15.[13]

Media editorials

Support

  • The Daily News said: "Advisory no. 15 asks voters whether a tax exemption for purchases of alternative fuel vehicles should be left in place or not. Currently, the law exempts from sales tax the first $32,000 of the purchase price of qualifying new alternative fuel vehicles. … We say “no” on 14 and “yes” on 15.”[14]
  • The News Tribune said: "It actually adds limits to an existing exemption by capping the benefit people can claim on a clean-energy vehicle purchase or lease. At a time when state leaders are vowing to close tax loopholes large and small, this modest change makes good sense."[15]
  • The Stranger said: “This is about a tax exemption for folks who buy electric cars. It was passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature. More electric cars are a good thing for our state, nation, hemisphere, and planet.”[16]

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Advisory Vote 15. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington

The measure was automatically referred to the ballot by Initiative 960, an initiative passed in 2007 to require an advisory vote about any law passed by the legislature that increased tax revenue.

HB 2778

The bill that Initiative 960 referred to the ballot as an advisory question is House Bill 2778.

The Washington House of Representatives passed the bill on March 29, 2016, with 66 "yea" votes and 29 "nay" votes. The Washington State Senate passed the bill on the same day, with 28 "yea" votes and 15 "nay" votes. The Washington Governor signed the legislation on April 18, 2016.[17]

House vote

March 29, 2016

Washington HB 2778 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 66 69.47%
No2931.53%

Senate vote

March 29, 2016

Washington HB 2778 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 28 65.12%
No1534.88%

State profile

Demographic data for Washington
 WashingtonU.S.
Total population:7,160,290316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):66,4563,531,905
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.[18]

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

Related measures

See also: Taxes on the ballot
Taxes measures on the ballot in 2016
StateMeasures
North DakotaNorth Dakota Tobacco Tax Increase, Initiated Statutory Measure 4 Defeatedd
WashingtonWashington State-Provided Campaign Financing Funded by a Non-Resident Sales Tax, Initiative 1464 Defeatedd
WashingtonWashington Taxation of Stand-Alone Dental Plans, Advisory Vote 14 Defeatedd
MissouriMissouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 Defeatedd
IllinoisIllinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment Approveda
FloridaFlorida Property Tax Exemptions for Renewable Energy Equipment, Amendment 4 Approveda
NevadaNevada Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption, Question 4 Approveda
OregonOregon Business Tax Increase, Measure 97 Defeatedd
ColoradoColorado Tobacco Tax Increase, Amendment 72 Defeatedd
MissouriMissouri 23 Cent Cigarette Tax, Proposition A Defeatedd
MaineMaine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2 Approveda
New JerseyNew Jersey Dedication of All Gas Tax Revenue to Transportation, Public Question 2 (2016) Approveda
OklahomaOklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 Defeatedd
UtahUtah Amendment C, Tax Exemptions for Property Leased By State Measure Defeatedd

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington Vehicles Exemption Advisory 15. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 (2016) - Google News

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Transport Evolved, "Washington State Raises Threshold for Electric Car Exemption Program, Paves Way for 200-Mile Affordable EVS," April 19, 2016
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Washington Secretary of State, "Advisory Vote 15," accessed September 13, 2013
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  4. ↑ Olympian, "UPDATE - AG: Five tax measures qualify for advisory votes on November ballots," July 16, 2013
  5. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Word from AG: Two Advisory Votes on 2014 ballot," June 27, 2014
  6. ↑ King County Democrats, "Endorsements 2016," accessed September 13, 2016
  7. ↑ 43rd District Demorats, "Endorsement considerations for September 2016 Meeting," accessed September 14, 2016
  8. ↑ 45th District Democrats, "Endorsements for 2016: Ballot Measures," accessed September 13, 2016
  9. ↑ Northwest Progressive Institute, "Ballot Measure Endorsements for 2016," accessed September 13, 2016
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Fuse Washington, "Progressive Voter Guide," accessed September 13, 2016
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Washington Legislature, "HB 2778 History," accessed September 13, 2016
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Washington Legislature, "House Bill Report - HB 2778," accessed September 13, 2016
  13. ↑ Washington Public Disclosure Commission,"Committee search 2016," accessed September 12, 2016
  14. ↑ The Daily News, "Voters' guide to state initiatives," September 15, 2016
  15. ↑ The News Tribune, "We endorse: Earlier redistricting deadline (SJR 8210), and yes on tax advisory votes," October 19, 2016
  16. ↑ The Stranger, "The Stranger's Endorsements for the November 2016 General Election," October 18, 2016
  17. ↑ Washington Legislature, "HB 2778," accessed August 12, 2016
  18. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
v • e
2016 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay
Other
Flag of Washington
v • e
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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Washington_Modifying_Tax_Exemption_Criteria_for_Alternative_Fuel_Vehicles,_Advisory_Vote_15_(2016)&oldid=8758532"