Washington Initiative 940, Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure (2018)

Elections in Washington, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 8 (mail or online), or Oct. 29 (in-person)
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: N/A (Washington conducts all elections by mail)
• Poll times: N/A

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Recalls • Primaries in Washington, 2018

Washington Initiative 940
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Washington measuresWashington Initiative 940Washington Initiative 1631Washington Initiative 1634Washington Initiative 1639Washington Advisory Vote 19Submit

Washington Initiative 940, the Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure was on the ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the Legislature, a type of indirect initiated state statute, on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A yes vote supported the initiative to create a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, require police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and require law enforcement officers to provide first aid.

A no vote opposed the initiative to create a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, require police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and require law enforcement officers to provide first aid.

Election results

Washington Initiative 940
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,834,579	59.60%
No		1,243,316	40.40%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

See also: Legislative alteration

House Bill 1064 to amend I-940 as passed by voters

House Bill 1064 was introduced on December 17, 2018. It passed unanimously in the House on January 24 and unanimously in the Senate on January 30, 2019, with one Senator, Lynda Wilson (R-17), excused. It was signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee (D) on February 4, 2019.

The bill was designed to amend I-940 as passed by voters in 2018. Specifically, the bill amends provisions relating to I-940's good faith standard for the use of deadly force. Under I-940, officers would have been required to show that they believed they were acting in good faith when they used deadly force, but the new language under HB 1064 uses a different test: whether another officer acting reasonably in the same circumstances would have believed deadly force was necessary.

The bill was also designed to require the state to reimburse law enforcement officers for defense costs if charges against an officer are dismissed or if they are found not guilty of charges surrounding unjustified use of deadly force. The bill also modified provisions of I-940 regarding independent investigations of deadly force incidents, training requirements, and more. HB 1064 was the result of a compromise between supporters and opponents of I-940.

Ken Thomas, president of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs board, said, "We believe this new deadly-force standard — clarified and agreed-upon by HB 1064 — provides a clear and objective standard that can be clearly understood."

In Washington, a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature is required to amend an initiative passed by voters within two years following a measure's approval.

Legislative alteration context

See also: Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives and Legislative alteration rules

From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.

The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.

Legislative alteration rates
Year span	# approved	# altered	Alteration rate
2010 - 2024	175	30	17.14%
2016 - 2018	56	20	35.71%
2010 - 2015	43	9	20.9%

Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.

Overview

What was I-940 designed to do?

Initiative 940 was designed to create a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, require police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and provide that police have a duty to render first aid. It removed the requirement that prosecutors show that a law enforcement officer acted with malice to be convicted.

Who supported and opposed I-940?

One committee was registered in support of the measure: De-Escalate WA I-940. The committee had raised $3.29 million and spent $3.61 million including cash and in-kind services. The committee had spent $1.03 million on the signature petition drive, hiring PCI Consultants to manage the signature gathering. According to the most recent reports, the top contributor to the support campaign was the Puyallup Tribal of Indians, which contributed $600,000.

Two committees were registered to oppose the measure: Coalition for a Safer WA and Cops Against I-940 WA Council of Police & Sheriffs. Together, the committees had raised $288,721 and spent $285,497. The top contributor was the Seattle Police Officer's Guild, which provided $90,000 in cash.

How did I-940 get on the ballot?

De-Escalate Washington, the campaign in support of the initiative, filed more than 350,000 signatures on December 28, 2017. On January 23, 2018, the office of the secretary of state certified that enough valid signatures had been submitted. The initiative was sent to the legislature, which approved the initiative and, in a non-standard move, passed a bill (HB 3003) to immediately amend the initiative, precluding an election on it. The bill resulted from discussion with and input from certain law enforcement agencies and De-Escalate Washington. On April 20, 2018, the Thurston County Superior Court ruled that the legislature acted in violation of the Washington Constitution by approving the proposed amendment and passing House Bill 3003 to immediately amend it, and ruled that Initiative 940 must be placed on the ballot. That decision was appealed by attorneys for the Legislature.

Legislative approval and alteration

The compromise: House bill 3003

State law gives the legislature three options upon the verification of a sufficient initiative petition for an Initiative to the Legislature: (1) the legislature can approve the initiative unaltered, (2) the legislature can send the initiative to the voters, and (3) the legislature can send the initiative and an alternative proposal to the voters. Legislators went a fourth route with Initiative 940: they approved the initiative and approved a bill to make alterations to it—House Bill 3003—to take effect one day following the approval of Initiative 940. Law enforcement agencies that supported House Bill 3003 included the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and the Fraternal Order of Police. Certain other agencies did not endorse the bill, including the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association.

Proponents of House Bill 3003 argued that the compromise accomplished the goals of initiative advocates while avoiding an expensive battle between law enforcement agencies and minority groups over the initiative and any alternative measure if the legislature had let the issue go to the voters. Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45), who backed House bill 3003 and was active in negotiations, said, “This is really a historic moment because we’ve been trying for years to bring law enforcement and aggrieved communities together.”

Sen. Doug Ericksen (R) opposed the initiative and House Bill 3003. Ericksen said, “We need to stand up against this and be very clear that we support people who are in law enforcement in our state.” Sen. Mike Padden (R) also opposed House Bill 3003 and said he thought both the initiative and House bill 3003 should have been sent to the ballot. Padden said, “While I agree that it may be divisive, it may be troubling, it may be inconvenient, it may cost a lot of money for both sides to get their message out to people, that’s what the initiative process is all about.” Padden said that the way the legislature passed the initiative and immediately amended it was unconstitutional.

The Washington State Senate passed HB 3003 along partisan lines in a vote of 25 to 24. In the Senate, one Democrat joined all of the Republicans to vote against the bill, and the rest of the Democrats voted in favor of it. In the Washington House of Representatives, 23 Republicans joined all 50 Democrats in support of the bill. The remaining 25 Republicans voted against it.

Lawsuit

Eyman v. Wyman

Tim Eyman, a political activist who has sponsored or worked on a number of ballot initiative campaigns in Washington, filed a lawsuit against the state on March 12, 2018, arguing that the passage of HB 3003 altering Initiative 940 was unconstitutional and violated the state's process for Initiatives to the Legislature.

Eyman said, "The Legislature went rogue, disrespecting the initiative petition signers and preventing voters from exercising their right to vote."

Sen. Maralyn Chase, who voted in favor of HB 3003, said, “This is a worthy endeavor. I think it takes precedence over what the Constitution says about initiatives.”

Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D) said that HB 3003 does not undermine the initiative process, arguing that the legislature can amend or repeal initiatives to the legislature if the legislature passes them itself. Pedersen said, “We could have called a special session in June and amended I-940 after it went into effect. Can we do it with contingency legislation? I think we should be able to, but it’s fair to say that’s a novel question.”

On April 20, 2018, the Thurston County Superior Court ruled in favor of Eyman, rejecting the legislature's action of passing an amendment to immediately alter the original initiative before it went on the ballot as unconstitutional. Judge Christine Schaller ordered the Washington Secretary of State to put I-940 on the November ballot. Schaller said, "It was unconstitutional for the Legislature to try and create a fourth option. [Lawmakers] enacted I-940 with amendment, which was not one of the things that is permissible under the constitution. Therefore, the Legislature rejected I-940.” Attorneys for the state Legislature appealed the decision.

On August 28, 2018, the state Supreme Court ruled that the bill the legislature passed to immediately amend the initiative is unenforceable and affirmed the lower court's ruling that the measure must be placed on the ballot. The order concluded, "A majority of this court agrees that HB 3003 is void and unenforceable and, hence, that we cannot compel the secretary of state to place it on the ballot... a majority of this court affirms the superior court's decision to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the secretary of state to place 1-940 on the ballot. On August 29, 2018, the court requested briefing regarding how the justice's opinions should be interpreted, since four justices voted to put both the initiative and the compromise bill on the ballot as an alternative, four voted to put neither the initiative or the compromise bill on the ballot, and one justice voted to put only the initiative on the ballot."

Initiative 940 measure design

Good faith test

The measure's good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers is justifiable was designed to consist of two parts:

• The first part, called the objective good faith test, would be met if "a reasonable officer, in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time, would have believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm to the officer or another individual."
• The second part, called the subjective good faith test, would be met if "the officer intended to use deadly force for a lawful purpose and sincerely and in good faith believed that the use of deadly force was warranted in the circumstance."
  • This second "subjective good faith test" was removed by House Bill 3003.

The measure was also designed to require that an independent investigation be completed in cases where the use of deadly force resulted in death, substantial bodily harm, or great bodily harm to determine whether the use of deadly force met the good faith test's objective component.

As of 2017, Revised Code of Washington Chapter 9A.16.050 stated that a “public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable...” By striking peace officer, also known as police, from that sentence, Initiative 940 removed the requirement that a police officer acted without malice to prosecute the officer for using deadly force. The initiative kept and defined the good faith belief requirement for police.

Law enforcement training

Initiative 940 was designed to require law enforcement officers to receive de-escalation training and mental health training. The state Criminal Justice Training Commission, which was created in 1974 to establish standards and provide training for criminal justice and law enforcement professionals, is responsible for setting the training curriculum and adopting rules to implement the training requirements. The commission would consult with the attorney general, law enforcement agencies, tribes, and organizations advocating for persons with disabilities, LGBTQ persons, people of color, immigrants, non-citizens, Native Americans, youth, and formerly incarcerated people.

Under the measure, the state Criminal Justice Training Commission must consider the following when developing training curriculum:

• patrol and interpersonal communication tactics that use time, distance, cover, and concealment to avoid escalating situations that lead to violence;
• alternatives to jail booking, arrest, or citation in situations where appropriate;
• implicit and explicit bias, cultural competency, and the intersection of race and policing;
• skills to interact with people with disabilities or behavioral health issues;
• shoot or don't shoot training;
• alternatives to using deadly force;
• policing and mental health bias and stigma; and
• using public service to provide positive interaction between officers and communities to build trust and reduce conflicts.

The measure also mandated first aid training and state that law enforcement offices have a paramount duty to render first aid to save lives.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 940 concerns law enforcement. This measure would require law enforcement to receive violence de-escalation, mental-health, and first-aid training, and provide first-aid; and change standards for use of deadly force, adding a "good faith" standard and independent investigation. Should this measure be enacted into law?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This measure would require all law enforcement officers in the state to receive violence de-escalation and mental health training, as developed by the criminal justice training commission. It would require law enforcement personnel to provide first-aid to save lives and require law enforcement agencies to adopt guidelines for implementing this duty. It would amend the standards for justifiable use of deadly force by law enforcement, including adding a “good faith” standard and requiring independent investigation.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement from the Washington 2018 Voters' Guide was as follows:

The Law as It Presently Exists State law sets forth when peace officers may use deadly force in carrying out their duties. Peace officers include active police officers, Washington State Patrol officers, and Department of Fish and Wildlife officers with enforcement powers. Under existing law, a peace officer is not criminally liable for using deadly force if the officer acts without malice and with a good faith belief that deadly force is justifiable. The law recognizes certain circumstances where deadly force could be justifiable. For example, it might be justifiable if the force is necessary to overcome resistance. In addition, it might be justifiable if the peace officer believes deadly force is necessary to arrest a suspect who the officer reasonably believes has committed a felony; to prevent escape or recapture an escapee from prison or jail; or to suppress a riot involving a deadly weapon. In the situation where a peace officer uses deadly force to arrest a suspect who may have committed a felony, the officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm if not arrested. Evidence that the suspect poses such a threat could include that the suspect has threatened an officer with a weapon, or that there is probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime involving threatened or actual serious physical harm. In such cases, deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent the suspect's escape after a warning has been issued, if possible. State law also provides for establishment of a Criminal Justice Training Commission (the Commission) to provide programs and set standards for training law enforcement personnel. Every new full-time law enforcement officer must take eight hours of crisis intervention training during their six months at the basic training academy, but there is no requirement that the Commission provide or that officers take any training specifically dealing with violence de-escalation. And while the Commission must develop and make mental health trainings available to law enforcement officers, state law does not require that officers take these trainings. Existing state law does not contain any provision regarding a law enforcement officer's duty to render or facilitate first aid. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved This measure addresses three aspects of law enforcement. First, it addresses when law enforcement officers may use deadly force. Second, it requires de-escalation and mental health training for officers. Third, it requires officers to provide first aid in certain circumstances. In general, the new measure applies to "law enforcement officers," which includes "law enforcement personnel" and "peace officers." So, like existing law, it applies to active police officers, Washington State Patrol officers, and Department of Fish and Wildlife officers with enforcement powers. But it also applies to reserve officers and volunteers, or any other public employees whose primary function is enforcement of criminal laws. The measure would change the standard for when a law enforcement officer may justifiably use deadly force. It would adopt a "good faith" standard that permits a law enforcement officer to use deadly force only if. (1) a reasonable law enforcement officer, in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time, would have believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm to the officer or another person; and (2) the particular officer intended to use deadly force for a lawful purpose and sincerely and in good faith believed that the use of deadly force was warranted under the circumstances. In other words, to determine if the officer acted in "good faith," the new law would examine not only what a particular officer's intentions were, but also what a reasonable officer would have done under the circumstances. The "good faith" test would apply in the specific situations listed under existing law as justifiable uses of deadly force (such as to prevent escape from a prison), but also would determine whether an officer's use of deadly force is justifiable in any other potential situation that might arise. An officer who uses deadly force would not be criminally liable only if he or she meets the good faith test. To help determine whether the good faith test is met, the measure would require an independent investigation any time an officer's use of deadly force results in death or substantial or great bodily harm. The investigation would be done by someone other than the agency whose officer was involved in the use of deadly force. If deadly force is used on a tribal member, the investigation must include consultation with the member's tribe and any appropriate information sharing. The second change is that beginning in 2019, the measure would require all law enforcement officers in the state to take violence de-escalation and mental health trainings developed by the Criminal Justice Training Commission. All existing law enforcement officers would be required to take both trainings by a date to be set by the Commission, and all new officers would need to take both trainings within fifteen months of starting employment. The initial violence de-escalation training must educate officers on the good faith standard for use of deadly force. In addition to the initial trainings, all law enforcement officers would be required to periodically take continuing violence de-escalation and mental health trainings to practice their skills, update their knowledge and training, and learn about new legal requirements. The Commission would be required to consult with law enforcement agencies and community stakeholders to come up with a curriculum for the violence de-escalation and mental health trainings, and to set specific training requirements—for example, how many hours the trainings will be and how officers will receive the trainings. In addition, the Commission would set a requirement that officers take the trainings to maintain their certification. The Commission would be required to consider a number of specific subjects to include in the curriculum, including: patrol tactics to avoid escalating situations that lead to violence; alternatives to jail booking, arrests, or citations; implicit and explicit bias, cultural competency, and the historical intersection of race and policing; de-escalation techniques for dealing with people with disabilities and/or behavioral health issues; "shoot/don't shoot" scenario training; alternatives to the use of physical or deadly force so that such force is only used as a last resort; mental health and policing; and using public service, including rendering first aid, to provide more opportunities for positive interactions with the community. For the mental health trainings, the Commission would be allowed to use the existing curriculum it currently offers on mental health and crisis intervention. The third change is that the measure would require law enforcement personnel to provide first-aid to save lives, and require the Commission to consult with law enforcement agencies to adopt guidelines for implementing this duty. The guidelines must establish first aid training requirements; assist agencies and law enforcement officers in balancing competing public health and safety duties; and establish that law enforcement officers have a paramount duty to preserve the life of persons they come into contact with, including providing or facilitating first aid as early as possible. The Commission may adopt any rules required to carry out the objectives of the measure, and if it does adopt rules it must seek input from the Attorney General, law enforcement agencies, tribes, and community stakeholders.

Full text

The initiative amended Revised Code of Washington. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

PART I TITLE AND INTENT NEW SECTION. Sec. This act may be known and cited as the law enforcement training and community safety act. NEW SECTION. Sec. The intent of the people in enacting this act is to make our communities safer. This is accomplished by requiring law enforcement officers to obtain violence de-escalation and mental health training, so that officers will have greater skills to resolve conflicts without the use of physical or deadly force. Law enforcement officers will receive first aid training and be required to render first aid, which will save lives and be a positive point of contact between law enforcement officers and community members to increase trust and reduce conflicts. Finally, the initiative adopts a "good faith" standard for officer criminal liability in those exceptional circumstances where deadly force is used, so that officers using deadly force in carrying out their duties in good faith will not face prosecution. PART II REQUIRING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO RECEIVE VIOLENCE DE-ESCALATION TRAINING NEW SECTION. Sec. A new section is added to chapter 43.101 RCW to read as follows: (1) Beginning one year after the effective date of this section, all law enforcement officers in the state of Washington must receive violence de-escalation training. Law enforcement officers beginning employment after the effective date of this section must successfully complete such training within the first fifteen months of employment. The commission shall set the date by which other law enforcement officers must successfully complete such training. (2) All law enforcement officers shall periodically receive continuing violence de-escalation training to practice their skills, update their knowledge and training, and learn about new legal requirements and violence de-escalation strategies. (3) The commission shall set training requirements through the procedures in section 5 of this act. PART III REQUIRING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO RECEIVE MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING NEW SECTION. Sec. A new section is added to chapter 43.101 RCW to read as follows: (1) Beginning one year after the effective date of this section, all law enforcement officers in the state of Washington must receive mental health training. Law enforcement officers beginning employment after the effective date of this section must successfully complete such training within the first fifteen months of employment. The commission shall set the date by which other law enforcement officers must successfully complete such training. (2) All law enforcement officers shall periodically receive continuing mental health training to update their knowledge about mental health issues and associated legal requirements, and to update and practice skills for interacting with people with mental health issues. (3) The commission shall set training requirements through the procedures in section 5 of this act. PART IV TRAINING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE SET IN CONSULTATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS NEW SECTION. Sec. A new section is added to chapter 43.101 RCW to read as follows: (1) Within six months after the effective date of this section, the commission must consult with law enforcement agencies and community stakeholders and adopt rules for carrying out the training requirements of sections 3 and 4 of this act. Such rules must, at a minimum: (a) Adopt training hour requirements and curriculum for initial violence de-escalation trainings required by this act; (b) Adopt training hour requirements and curriculum for initial mental health trainings required by this act, which may include all or part of the mental health training curricula established under RCW 43.101.227 and 43.101.427; (c) Adopt training hour requirements and curricula for continuing trainings required by this act; (d) Establish means by which law enforcement officers will receive trainings required by this act; and (e) Require compliance with this act's training requirements as a condition of maintaining certification. (2) In developing curricula, the commission shall consider inclusion of the following: (a) De-escalation in patrol tactics and interpersonal communication training, including tactical methods that use time, distance, cover, and concealment, to avoid escalating situations that lead to violence; (b) Alternatives to jail booking, arrest, or citation in situations where appropriate; (c) Implicit and explicit bias, cultural competency, and the historical intersection of race and policing; (d) Skills including de-escalation techniques to effectively, safely, and respectfully interact with people with disabilities and/or behavioral health issues; (e) "Shoot/don't shoot" scenario training; (f) Alternatives to the use of physical or deadly force so that deadly force is used only when unavoidable and as a last resort; (g) Mental health and policing, including bias and stigma; and (h) Using public service, including rendering of first aid, to provide a positive point of contact between law enforcement officers and community members to increase trust and reduce conflicts. (3) The initial violence de-escalation training must educate officers on the good faith standard for use of deadly force established by this act and how that standard advances violence de-escalation goals. (4) The commission may provide trainings, alone or in partnership with private parties or law enforcement agencies, authorize private parties or law enforcement agencies to provide trainings, or any combination thereof. The entity providing the training may charge a reasonable fee. PART V ESTABLISHING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' DUTY TO RENDER FIRST AID NEW SECTION. Sec. A new section is added to chapter 36.28A RCW to read as follows: (1) It is the policy of the state of Washington that all law enforcement personnel must render first aid to save lives. (2) Within one year after the effective date of this section, the Washington state criminal justice training commission, in consultation with the Washington state patrol, the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs, organizations representing state and local law enforcement officers, health providers and/or health policy organizations, tribes, and community stakeholders, shall develop guidelines for implementing the duty to render first aid adopted in this section. The guidelines must: (a) Adopt first aid training requirements; (b) assist agencies and law enforcement officers in balancing competing public health and safety duties; and (c) establish that law enforcement officers have a paramount duty to preserve the life of persons whom the officer comes into direct contact with while carrying out official duties, including providing or facilitating immediate first aid to those in agency care or custody at the earliest opportunity. PART VI ADOPTING A "GOOD FAITH" STANDARD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER USE OF DEADLY FORCE Sec. RCW 9A.16.040 and 1986 c 209 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases: (a) When a public officer applies deadly force is acting</de> in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or (b) When necessarily used by a peace officer meeting the good faith standard of this section to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.; or (c) When necessarily used by a peace officer meeting the good faith standard of this section or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony; (ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or (iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or (iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon. (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following: (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given, provided the officer meets the good faith standard of this section. (3) A public officer or peace officer covered by subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section. (4) A law enforcement officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force if such officer meets the good faith standard adopted in this section. (5) The following good faith standard is adopted for law enforcement officer use of deadly force: (a) The good faith standard is met only if both the objective good faith test in (b) of this subsection and the subjective good faith test in (c) of this subsection are met. (b) The objective good faith test is met if a reasonable officer, in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time, would have believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm to the officer or another individual. (c) The subjective good faith test is met if the officer intended to use deadly force for a lawful purpose and sincerely and in good faith believed that the use of deadly force was warranted in the circumstance. (d) Where the use of deadly force results in death, substantial bodily harm, or great bodily harm, an independent investigation must be completed to inform the determination of whether the use of deadly force met the objective good faith test established by this section and satisfied other applicable laws and policies. (6) For the purpose of this section, "law enforcement officer" means any law enforcement officer in the state of Washington, including but not limited to law enforcement personnel and peace officers as defined by RCW 43.101.010. (7) This section shall not be construed as: (a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or (b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section. PART VII MISCELLANEOUS NEW SECTION. Sec. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act. Nothing in this act precludes local jurisdictions or law enforcement agencies from enacting additional training requirements or requiring law enforcement officers to provide first aid in more circumstances than required by this act or guidelines adopted under this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. Except where a different timeline is provided in this act, the Washington state criminal justice training commission must adopt any rules necessary for carrying out the requirements of this act within one year after the effective date of this section. In carrying out all rule making under this act, the commission shall seek input from the attorney general, law enforcement agencies, tribes, and community stakeholders. The commission shall consider the use of negotiated rule making. The rules must require that procedures under RCW 9A.16.040(5)(d) be carried out completely independent of the agency whose officer was involved in the use of deadly force; and, when the deadly force is used on a tribal member, such procedures must include consultation with the member's tribe and, where appropriate, information sharing with such tribe. Where this act requires involvement of community stakeholders, input must be sought from organizations advocating for: Persons with disabilities; members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community; persons of color; immigrants; non-citizens; native Americans; youth; and formerly incarcerated persons. NEW SECTION. Sec. 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. NEW SECTION. Sec. For constitutional purposes, the subject of this act is "law enforcement."

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Washington Attorney General wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 9, and the FRE is 50. The word count for the ballot title is 50, and the estimated reading time is 13 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 27. The word count for the ballot summary is 77, and the estimated reading time is 20 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

De-Escalate Washington led the campaign in support of Initiative 940.

Supporters

Following is a list of individuals and organizations that had endorsed Initiative 940:

Officials U.S. Rep. Patty Murray (D) U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-7) U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-3) Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal Sen. Maralyn Chase (D-32) Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-11) Sen. David Frockt (D-46) Sen. Sam Hunt (D-22) Sen. Karen Keiser (D-33) Sen. John McCoy (D-38) Sen. Rebecca Saldana (D-37) Sen. Lisa Wellman (D-41) Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-23a) Rep. Eileen Cody (D-24a) Rep. Beth Doglio (D-22b) Rep. Laurie Dolan (D-22a) Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34b) Rep. Noel Frame (D-36a) Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-33b) Rep. Drew Hansen (D-23b) Rep. Zack Hudgins (D-11a) Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27a) Rep. Nicole Macri (D-43a) Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self (D-21b) Rep. Strom Peterson (D-21a) Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-46a) Rep. Kristine Reeves (D-30b) Rep. June Robinson (D-38a) Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos (D-37a) Rep. Derek Stanford (D-1a) Rep. Monica Stonier (D-49b) Rep. Steve Tharinger (D-24b) Rep. Javier Valdez (D-46b) King County Executive Dow Constantine King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski King County Councilmember Larry Gossett King County Councilmember Joe McDermott King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht Renton City Councilmember Ed Prince Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes Seattle City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw Seattle City Councilmember Lorena González Seattle City Councilmember Lisa Herbold Seattle City Councilmember Debora Juarez Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda Seattle City Councilmember Mike O'Brien Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant Seattle City Councilmember Kirsten Harris-Talley Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards Port of Olympia Commissioner E.J. Zita Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby Olympia City Councilmember Jessica Bateman Olympia City Councilmember Jim Cooper Olympia City Councilmember Clark Gilman Olympia City Councilmember Nathaniel Jones Olympia City Councilmember Lisa Parshley Olympia City Councilmember Renata Rollins Former officials Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) Sen. Karen Fraser (D-22) Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D-46b) Seattle Mayor Tim Burgess Tacoma Mayor Marilyn Stickland Parties Washington State Democrats Green Party of Washington State Socialist Alternative Party Washington Democrats African American Caucus Washington Democrats Federation of Women's Caucus Washington Democrats Latino Caucus Washington Democrats Native American Caucus Washington Democrats Progressive Caucus Clark County Democrats Island County Democrats King County Democrats Pierce County Democrats Snohomish County Young Democrats Spokane County Democrats Thurston County Democrats Thurston County Democratic Women Thurston County Young Democrats Whatcom County Democrats Green Party of SW Washington Martin Luther King Jr. County Working Families Party Skagit County Libertarians Legislative District 1 Democrats Legislative District 2 Democrats Legislative District 5 Democrats Legislative District 11 Democrats Legislative District 18 Democrats Legislative District 23 Democrats Legislative District 25 Democrats Legislative District 26 Democrats Legislative District 27 Democrats Legislative District 28 Democrats Legislative District 30 Democrats Legislative District 31 Democrats Legislative District 32 Democrats Legislative District 33 Democrats Legislative District 34 Democrats Legislative District 35 Democrats Legislative District 36 Democrats Legislative District 37 Democrats Legislative District 38 Democrats Legislative District 40 Democrats Legislative District 41 Democrats Legislative District 42 Democrats Legislative District 43 Democrats Legislative District 45 Democrats Legislative District 46 Democrats Legislative District 48 Democrats Tribes Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) Cowlitz Indian Tribe Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Kalispel Tribe of Indians The Lummi Nation Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe The Puyallup Tribe of Indians Quinault Indian Nation Snoqualmie Tribe Squaxin Island Tribe Suquamish Tribe The Tulalip Tribes Yakama Indian Nation Organizations About Face: Veterans Against the War ACLU Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility Amnesty International USA Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment (APACE) Asian Pacific Islander Coalition (APIC) Black Alliance of Thurston County Black Law Enforcement Association of Washington Children's Alliance Church Council of Greater Seattle Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence Community to Community (C2C) Council on American Islamic Affairs - Washington Densho Disability Rights Washington El Centro de la Raza Equal Rights Washington Faith Action Network FUSE Washington Galanda Broadman, PLLC Greater Seattle Business Association Humanitarian United Movement and Action Network - Clark County Independent Living Council Indivisible Gig Harbor Indivisible Olympia Indivisible Seattle Indivisible Plus Washington Japanese American Citizens' League, Olympia Chapter Japanese American Citizens' League, Seattle Chapter Justice for Daniel Justice for Jackie Kent Black Action Commission Latina/o Bar Association of Washington Latino Advocacy Latino Civic Alliance League of United Latin American Citizens Washington League of Women Voters - Washington Loren Miller Bar Association Moms Rising Mothers for Police Accountability NAACP Washington State/Northwest Chapter NAMI Washington National Black Police Association Neighborhood Action Coalition Northwest Progressive Institute Not This Time Olympia Coalition to Reform Deadly Force Laws Olympia Food Coop OneAmerica Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii Pride at Work Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action Quaker Voice on Washington Public Policy Racial Justice Coalition Real Change Red Line Salish Sea Sea Mar Community Health Centers Seattle Gay News Seattle Human Services Coalition Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce Seattle Peoples Party Solid Ground/State-wide Poverty Action Network Studizens for Safe Streets Tabor 100 Temple Beth Hatfiloh The Black Collective Unidos Snohomish County Veterans for Peace Greater Seattle Chapter Veterans for Peace King County Seattle Surrounding Area Chapter Veterans for Peace Rachel Corrie Chapter (Thurston, Mason, Lewis Counties) Veterans for Peace Spokane Chapter Veterans for Peace Tacoma-Pierce County Chapter Vietnamese American Bar Association of Washington Washington Attorneys with Disabilities Association Washington Bus Washington CAN Washington Community & Technical College Student Association Washington State Berniecrats Washington State National Organization for Women Whatcom Civil Rights Project (WCRP) Woke Washington YouthCare YWCA Olympia YWCA Seattle-King-Snohomish YWCA Spokane YWCA Tacoma Unions and labor organizations Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance AFL-CIO (APALA) American Federation of Teachers Washington (AFT) AFT Seattle Community Colleges Local 1789 A. Philip Randolph Institute Carpenters Local 30 Coalition of Black Trade Unionists ILWU Puget Sound District Council ILWU Local 4 (Vancouver) ILWU Local 19 (Seattle) ILWU Local 19 Seattle Pensioners Club ILWU Local 21 (Long View) Martin Luther King County Labor Council SEIU Washington State Council SEIU 6 Property Services NW SEIU 775 SEIU 925 SEIU Healthcare 1199NW SEIU Local 49 UFCW 21 Washington Education Association WA Federation of State Employees (AFSCME Council 28) WA Federation of State Employees Local 304 Washington State Labor Council Individuals Cary Moon, mayoral candidate for Seattle in 2017 Nikkita Oliver, mayoral candidate for Seattle in 2017 Macklemore, rapper from Seattle, Washington Doug Baldwin, player for the Seattle Seahawks

Arguments

De-Escalate Washington I-940 said, "The goal is to save lives. This is accomplished through training and increased accountability. In all of 2016 there were twenty-nine people killed by police in Washington State. According to data compiled by the Washington Post, approximately one third of these twenty-nine showed signs of mental illness. Already in 2017, as of December 2, there have been thirty-six people killed by police in this state.

Fuse Washington, a nonprofit that supports progressive policies, said, "Over the past three decades, hundreds of people in our state have been victimized by police brutality. From 2006 to 2014 alone, 213 people were killed by police. Yet, in all this time, only one officer was charged with a crime and brought before a judge. Even then, he was subsequently acquitted - meaning no police officer in our state has ever been convicted of a wrongful death. In Washington, no one is above the law - except when there is a lethal loophole that allows law enforcement personnel to get away with the unjustified killing of brown people. From the day an officer swears an oath "to protect and serve," we as a community expect them to honor their commitment and practice good judgment in all matters concerning public safety. Because the law only evaluates an officer on their perceptions rather than the facts at the time of a police shooting, Washington policy legalizes the application of personal biases and racial prejudices in the evaluation of a threat. The racial identity of a suspect should never impact an officer's ability to judge a situation and act in the interest of public safety."

Official arguments

Following are the official arguments in support of Initiative 940 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2018 general election.

The arguments were prepared by Lisa Earl, mother of Jackie Salyers and Puyallup Tribe member; Katrina Johnson, cousin of Charleena Lyles; Mitzi Johanknecht, King County Sheriff; Larry Sanchez, Retired Grant County Deputy Sheriff; Lauren Simonds of the Washington National Alliance on Mental Illness; and Mark Stroh, Executive Director Disability Rights Washington.

Washington ranks fifth in the nation in number of deaths from police use of force. The loss of life is devastating for families and officers. Our state law makes it virtually impossible to prosecute an officer. I-940 creates a fair process to determine if an officer acted reasonably, uses a good faith standard in place in twenty-seven states, and requires independent investigations so police do not investigate themselves, which will build trust. I-940 will save lives. 940 mandates de-escalation and mental health training and requires first aid at the scene. This is common sense. The focus on prevention will help save lives. I-940 protects people experiencing mental health crises. Up to a third of those killed by police in Washington State have signs of mental illness. I-940 improves mental health training so officers can handle difficult situations and keep people with mental illness safe. I-940 acknowledges the tensions driven by racial and economic differences. People with disabilities, people of color, youth, Native Americans, LGBTQ+, and people in poverty are sometimes misunderstood in a crisis. I-940 provides modern training to help officers communicate with people from all walks of life, to better understand the people they serve, making everyone safer. I-940 is supported by both community organizations and law enforcement leaders. The training in I-940 is effective in police departments across the country, and is why local law enforcement leaders as well as OneAmerica, Children’s Alliance, Equal Rights Washington, Moms Rising, ACLU, and the League of Women Voters support I-940. Rebuttal of argument against: Since 1986, state law has shielded officers who unnecessarily kill people by requiring proof of “malice,” or evil intent, a subjective standard virtually impossible to prove. Washington is the only state with this standard. Since 2005, police have killed over 300 Washingtonians, up to a third showing signs of mental illness. Only one officer was charged, and acquitted. Washington’s families deserve an objective standard, independent investigations, and better training— improvements that will increase community safety.

Opposition

The Coalition for a Safer Washington led the campaign in opposition to I-940.

Opponents

• Washington State Fraternal Order of Police
• Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs
• Council of Metropolitan Police and Sheriffs
• Seattle Police Officers Guild
• King County Police Officers Guild
• Washington State Patrol Troopers Association

Arguments

• The Coalition for a Safer Washington said, "I-940 does not make our communities safer, it does the opposite. It only lowers the standard to prosecute police officers. It does not provide any funding to deal with the true problems that our communities face: rampant opioid addiction, a growing homeless population, and a chronically underfunded mental health system. Our organizations support the development of the highest trained, most professional law enforcement officers possible. We support data collection to determine if the use of force is being used inappropriately and we support increased funding in our communities to deal with chronic drug and homelessness problems. This initiative addresses none of these issues and instead lowers the standard to prosecute officers."

• The Washington State Fraternal Order of Police, Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, Council of Metropolitan Police and Sheriffs, and Seattle Police Officers Guild issued a joint press release opposing Initiative 940. The press release stated, "This initiative seeks to hide its true purpose in language that mandates training that officers in Washington State already receive. Its true purpose, as shared through the social media accounts and statements of its promoters, is to make it easier to prosecute police officers. [The initiative] does not make communities safer. It does not provide any funding to deal with the true problems that our communities face: rampant opioid addiction, a growing homeless population, and a chronically underfunded mental health system. Our organizations support the development of the highest trained, most professional law enforcement officers possible. We support data collection to determine if the use of force is being used inappropriately and we support increased funding in our communities to deal with chronic drug and homelessness problems. This initiative addresses none of these issues and instead focuses on lowering the standard to prosecute officers."

Official arguments

Following are the official arguments in opposition to Initiative 940 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2018 general election.

The arguments were prepared by Mike Solan of the Council of Metropolitan Police and Sheriffs; Teresa Taylor of the Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs; James Schrimpsher, of the Washington Fraternal Order of Police; Jeff Merrill of the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association; and State Sen. Mike Padden (R), of Spokane Valley.

Public Safety Opposes I-940 Vote no I-940 is a complex proposal that will create confusion and could compromise public safety. Washington’s first responders fundamentally believe that portions of I-940 are bad public policy, costly to implement, fail to provide funding or resources to improve training, will erode public safety, and will not reduce violent interactions between members of the public and law enforcement. I-940 pits the public against law enforcement. I-940 divides rather than unites. Washington’s peace officers are well trained and sensitive to the needs of the community. During the 2018 Legislative session an historic collaboration between the authors and supporters of I-940 and law enforcement resulted in a comprehensive effort to review and reform some areas addressed in the initiative. A continuation of that effort needs to occur. Initiative 940, as written, would force police officers to hesitate in performing their responsibilities putting the public and officers’ lives at risk. Please vote no on I-940 now and allow the 2019 Legislature to pass the comprehensive changes that address every component of the necessary reforms. These reforms must include adequate financial funding, community input, and legislative review to insure all concerns are fully addressed. I-940 falls far short in achieving these goals. Please join all law enforcement in voting “no” on I-940. Rebuttal of argument against: Law enforcement is unified in its belief that I-940 is bad public policy that will be costly to implement, will fail to provide funding or resources to improve training, will erode public safety, and will not reduce violent interactions between the public and law enforcement. I-940 divides more than it unites. For these reasons, law enforcement stands in opposition to I-940. We ask you to join us and vote no.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Olympian said: "We think the flaw in current law is worse than the vague language in I-940....I-940 needs fine-tuning if voters pass it. One section in I-940’s says an officer has a duty to render first aid. That language has been interpreted by police groups as potentially putting them in conflict with a need to secure a scene, apprehend suspects, protect others and stay alive themselves. That potential flaw in I-940 is why we — and also Jon Tunheim, Thurston County prosecuting attorney — are giving support to I-940 on condition that the flaws are fixed. A vote for I-940 keeps up pressure on lawmakers to fix state law."

• The Seattle Times said: "Yes: For decades, Washington has had the most restrictive law in the country when it comes to holding police officers criminally liable for unjustified uses of deadly force. Voters should change that by passing Initiative 940."

• The Yakima Herald-Republic said: "The parts of the initiative dealing with de-escalation training and mental health training are well-advised and have faced only a little opposition from law enforcement. The better the training to deal with difficult circumstances, the better the chances are that deadly force will not be needed. There also is agreement on the section that requires an independent investigation must be completed in cases of deadly force."

Opposition

• The Whidbey News-Times said: "Reject I-940; lawmakers should pass compromise instead. Washington State law effectively protects police officers from being prosecuted for using deadly force, no matter the situation. It’s a law that needs to be changed, but Initiative 940 isn’t the answer. Yes, the majority of police officers are good people, it’s a dangerous jobs and situations involving the use of force can be complex and incredibly stressful. But that doesn’t mean they should have a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to shooting people. Whether or not I-940 passes, lawmakers should move quickly during the next session to adopt the compromise bill."

• The Union-Bulletin said: "While we support the spirit of Initiative 940 — a proposal aimed at improving police training for tense situations and making it easier to prosecute officers for negligent shootings — the details of the measure fall short. Initiative 940 is flawed and should be rejected. Instead, lawmakers should enact the compromise legislation agreed to by law enforcement and the initiative’s sponsors."

• The Chronicle said: "The initiative would remove the existing requirement that prosecutors prove an officer acted without malicious intent. What would remain, according to proponents of the initiative, is the “good faith test.” Instead of having to prove an officer acted maliciously, or with an intent to do harm, a prosecutor would only have to prove that, if an officer uses deadly force, a reasonable person would not agree that the action was justified. We think that’s a step too far. Yes, police must use their power responsibly and yes, Washington’s existing law sets a high bar for prosecuting an officer for use of force, but we don’t believe this initiative is the right way to address those concerns."

• The Everett Herald said: "Initiative 940 would adopt a new deadly force standard for police and require additional deescalation training. A no vote is recommended: “Voting no on I-940 with the hope the Legislature quickly adopts the compromise requires a leap of faith, but one that is necessary to adopt legislation that can perform as intended and would survive a potential legal challenge.”"

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls

Washington Initiative 940, Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
EMC Research 02/08/2018-02/15/2018	68%	21%	11%	+/-3.6	740
Northwest Progressive Institute 06/27/2017 - 06/28/2017	69%	28%	3%	+/-3.3	887
AVERAGES	68.5%	24.5%	7%	+/-3.45	813.5
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.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$3,291,215.61
Opposition:	$288,720.57

One committee was registered in support of the measure: De-Escalate WA I-940. The committee had raised $3.29 million and spent $3.61 million including cash and in-kind services. The committee had spent $1.03 million on the signature petition drive, hiring PCI Consultants to manage the signature gathering. According to the most recent reports, the top contributor to the support campaign was the Puyallup Tribal of Indians, which contributed $600,000.

Two committees were registered to oppose the measure: Coalition for a Safer WA and Cops Against I-940 WA Council of Police & Sheriffs. Together, the committees had raised $288,721 and spent $285,497. The top contributor was the Seattle Police Officer's Guild, which provided $90,000 in cash.

Support

Committees in support of Initiative 940 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures De-Escalate WA I-940 $2,879,871.16 $411,344.45 $3,202,580.26 Total $2,879,871.16 $411,344.45 $3,202,580.26

Totals in support Total raised: $3,291,215.61 Total spent: $3,613,924.71

Donors

Following are donors who gave more than $200,000 to De-Escalate Washington:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Puyallup Tribe of Indians	$600,000.00	$0.00	$600,000.00
ACLU of Washington	$350,000.00	$148,922.70	$498,922.70
Nick Hanauer	$350,000.00	$0.00	$350,000.00
ACLU Inc.	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Open Society Foundations	$230,000.00	$0.00	$230,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Initiative 940 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Coalition for a Safer WA $225,075.50 $627.20 $221,852.22 Cops Against I-940 WA Council of Police & Sheriffs $59,947.87 $3,070.00 $59,947.87 Total $285,023.37 $3,697.20 $281,800.09

Totals in opposition Total raised: $288,720.57 Total spent: $285,497.29

Top donors

Following are donors who gave more than $15,000 to the Coalition for a Safer WA:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Seattle Police Officer's Guild	$90,000.00	$0.00	$90,000.00
WA Council of Police and Sheriffs	$17,025.00	$0.00	$17,025.00
King County Police Officer's Guild	$15,000.00	$0.00	$15,000.00
San Jose Officers Association PAC	$15,000.00	$0.00	$15,000.00

Methodology

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

Background

2017 initiative

See also: Washington Criminal Liability of Police in Cases of Deadly Force, Initiative 873 (2017)

In 2016, the campaign Washington for Good Policing attempted to collect enough valid signatures for Initiative 873, which would have appeared on the ballot in November 2017. Lisa Hayes-Howell, who filed the initiative, reported that the campaign was still about 100,000 signatures short of its goal on November 30, 2016. She stated, "We’ve not been funded by big donors. It’s pretty impossible to do (an initiative) in Washington without paid signature gatherers... I don’t want to say we won’t make it, although it’s a stretch." Proponents did not file a sufficient number of signatures for the initiative.

Initiative 873 differed from Initiative 940 by eliminating both the requirement that a police officer acted without malice and the requirement that a police officer acted with a good faith belief in cases of deadly force. Initiative 940 would eliminate the requirement that a police officer acted without malice, but it would keep the requirement that a police officer acted with a good faith belief. Initiative 940 would create a two-part test to determine if an officer acted with a good faith belief. Initiative 873 did not include any additional required training for police officers, whereas Initiative 940 would require de-escalation, mental health, and first aid training.

Looking back on the campaign for Initiative 873, Andre Taylor, who supported Initiative 873 and is on the leadership team behind Initiative 940, said, "That was like high school. This is university. This is university because of the amount of professionals that we brought on this time … This is a professional campaign with heart. Last year it was a campaign with heart. This is professional with heart. That’s gonna make you win."

Current law

Revised Code of Washington Chapter 9A.16.050 provides for when the use of deadly force by police officers is justifiable. In 1986, the Washington Legislature passed a bill adding the line "(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section." According to Amnesty International, Washington is the only state to require malice and bad faith to convict an officer of unlawful use of deadly force.

The following is Revised Code of Washington Chapter 9A.16.050:

“ (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases: (a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or (b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty. (c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony; (ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or (iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or (iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon. (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following: (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given. (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section. (4) This section shall not be construed as: (a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or (b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section. ”

Criminal justice ballot measures in Washington

See also: Civil and criminal trials on the ballot and Law enforcement on the ballot

As of 2018, citizens of Washington had voted on one ballot initiative related to criminal justice since the 1950s. In 1993, three-quarters of voters approved Initiative 593, which mandated life imprisonment without parole for criminals convicted of serious offenses three times. Known as a three-strikes law, Initiative 593 defined serious offenses as all class A and class B felonies involving harm or threats of harm to persons. California approved a similar "three-strikes law" in 1994.

Criminal justice on the ballot in 2018

Voting on Law Enforcement
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

Voters considered ballot measures addressing criminal justice in nine states in 2018. In Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma voters decided amendments known as Marsy's Law, a set of constitutional protections for crime victims. The remaining criminal justice ballot measures included:

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) (a): The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.

• Louisiana Amendment 2, Unanimous Jury Verdict for Felony Trials Amendment (2018) (a): The Louisiana State Legislature referred Amendment 2 to the general election ballot. Amendment 2 required the unanimous agreement of jurors to convict people charged with felonies. As of 2018, Louisiana required the agreement of 10 of 12, or 83 percent, jurors to convict people charged with felonies. Prior to Amendment 2, Louisiana was one of two states—the other being Oregon—that does not require the unanimous agreement of jurors to convict people charged with felonies.

• Ohio Issue 1, Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative (2018) (d): Issue 1, according to the measure's statement of purpose, was designed to reduce the number of people in state prisons for low-level, nonviolent crimes, such as drug possession and non-criminal probation violations. The initiative would have made the possession, obtainment, and use of drugs no more than a misdemeanor; prohibited courts from ordering persons on probation for felonies be sent to prison for non-criminal probation violations; created a sentence credits program for inmates' participation in rehabilitative, work, or educational programs; and required the state to spend savings due to a reduction of inmates, resulting from Issue 1, on drug treatment, crime victim, and rehabilitation programs. The Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign collected signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.

• Washington Initiative 940, Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure (2018) (a): Initiative 940 created a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, required police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and required law enforcement officers to provide first aid. De-Escalate Washington collected signatures for the ballot initiative.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

The state process

In Washington, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirectly initiated state statute—called an Initiative to the Legislature in Washington—for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election. Initial filings for indirect initiatives cannot be made more than 10 months before the regular session at which their proposal would be presented to lawmakers. Signatures must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the beginning of the legislative session in the year of the targeted election.

The requirements to get an Initiative to the Legislature certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 259,622 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was December 29, 2017.

The secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method. If the sample indicates that the measure has sufficient signatures, the measure is certified to appear before the legislature. If the legislature does not approve the measure, it is certified to appear on the ballot. However, if the sample indicates that the measure has insufficient signatures, every signature is checked. Under Washington law, a random sample result may not invalidate a petition.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants and various individuals to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,024,704.92 was spent to collect the 259,622 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.95.

Details about this initiative

• Leslie Cushman filed four versions of the initiative with the secretary of state's office in 2017—Initiatives 939, 940, 942, and 943. De-Escalate Washington, the committee sponsoring the initiative, decided to collect signatures for Initiative 940. Initiative 940 was filed on May 11, 2017, and approved for signature gathering on May 31, 2017.

• In early December 2017, Riall Johnson, campaign director for De-Escalate Washington, said the campaign collected more than 281,000 signatures and was aiming for 350,000.

• De-Escalate Washington, the campaign in support of the initiative, filed 359,895 signatures on December 28, 2017. At least 259,622 signatures (around 74 percent) of the total submitted need to be valid for the indirect initiative to go before the Washington State Legislature and then to the ballot if the legislature does not approve the initiative.

• On January 23, 2018, the office of the secretary of state certified that enough valid signatures had been submitted. The initiative then went to the legislature, which could have approved it or sent it to the ballot. The legislature was also able to propose an alternative measure to appear on the ballot as well. A random sampling was used to certify the sufficiency of the signatures submitted. Out of 10,833 signatures checked, 9,100 were found valid, for a validity rate of 84 percent. This rate applied to the 359,895 signatures submitted provided a projection of 302,321 valid signatures, which was more than the minimum requirement.

The initiative in the legislature

The initiative was considered by the legislature and was approved on March 8, 2018, along with another bill to make changes to the initiative one day following its approval in the legislature. The bill amending the initiative—House Bill 3003—contained changes resulting from discussion with and input from law enforcement agencies regarding concerns they had with the language in Initiative 940 and De-Escalate Washington. The full text of House Bill 3003 can be read here.

On August 28, 2018, the state Supreme Court ruled that the bill the legislature passed to immediately amend the initiative is unenforceable and affirmed a lower court's ruling, ordering the measure to be placed on the ballot.

In Washington, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required in the legislature to alter or repeal a citizen initiative approved at the ballot box for two years after its approval. After two years, the legislature can alter or repeal a citizen initiative with a simple majority vote. These restrictions would only apply if voters approve it in November 2018.

Legislative vote on Initiative 940:

Vote in the Washington House of Representatives March 8, 2018
Requirement: A simple majority vote in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 50  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	55	43	0
Total percent	56.12%	43.88%	0.00%

Vote in the Washington State Senate March 8, 2018
Requirement: A simple majority vote in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 25  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	25	24	0
Total percent	51.02%	48.98%	0.00%

Legislative vote on House Bill 3003:

Vote in the Washington House of Representatives March 7, 2018
Requirement:
Number of yes votes required: 50  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	73	25	0
Total percent	74.49%	25.51%	0.00%
Democrat	50	0	0
Republican	23	25	0

Vote in the Washington State Senate March 8, 2018
Requirement:
Number of yes votes required: 25  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	25	24	0
Total percent	51.02%	48.98%	0.00%
Democrat	25	1	0
Republican	0	23	0

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot

Washington

• Washington ballot measures
• Washington ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Initiative 940 full text
• Washington 2018 Voters' Guide

Support

• De-Escalate Washington campaign website
• De-Escalate Washington Facebook page
• De-Escalate Washington Twitter page

Opposition

• Coalition for a Safer Washington campaign website
• Coalition for a Safer Washington Facebook page
• Coalition for a Safer Washington Twitter page