Washington State-Provided Campaign Financing Funded by a Non-Resident Sales Tax, Initiative 1464 (2016)

Washington Initiative 1464
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Campaign finance
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

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

The Washington State-Provided Campaign Financing Funded by a Non-Resident Sales Tax, also known as Initiative 1464, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an initiated state statute. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported creating a campaign finance system allowing residents to direct state funds, known as "democracy credits," to qualifying candidates, repeal the non-resident sales tax exemption, restrict employment of former public employees and lobbying, and revise campaign finance laws.

A "no" vote opposed changing the campaign finance system.

Election results

Initiative 1464
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,642,784	53.71%
Yes		1,415,798	46.29%

Election results from Washington Secretary of State

Overview

Democracy dollars in Washington

In 2015, Seattle, Washington, became the first jurisdiction in the United States to pass a law implementing “democracy dollars.” The measure was approved as an initiative, titled Initiative 122. The measure established a voucher system by which all Seattle voters will be given four $25 vouchers that they may give to a candidate or candidates of their choosing, provided the candidate adheres to certain campaign contribution limits.

Changes to state law

Initiative 1464 would have established “democracy credits” for registered voters and other state residents eligible to contribute to campaigns under state law. Each eligible individual would have received three credits, each of a $50 value, to donate to qualified campaigns and candidates of their choosing during even-numbered years. Candidates would have needed to meet certain requirements to receive democracy credits. Initiative 1464 would have repealed the non-resident sales tax exemption to pay for the democracy credits. The measure would have also modified lobbying and campaign finance rules.

Initiative design

What are "democracy credits?"

Initiative 1464 would have established “democracy credits” for registered voters and other state residents eligible to contribute to campaigns under state law. Each eligible individual would have received three credits, each of a $50 value, to donate to qualified campaigns and candidates of their choosing during even-numbered years. The measure would have specifically authorized credits to be contributed to state legislative candidates. However, the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) could have expanded the program to statewide elected offices. The Washington Attorney General would have been able to deem it legal to apply credits to federal candidates, and then the PDC could have expanded the program to federal elected offices. Furthermore, the PDC could have expanded the credits program to cover elections in odd-numbered years.

To pay for the credits, the initiative would have repealed the nonresident sales tax exemption and require nonresidents to pay sales tax on purchases in Washington.

Candidates would have needed to meet certain requirements to receive democracy credits, including:

• collecting at least 75 private contributions of at least $10.
• promising to not accept private donations exceeding half of the maximum limit for the office they seek.
• promising to not spend more than $5,000 of their personal funds.

Changes to campaign finance rules

In addition to the democracy credits program, Initiative 1464 would have modified lobbying and campaign finance rules. It would have restricted former elected or appointed officials from being paid to lobby their prior office within three years of leaving office. It would have also limited contributions by public contractors and prospective public contractors to $100 per election.

Campaigns that violated campaign finance rules would have been required to take actions to remedy their violations in addition to paying a fine. Half the money from fines would have been distributed to the PDC, which it would have used to enforce campaign finance laws.

Initiative 1464 would have required reporting the top five contributors to political action committees that contribute to other campaigns.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 1464 concerns campaign finance laws and lobbyists. This measure would create a campaign-finance system; allow residents to direct state funds to candidates; repeal the non-resident sales-tax exemption; restrict lobbying employment by certain former public employees; and add enforcement requirements. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This measure would create a state-funded campaign finance program allowing residents to direct up to three $50 contributions to candidates for certain state offices. It would repeal the non-resident sales tax exemption, directing resulting funds to this program. It would restrict lobbying employment by certain former public employees; restrict campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors; increase penalties for campaign finance violations; increase campaign finance administration and enforcement; and revise campaign finance and disclosure laws.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement was as follows:

The Law as it Presently Exists Candidates for elected offices pay for their campaigns through private contributions and their own money. State law limits some contribution amounts. These limits apply to contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and political action committees. The contribution limit for legislative candidates is $1,000 per election. For statewide offices and judicial offices the contribution limit is $2,000 per election. State law prohibits the use of public funds to finance political campaigns for state or school district offices. The statute does allow local governments to publicly finance local political campaigns under certain circumstances. Political campaigns are required to report contributions and spending to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). Political advertising must also disclose the top five contributors to the campaign. Reports of contributions and expenditures are available to the public, including on the PDC's web site. Candidates are prohibited from coordinating their spending with other groups that support their campaigns. Candidates are generally prohibited from using contributions for personal use. Campaigns may reimburse candidates for earnings lost as a result of campaigning and for direct out-of-pocket campaign expenses. If a candidate loans money to his or her campaign, the campaign may repay those loans up to a limit. State law provides several ways campaigns may dispose of surplus funds when a campaign is over. Surplus funds may be returned to donors. They may also be used to reimburse the candidate for lost earnings. They may be transferred to a political party or caucus campaign committee, but may not be transferred to another candidate or political committee. They may also be donated to charity or to the state. The campaign may hold the funds for possible future use in another campaign for the same office. Finally, surplus funds may be used for expenses incurred in holding a public office that are not otherwise reimbursed. The PDC enforces campaign contribution and expenditure laws. The PDC can do this through administrative orders. The PDC may also refer charges to the Attorney General, who may bring actions in superior court to enforce the law. An individual or entity found to have violated the law is subject to financial penalties and liability for the state's investigative costs and attorney fees. Lobbyists are currently required to register with the PDC. Lobbyists are required to identify themselves and their employers, the amount they are paid, and the subjects on which they lobby. Lobbyists are also required to file monthly reports about their activities and compensation. They must also report all contributions they make to candidates, elected officials, and others. Lobbyists and employers of lobbyists are required to inform the PDC if they employ certain people who remain employed by the state. These include members of the legislature, members of a state board or commission, and full-time state employees. The state ethics act prohibits all state employees from being paid by private parties for performing (or failing to perform) their job duties. State employees are not allowed to receive any outside compensation that is incompatible with their jobs. People who don't live in Washington are exempt from paying sales taxes on items they buy in Washington for use out of state. This exemption applies only if they live in states or Canadian provinces that do not have their own sales taxes or that exempt Washington residents from their sales taxes. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved This measure would make a number of changes to the laws governing elections and lobbying. It would establish a new program under which registered voters and certain other eligible Washington residents could make donations to campaigns for certain elected offices using public funds. The law calls such donations "democracy credit contributions." Each individual could designate up to three such "contributions" of $50 each to qualified candidates they select every election. The PDC could raise both the number and size of contributions in the future. All Washington registered voters could choose candidates to receive contributions from public funds. Starting in 2020 the PDC may also verify others as eligible to choose candidates to receive such contributions. Only those eligible to make campaign contributions under state and federal law could be verified by the PDC as eligible. The right to designate contributions from public funds cannot be transferred, and selling the right to designate contributions would be a crime. "Democracy credit contributions" would come from state funds. The measure would repeal the nonresident sales tax exemption and require nonresidents to pay the sales tax on retail purchases in the state. Revenue from those sales would be dedicated to funding the new program. Some revenue could also be used to enforce campaign finance laws. The measure would repeal the law that currently prohibits using state funds for political campaigns. The new public financing program would first apply only to candidates for the state legislature. In the future, the PDC could expand the program to statewide elected offices and to judicial offices. It could later be expanded to apply to candidates for federal office if the Attorney General concludes that such an expansion would be lawful. At first the program would apply only to elections held in even-numbered years. The PDC could later expand it to elections held in odd-numbered years. To be eligible to receive public funding, candidates must meet certain qualifications. Candidates must collect at least 75 private contributions of at least $10. Candidates must promise not to ask for or accept private donations that exceed half of the maximum limit for the office they seek (e.g., if the law limits individual contributions for a particular office to $1,000, the candidate could only accept contributions up to $500). Candidates must also promise not to use more than $5,000 of their personal funds on their campaign. Candidates could use public funds only for specified campaign purposes. The total amount of public funds that any candidate could receive would be limited. Initial limits would be $150,000 total for candidates for the state House of Representatives and $250,000 for state Senate candidates. Those limits could change in the future. Candidates would stop being eligible to receive contributions if their campaign ends or if they violate program rules. At the end of a campaign, candidates would be required to give back to the state the proportionate part of the campaign's surplus funds that came from program contributions. In addition to creating the new program concerning public financing of campaigns, the measure would change several state laws regarding campaign finance and lobbying. The initiative would limit lobbyists' ability to hire officials who previously worked in state or local government. This includes elected officials, appointed officials, and public employees. They could not accept employment or receive compensation from any lobbyist who lobbied on any matter in which the official had any decision-making role for three years after the official left office or five years after the lobbying, whichever is sooner. It would also restrict lobbying by former state or local elected or appointed officials. They could not be paid to lobby their prior office within three years of leaving office. And it would prohibit officers of a candidate's campaign from being paid to lobby the office to which their candidate was elected until three years after working for the campaign. The initiative would add new restrictions on certain campaign contributions. Public contractors and prospective public contractors would have a lower contribution limit for contributing to candidates for an office having a decision-making role over the contract. The same would be true for lobbyists making contributions to candidates for offices responsible for matters they lobby about. Their contributions to such candidates would be limited to $100 per election. They would also be prohibited from gathering contributions from other people and giving them to the candidate. They would not be allowed to solicit other people for contributions for the candidate of more than $100 each or $500 total. They would also be prohibited from soliciting contributions for the candidate from their employees. And they would be prohibited from doing business with the candidate. The measure would provide new ways to enforce the new and existing campaign finance laws. The penalties for candidates or campaigns that recklessly or intentionally violate campaign finance laws would be increased. The PDC would be authorized to require violators to take actions to remedy their violations, in addition to paying money. Penalty money would be directed half to the state treasury generally and half to the PDC. The half directed to the PDC would be designated for enforcement of campaign finance laws. The initiative would allow the PDC to assess costs of investigation and attorney fees against people who intentionally violate campaign finance laws. It would broaden the range of people who might be required to pay penalties for violations and restrict the use of campaign funds to pay penalties. It would shorten the notice period for private parties intending to file lawsuits alleging violations of campaign finance laws during the 60 days before an election. It would require the PDC to establish a telephone hotline for receiving tips of violations and require certain people to post notices of the hotline. It would establish new requirements for the PDC's web site. It would change requirements for online filing of reports with the PDC by government agencies and lobbyists. The measure would also change the requirement for identifying the top five contributors in political advertising and other campaign communications. If the top five contributors include a political committee, then the top five contributors to the political committee must be identified and disclosed as if they had contributed directly to the sponsor of the advertising or communication. The measure would modify the law against coordination of campaigns by candidates and other entities. It would create a presumption that candidates coordinate spending with others under certain circumstances.

Full text

The full text can be found here.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The summary section of the fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Summary During the first six fiscal years, the estimated net new revenues to the state General Fund from the repeal of the nonresident retail sales tax exemption is $173.2 million. The estimated net impact of transfers and expenditures from the state General Fund is $171.5 million. Of this amount, $165.0 million represents transfers from the state General Fund to the Campaign Financing and Enforcement Fund for the Democracy Credit Program. Revenue for the Performance Audits of Government Account would increase by $279,000. Local tax revenue would increase by $67.3 million.

”

Background

See also: City of Seattle Restrictions on Campaign Finance and Elections, Initiative Measure No. 122 (November 2015)

The idea of democracy credit has been called by multiple names, including “democracy dollars,” “democracy vouchers,” and “patriot dollars.” Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, is a leading advocate of "democracy dollars."

In November 2015, Seattle, Washington, became the first U.S. jurisdiction to approve a plan implementing "democracy vouchers." On the ballot as Initiative 122, the measure established a voucher system by which all Seattle voters will be given four $25 vouchers that they may give to a candidate or candidates of their choosing, provided the candidate adheres to certain campaign contribution limits. Professor Bruce Ackerman, discussing the Seattle initiative, said, "The Seattle idea puts a genuine idea on the table for ordinary citizens to participate in politics. If you’re making $30,000, you still have your $100 [in vouchers] and candidates are interested in talking to you."

Support

Yes 1464, also known as Integrity Washington, led the campaign in support of Initiative 1464.

Supporters

Officials

• Rep. Noel Frame (D-36)
• City Council President Ben Stuckart, Spokane

Parties

• Young Democrats of Washington
• Clark County Democrats
• King County Democrats
• Spokane County Democrats
• Pierce County Democrats
• Skagit County Democrats
• 2nd LD Democrats
• 26th LD Democrats
• 27th LD Democrats
• 37th LD Democrats
• 46th LD Democrats
• 49th LD Democrats
• Seattle Socialist Alternative

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of Washington
• Progress Alliance of Washington
• Take Back Our Republic
• Represent.Us
• Every Voice
• Faith Action Network
• Fix Democracy First
• WashPIRG
• End Citizens United
• Public Citizen
• Economic Opportunity Institute
• Sightline Institute
• Friends of the Earth
• Northwest Progressive Institute

Individuals

• Greg Moon, Co-chair of the Seattle Tea Party Patriots

Arguments

Official arguments

Margaret Morales, senior research associate, and Kristin Eberhard, senior researcher, of the Sightline Institute, analyzed Initiative 1464 and concluded:

“

Initiative 1464 would increase transparency in Washington State by shedding light on the real funders of privately funded political ads, making political contribution information more accessible, and providing adequate funding to the PDC to effectively carry out its mission. Armed with additional information and a robust oversight commission, more Washington residents could access the information that helps them learn more about their candidates, civically engage with their fellow citizens, and ultimately build a healthier democracy in the Evergreen State.

”

“

Democracy Credits are a powerful tool to dilute the influence of Big Money in Washington State elections and restore balance to state democracy. In short, they equip each registered voter in the state with $150 worth of donations to contribute to the candidates of their choice. This helps level the playing field between everyday citizens and the savvy, well-funded special interests that currently account for the majority of political donations and skew policymakers priorities to their own. ... Americans agree across party lines that the influence of Big Money in politics weakens our democracy and throws it out of balance. Democracy Credits help restore that balance by giving everyone a more equal voice in supporting the candidates of their choice: whether you’re a barista or a bank president, a janitor or a jeweler, you’ll receive exactly the same $150 of Credits.

”

Ann Murphy, President of the League of Women Voters of Washington, Ben Stuckart, President of the Spokane City Council, Greg Moon, co-founder of the Seattle Tea Party Patriots, Rep. Noel Frame (D-36), Alice Woldt, former Director of Fix Democracy First and Faith Action Network, and Terry Bergeson, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote the argument in favor of Initiative 1464 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

Big money interests and lobbyists have too much control over our political system, while regular people have very little. Initiative 1464 implements concrete, achievable reforms to make politicians and government more accountable to the people. Transparency and Accountability Initiative 1464 sheds light on dark money and SuperPACs by requiring political ads say who is really paying for them. It requires online public reporting of lobbyist activity, spending and compensation. Limits Big Money Influence Initiative 1464 bars lobbyists and public contractors from making big campaign contributions. It stops the revolving door of government officials taking jobs as lobbyists as soon as they leave office. It toughens enforcement of ethics and campaign finance laws, and strengthens penalties for those who break them. Empowers Voters Initiative 1464 gives regular people a stronger voice by enabling each person to decide if they want to direct some of their own tax dollars to support candidates of their choice. This also helps new types of candidates run for office even if they aren’t wealthy or well-connected to big donors. ­ A Big Step for Washington If we want things to change, we have to reform the campaign finance system so regular people have more power in politics. Initiative 1464 makes commonsense reforms proven to work in other states and pays for itself by closing a tax loophole. We can’t fix every problem or get all money out of politics, but if we do nothing, nothing will change. This is a big step in the right direction.

Opposition

Our Kids Before Politics led the campaign in opposition to Initiative 1464.

Opponents

Former officials

• U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton (R)
• Attorney General Rob McKenna (R)
• Secretary of State Sam Reed (R)
• State Auditor Brian Sonntag (D)

Arguments

Official arguments

Brian Sonntag (D), former Washington State Auditor, Rob McKenna (R), former Washington State Attorney General, Sam Jackson, a Democratic Party activist, Slade Gorton (R), former U.S. Senator and Attorney General, Darlene Johnson, a small business owner, and Sam Reed (R), former Washington State Secretary of State, wrote the argument against Initiative 1464 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

Initiative 1464 uses your tax dollars to tilt the political system in favor of politicians and out of state special interests, while depriving our schools of resources to fully fund education. We shouldn’t put politicians before our kids. Benefits Politicians and Political Consultants The initiative allows politicians to pay themselves for “lost wages” using public funds. Taxpayer dollars will be used to pay politicians to run for office. The system will be ripe for abuse. It’s no surprise the initiative is sponsored by politicians and political consultants who will personally benefit from the use of taxpayer funds. It is funded by billionaires and out-of-state special interests trying to create an uneven playing field in their favor. Wrong Priorities Our state is under court order to fully fund education and is subject to a $100,000 per day fine. Instead of funding our schools, the initiative gives $285 million in taxpayer money to political consultants and politicians to spend on mudslinging and negative attack ads. The initiative allows people living in Washington who are non-citizens to contribute taxpayer dollars to politicians, even though they can’t vote. Hurts Small Businesses, But Exempts Special Interests The initiative hurts Washington small businesses by raising $285 million in taxes on their customers over the next ten years. This will hurt tourism and kill jobs. The initiative also restricts free speech for minority-owned small businesses but provides exemptions for corporate lobbyists. Powerful special interests get special treatment. Vote no on this bad idea.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

Integrity WA registered to support the measure and reported $4.26 million in contributions.

No on Initiative 1464 - Our Kids Before Politics and Coalition to Stop Corruption & Save Jobs registered to oppose the measure. Together, the committees raised $28,122.62.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$4,201,083.40	$65,012.00	$4,266,095.40	$4,263,754.64	$4,328,766.64
Oppose	$28,000.00	$122.62	$28,122.62	$28,000.00	$28,122.62
Total	$4,229,083.40	$65,134.62	$4,294,218.02	$4,291,754.64	$4,356,889.26

Support

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

Committees in support of Initiative 1464
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Integrity WA	$4,201,083.40	$65,012.00	$4,266,095.40	$4,263,754.64	$4,328,766.64
Total	$4,201,083.40	$65,012.00	$4,266,095.40	$4,263,754.64	$4,328,766.64

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Represent.Us	$918,584.57	$0.00	$918,584.57
Jonathan Soros	$575,000.00	$0.00	$575,000.00
Every Voice	$530,000.00	$0.00	$530,000.00
Sean Eldridge	$525,000.00	$0.00	$525,000.00
Connie Ballmer	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Opposition

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

Committees in opposition to Initiative 1464
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Initiative 1464 - Our Kids Before Politics	$28,000.00	$0.00	$28,000.00	$28,000.00	$28,000.00
Coalition to Stop Corruption & Save Jobs	$0.00	$122.62	$122.62	$0.00	$122.62
Total	$28,000.00	$122.62	$28,122.62	$28,000.00	$28,122.62

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Associated General Contractors of Washington Build PAC	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
Washington Food Industry Association	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
Building Industry Association of Washington	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
The Kroger Co.	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Support

• The Olympian said: "We would oppose this measure for its complicated, sweeping nature and cost — if we thought there was any chance the Legislature could act to blunt the influence of money in campaigns and legislating. We’d have preferred a trial use of “democracy credits” in judicial races but now support I-1464 as a necessity."
• Seattle Weekly said: "By magnifying the fundraising power of grassroots candidates, democracy credits would make a small difference in big, well-funded elections and a big difference in smaller elections. I-1464’s other features would help keep those candidates honest once they’re in office. Vote yes for I-1464, because democracy matters."
• The Stranger said: “ We're usually pretty hesitant about initiatives that change the electoral system, but this one's solid—endorsed by the League of Women Voters, the Sightline Institute, and others.”

Opposition

• The Columbian said: "These are good ideas, but targeting businesses that rely upon out-of-state customers is a poor way to pay for it. If repealing the sales-tax exemption was good business for Washington state, the Legislature would have done it long ago. And if the Legislature did engage in action to increase state tax revenue, that revenue should be earmarked for more pressing items such as basic education or mental health rather than going to people who are running for office."
• The Daily News said: "The money to fund this misguided adventure would be paid for out of the state’s general fund by eliminating our state’s non-resident sales tax exemption. This means people who live in Oregon, who travel to Washington to make purchases, will have to pay our high sales tax on purchases. No doubt this initiative will hurt local businesses.”
• The News Tribune said: “If I-1464 were up for a line-item vote, it would be worth considering the parts that target the lack of political transparency and accountability. But the initiative is a complex package with too many flaws.”
• The Seattle Times said: "At the very least, Washington should wait a year and see how the Seattle experiment is working before plunging into a complex and expensive statewide system. Especially problematic is how this initiative would be funded. The proposal would close a sales-tax exemption for visitors to the state."
• Tri-City Herald said: "Initiative 1464 aims to make sweeping reforms to the state’s campaign financing system. While we believe the goal is noble, we don’t like the strategy behind it. We oppose I-1464. The surface talk sounds great, but digging deeper we found the financial ramifications of this proposal are too risky to support. ... In addition, the new voucher system in Seattle goes into effect in 2017, and we would like to see how it works there before a similar program is applied statewide."
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin said: "We simply see no need. The political process is already overseen by the voters. They make their decisions on who to elect to offices by looking at a variety of factors, including how they conduct their campaigns and who contributes to those campaigns."
• Yakima Herald said: "This is a potentially clunky program that, through its financing method, would hurt retail sales in counties along the Oregon and Idaho borders. This experiment is in place now in Seattle; let it succeed or fail on its merits in that localized setting before thinking about expanding it statewide."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• In August 2016, Elway Poll released data showing 34 percent of respondents in support of and 23 percent opposed to Initiative 1464. About 43 percent were undecided on the measure.
• In October 2016, Elway Poll surveyed 502 registered voters. Supporters claimed 34 percent of respondents, while opponents claimed 23 percent. Undecided voters composed 43 percent of the sample.

Washington Initiative 1464 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Elway Poll 10/20/2016 - 10/22/2016	36.0%	23.0%	41.0%	+/-4.5	502
Elway Poll 8/9/2016 - 8/8/2013	34.0%	23.0%	43.0%	+/-4.5	500
AVERAGES	35%	23%	42%	+/-4.5	501
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

• Supporters filed the petition with the secretary of state on February 8, 2016.
• 246,372 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
• Supporters had until July 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
• While there were numerous versions of this measure, supporters submitted signatures only for Initiative 1464.
• On August 2, 2016, the secretary of state's office certified Initiative 1464 for the November 2016 election ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,407,967.00 was spent to collect the 246,372 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.71.

State profile

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

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington

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

Pivot Counties (2016)

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

Pivot Counties (2020)

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

More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia

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

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington Initiative 1464 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Washington State-Provided Campaign Financing Funded by a Non-Resident Sales Tax, Initiative 1464 (2016) - Google News

Related measures

2016

Campaign finance measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
California	California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question a

See also

Suggest a link

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

External links

Basic information

• Initiative 1464
• Washington State Voter Guide 2016

Support

• Yes 1464
• Yes 1464 Facebook
• Yes 1464 Twitter

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

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

---

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

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

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

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