Washington Initiative 1634, Prohibit Local Taxes on Groceries 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 1634
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Taxes
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 1634, the Prohibit Local Taxes on Groceries Measure, was on the ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, a type of initiated state statute, on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A yes vote supported the ballot initiative to prohibit local governments from enacting taxes on groceries.

A no vote opposed the ballot initiative, thus allowing local governments to enact taxes on groceries.

Election results

Washington Initiative 1634
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,721,487	55.88%
No		1,359,240	44.12%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did the measure do?

This measure was designed to prohibit local government entities from imposing any new tax, fee, or other assessment on grocery items. It would not prevent the state from imposing taxes on groceries. Grocery items are defined in this measure as "any raw or processed food or beverage, or any ingredient thereof, intended for human consumption." Groceries include but are not limited to meat, produce, grains, dairy, seasonings, and condiments. Alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and marijuana products do not qualify as grocery items and are not exempt from new taxes under this measure. The measure was designed to prohibit any existing taxes, fees, or assessments from being increased after January 15, 2018.

There are some circumstances in which the measure would allow a tax, fee, or assessment on groceries, such as if "the tax, fee, or other assessment is generally applicable to a broad range of businesses and business activity" or so long as "the tax, fee, or other assessment does not establish or rely on a classification related to or involving groceries or a subset of groceries for purposes of establishing or otherwise resulting in a higher tax rate due to such classification."

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the measure?

One committee was registered to support this initiative: Yes! To Affordable Groceries. The committee had raised $22.12 million and had spent $21.45 million. The top five donors—The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Inc., Keurig-Dr. Pepper (formerly Dr. Pepper Snapple Group), Red Bull North America, and the Washington Food Industry Association— had given 98.57 percent of the contributions to the committee.

Two committees were registered in opposition to the measure— Healthy Kids Coalition, which had raised $113,400 and had spent $125,943.69—and Healthy Inmates for Healthy Minds are Voting, which had not reported any campaign finance activity.

What other states had grocery tax ballot measures in 2018?

• The Oregon Ban Tax on Groceries Initiative was on the ballot in Oregon. The measure was designed to prohibit state and local government entities from enacting taxes on groceries. It was defeated. The measure would have defined groceries as "raw or processed food or beverages intended for human consumption," excluding alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Based on this definition, the measure would have preempted local governments from taxing soda or sugary beverages. The top donors to the committee supporting the measure included grocery stores Albertsons Safeway, Kroger, and Costco.
• The Washington State and Local Taxes on Groceries Initiative did not qualify for a place on the ballot in Washington. The measure would have exempted groceries including food, bottled water, carbonated beverages, soft drinks, and their ingredients from sales and use taxes. The measure would have prohibited both state and local governments from imposing a sales and use tax on groceries.
• The California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative qualified for the ballot but was withdrawn by proponents who instead agreed to a compromise bill with legislators to keep the initiative off the ballot. The initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, such as soda taxes. Supporters of the ballot initiative raised $8.25 million as of June 2018. More than $7 million was from the American Beverage Association California PAC. Contributors to the PAC include the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo Inc., Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Red Bull North America, and the national American Beverage Association.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for this initiative was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 1634 concerns taxation of certain items intended for human consumption. This measure would prohibit new or increased local taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods or beverages (with exceptions), or ingredients thereof, unless effective by January 15, 2018, or generally applicable. Should this measure be enacted into law?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this initiative was as follows:

“

This measure would prohibit new or increased local taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods, beverages, or their ingredients, intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, marijuana products, and tobacco, unless they are generally applicable and meet specified requirements. Collection of local sales and use taxes, and of taxes, fees, and assessments on such raw or processed foods or beverages, or any ingredients thereof, that were in effect January 15, 2018, may continue.

”

Explanatory statement

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

The Law as It Presently Exists All local taxation must be authorized by state law. Current state law gives broad taxing authority to counties, cities, and towns. The Washington Supreme Court has recognized that cities’ and towns’ taxing authority includes the authority to tax retailers for the privilege of conducting a specific type of retail business within the city. Counties and cities also have authority to impose sales and use taxes within certain limits that the Legislature has set. For example, local sales or use taxes can be imposed only when the state sales or use tax is also due on a sale or item. Local governments like cities and counties have relied on this broad local taxing authority to impose taxes related to specific products. For example, in 2017 the City of Seattle adopted an ordinance imposing a privilege tax on the distribution of sweetened beverages like soda within the city limits. The City of Seattle’s tax is calculated based on the volume of sweetened beverages or concentrate distributed in the city. The State has imposed state sales and use taxes on the retail sale of most items, but food and food ingredients are generally exempt from these state taxes. Nevertheless, state sales and use taxes are imposed on prepared food, alcoholic beverages, bottled water, and soft drinks. There are also additional state taxes on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, tobacco products, and marijuana products. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved If adopted, Initiative 1634 would prevent local governments from imposing or collecting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on certain grocery items after January 15, 2018. This restriction would prohibit any new local tax, fee, or assessment of any kind on the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation, container, use, or consumption of certain groceries. Initiative 1634 would also prohibit any increase of existing local taxes, fees, or assessments on these grocery items after January 15, 2018. Local governments covered by this initiative are counties, cities, and towns, as well as other municipal corporations and local taxing districts. Covered grocery items would include any raw or processed food or beverage, or any ingredient, intended for human consumption. This would include, for example, meat, produce, grains, dairy products, nonalcoholic beverages, spices, and condiments, among other things. Covered groceries do not include alcoholic beverages, marijuana products, or tobacco. Initiative 1634 would not prevent the State from imposing new taxes on groceries. It would not prevent local governments from imposing or collecting a new tax, fee, or assessment that is generally applicable to a broad range of businesses and business activity, so long as it does not impose a higher tax rate on groceries or impose a higher tax rate based on a classification related to groceries. Initiative 1634 would not prohibit a local tax, fee, or assessment on alcoholic beverages, marijuana products, or tobacco. Initiative 1634 would not restrict counties’ and cities’ existing authority to impose local sales and use taxes. Initiative 1634 would not restrict local governments’ existing authority to impose other taxes on transactions involving non-grocery items.

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be known and cited as the "keep groceries affordable act of 2018." NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. KEEPING GROCERIES AFFORDABLE: FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. (1) Whereas access to food is a basic human need of every Washingtonian; and (2) Whereas keeping the price of groceries as low as possible improves the access to food for all Washingtonians; and (3) Whereas taxing groceries is regressive and hurts low- and fixed-income Washingtonians the most; and (4) Whereas working families in Washington pay a greater share of their family income in state and local taxes than their wealthier counterparts; now, therefore, (5) The people of the state of Washington find and declare that no local governmental entity may impose any new tax, fee, or other assessment that targets grocery items. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this chapter: (1) "Alcoholic beverages" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.08.0293. (2) "Groceries" means any raw or processed food or beverage, or any ingredient thereof, intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, marijuana products, and tobacco. "Groceries" includes, but is not limited to, meat, poultry, fish, fruits, vegetables, grains, bread, milk, cheese and other dairy products, nonalcoholic beverages, kombucha with less than 0.5% alcohol by volume, condiments, spices, cereals, seasonings, leavening agents, eggs, cocoa, teas, and coffees whether raw or processed. (3) "Local governmental entity" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 4.96.010. (4) "Marijuana products" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 69.50.101. (5) "Tax, fee, or other assessment on groceries" includes, but is not limited to, a sales tax, gross receipts tax, business and occupation tax, business license tax, excise tax, privilege tax, or any other similar levy, charge, or exaction of any kind on groceries or the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation, container, use, or consumption thereof. (6) "Tobacco" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.08.0293. NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. KEEPING GROCERIES TAX FREE—PROTECTING TRADITIONAL LOCAL REVENUE STREAMS—CONTINUED AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) through (4) of this section, a local governmental entity may not impose or collect any tax, fee, or other assessment on groceries. (2) Nothing in this section precludes the continued collection of any existing tax, fee, or other assessment on groceries as is in effect as of January 15, 2018; but no existing tax, fee, or other assessment on groceries may be increased in rate, scope, base, or otherwise after January 15, 2018, except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section. (3) Nothing in this section prohibits the imposition and collection of a tax, fee, or other assessment on groceries if: (a) The tax, fee, or other assessment is generally applicable to a broad range of businesses and business activity; and (b) The tax, fee, or other assessment does not establish or rely on a classification related to or involving groceries or a subset of groceries for purposes of establishing or otherwise resulting in a higher tax rate due to such classification. (4) Nothing in this section prohibits the imposition and collection of a local retail sales and use tax pursuant to RCW 82.14.030 on those persons taxable by the state under chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RCW. NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. IMPLEMENTATION. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary: (1) This chapter applies to any tax, fee, or other assessment on groceries first imposed, increased, or collected by a local governmental entity on or after January 15, 2018. (2) The provisions of this chapter are to be construed liberally so as to effectuate their intent, policy, and purposes. NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. SEVERABILITY. (1) 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. (2) The people of the state of Washington hereby declare that they would have adopted this chapter, and each and every portion, section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this chapter, or application thereof, would be subsequently declared invalid. NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. Sections 1 through 5 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 82 RCW.

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 13, and the FRE is 25. 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 21, and the FRE is 8. The word count for the ballot summary is 73, and the estimated reading time is 19 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

Yes! To Affordable Groceries led the campaign in support of this initiative.

Supporters

• Teamsters Local 174
• Joint Council of Teamsters No. 28
• Korean-American Grocer's Association of Washington
• Washington Food and Beverage Association
• Washington Farm Bureau

Arguments

• Yes! To Affordable Groceries made the following argument on its website:

“

Local governments across Washington are looking to raise revenues and one idea they’re looking at is new taxes on foods and beverages. People feel taxed enough and can’t afford new taxes on what they eat and drink. Washington’s tax structure already places a greater burden on working families than any other state in the country. Heaping taxes on everyday grocery items will raise our cost of living and make it even harder for working families, small businesses and their workers to get by. That’s why Yes! To Affordable Groceries is exploring ways to prevent new burdensome grocery taxes from advancing in local communities across Washington. We appreciate the budget issues that communities face. But there is a better way to handle the challenge than targeting grocery carts for more taxes that will only hurt working-class families, small businesses and their employees the most.

”

• Pete Lamb, a senior business agent for the Teamsters Local 174 union, said, “We think people are fed up with regressive taxation. We think citizens of Washington have clearly seen what’s taken place in Seattle and are not OK with this type of tax. This initiative gives the citizens of the state of Washington and our workers the ability and the right to vote on this because they are the ones shouldering the burden predominantly.”

Official arguments

Following are the official arguments in support of Initiative 1634 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2018 general election.

These arguments were prepared by Jeff Philipps, President of Rosauers Supermarkets; April Clayton, Chelan/Douglas County Farm Bureau Vice President; Haddia Abbas Nazer, a small business owner and Central Washington Hispanic Chamber President; Carl Livingston, a Seattle community activist, lawyer, professor, and Pastor; Heidi Piper Schultz, a Vancouver small business owner and Corwin Beverage Company Board President; and Larry Brown, Auburn City Councilman and Aerospace Machinists 751 Legislative Director.

Yes on I-1634 protects working families, farmers, and local businesses. I-1634 would ensure that our groceries – foods and beverages that we consume every day – are protected from any new or increased local tax, fee, or assessment. Help keep groceries affordable. The rising cost of living makes it harder for families to afford the basics. Special interest groups across the country, and here in Washington, are proposing taxes on groceries like meats, dairy and juices – basic necessities for all families. I-1634 would prevent local governments from enacting new taxes on groceries. Higher grocery prices don’t hurt the wealthy elites but crush the middle class and those on fixed incomes, including the elderly. Take a stand for fairness. Washington has the most regressive tax system in the country and places a larger tax burden on the backs of middle and fixed-income families than the wealthy. Taxes on groceries make our current tax structure even more unfair for those struggling to make ends meet. Bipartisan and diverse support for I-1634 from citizens, farmers, local businesses, and community organizations. Organizations that represent Washington farmers (Washington Farm Bureau, Tree Fruit Association, State Dairy Federation), labor (Joint Council of Teamsters, International Association of Machinists, Seattle Building Trades), and business (Washington Beverage Association, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association, Korean American Grocers Association) are united in supporting I-1634 to keep our groceries affordable. By voting yes on I-1634, you can take a stand for affordability and fairness for Washington’s working families. Rebuttal of argument against: I-1634 prohibits new, local taxes on groceries, period. It does not prevent voters from raising taxes on anything else to meet local needs. This is necessary to close a loophole allowing municipalities to tax groceries, even though the state does not. That’s why thousands of Washington workers, farmers, small businesses, and consumers support I-1634. It protects us from taxation of everyday foods and beverages which raises prices, costs jobs and hurts working families.

Opposition

The No on Initiative 1634 campaign, also known as the WA Healthy Kids Coalition led the campaign in opposition to the measure.

Opponents

Organizations

• Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition
• Permanent Defense PAC

Individuals

• Mary Ann Bauman MD, American Heart Association
• Kate Burke, Spokane City Council
• Jill Mangaliman, Got Green
• Jim Krieger, MD, MPH Healthy Food America
• Val Thomas-Matson, Healthy King County Coalition
• Carolyn Conner, Nutrition First

Arguments

The WA Healthy Kids Coalition featured the following argument on its website:

“

Initiative 1634 takes away local control and gives it to the state This confusing measure imposes a one-size-fits-all state law that takes power away from voters and hands it to the state, silencing our voice in local decision-making. Corporate special interests are spending millions to strip away voter choices and protect profits I-1634 has nothing to do with keeping our food affordable. In fact, tax prohibitions on everyday food items — from fruits and vegetables to milk and bread—are already reflected in voter-approved state law. Instead, this measure is funded almost exclusively by the multi-billion-dollar soda industry. They are only concerned with their profits and are spending millions on this initiative—and misleading advertisements—that would undermine local control. Reject Initiative 1634 to prevent future erosion of local powers by special interests. I-1634 sets a dangerous precedent — any special interest could spend millions on a misleading initiative to limit our rights as voters and our local autonomy.

”

The Permanent Defense PAC sponsors No1634.org, which featured the following argument:

“

[Initiative 1634] is a proposed law funded by the soft drink industry (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, and Red Bull). The measure seeks to prohibit local communities from raising money for public health services by levying taxes on sugary beverages like soda, but it would allow the state’s largest city, Seattle, to keep its existing sugary beverage tax. Essentially, what the soda companies want to do is deny every other community the freedom to raise money for public health by taxing sugary beverages, and prevent Seattle from ever raising its tax. They’re spending millions to convince Washingtonians to pass their self-serving scheme.

”

Official arguments

Following are the official arguments in opposition to Initiative 1634 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2018 general election.

These arguments were prepared by Mary Ann Bauman, MD, of the American Heart Association; Kate Burke of the Spokane City Council; Jill Mangaliman of Got Green; Jim Krieger, MD, MPH Healthy Food America; Val Thomas- Matson of the Healthy King County Coalition; and Carolyn Conner of Nutrition First.

Initiative 1634 takes away local control and gives it to the state This confusing measure imposes a one-size-fits-all state law that takes power away from voters and hands it to the state, silencing our voice in local decision-making. Different communities have unique needs and local voters deserve a say in how revenue decisions are made. This initiative is a slippery slope toward greater state control at the expense of our cities, towns, and local communities. Corporate special interests are spending millions to strip away voter choices and protect profits I-1634 has nothing to do with keeping our food affordable. In fact, tax prohibitions on everyday food items — from fruits and vegetables to milk and bread—are already reflected in voter approved state law. Instead, this measure is funded almost exclusively by the multi-billion-dollar soda industry. They are only concerned with their profits and are spending millions on this initiative—and misleading advertisements—that would undermine local control. Reject Initiative 1634 to prevent future erosion of local powers by special interests. I-1634 sets a dangerous precedent -- any special interest could spend millions on a misleading initiative to limit our rights as voters and our local autonomy. Voting no sends a clear message that we value local control and will not be fooled by the political agenda of wealthy industries or outside groups. Rebuttal of argument for: State law already precludes taxes on groceries. Initiative 1634 is funded by the soda industry to take away local choices from our cities and towns. This confusing measure reduces local options while increasing state control at a time when we are struggling to fund important community programs. Stand with doctors, teachers and community advocates in saying no to this blatant corporate power grab.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The South Whidbey Record said: "Big taxes were one of the tools successfully used to discourage tobacco use over the last few decades. And Initiative 1634 aims to accomplish much the same thing by taxing sugar. In the case of cigarettes, it made sense. In the case of sugar, however, it does not. Vote 'yes' on I-1634. At first glance, it might seem that a sugar tax would force companies that thrive in a nation of obesity to take some responsibility. Ultimately, though, the decision about what we put into our bodies, and our children’s bodies, should remain our own, not government’s, local or otherwise."

• The Yakima Herald-Republic said: "Washington already has more than enough regressive taxes. The safe bet is to vote yes on Initiative 1634 to keep the option for another one off-limits to local government."

Opposition

• The Seattle Times said: "Proponents of Initiative 1634 say it is to prevent taxes on essential food items, but this is misleading. Voters should reject this measure, which is really an industry-funded campaign to prevent cities from enacting taxes on soda. In reality, I-1634 aims to prevent local governments from enacting new taxes on soda and sugary drinks, which experts say increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity. Voters should reject I-1634 so that local governments can continue to decide for themselves how to best address these health issues in their communities."
• The Olympian said: "A fight over soda taxes is back on the Washington statewide ballot this fall. But Initiative 1634 is a terrible idea, funded almost entirely by out of state soft-drink interests and mostly for their benefit. Voters should reject I-1634 on Nov. 6. It’s a clear case of out-of-state interests meddling with local control by cities and counties. In essence, the I-1634 campaign — calling itself the Yes! to Affordable Groceries PAC — is trying to scare voters into thinking that it isn’t just soda taxes but a broader tax on food that lurks around the corner if they don’t enact the measure. Don’t be misled."
• The News Tribune said: "Initiative 1634 aims a dagger at the heart of local control, and that’s reason enough to reject it. There are other reasons not to like this deceptive measure, which would prohibit local taxes on retail food and beverage sales. The yes campaign uses scare tactics about stopping cities from “reaching into your grocery cart.” But it’s really a thinly disguised attempt to thwart one very specific tax: an extra charge on sugary drinks, which contribute heavily to obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and other medical problems. Don’t think for a minute the I-1634 funders are any less centered on Big Soda’s bottom line."
• The Tri-City Herald said: "This ballot measure is deceptive, and aims to protect soda industry profits by frightening people into giving up local government control. Protecting the bottom line for the soda industry is the primary motivation behind I-1634, and that’s unsettling."
• The Chronicle said: "We understand opposition to a vice tax — is it fair for local governments to tax soda and candy in an effort to get revenue? Is it the government’s place to tacitly judge our choice to buy sugary drinks and unhealthy snacks with a so-called sin tax? Well, we already have taxes for cigarettes and beer, but the philosophical argument is less on our minds than the question of who is really backing this initiative. That’s not to mention that this measure purports to be a solution to a problem that we don’t believe actually exists. Local leaders will never vote to impose such a tax as leaders in Seattle have done — our elected officials understand there’s no local support for such a measure, and that they’d be voted out of office sooner than you can say 'Pepsi' if they did. Again, this is an easy “no” vote from us at The Chronicle."

• The Everett Herald said: "Initiative 1634 would bar local government from imposing a new or increased tax on food and beverages. A no vote recommended: It’s “unnecessary — and undemocratic — to give the state’s voters the opportunity to impose their will on individual communities. The state’s voters shouldn’t be the ones to decide local tax policy in Everett or Edmonds, in Gold Bar or Darrington. Those communities should make their own decisions on local taxes, as they always have.”"

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$20,214,513.97
Opposition:	$33,126.85

One committee was registered to support this initiative: Yes! To Affordable Groceries. The committee had raised $22.12 million and had spent $21.45 million. The top five donors—The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Inc., Keurig-Dr. Pepper (formerly Dr. Pepper Snapple Group), Red Bull North America, and the Washington Food Industry Association— had given 98.57 percent of the contributions to the committee.

Two committees were registered in opposition to the measure— Healthy Kids Coalition, which had raised $113,400 and had spent $125,943.69—and Healthy Inmates for Healthy Minds are Voting, which had not reported any campaign finance activity.

Support

Committees in support of Initiative 1634 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Yes! To Affordable Groceries $22,110,000.00 $12,998.63 $21,916,306.73 Total $22,110,000.00 $12,998.63 $22,442,233.51

Totals in support Total raised: $22,122,998.63 Total spent: $22,442,233.51

Top donors

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
The Coca-Cola Company	$10,562,245.13	$0.00	$10,562,245.13
PepsiCo, Inc.	$7,963,710.08	$0.00	$7,963,710.08
Keurig Dr. Pepper	$3,020,282.68	$0.00	$3,020,282.68
Red Bull North America	$259,535.41	$0.00	$259,535.41
Washington Food Industry Association	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Initiative 1634 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Healthy Kids Coalition $16,150.00 $97,250.17 $28,693.52 Healthy Inmates for Healthy Minds are Voting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $16,150.00 $97,250.17 $28,693.52

Totals in opposition Total raised: $113,400.17 Total spent: $125,943.69

Top donors

Following are donors who had given $1,000 or more to the opposition campaign.

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
American Heart Association	$0.00	$83,428.82	$83,428.82
Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition	$0.00	$8,415.00	$8,415.00
Arcora Foundation	$7,000.00	$0.00	$7,000.00
Foundation for Healthy Generations	$6,000.00	$0.00	$6,000.00
Pickus Communications	$0.00	$5,000.00	$5,000.00

Methodology

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

Background

Sales taxes on groceries and treatment of candy and soda

The following map shows how each state taxes groceries and how states assess taxes on candy and soda as of 2018. States that exempt groceries from taxes show a sales tax rate of 0.0 percent and are colored in light green on the map. Whether candy and/or soda are treated as groceries differs by state. For example, in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington, candy is treated as a grocery item and is also tax-exempt, while soda is not treated as a grocery item and is, therefore, subject to the state sales tax. In Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, groceries are subject to the general state sales tax rate. In Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia, groceries are taxed, but at a lower rate than the general state sales tax rate. In Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, there is no state sales tax and, therefore, groceries are not subject to a state sales tax.

Cities with soda taxes

In June 2017, the Seattle City Council approved a tax on soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sugary beverages to raise money for healthy food and education programs. Other cities that have passed taxes on sugary beverages include:

• Berkeley, California
• San Francisco, California
• Albany, California
• Boulder, Colorado
• Oakland, California
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Soda tax measures were defeated by voters in Richmond, California, and in El Monte, California, in 2012. Voters in Santa Fe, New Mexico, rejected a soda tax measure in 2017.

Tax preemption measures in 2018

• The Oregon Ban Tax on Groceries Initiative was on the ballot in Oregon. The measure would prohibit state and local government entities from enacting taxes on groceries. The measure would define groceries as "raw or processed food or beverages intended for human consumption," excluding alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Based on this definition, the measure would preempt local governments from taxing soda or sugary beverages. The top donors to the committee supporting the measure include grocery stores Albertsons Safeway, Kroger, and Costco.

• The Washington State and Local Taxes on Groceries Initiative (#1635), filed by Tim Eyman, did not qualify for a place on the ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, a type of initiated state statute, on November 6, 2018. This measure would have exempted groceries including food, bottled water, carbonated beverages, soft drinks and their ingredients from sales and use taxes. The measure would have prohibited both state and local governments from imposing a sales and use tax on groceries.

• The California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative qualified for the ballot but was withdrawn by proponents who, instead, agreed to a compromise bill with legislators to keep the initiative off the ballot. The initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, such as soda taxes. Supporters of the ballot initiative raised $8.25 million as of June 2018. More than $7 million was from the American Beverage Association California PAC. Since January 1, 2017, the American Beverage Association California PAC had received contributions over $10,000 from five sources—The Coca-Cola Company ($3,050,827), PepsiCo Inc. ($2,303,851), Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc./Mott’s LLP ($964,516), Red Bull North America ($89,206), and the national American Beverage Association ($24,679).

Ballot measures to cap, limit, or restrict taxes in 2018

See also: Taxes on the ballot

In 2018, voters in six states considered ballot measures to cap, limit, or restrict types of taxes. In Oregon and Washington, voters decided ballot initiatives to prohibit governments from enacting taxes on groceries. Oregan voters rejected the grocery tax ban. In Washington, the measure was ahead by 5 percentage points with 64 percent of precincts reporting.

In Arizona, an initiative to prohibit new taxes or increased tax rates on services was approved. Voters in California defeated an initiated measure to require voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future. It would have also repealed a gas tax increase passed in 2017.

Legislatures in Florida and North Carolina referred constitutional amendments capping taxes to the ballot and both were approved. Voters in Florida and Oregon also considered ballot measures to require supermajorities of the state legislature to increase taxes. In Florida, the measure was approved, and, in Oregon, it was defeated.

An additional initiative qualified for the ballot in California but was withdrawn after proponents agreed to a compromise bill with legislators to keep the initiative off the ballot. The initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, including soda taxes. The compromise legislation prohibited local soda taxes until 2031.

Measure	Origin	Description	Status
Arizona Proposition 126	Initiative	Prohibits the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates on services	a
California Proposition 6	Initiative	Requires voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future	d
Florida Amendment 2	Legislature	Makes permanent the cap of 10 percent on annual nonhomestead parcel assessment increases set to expire	a
Florida Amendment 5	Legislature	Requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the state legislature to enact new taxes or fees or increase existing ones	a
North Carolina Amendment	Legislature	Lowers the maximum allowable state income tax rate from 10 percent to 7 percent	a
Oregon Measure 103	Initiative	Prohibits state and local governments from enacting taxes on groceries	d
Oregon Measure 104	Initiative	Requires a three-fifths vote of each chamber of the state legislature to increase revenue, such as via increasing taxes and decreasing tax exemptions	d
Washington Initiative 1634	Initiative	Prohibits local governments from enacting taxes on groceries	a

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 a directly initiated state statute—called an Initiative to the People 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 direct initiatives cannot be made more than 10 months before the general election at which their proposal would be presented to voters. Signatures must be submitted at least four months prior to the general election.

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

• Signatures: 259,622 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 6, 2018.

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 for 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 AAP Holding Company to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,780,184.10 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 $10.71.

Details about this initiative

• Heidi Schultz submitted this initiative on March 15, 2018.
• The American Heart Association, Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition, and the Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition filed a petition to appeal the ballot title and summary for initiative 1634 in the Superior Court of the State of Washington arguing that the measure's use of the word "groceries" is misleading to voters and that it is "really an effort to stop other Washington jurisdictions from adopting soda taxes similar to Seattle's."
• The initiative was approved for signature gathering as of April 30, 2018.
• On July 5, 2018, the Washington Secretary of State reported on Twitter that proponents submitted signatures for the initiative.
• On August 2, 2018, the Washington Secretary of State's office reported on Twitter that the initiative qualified for the ballot. Of the 381,479 signatures proponents filed, a check of 11,483 signatures showed that 82 percent were valid.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Washington

Poll times

Washington is an all-mail voting state. Individuals who prefer to vote in person rather than by mail may do so at local voting centers, which are open for 18 days prior to the election. The voting period ends at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Contact your county elections department for more information on voting center locations and times.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Washington, one must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the state, and at least 18 years of age.

One may register to vote online, by mail, or in-person at a county elections department. Registration must be completed eight days in advance if done by mail or online. In-person registration is available through Election Day.

In 2018, Washington lawmakers enacted legislation providing for same-day voter registration and automatic voter registration.

Automatic registration

Washington automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, health benefit exchange, and other state agencies approved by the governor.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Washington has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Washington allows same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Washington law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Washington does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, a voter who knowingly provides false information or knowingly make a false declaration about their qualifications "will have committed a class C felony that is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both."

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The site Vote WA, run by the Washington Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Washington is an all-mail voting state and does not require voters to present photo identification (ID). Voters may choose to vote in person at a local voting center. According to state law RCW 29A.40.160, “The county auditor shall require any person desiring to vote at a voting center to either sign a ballot declaration or provide identification.” Accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state ID cards, and student ID cards. For a list of all accepted forms of ID, see below.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2023. Click here for the Washington State Legislature's voter ID regulations to ensure you have the most current information.

• Driver's license
• State identification card
• Student identification card
• Tribal identification card
• Employer identification card

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Food and agriculture on the ballot
• Taxes on the ballot
• 2018 petition deadlines

Washington

• Washington ballot measures
• Washington initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Initiative #1634 Full Text
• Washington 2018 Voters' Guide*

Support

Washington Secretary of State Proposed Initiatives to the People- 2018

• Yes! To Affordable Groceries website
• Yes! To Affordable Groceries Facebook page
• Yes! To Affordable Groceries Twitter page

Opposition

• WA Healthy Kids Coalition: No on I-1634 campaign website
• WA Healthy Kids Coalition: No on I-1634 Facebook page
• WA Healthy Kids Coalition: No on I-1634 Twitter page