|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready… |
You may not have noticed, but the state of Washington is numbering initiatives differently now.
There are three initiatives on the ballot: IP26-645, IL26-001, and IL26-638. Much of the information below comes from the King County Voter’s Guide.
Initiative 645 repeals the “Millionaires Tax” on income over $1,000,000 which is a tax of 9.9%.
I’ve read the voter pamphlet, considered Jerry Cornfield’s article in the Oct. 14 Courier Herald, and read some articles online. I also wrote a column about it several months ago.
Let’s be clear as to the arguments that I found, both pro and con.
Pro—vote yes:
1) It is a state income tax. The Initiative would repeal the recently passed law set to begin in 2027 and collected beginning in 2028.
2) It will not cut educational spending because no tax income has been raised from the tax as claimed by those on the political left, based on a column written by Chris Cargill in the center-right website: “thecentersquare.com”.
3) Wealthy conservatives would flee the state to avoid paying the tax: Howard Shulz, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos. Shulz and Bezos have already moved.
4) The 2025 state legislature had a chance to cut spending, but chose to increase it, against the Democratic Governor Bob Ferguson’s wishes. He eventually signed it into law.
Con—vote no:
5) The Governor promised he would not lower the income tax level during his term(s) as governor. One of the chief fears is that like all political promises, legislatures tend to lower exemption rates over time to increase tax income.
6) Washington state has a long history of regressive taxation where the poor and working classes pay more of their incomes than the rich. Retaining the Millionaires’ Tax would reverse that history.
7) A September 21-26 DHM poll found that of 800 Washington state residents (not voters), 57% would vote no, while 35% would vote yes. (thestartuplawblog.com)
My preference is to vote no and to keep the 9.9% tax on yearly income of $1,000,000 or more.
Initiative 001 “concerns parental rights relation to their children in public schools.” The issue is whether voters want to change laws passed in 2025 that changed parents’ rights “to their child’s classroom and school-sponsored activities and to observe and to examine textbooks, curriculum, and supplemental materials used in their child’s classroom in accordance with policies and procedures.” (Voter Pamphlet: Explanatory Statement)
Pro—vote yes:
Conservatives want to know what their children are doing regarding a change in their children’s sexual orientation and accusations about sexual abuse at home.
Progressives are concerned about protecting students from sexual abuse and their gender orientation while in school.
Both are valid concerns.
I know of a near relative unable to get information about their child’s counseling because state law keeps parents from this information once the child becomes 13. That part of the law troubles me because parents are still responsible for the child’s welfare since the child is still a minor.
“I-001 isn’t a vote on whether parents should have rights in Washington public schools. They already do. The question is whether voters want to largely restore the parental-rights framework adopted in 2024 or retain the version amended by lawmakers in 2025.” (thehighlinejournal.com)
Based upon my relative’s experience, I will vote yes on Initiative 001.
Initiative 638: “If approved by voters [this initiative] would prohibit students it defines as ‘biologically male’ from competing in certain athletic activities intended for female students only.’ It requires verification of biological sex by students’ healthcare providers.”
Pro—vote yes
1) “Vote yes to protect fairness in girls’ sports”…. And to protect…the hard-fought rights established through Title IX…”
2) Voting [for I-638] would align Washington with world sports policies.”
3) It “gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports [where medical examinations are routine and required to participate].”
4) “Washington can respect every student while recognizing that sex-based athletic categories are necessary.”
Con—vote no
1) “Vote no to protect all girls.”
2) “Vote No Because it’s the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind in the U.S.”
3) “Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams on Girls.”
4) “Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports.” (Voters Pamphlet. arguments for and against)
Based upon the unfairness to girls requiring them to compete against biological males, the routines of medical exams to participate, the small number of transgender females who compete, and the fact that it’s politically a losing position, I will vote yes.
For all the progressives who think I’m one of them, think again. For the conservatives who believe me to be a bleeding-heart liberal, recognize a moderate position when you see one.
Richard Elfers is a columnist, a former Enumclaw City Council member and a Green River College professor.
