WASHINGTON – Washingtonians are heading to the polls this Election Day to cast their vote on a range of candidates and ballots across the Local, State, and Federal spectrum. That includes a four statewide initiatives that could have a major impact moving forward. Below is a comprehensive guide on each initiative and what supporters of both sides have been trying to pitch to voters throughout this year.
Washington Initiative 2117: Prohibit Carbon Tax Credit Trading and Repeal Carbon Cap-and-Invest Program Measure
While campaigns such as the Governor’s race and Attorney General’s race will be top of mind, choosing a preferred candidate isn’t the only crucial vote on this year’s ballot as Washingtonians will also decide on numerous ballot measures… Including Initiative 2117, which would repeal the Climate Commitment Act.
“2117 is a pushback against some real arrogance out of Olympia, trying to push something on voters that they’ve already rejected once,” said Brian Heywood, a conservative donor and founder of Let’s Go Washington. “If people know this carbon tax is the reason their gas goes up, we win hands down.”
Heywood says the Climate Commitment Act, which is a “Cap and Trade” program designed to lower greenhouse gas emissions, has been a prime factor for rising gas prices and cost of living expenses across the state since its passage in 2021 by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
“If 2117 doesn’t pass, if it’s allowed to go forward, the design of the Climate Commitment Act is to keep increasing prices and so this year we’re sitting on this $4.50 to $5.50 per gallon, it’s going up,” Heywood said. “And perhaps to our deficit, we haven’t brought it up enough, it’s not just this year, the price will go up next year. There’s no way it can do anything but go up.”
But while supporters of I-2117 are highlighting the cost savings voters could see at the gas pump if passed, Opponents of the initiative say voters could be paying a much higher price in other places.
“2117, if this passes, if the yes vote prevails, we are going to have right out of the gate a $5.4 billion hole blasted into the transportation funding,” said Billy Wallace, who serves as a political & legislative director for the Washington & Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers.
A spokesman for the ‘No on 2117’ campaign, a coalition of over 200 Washington State organizations including Tribal Nations, small businesses, labor unions, and environmental and clean energy groups, Wallace doesn’t deny the CCA has led to increases in gas prices but says without the funding, Infrastructure and green energy projects would be in jeopardy.
“Everybody wants their roads better, they want their bridges fixed. We have 20,000 miles of roads that need repaving right now, we’re that far backlogged and there’s just not the money there,” explained Wallace. “(Let’s Go Washington’s) message is easy; vote yes, pay less. But you got to understand what you’re going to lose if you vote yes.”
Heywood refutes that notion, claiming those projects are funded by gas taxes they aren’t targeting.
“We’re not touching the gas tax, we’re touching the hidden gas tax which is the CCA,” Heywood said. “The CCA is limited, it has a few dollars that can go to the ferry system, it’s got a couple of projects but by and large it’s a bunch of lollipop projects around the state.”
According to “No on 2117”, the initiative would remove funding for one-quarter of each new ferry purchase and would also remove 100% of the shore power project funding for the new hybrid electric ferries. They also say I-2117 would reduce funding for walking, biking, and trail projects across the state.
Perhaps the biggest indirect factor pushing support for I-2117 is outgoing Democrat Governor Jay Inslee, a key supporter of the CCA. Wallace says Inslee’s prior comments on the legislation have been met with backlash.
“What got Jay in trouble right out of the gate is he talked about it would be pennies on the dollars,” Wallace said. “Maybe he should have been more honest or maybe he didn’t have the facts then, but I think we have to be the messengers now.”
Gov. Inslee has been defiant in acknowledging the CCA has had any impact on cost-of-living expenses or gas prices, which currently stand as the third highest in the nation behind California and Hawaii.
Despite their differences, Heywood and Wallace both believe their stances on I – 2117 have little to do with political alignment, but more on what is best for Washington moving forward, something they plan on highlighting up until election day.
“This isn’t about politics for me. It’s about keeping my members working, keeping our roads in good shape, helping keep our economy flowing, clean air, clean water, so people can go out and enjoy our great state,” Wallace said.
Washington Initiative 2066: Natural Gas Policies Measure
Brian Heywood, the founder of Let’s Go Washington and the main financial architect to the four ballot measures, says Initiative 2066 is a pushback to House Bill 1589, which was signed into law in March and seeks to support “Washington’s clean energy economy and transitioning to a clean, affordable, and reliable energy future.” He says the bill has language to eliminate natural gas energy.
“It essentially created a path for utility companies to quit offering natural gas,” said Heywood. “With the carbon zero targets that the state has set, I don’t believe it’s possible in the current flight path without actually getting rid of all natural gas. It’s impossible.
Initiative 2066 would prevent any natural gas ban, something supporters claim would negatively impact more than 900,000 homeowners and over a third of manufacturing across Washington who rely on natural gas. Opponents of the initiative, however, say the supporters of the I-2066 are misleading the public on what H.B. 1589 is designed to do.
“It is about looking toward the future, making projections, planning to keep costs low, and making sure we don’t have a chaotic future, said Leah Missik, a member of the executive team for the ‘No On I-2066’ campaign.
Missik says state law already mandates natural gas be served to areas using it and also claims the initiative would raise utility costs as well as hinder people from transitioning to cleaner energy sources like heat pumps.
“As it stands, if we vote no on this initiative, people still have access to energy choice,” Missik explained. “I would argue people would have more energy choices because what this initiative would do is take away different energy efficiency programs and incentives for folks who are choosing to make upgrades. It would take away those benefits.
Heywood refutes those claims and says taxpayers can still transition if I-2066 passes.
“Of all the (claims about our) initiatives, the biggest lie is that your utility rates are going to go up. They’re trying to make this like we’re forcing people to stay in this old outdated technology and the whole world is going to electric. We’re saying we want there to be a choice,” Heywood said. “If you wanna switch to electric, switch. We’re doing nothing that stops you from switching.”
Heywood says a majority of restaurants he spoke to use natural gas to cook their food and a potential ban could jeopardize their ability to stay open as upgrades to electrification could cost anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000.
With endorsements a pivotal part in any race, the Association of Washington Business (AWB) says they’re backing I-2066, officially endorsing the position earlier this month. AWB claims the Washington Legislature isn’t looking at the long-term ramifications of reducing energy choice.
“This is a baby step to protect energy sources and we have a lot more in our state to do and we need a legislature that’s willing to listen and find reasonable solutions,” said Dave Mastin, who serves as the VP of Government Affairs for AWB. “What we’ve unfortunately been seeing in the legislature is a pulling away of power sources and natural gas is critical to our economy and it should be something that we are supporting.”
While both campaigns are on the opposite spectrum of the initiative’s goals, pitching voters on lowering energy costs is the main goal for both sides this election season.
For more on I-2066, you can check out information provided by Let’s Go Washington, here, or you can check out information provided by the ‘No On I-2066’ campaign, here.
Washington Initiative 2124: Opt-Out of Long-Term Services Insurance Program Measure
Initiative 2124 seeks to change how workers can use the state’s long-term care coverage program, also known as the WA Cares program, passed by the legislature in 2019.
Supporters of the ballot measure tell KEPR News it’s about giving workers choice.
“We’re not trying to take it out, we’re just leaving people an option. If they feel like that’s something that’s for them, they can certainly keep their long-term care,” said Brian Heywood, the founder of the Conservative PAC ‘Let’s Go Washington’.
Heywood says the program, which officially began in July 2023, hurts Washingtonians who pay into it but leave the workforce for a period to raise a family or even become a caregiver themselves.
“The way the long-term care was designed is that you have to pay into this thing for 10 years before you’re eligible, and if during that period, you take off anywhere within that 10 years for a total of 5 years, you have to start over back over at year zero,” Heywood explained.
Opponents of the initiative refute those claims, saying the WA Cares program is a pathway for people of all income levels to get affordable long-term care down the road.
“70% of us will need some type of long-term insurance in the future, but we have not anticipated it, we have not saved for it, and it’s expensive,” said Cathy McCaul, an Advocacy Director at Washington AARP. “The systems that we have currently force you into a long-term care facility and people don’t want to go into facilities, they want to stay at home, but this benefit gives them the ability to do just that.
McCaul calls I-2124 “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, adding that the initiative does nothing to help improve the program, noting that its end goal of making the program voluntary, would essentially kill it and leave older taxpayers in a worse shape financially.
“It basically destroys this long-term care benefit and takes away a benefit from nearly 4 million working Washingtonians,” McCaul said. “By 2030 more people would be over 65 than under 18 and there’s going to have to be some way to pay for those individuals when they need care.”
While McCaul says the money generated from the program can be used in nearly any facet to provide long-term care for someone, Heywood claims the lifetime capped amount of the program won’t provide enough funds for to last any significant time.
“You pay into this your whole life and there’s a capped payout, which is $36,500, and the AARP more than anyone else in the world knows that $36,000 is not long-term.”
Opponents of I-2124 say the WA Cares fund, which collects 58 cents for every $100 earned, could see that lifetime capped payout rise to as high as $60,000 when factoring for inflation.
As currently legislated, the WA cares program wouldn’t begin to pay out any of the benefits collected from taxpayers until 2026.
This is also not the first vote to take place on the matter as advisory votes in 2019 and 2020 were held to gauge the public interest in the long-term care coverage plan. Both votes saw Washingtonians overwhelmingly vote against the program.
For more on what supporters of I-2124 are saying, click here.
For more on what opponents of I-2124 are saying, click here.
Washington Initiative 2109: Repeal Capital Gains Tax Initiative
Initiative 2109 seeks to repeal a 7% capital gains tax on sales of stocks, bonds, and other investments on gains over $250,000.
Supporters of I-2109 however say the tax is misleading and is instead a “backdoor way” for the Washington Legislature to impose an income tax, which is prohibited by the state constitution.
“Within one year of creating this tax, they introduced legislation to dramatically lower the threshold from $250,000 down to $15,000. So this will really affect a lot of people,” said Vijay Boyapati, a software engineer and advocate of I-2109. “This of all the initiatives is the most important. This one will have the biggest impact on our economy.
Boyapati tells KEPR News the biggest misleading narrative on the capital gain tax is that it’s aimed at making wealthy people “pay their fair share.”
“Actually what some wealthy people have done is they’ve just left. They’ve said ‘if I sell in Washington, I’m going to take a big hit on this capital gains tax, I’m just going to move to Florida’,” Boyapati explained. “Not only are we not going to get tax revenue from those people, but we’re also going to lose the businesses they create in our state, the philanthropy they would have given us, and this can have a big impact.”
Opponents of I-2109 say 99.8% of Washington taxpayers will never feel the effects of the capital gains tax and also note that the revenue collected from the tax since its implementation in April 2023, would leave multiple areas in the Washington education system at risk if repealed.
“Curriculum, making sure that (kids are) in safe environments, that there isn’t overcrowding. So it’s all of that stuff that should already be funded by the state, which isn’t always,” said Maria Lee, the Union President for the Pasco Association of Educators.
Lee also told KEPR News that the capital gains tax is vital to ensuring the cost of school isn’t passed down to those living paycheck to paycheck.
“(If I-2019 passes), the taxes would be sent down to the middle class because somebody is going to have to flip the bill what it is that is needed in schools,” Lee explained. “Schools are not cheap to run. I can tell you in my district alone that payroll runs about a million dollars.”
Boyapati refutes that notion claiming the money needed for schools is already in the state budget.
“The Washington budget has had surpluses for several years, very large surpluses (that are a) billion dollars plus, Boyapati said when addressing the education funding claim related to the ballot measure. “We have the money to fund education and early childhood programs, so it’s really misleading to say we need this tax.”
As currently legislated the following sales are exempted from the capital gains tax in Washington:
- Real estate
- Assets in certain retirement accounts
- Interests in privately held entities when the capital gain or loss is attributable to real estate owned by the entity
- Assets sold under the imminent threat of condemnation
- Assets used in a business that are depreciable or qualify for being expensed
- Timber, timberlands, and dividends from real estate investment trusts from timber or timberlands
- Commercial fishing privileges
- Goodwill from the sale of a franchised auto dealership
The capital gains tax has also faced its fair share of legal challenges. In 2023, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that it was an excise tax and did not violate the constitutional prohibition on income taxes.
This post was originally published on here
