A right wing initiative that would give a big tax cut to Washington’s richest households by repealing the state’s recently adopted capital gains tax on the wealthy has received a ballot title and can now proceed to the signature gathering stage.
I‑1929, sponsored by Republican operative J. Vander Stoep, seeks to completely repeal Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5096, approved in 2021 by the Washington State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee.
The law is already being challenged in court by a group of plaintiffs represented by former State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who gained notoriety in the early 2010s for involving Washington in a lawsuit against the Patient Protection Act. McKenna was defeated by Inslee in the 2012 gubernatorial election ten years ago and returned to private practice after leaving public life; he has also been involved in several statewide initiative campaigns during the past decade.
Although McKenna’s group has already obtained a favorable decision against our new state capital gains tax on the wealthy from the judge whose courtroom they carefully selected to hear their case, Vander Stoep and others (including disgraced initiative promoter Tim Eyman) don’t think that trial court ruling will hold up on appeal when it gets to the Washington State Supreme Court.
They are therefore raising money for a Plan B, which is Initiative 1929.
Unlike the various anti-capital gains tax schemes filed by Tim Eyman, which haven’t gone anywhere, I‑1929 is simple. It contains a few editorial comments and then directs that ESSB 5096 be abolished in its entirety.
The result of I‑1929’s passage — should it qualify for the November ballot — would be that Washington’s super rich would regain a big tax break and billions of dollars for schools, early learning, and childcare would be wiped out.
At issue in Thurston County Superior Court today was what language would be used to represent I‑1929 on petitions and on the ballots voters receive from county elections officials this fall, assuming again that it qualifies.
This language, which is known as the ballot title, is the only thing voters see before the ovals that ask them to mark a choice, which in the case of initiatives is either Yes or No. It is therefore of tremendous importance.
State law requires that the Attorney General’s office come up with initiative ballot titles, but these can be challenged in Thurston County Superior Court by anyone who is unhappy with the content. In this case, challenges to the I‑1929 title were filed by multiple parties, including Eyman, Vander Stoep’s committee, and opponents of I‑1929. After hearing their arguments and hearing from a member of AGO Bob Ferguson’s team, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Indu Thomas adopted alternate phrasing drafted by the State of Washington as the final title, rejecting language offered by the legal teams representing the two sides.
The original ballot title was as follows:
Original Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1929 concerns taxes.
This measure would repeal a 7% excise tax on annual capital-gains above $250,000 by individuals from the sale/exchange of stocks and certain other capital assets (the tax exempts real estate and retirement accounts).
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
The new ballot title is:
Final Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1929 concerns taxes.
This measure would repeal a 7% tax on annual capital gains above $250,000 by individuals from the sale of stocks and certain other capital assets, exempting, for example, real estate and retirement accounts.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
The final title deletes the words “excise” and “exchange,” and adds the words “for example” to denote that there are additional exemptions besides just real estate and retirement accounts. A self-serving proposal from proponents to add the word “income” was rightly rejected as prejudicial by Judge Thomas.
The consequences of I‑1929’s implementation are left unmentioned in the concise description. However, thanks to a newly passed law championed by NPI, an additional sentence will get added to the I‑1929 ballot title if it qualifies for the ballot warning voters of the impact to the state’s finances. For instance:
This measure would decrease funding for K‑12 education, childcare, and early learning.
For I‑1929 to qualify, at least 324,516 valid signatures will need to be collected by July 8th at 5 PM. The Secretary of State recommends a 25% cushion, so Vander Stoep and his fellow operatives will need to buy around 405,000 signatures at a minimum to succeed in forcing a vote. The crews they hire will need to fill their petitions in under seventy days, averaging about 40,500 signatures every week.
NPI’s Permanent Defense project is supporting the effort to defeat I‑1929.
If you see a petitioner collecting signatures for this measure, please take photos with your phone and let us know using Permanent Defense’s reporting system.
Thursday, April 28th, 2022
Initiative to cut taxes for the rich gets a ballot title: Judge picks AGO’s alternative version
A right wing initiative that would give a big tax cut to Washington’s richest households by repealing the state’s recently adopted capital gains tax on the wealthy has received a ballot title and can now proceed to the signature gathering stage.
I‑1929, sponsored by Republican operative J. Vander Stoep, seeks to completely repeal Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5096, approved in 2021 by the Washington State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee.
The law is already being challenged in court by a group of plaintiffs represented by former State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who gained notoriety in the early 2010s for involving Washington in a lawsuit against the Patient Protection Act. McKenna was defeated by Inslee in the 2012 gubernatorial election ten years ago and returned to private practice after leaving public life; he has also been involved in several statewide initiative campaigns during the past decade.
Although McKenna’s group has already obtained a favorable decision against our new state capital gains tax on the wealthy from the judge whose courtroom they carefully selected to hear their case, Vander Stoep and others (including disgraced initiative promoter Tim Eyman) don’t think that trial court ruling will hold up on appeal when it gets to the Washington State Supreme Court.
They are therefore raising money for a Plan B, which is Initiative 1929.
Unlike the various anti-capital gains tax schemes filed by Tim Eyman, which haven’t gone anywhere, I‑1929 is simple. It contains a few editorial comments and then directs that ESSB 5096 be abolished in its entirety.
The result of I‑1929’s passage — should it qualify for the November ballot — would be that Washington’s super rich would regain a big tax break and billions of dollars for schools, early learning, and childcare would be wiped out.
At issue in Thurston County Superior Court today was what language would be used to represent I‑1929 on petitions and on the ballots voters receive from county elections officials this fall, assuming again that it qualifies.
This language, which is known as the ballot title, is the only thing voters see before the ovals that ask them to mark a choice, which in the case of initiatives is either Yes or No. It is therefore of tremendous importance.
State law requires that the Attorney General’s office come up with initiative ballot titles, but these can be challenged in Thurston County Superior Court by anyone who is unhappy with the content. In this case, challenges to the I‑1929 title were filed by multiple parties, including Eyman, Vander Stoep’s committee, and opponents of I‑1929. After hearing their arguments and hearing from a member of AGO Bob Ferguson’s team, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Indu Thomas adopted alternate phrasing drafted by the State of Washington as the final title, rejecting language offered by the legal teams representing the two sides.
The original ballot title was as follows:
The new ballot title is:
The final title deletes the words “excise” and “exchange,” and adds the words “for example” to denote that there are additional exemptions besides just real estate and retirement accounts. A self-serving proposal from proponents to add the word “income” was rightly rejected as prejudicial by Judge Thomas.
The consequences of I‑1929’s implementation are left unmentioned in the concise description. However, thanks to a newly passed law championed by NPI, an additional sentence will get added to the I‑1929 ballot title if it qualifies for the ballot warning voters of the impact to the state’s finances. For instance:
For I‑1929 to qualify, at least 324,516 valid signatures will need to be collected by July 8th at 5 PM. The Secretary of State recommends a 25% cushion, so Vander Stoep and his fellow operatives will need to buy around 405,000 signatures at a minimum to succeed in forcing a vote. The crews they hire will need to fill their petitions in under seventy days, averaging about 40,500 signatures every week.
NPI’s Permanent Defense project is supporting the effort to defeat I‑1929.
If you see a petitioner collecting signatures for this measure, please take photos with your phone and let us know using Permanent Defense’s reporting system.
# Written by Andrew Villeneuve :: 5:53 PM
Categories: Elections
Tags: Permanent Defense, WA-Ballot
Comments and pings are currently closed.