Washington State prohibits campaign materials, signs, literature, and other attempts at influencing voters within one hundred feet from the entrance of a vote center or twenty-five feet from a ballot drop box. Disobeying this prohibition is a crime. It’s there to protect the neutrality of our elections and prevent even the appearance of bias at our ballot collection places.
So why does our state mandate electioneering in the language of our actual ballots? In 2022, the legislature passed a law requiring the state office of the Attorney General to supply a “public investment impact disclosure” for “any ballot measure that repeals, levies, or modifies any tax or fee.” The stated intent of the law was to provide “neutral, nonprejudicial disclosure of the public investments affected” in order to “provide greater transparency and necessary information for voters.”
Control the language, control the debate. Why did the legislature call it the “public investment impact disclosure” rather than the “public spending impact disclosure”? Perhaps because “investments” are associated with receiving dividends while “spending” can be either positive or negative.
The language mandates within the legislation are designed to protect public spending. The legislature has effectively weaponized ballot language to fight on behalf of the pro-spending side of any measure.
This has been made abundantly clear this year with the impact disclosure assigned to the state income tax repeal coming to the ballot this November. It reads, “This measure would decrease funding for K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges) and human services (primarily healthcare).”
The problem? The new state income tax does not currently fund any of those items. The tax would not take effect until 2028, with the first payments arriving in 2029, and no current school district, college, or healthcare provider has an appropriation that depends on this revenue. There can’t be a decrease in funding that hasn’t happened yet.
Furthermore, the income tax law earmarks nothing for K-12 education, higher education, or healthcare. The only dedicated allocation in the measure is 5% to the Fair Start for Kids Account beginning in 2029. The remaining revenue goes into the state general fund with no restrictions, where future legislatures may spend it however they choose.
That result is built into the disclosure law. When a measure primarily affects the state General Fund, the ballot language must identify the three largest categories of state services supported by that fund. In practice, that means education and healthcare will be listed as affected even when the revenue is not specifically dedicated to those programs and future legislatures remain free to adjust spending elsewhere.
It’s important to remember that just because spending is reduced doesn’t necessarily mean there’s been a reduction in positive outcomes. If you paid $100 to get your oil changed, but found the service could be obtained for $75, would you describe that as “cutting car maintenance funds” or simply saving on costs? Washington state has paid 141 times more for the cost of reducing CO2 emissions than private sector markets. If you reduced that spending but achieved the same outcome, would it be a “cut to environmental funding” or an achieved efficiency?
“Let’s Go Washington” (LGW), the organization behind the initiative, is challenging the impact disclosure language. LGW founder Brian Heywood argues that because the income tax has not yet generated or funded anything, repealing it would save the state millions of dollars by eliminating the administrative costs of implementing and collecting the tax.
Whether LGW wins or loses, Washington state loses when those in authority are given the power to manipulate ballot language to protect the status-quo.
