OLYMPIA—Three of six Let’s Go Washington landmark initiatives to the legislature passed both chambers of the Washington State Senate and House on Monday, March 4, and will become law in 90 days after the Legislature adjourns on March 7—no signature by Governor Jay Inslee is needed. The three initiatives that did not receive public hearings as mandated by the Washington State Constitution, will instead, appear on the ballot for the General Election on November 5, 2024.
The three initiatives that passed are: I-2081, concerning parental rights which passed the Senate unanimously and the House 82-15; I-2111, preventing Washington State from enforcing an income tax which passed 38-11 in the Senate and 76-21 in the House; and I-2113, amending statewide police pursuit laws passed in the Senate with a vote of 36-13 and 77-20 in the House.
“This is a great day for everyone in Washington,” WAGOP Chairman Jim Walsh, the author of all six initiatives to the Legislature, released in a statement.
He added, “Restoring reasonable police pursuits of criminals and criminal suspects will lower crime rates. Establishing parental notification rights will support healthier and happier kids—and better school performance. And codifying Washington’s longstanding tradition of opposing any state tax on personal income will help working families and local economies.
“The WAGOP thanks the Democrat legislators and elected officials who’ve joined us in supporting these critical initiatives. Working together, we will continue to fix what’s broken in Washington. This is just the start, of course. There’s much more work to do. Other problems to fix. But, for the moment, let’s celebrate these significant wins.”
Today, three of six initiatives were passed into law with bipartisan support. It's a momentous day for Washingtonians! The work to pass the remaining three continues. #LetsGoWA! pic.twitter.com/suTw2ImEO4
— Let's Go Washington (@letsgowa) March 5, 2024
“Today, three of six initiatives were passed into law with bipartisan support,” Let’s Go Washington posted to X after the passage of the three initiatives on Monday. “It’s a momentous day for Washingtonians! The work to pass the remaining three continues.”
“Six months ago, today’s victory was unthinkable to radical progressives,” Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington released in a statement to the Lynnwood Times. “They were quick to categorize all of the initiatives as ‘right-wing extremist’ policies that didn’t have a chance of passing. The 800,000 Washingtonians who signed the initiatives knew they were common sense measures, and the passage of three today proves they are just that. 57% of those that signed the initiatives were Democrats and Independents which is a clear indication that these are bipartisan issues.
“The job’s not yet done – every one of the initiatives should have had hearings, but now voters get to decide on the remaining three. The only reason radical progressives did not approve all six common sense initiatives is because of government greed. Backroom deals with union bosses and progressive special interests outweigh real tax relief for working class Washingtonians. We welcome anyone who agrees with us that these measures are clear, common-sense fixes to some of the most pressing issues for our state, and we look forward to seeing all six passed into law in November.”
Regarding I-2081, Snohomish County Representatives Julio Cortes (D-Everett), Mary Fosse (D-Everett) and Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) joined Alvardo, Berry, Chopp, Farivar, Marci, Mena, Morgan, Ramel, Reed, Simmons, and Walen to vote against establishing a parental bill of rights.
Senator Jesse Soloman (D-Shoreline) and Representatives Julio Cortes (D-Everett), Lauren Davis (D-Edmonds), Mary Fosse (D-Everett), and Shelly Kloba (D-Kirkland) were the only members of the Snohomish County delegation to vote against preventing a statewide income tax on residents.
Representatives Ryu (D-Shoreline) was the only member of the Snohomish County legislative delegation to vote against changing police pursuit laws within Washinton state.
All three initiatives were discussed at three separate joint committee meetings last week where testifiers, both in support and opposed, shared their thoughts.
Initiative for Parental Rights
The House Education Committee and Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee held a joint public hearing to discuss Initiative 2081, protecting parental rights, on Wednesday, February 28. The Meeting was chaired by Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos (D- Rainier Beach).
Each of the 15 of the declared rights in the initiative refers to parents and legal guardians of public school children under the age of 18. The definition of public school, as defined by state law, is charter school, common schools, and other schools having a curriculum below the college or university level.
The first right deals with access to materials which would instate the parental right to examine textbooks, curriculum, supplemental material, used in their child’s classroom.
The second right would grant the parental right to inspect their child’s public school records and to receive a copy within 10 days of a written request. These include academic records, vocational counseling, screening records, medical or health records, discipline and attendance records, and any other student specific files.
The next five rights refer to medical services and treatment including rights for parents to receive any notification when medical service or medication have been provided to the child that could result in any financial impact, and notification whenever a student is given medical attention that results in follow up care beyond normal school hours.
The sixth right would make it necessary that parents be immediately notified if a criminal action was deemed to be committed against their child; whereas the seventh right requires notification to a parent if any law enforcement officer questioned their child unless the questioning is about whether a parent abused or neglected the child.
The eighth right deals with notification if the child has been removed from campus without parental permission.
The ninth declared right is that the school will not discriminate against a child based on their family’s religious beliefs.
The tenth right would allow parents to opt out their children from engagements that may question their child’s sexual experience or attractions, religious or political beliefs, and mental or behavioral health of the child or family members. The eleventh right, somewhat similar, would allow parents the right to opt out their children from instructional topics on sexual activity.
The twelfth right is to receive a copy of the school’s calendar, with revisions, which also must be posted on the school’s website.
The thirteenth right is to receive a list of any required fee and its purpose end use and how economic hardships can be addressed in writing or on the school’s website.
The fourteenth right is to receive a description of the school’s dress code or uniform.
The fifteenth, and final right, is for a parent to be notified of their child’s academic performance if it could result in failure to be promoted to the next grade level and be offered an in-person meeting with teacher to discuss options for academic improvement.
Initiative amending police pursuit laws
The Senate Law and Justice Committee and the House Community Safety, Justice, and Reentry Committee held a public hearing on February 28 to discuss I-2113, the police pursuit initiative. A total of 161 people signed up to testy in which 151 were in favor of the initiative; another 5,483 people signed a petition not to testify but shared their stance on the issue—5,300 in support in I-2113 with 183 either not in support or remaining neutral on the matter.
Statewide Initiative 2113 would amend the state’s current vehicular pursuit statute in two distinct ways; first the evidentiary threshold to engage in a pursuit is modified in that engaging officers would be able to engage in a pursuit if an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the fleeing motorist has violated the law. Second, the officer may not engage in a pursuit unless the person being pursued poses a serious risk of harm to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are considered greater than the safety risks of the pursuit.
If the initiative were to be enacted, all other requirements for an officer to engage in a pursuit would otherwise remain in effect.
In 2021 the legislature passed engrossed substitute House Bill 1054, sponsored by Representative Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way), which in part codified statewide vehicular pursuit regulations.
The law prohibited vehicular pursuits unless the pursuing officer had probable cause to believe that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a violent offense, a sex offense, or an escape offense, or if the officer has reasonable suspicion the operator of the vehicle is committing a DUI offense. The pursuit must also be necessary to identify or apprehend the person and the fleeing person must have posed an imminent threat to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the fleeing person must have been considered greater than the safety risks associated with the pursuit.
The law also required supervisory control of the pursuit but made certain exceptions to this requirement for jurisdictions with fewer than 10 commissioned officers.
In 2023 the legislature passed engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5352, sponsored by Senator John Lovick (D-Mill Creek), which modified the regulations on vehicular pursuits. Under this new law, the evidentiary threshold to engage in a pursuit was lowered from probable cause to reasonable suspicion that the person in the vehicle has committed or is committing one of the enumerated offenses. Also, the crimes of vehicular assault and domestic violence assaults were added to the list of crimes for which an officer may initiate a pursuit.
Rather than receive authorization to initiate a pursuit, under the new law, officers were required to notify their supervisor, who then maintains oversight of the pursuit. However, exceptions were made for jurisdictions with fewer than 15, rather than 10, commissioned officers. Requirements, under the new law, also specified that officers must coordinate with other jurisdictions that may be affected by the pursuit and were required to end the pursuit as soon as practical.
Finally, the law mandated that for an officer to engage in a pursuit they must have completed an emergency vehicle operator course, an updated emergency vehicle operators training within the previous two years, which includes training on performing the risk analysis of engaging in a pursuit, and to be certified in at least one pursuit intervention option.
Initiative prohibiting state income tax
The Senate Ways and Means Committee and the House Finance Committee held a joint public hearing to discuss a citizen initiative, I-2111, concerning personal income tax, in the John L. O’Brien building in Olympia Tuesday, February 27. The joint meeting was chaired by Representative April Berg (D-Mill Creek).
There was a total of 181 testifiers in favor of the initiative with 6,008 in favor but had not signed up to testify at Tuesday’s hearing. On the other hand, there were 24 opposed to the initiative who had signed up to testify with 649 not testifying in opposition.
Jeff Mitchell, Revenue Coordinator at the Senate Ways and Means Committee, and Tracey Taylor, staff member with House Finance, began the meeting with a brief on Initiative 2111 which relates to a prohibition on state and local taxes from imposing or collecting income taxes, defined as having the same meaning as “gross income” in the Internal Revenue code.
The Department of Revenue noted that the state of Washington does not tax an individuals’ personal income. The initiative is “perspective only,” it would not repeal any existing taxes imposed by the state or any municipality. Additionally, a fiscal note found that there would be no impact to state or local revenues.
Steve Ewing, with the Department of Revenue, explained that the initiative would not repeal or otherwise impact any existing taxes or charges it would only limit future taxes on broad-based income such as those imposed by the federal government and by other states.
The Washington State Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Revenue were the only agencies who received the fiscal note, both of whom determined there would be no expenditures related to the implementation of the initiative.
About the initiatives
Let’s Go Washington, a conservative group founded by Redmond businessman Brian Heywood, turned in a total of 2,662,310 signatures between late November through December 28 last year to qualify six landmark initiatives.
At a legislative preview hosted by the Washington State Association of Broadcasters and Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington earlier in January, House Speaker Laurie Jenkins shared her disdain for Let’s Go Washington and specifically its founder, Heywood, comparing their efforts to the “Robber Barons” of the 19th century.
According to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), Let’s Go Washington has expensed $6.933 million ($2.61 per signature submitted) of which approximately $5 million is directly linked to signature gathering and printing expenses. Heywood has loaned his Let’s Go Washington PAC $4.15 million and contributed an additional $1.7 million in both in-kind and cash contributions.
The other three initiatives being considered include initiative 2109, which would repeal Capitol Gains Tax, initiative 2124, opting out of longterm care coverage, and initiative 2117 dealing with a so called “hidden gas tax,” prohibiting state agencies from imposing any type of carbon tax credit trading, including “cap and trade” or “cap and tax” programs, regardless of whether the resulting increased costs are imposed on fuel recipients or fuel suppliers.
House Floor Debate
Senate Floor Debate
EDITOR’S NOTE: Article updated 8:58 a.m., March 5, 2024, with a statement from Brian Heywood.
Author: Kienan Briscoe
3 Responses