History of Eyman Initiatives

Summary of Tim Eyman Initiatives (wiki)

Eyman launched his first initiative, Initiative 200, in 1997, which attempted to prohibit affirmative action in state higher education and government hiring and contracting. At first, Eyman had difficulty collecting enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot (8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election), so he sought help from local talk show host John Carlson. After Carlson took over, the initiative received enough signatures to earn placement on the ballot. In November of 1998, voters approved the initiative.

In 1998, Eyman failed to gather enough signatures for a new initiative which would have eliminated Washington's relatively high (though steeply progressive) motor vehicle excise tax, or MVET. Eyman sought to reduce public taxation by eliminating the MVET.

In 1999 Eyman tried again, with Initiative 695, which proposed replacing the old MVET with a flat $30 fee for yearly car registration fees, called "car tabs", while simultaneously requiring voter approval for any tax or fee increases at the state or local level. It was supported by the public but opposed by state officials.

Enlisting a number of volunteers from different regions of the state, and working with fellow activists Monte Benham and Jack Fagan, Eyman succeeded in getting I-695 on the ballot. It passed, despite opposition from a broad coalition—including some businesses, some labor groups, environmentalists, civic groups, and other organizations—who argued that the loss of revenue would wreak havoc on state government. Some major newspapers in Washington called for its rejection, and some cities, including officials in Seattle, passed resolutions opposing the initiative.

After I-695 was passed, opponents contested the initiative in court. The initiative was declared unconstitutional by the Washington State Supreme Court because it had two subjects. Fearing voter backlash, the Legislature, with the cooperation of Governor Gary Locke, quickly acted to maintain the lower car tabs.

After I-695, Eyman formed a political committee known as Permanent Offense. He began working on Initiative 722, which was designed to cap property taxes at 2%. With the support of groups such as the state asphalt pavers' union, he also sponsored Initiative 745, which would have mandated that 90% of all transportation funding go to roads (interpreted by some as an attack on mass transit spending).

Unlike I-695, I-722 and I-745 were placed on the ballot largely through the use of paid signature gatherers. While there was some initial concern by his opponents, the courts have ruled that paid signature gathering is protected by the First Amendment.

I-722 and I-745 both appeared on the November 2000 ballot. I-722 passed, but I-745 was rejected by voters. Political opponents contested I-722 in court, and it was overturned on the same grounds as I-695: that it was unconstitutional because it contained two subjects. The initiative had tried to reduce existing property taxes and enact a 2% cap on future property tax growth.

Eyman came back in 2001 with Initiative 747, which imposed a 1% cap on property tax growth in Washington. Like earlier initiatives, I-747 got on the ballot thanks to the use of paid signature gatherers. The public voted for and I-747 passed despite well-funded and visible opposition from many of the same political interests which had opposed Eyman's previous initiatives. Opponents argued that it passed because voters didn't realize or comprehend that public services would actually be cut. Supporters contended that those same services and costs were unnecessary and could not be justified. In Nov. 2007 I-747 was ruled unconstitutional. On November 29th, the state legislature entered a special session to consider reinstating the 1% cap.

Opponents then attacked Eyman claiming he had received help from the Code Revisor's Office in drafting the initiative and sued to force disclosure of the work the code revisor did. They won that battle in May 2002. The initiative went into effect, as the public had voted, shortly after passing. On June 13, 2006, King County Judge Mary Roberts threw out the measure, arguing that "The voters were incorrectly led to believe they were voting to amend I-722. The voters were misled as to the nature and content of the law to be amended, and the effect of the amendment upon it. The (state) constitution forbids this." (see [1]).

After the November 2001 election, Eyman began work on his next initiative, Initiative 776, which he called the "son of 695". Its aim was to cut local car tabs fees which I-695 and the Legislature had failed to remove earlier. The local car tab fees funded regional transportation in four Washington counties, including Sound Transit, a multi-county transportation agency in the Puget Sound area.

Opponents complained that the initiative asked voters statewide to vote on an issue which only affected four counties. Opponents questioned the constitutionality of allowing voters across Washington to vote on fees they were not paying nor seeing the benefit of. But supporters feared that similar fees would eventually be charged statewide.

In 2007, Eyman spearheaded Initiative 960, intending to make it harder for the Legislature to raise taxes and fees. This initiative is currently passing but election results have not been finalized yet.

[edit] List of initiatives and outcomes

* I-200 (1998) - Prohibit affirmative action in public employment, education and contracting.
o Passed by voters.
* I-695 (1999) - Cut the state motor vehicle excise tax and required voter approval for all tax increases.
o Passed by voters but declared unconstitutional.
* I-722 (2000) - Cut state and local property taxes, which fund public services.
o Passed by voters but declared unconstitutional.
* I-745 (2000) - Required 90% of transportation funding to be spent on road building.
o Defeated by voters.
* I-747 (2001) - Cut state and local property taxes
o Passed by voters but declared unconstitutional in Superior Court and Supreme Court.[1]
o Passed by a special session of the Democratically controlled legislature in 2007.
* I-776 (2002) - Cut local motor vehicle excise taxes.
o Passed by voters
* I-267 (2002) - Divert money from the general fund for road building.
o Failed to qualify for ballot.
* I-807 (2003) - Require a supermajority vote for all tax increases.
o Failed to qualify for ballot.
* I-864 (2003) - Cut property taxes by 25%.
o Failed to qualify for ballot.
* I-892 (2004) - Legalize slot machines.
o Defeated by voters.
* I-900 (2004) - Give state auditor ability to conduct performance audits.
o Passed by voters.
* Referendum 65 (2006) - Repeal ESHB 2661 legalizing sexual orientation discrimination.
o Failed to qualify for ballot.
* I-917 (2006) - Cap motor vehicle registration charge at $30 a year.
o Failed to qualify for ballot.
* I-960 (2007) - Require 2/3 majority in state Legislature to raise taxes and fees.
o Passed by voters.

Text of Wa State Initiative 267 - Eyman - not on ballot

The text of this document is an accurate copy of what was
filed by the initiative proponent with the Secretary of State for
assignment of a serial number. The accuracy of code in amendatory
sections has not been verified.
INITIATIVE 267
I, Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and
custodian of its seal, hereby certify that, according to the records on
file in my office, the attached copy of Initiative Measure No. 267 to
the Legislature is a true and correct copy as it was received by this
office.
AN ACT Relating to transportation improvement; amending RCW 82.08.020,
1
82.12.045 and 46.61.165; adding new sections to chapter 43.09 RCW; and
2
creating new sections.
3
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4
POLICIES AND PURPOSES
5
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. During these tough economic times, the voters
6
deserve a common sense, mainstream proposal to improve Washington’s
7
transportation system by better utilizing existing public resources.
8
This measure would require vehicle sales and use taxes be deposited in
9
the motor vehicle fund and used for road construction and maintenance;
10
require performance audits on transportation agencies; and open carpool
11
lanes during off-peak hours.
12
Initiatives, referendums, and bills must all comply with the single
13
subject
rule;
this
measure’s
title
is
"AN
ACT
Relating
to
14
1
Page 2
transportation improvement."
This measure and its policies have
1
rationale unity and concern transportation improvement.
2
In order to improve transportation, it is essential that more of the
3
state’s existing tax revenues go toward fixing our transportation
4
infrastructure.
Vehicle purchases generate billions of dollars in
5
sales tax revenue. But instead of fixing our roads, these tax revenues
6
subsidize the general fund.
That makes no sense.
People who buy
7
vehicles should have their taxes go toward fixing our roads, streets,
8
and highways. Besides, there won’t be any tax revenues for any other
9
spending programs unless we improve Washington’s transportation system.
10
This measure requires vehicle sales and use taxes be deposited in the
11
motor vehicle fund and used for road construction and maintenance at
12
the state and local level.
13
In order to improve transportation, it is essential that state and
14
local transportation agencies establish credibility with taxpayers by
15
implementing long-overdue performance audits to ensure accountability
16
and guarantee that their tax dollars are spent as cost-effectively as
17
possible.
Are politicians spending our current transportation tax
18
revenues as cost-effectively as possible?
Voters don’t know because
19
politicians have repeatedly blocked our state auditor from conducting
20
independent, comprehensive performance audits on transportation
21
agencies. Gary Locke even vetoed "baby step" performance audits this
22
year. It is absurd for politicians to think voters will blindly accept
23
massive tax increases without first learning if we’re getting the
24
biggest bang for the buck from our current tax revenues. This measure
25
requires the state auditor to conduct independent, comprehensive
26
performance audits on Washington’s transportation system, as well as
27
major state and local transportation agencies.
These audits will
28
identify solutions to our transportation problems and will save
29
billions of tax dollars.
30
In order to improve transportation, existing road capacity must be
31
utilized to maximize its’ effectiveness and to save money that can be
32
used for transportation improvements.
In some areas in the Puget
33
Sound, geographic obstacles make adding new lanes to existing roads and
34
highways to be extremely expensive, limiting tax dollars for other
35
transportation improvements. How can we save billions in tax dollars
36
but still increase road capacity to our most congested roadways? By
37
allowing our carpool lanes to be open to all during off-peak hours. We
38
2
Page 3
all pay taxes for our carpool lanes, so everyone should be allowed to
1
use them at least some of the time. The politicians’ strict 24 hours
2
a day, 7 days a week prohibition is extreme. This measure strikes a
3
reasonable balance by allowing our carpool lanes to be open to all
4
during off-peak hours (this measure defines peak hours as 6:00 a.m.
5
through 9:00 a.m and 3:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through
6
Friday).
This will quickly, significantly, and cost-effectively
7
relieve traffic congestion on our most congested roadways and will
8
illustrate that increased road capacity results in decreased traffic
9
congestion.
10
Year after year, Washington voters have repeatedly rejected the
11
business-as-usual,
the-only-solution-is-a-tax-increase
mentality.
12
During these tough economic times, the people deserve a common sense,
13
mainstream proposal to improve Washington’s transportation system by
14
better utilizing existing public resources.
15
IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION BY REQUIRING VEHICLE SALES
16
AND USE TAXES BE DEPOSITED IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUND
17
AND USED FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
18
Sec. 2. RCW 82.08.020 and 2000 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 1 are each amended to
19
read as follows:
20
(1) There is levied and there shall be collected a tax on each retail
21
sale in this state equal to six and five-tenths percent of the selling
22
price.
{+ In order to improve transportation, it is essential that
23
more of the state’s existing tax revenues go toward fixing our
24
transportation infrastructure. Therefore, the state sales tax levied
25
and collected on each motor vehicle retail sale in this state shall be
26
deposited in the motor vehicle fund created in RCW 46.68.070 and used
27
for road, street, and highway construction and maintenance at the state
28
and local level. For the purpose of this section, "motor vehicle" has
29
the meaning provided in RCW 82.12.045(2). +}
30
(2) There is levied and there shall be collected an additional tax on
31
each retail car rental, regardless of whether the vehicle is licensed
32
in this state, equal to five and nine-tenths percent of the selling
33
price. The revenue collected under this subsection shall be deposited
34
in the multimodal transportation account created in RCW 47.66.070.
35
(3) The taxes imposed under this chapter shall apply to successive
36
retail sales of the same property.
37
3
Page 4
(4) The rates provided in this section apply to taxes imposed under
1
chapter 82.12 RCW as provided in RCW 82.12.020.
2
Sec. 3. RCW 82.12.045 and 1996 c 149 s 19 are each amended to read
3
as follows:
4
(1) In the collection of the use tax on motor vehicles, the department
5
of revenue may designate the county auditors of the several counties of
6
the state as its collecting agents. Upon such designation, it shall be
7
the duty of each county auditor to collect the tax at the time an
8
applicant applies for the registration of, and transfer of title to,
9
the motor vehicle, except in the following instances:
10
(a) Where the applicant exhibits a dealer’s report of sale showing
11
that the retail sales tax has been collected by the dealer;
12
(b) Where the application is for the renewal of registration;
13
(c) Where the applicant presents a written statement signed by the
14
department of revenue, or its duly authorized agent showing that no use
15
tax is legally due; or
16
(d) Where the applicant presents satisfactory evidence showing that
17
the retail sales tax or the use tax has been paid by him on the vehicle
18
in question.
19
(2) The term "motor vehicle," as used in this section means and
20
includes all motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers used, or of a
21
type designed primarily to be used, upon the public streets and
22
highways, for the convenience or pleasure of the owner, or for the
23
conveyance, for hire or otherwise, of persons or property, including
24
fixed loads, facilities for human habitation, and vehicles carrying
25
exempt licenses.
26
(3) It shall be the duty of every applicant for registration and
27
transfer of certificate of title who is subject to payment of tax under
28
this section to declare upon his application the value of the vehicle
29
for which application is made, which shall consist of the consideration
30
paid or contracted to be paid therefor.
31
(4) Each county auditor who acts as agent of the department of revenue
32
shall at the time of remitting license fee receipts on motor vehicles
33
subject to the provisions of this section pay over and account to the
34
state treasurer for all use tax revenue collected under this section,
35
after first deducting as his collection fee the sum of two dollars for
36
each motor vehicle upon which the tax has been collected. All revenue
37
received by the state treasurer under this section shall be (({-
38
4
Page 5
credited to the general fund -})) {+ deposited in the motor vehicle
1
fund created in RCW 46.68.070 and used for road, street, and highway
2
construction and maintenance at the state and local level +}.
The
3
auditor’s collection fee shall be deposited in the county current
4
expense fund. A duplicate of the county auditor’s transmittal report
5
to the state treasurer shall be forwarded forthwith to the department
6
of revenue.
7
(5) Any applicant who has paid use tax to a county auditor under this
8
section may apply to the department of revenue for refund thereof if he
9
has reason to believe that such tax was not legally due and owing. No
10
refund shall be allowed unless application therefor is received by the
11
department of revenue within the statutory period for assessment of
12
taxes, penalties, or interest prescribed by RCW 82.32.050(3).
Upon
13
receipt of an application for refund the department of revenue shall
14
consider the same and issue its order either granting or denying it and
15
if refund is denied the taxpayer shall have the right of appeal as
16
provided in RCW 82.32.170, 82.32.180 and 82.32.190.
17
(6) The provisions of this section shall be construed as cumulative
18
of other methods prescribed in chapters 82.04 to 82.32 RCW, inclusive,
19
for the collection of the tax imposed by this chapter. The department
20
of revenue shall have power to promulgate such rules as may be
21
necessary to administer the provisions of this section.
Any duties
22
required by this section to be performed by the county auditor may be
23
performed by the director of licensing but no collection fee shall be
24
deductible by said director in remitting use tax revenue to the state
25
treasurer.
26
IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION BY
27
REQUIRING INDEPENDENT, COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE AUDITS
28
ON TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES
29
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 43.09 RCW to
30
read as follows:
31
In order to improve transportation, it is essential that state and
32
local transportation agencies establish credibility with taxpayers by
33
implementing long-overdue performance audits to ensure accountability
34
and to learn if their tax dollars are being spent as cost effectively
35
as possible.
Therefore, the state auditor shall conduct an
36
independent,
comprehensive
performance
audit
on
the
state’s
37
5
Page 6
transportation system and major local transportation agencies,
1
including, but not limited to, the department of transportation, the
2
ferry system, and public transit agencies, especially Sound Transit.
3
Transportation funds from each state and local transportation agency,
4
account and program shall be used for the cost of each audit.
The
5
audit reports shall be submitted to the legislature and made available
6
to the public on or before one year from the effective date of this
7
act.
8
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 43.09 RCW to
9
read as follows:
10
In order to improve transportation, follow-up performance audits on
11
any major state and local transportation agency, account and program
12
may be conducted when determined necessary by the state auditor.
13
Transportation funds from each state and local transportation agency,
14
account and program shall be used for the cost of each follow-up audit.
15
IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION BY
16
OPENING CARPOOL LANES TO ALL DURING OFF-PEAK HOURS
17
Sec. 6. RCW 46.61.165 and 1999 c 206 s 1 are each amended to read as
18
follows:
19
The state department of transportation and the local authorities are
20
authorized to reserve all or any portion of any highway under their
21
respective jurisdictions {+ as carpool lanes +}, including any
22
designated lane or ramp, for the exclusive or preferential use of
23
public transportation vehicles or private motor vehicles carrying no
24
fewer than a specified number of passengers when such limitation will
25
increase the efficient utilization of the highway or will aid in the
26
conservation of energy resources.
Regulations authorizing such
27
exclusive or preferential use of a highway facility (({- may be
28
declared to be -})) {+ are +} effective (({- at all times or at
29
specified times of day or on specified days -})) {+ only at the
30
specified times of day and on the specified days designated in this
31
section. In order to improve transportation, existing road capacity
32
must be utilized to maximize its effectiveness. Therefore, as of the
33
effective date of this act, all carpool lanes shall be opened during
34
off-peak hours for use by all vehicles otherwise lawfully abiding by
35
the rules of the road of this state.
For the purposes of opening
36
6
Page 7
carpool lanes to all during off-peak hours, "carpool lanes" are high
1
occupancy vehicle lanes including express lanes but not including ramp-
2
meter bypass lanes. For the purposes of opening carpool lanes to all
3
during off-peak hours, "peak hours" are 6:00 a.m. through 9:00 a.m. and
4
3:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and "off-peak hours"
5
are days and hours not specified as "peak hours."
Nothing in this
6
section is intended to restrict the operation of RCW 46.44.080,
7
46.61.100, or 46.61.135, thus continuing restricted truck usage of city
8
streets. +} Violation of a restriction of highway usage prescribed by
9
the appropriate authority under this section is a traffic infraction.
10
CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE
11
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. The provisions of this act are to be liberally
12
construed to effectuate the intent, policies and purposes of this act.
13
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
14
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. If any provision of this act of its application
15
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
16
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances
17
is not affected.
18
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
19
NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. The people have made clear through the passage
20
of numerous initiatives and referenda that taxes need to be reasonable
21
and tax increases should always be a last resort. However, politicians
22
throughout the state of Washington continue to ignore these repeated
23
mandates.
24
Politicians are reminded:
25
(1) All political power is vested in the people, as stated in Article
26
I, section 1 of the Washington state Constitution.
27
(2) The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, as
28
stated in Article II, section 1 of the Washington state Constitution.
29
(3) The people expect the legislature to adopt any additional
30
legislation necessary to effectuate the intent, policies and purposes
31
of this act.
32
7
Page 8
(4) When voters approve initiatives, politicians have a moral,
1
ethical, and constitutional obligation to fully implement them. When
2
politicians ignore this obligation, they corrupt the term "public
3
servant."
4
(5) Any attempt to violate the clear intent and spirit of this measure
5
undermines the trust of the people in their government and will
6
increase the likelihood of future tax limitation measures.