Ref 49 and Ref 51

REFERENDUM BILL NO. 49

Chapter 321, Laws of 1998 (Shall motor vehicle excise taxes be reduced and state revenues reallocated; $1.9 billion in bonds for state and local highways approved; and spending limits modified?) The measure was submitted to the voters at the November 3, 1998 state general election and was approved by the following vote: For – 1,056,786 Against – 792,783.

---

---

REFERENDUM BILL NO. 51

Chapter 202, Laws of 2002 (The Legislature has passed House Bill No. 2969, financing transportation improvements through transportation fees and taxes. This bill would increase highway capacity, public transportation, passenger and freight rail, and transportation financing accountability through increased fuel excise taxes, sales taxes on vehicles, and weight fees on trucks and large vehicles.) The measure was submitted to the voters at the November 5, 2002 state general election and was rejected by the following vote: Approved – 674,724 Rejected – 1,081,580.

I-695 cuts licence tabs to $30 - passed in 1999

Keeping tabs on reality
There's no such thing as a free lunch: feel good tax cut would gore all our oxes

Sunday, October 10, 1999
By THOMAS SHAPLEY
P-I EDITORIAL BOARD

Almost every workday morning brings transportation headaches on I-5 and I-405. But November could deliver a transportation migraine called I-695.

Just last November, with Referendum 49, Washington voters elected to dedicate a big chunk of their license tab tax money to fund a long-term, multi-billion dollar program for highway construction, rail, freight mobility and ferry construction. This November, Washington voters are being asked to approve Initiative 695, which would essentially toss out the license tab money altogether.

Shifting hundreds of millions of dollars in Motor Vehicle Excise Tax out of the state general fund and into the state transportation fund with Referendum 49 last year and then slashing the MVET through I-695 this year is like taking out a car loan and then quitting your job before you make the first payment.

Then, in a strange non sequitur, the initiative would also have us put to a public referendum every increase in tax or fee our duly elected officials deem necessary.

An anti-tax, less-is-more mythology has grown up around this ill-conceived proposal. The only antidote to this self-inflicted misery is a dose of reality before Election Day on Nov. 2.

Here, then, are some of the myths -- and attendant realities -- of Initiative 695.

The role of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax

Myth: The MVET isn't doing the job it was created to do in the first place, which was to build and maintain the road system.

Reality: The MVET was first imposed in 1937, in lieu of a property tax on automobiles. Its revenues were not initially intended to be used for transportation. The MVET was no more established to pay for the roads that carried the vehicles it taxed than the property tax on real estate is confined to paying for the sidewalks in front of the property upon which it is assessed.

Over the years, however, more and more MVET money has been transferred out of the state general fund and into the state transportation fund. The most recent such transfer came with voter approval of Referendum 49 last year.

R-49 moved roughly $469 million out of the two-year general fund budget and into the separate state transportation budget. The R-49 money tapped the general fund budget surplus, in large measure, to float billions of dollars worth of bonds to finance long-overdue transportation improvements around the state.

I-695 would gut that effort. Those tempted to support I-695 on the argument that it is wrong to not spend all the vehicle license tax on transportation might ask themselves how it can now suddenly be right to spend almost none of it on transportation.

Who benefits

Myth: Dropping the MVET to a flat $30 per vehicle will help the "little guy," the average, working-hard-to-make-ends-meet person.

Reality: This is a boon to the big guys with newer, more expensive cars and motor homes. The progressiveness of the existing formula -- the more you have the more you pay, and, just as important, the less you have the less you pay -- is overturned in favor of a flat price for everyone.

The MVET is already applied at a flat rate of 2.2 percent on all vehicles. Dropping to a flat amount of $30 per vehicle gives a hugely disproportionate break to the owners of expensive vehicles.

Under current law, the yearly tax on a $40,000 Mercedes is $880. At a flat assessment of $30, that Mercedes would be taxed the same amount as an old Chevy worth $1,360. The Mercedes owner chocks up an $850 tax cut. The owner of the old Chevy, meanwhile, gets no break at all.

Another example: The owner of a middle-aged Ford valued at $4,000 now pays $88 a year for her tabs. Her big I-695 tax break? Fifty-eight dollars. Whoopeee!

The serious partying will take place in the $100,000 motor home, whose owner gets a $2,170 cut.

But even the license tab tax break I-695 would give the "big guys" would be diluted on April 15. The MVET is a federal income tax deduction, and as such reduces the owners' federal tax obligation. No state MVET; no tax deduction. Vehicle owner's will end up sending less money to Washington state and more to Washington, D.C.

Saved by the "surpluses"

Myth: We've got plenty of money, at both the state and local level, to make up for this lost revenue. I-695 proponents cite the nearly $1 billion state budget "surplus" and the $3 billion local government investment pool as evidence that government can do without the MVET money.

Surplus Reality Part 1: The state Department of Transportation estimates it will take a huge hit if I-695 passes. It will lose about $558 million in direct tax revenue in the next two years. (Beyond that, the transportation department would lose out on another $686 million in borrowed money secured by R-49 bonds.)

That represents a cut of about one-third of the departments $3.3 billion in transportation expenditures planned over the next two years. Over the next six years -- the period in which we are supposed to do all those R-49 projects --

I-695 would cost the state transportation budget $7 billion.

Surplus Reality Part 2: The lion's share of the state budget "surplus" is really a reserve, designed to guard the state against unforseen problems, including a downturn in the economy.

This "surplus" is very hard to spend -- thanks to voters' approval of Initiative 601. That law sets strict limits on how much the state can spend each year out of the general fund budget. The current two-year general fund budget is just $78 million under that limit. Going over that spending limit requires -- guess what? -- approval by the voters.

So, under I-601, using any more than $78 million of the "surplus" to replace the MVET revenue loss would require a majority of voters agreeing to raid the state's savings account.

Surplus Reality Part 3: The $3 billion local government investment pool is a short-term holding place for various government funds moving through the system at any given time. These are committed funds. Saying we could tap this fund is like saying you've got money for a Caribbean cruise because the check for the house payment hasnt yet cleared the bank.

The extent of the damage

Myth: I-695 affects only state transportation funding.

Reality: While the transportation budget and the proposed R-49 projects take a big hit, there would also be substantial losses to local government, cutting funding for criminal justice and public health.

Included in the $1.2 billion that would be lost throughout the state over the next two years is $345 million in local transit funding, $62.8 million in local criminal justice money and $215.5 million in other local government funding, including more than $52 million in public health money.

Adams County, for instance, stands to lose more than a half-million dollars next year alone, including $33,400 for public health, $83,800 for city police and fire protection and $302,700 for criminal justice. Ritzville, hometown of Republican state Sen. Larry Sheahan, would take a $20,500 hit, including $18,000 in city police and fire protection and $1,877 in criminal justice.

Garfield County stands to lose as much as 40 percent of its operating budget.

Jurisdictions within King County, meanwhile, face losses of $139.5 million, including $9.5 million in public health, $13.5 million in city police and fire protection, $7.4 million in criminal justice funds and more than $100 million in public transit support.

Opponents, including Mike Patrick, executive director of the Washington State Council of Police and Sheriffs, say the passage of I-695 could result in the loss of 1,000 police officers and firefighters.

While it's difficult, if not impossible, to predict just what budget-cutting measures local jurisdictions might take, it's certain that criminal justice costs soak up large portions of county budgets, especially in rural areas. Local tax bases are not equipped to fill the void.

Holding the line on taxes

Myth: Tax increases are out of control and subjecting all tax and fee increases to public votes will bring taxes under control.

Reality: There are already several mechanisms in state law that restrict tax increases. Two of those are the recently approved limitations contained in I-601 and Referendum 47.

Under I-601, raising taxes requires approval by a super majority (two-thirds) of the Legislature. And as a guard against profligate tax increases, I-601 limits the amount legislators can spend, no matter how much they take in.

State law had long limited taxing jurisdictions to no more than a 6 percent increase in annual expenditures without a vote of the people. Referendum 47, approved by the voters in 1997, limited the automatic increase to the rate of inflation (in no case to exceed 6 percent) without approval of two-thirds of the members of the governing body.

For those opposed to excessive government spending, it shouldn't make much sense to require that every increase in taxes or fees be subject to the public expense of a referendum.

Is it wise policy to hold an election every time the public library needs to raise the cost of a library card or parks and recreation needs to increase the admission price to the public pool?

The only alternative to multiple elections allowed by I-695 would be annual plebiscites covering a gaggle of money issues for the already under-informed public to bone up on.

The reality is that Washington is run by a representative democracy, in which we elect people to make informed decisions on a myriad of matters, including taxes.

I-695 backers have made no convincing case for overthrowing our traditional form of government.

Origins of I-695

Myth: Initiative 695 was crafted by a group of concerned, committed citizens to express a broad grassroots ideology.

Reality: I-695 founder Tim Eyman seems more off on a lark than a crusade. A mail-order salesman, Eyman decided to try pedaling public policy like he does watches. He had been a co-sponsor of Washington's Initiative 200, which effectively ended affirmative action here, but little thanks to Eyman. His effort fizzled and I-200 was rescued by talk-show host John Carlson. Eyman first tried to get the $30 license tab measure on the ballot last year but came up short on signatures.

Eyman apparently doesn't claim to be one of the "little guys" for whom he says he's doing all this -- unless he defines the "little guy" as one who, like himself, recently bought a $433,000 home and pays $900 a year in car tabs on his '98 Saab.

Taxpayers will get just what they deserve from billions less in taxes -- billions less in government services. And who usually gets the short end of the stick with fewer government services? Ah, yes, the little guy.

For one thing, there are more little guys out there, so they're more likely to feel the effect of cuts in police, fire, public health, public transit and road improvements. The little guys often live in little places, such as the rural counties whose budgets are in for such a beating from I-695.

Delivering on the promise

Myth: The passage of I-695 will be a victory for the downtrodden taxpayer over the free-spending politicians by not only shutting down billions of tax-funded transportation projects but by hog-tying local elected officials who won't dare take the political risk of putting tax and fee increases up for a vote.

Reality: The grim reality for the no-taxniks is that it's just bad public policy to allow basic services to go unfunded.

Responsible elected officials will find a way to fund them. The logical solution to the suddenly unfunded transportation need would be obvious if ironic: a gas tax increase.

Republican legislators generated R-49 last year as an alternative to Gov. Gary Locke's proposal to raise the gas tax and index future increases to inflation.

The gas tax is the truly intuitive way to fund transportation. Indeed, the 18th Amendment to the Washington State Constitution mandates that gas tax money only be used for "highway purposes," including ferries, State Patrol and the Department of Licensing.

Initiative 695 may not even result in removing hefty taxes from vehicles.

At the 1937 inception of the MVET, the Legislature tempered the tax by exempting vehicles from city and county property taxes.

Initiative 695 would eliminate that exemption. So it's quite possible that, with the passage of I-695, and without even the necessity of a vote of the Legislature (let alone a public vote), county assessors would have no choice but to assess vehicles as personal property.

Because automobiles were subject to personal property tax before the 1937 exemption and because I-695 would toss out that exemption, says King County Assessor Scott Noble, it would not be a new tax and therefore would not require I-695's voter approval. Assessors are obligated to assess and collect taxes in accordance with the law.

And then there is the income tax. The passage of this initiative might be what it takes to finally force serious consideration of an income tax.

Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that we can get something for nothing, or that government is something that somebody else should pay for, or that it's always right for someone else to get less so that we can get more.

Reality bites. But a myth can swallow you whole.

Referendum 49 - passed in 1998 - dedicate licence tabs to road improvement

Referendum 49 0ct 98
Shall motor vehicle excise taxes be reduced and state revenues reallocated; $1.9 billion in bonds for state and local highways approved; and spending limits modified?

Impartial Analysis from the State Attorney General
The Law As It Presently Exists

The State levies a motor vehicle excise tax on the privilege of using a motor vehicle in the state. The tax is payable each year and is based on the value of the vehicle. For passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and trucks weighing up to 6000 pounds, the value is based on the manufacturer's suggested retail price, gradually depreciated over the life of the vehicle according to a schedule set forth in statute.

The law provides a percentage formula for the distribution of revenue from the motor vehicle excise tax to various state funds and accounts. These funds and accounts include: the motor vehicle fund; the Puget Sound capital construction and the Puget Sound ferry operations account in the motor vehicle fund; county and municipal sales tax equalization accounts; the state general fund; the transportation fund; county and municipal criminal justice assistance accounts; and the county public health account. There is also a distribution to cities and towns for police and fire protection. The law sets maximum amounts that may be deposited in the criminal justice assistance accounts, with any excess revenue deposited in the violence reduction and drug enforcement account.

Initiative 601, enacted by the voters in the 1993 general election, created a state expenditure limit and, with certain exceptions, requires that revenues received in excess of the limit be placed in reserve accounts and not spent. One provision of Initiative 601, codified as RCW 43.135.035, would require the expenditure limit to be lowered to reflect any transfer of money from the general fund to other funds or accounts. Another provision of Initiative 601, codified as RCW 43.135.060, provides that local governments shall be fully reimbursed by specific appropriation by the state for the costs of responsibilities imposed on local governments for new programs or for increases in service levels under existing programs.

Certain municipalities that operate transit agencies may levy a local motor vehicle excise tax which is credited against the state tax. To obtain a distribution from the revenues generated, these municipalities must match the distribution with other revenues. Local sales taxes specifically imposed to support public transportation systems may not currently be used as matching funds.

The Effect Of The Measure If Approved Into Law

The measure would reduce the motor vehicle excise tax; reallocate the revenue from this tax and other revenues; provide for the issuance of $1.9 billion in state general obligation bonds to finance state and local highway improvements; and make other changes in state and local government funding provisions.

The motor vehicle excise tax would be reduced by a $30 credit against the tax for each personal-use motor vehicle, truck weighing up to 6000 pounds, or motorcycle. In addition, the statutory depreciation schedule would be changed so that the taxable value of a vehicle would be lowered in the second and third years of its use.

The distribution of revenues from the motor vehicle excise tax to various state funds would be changed in a number of ways. The allocation to the state general fund would be reduced from 57.644% to 13.573% through June 30, 1999, and after that date would be entirely eliminated. The portion allocated to the transportation fund would be increased from 5% to 43.605% through June 30, 1999, and then to 51.203%. The motor vehicle excise tax revenue allocated and distributed to other funds would be increased or decreased by varying amounts. The measure would require transfers from the general fund into two of these funds, the county criminal justice assistance account and the municipal criminal justice assistance account. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2000, the limits on distributions into these accounts would be removed. Part of the reallocated motor vehicle excise tax revenue would be distributed to economically distressed counties through a new account in the treasury.

The measure provides for the issuance and sale of up to $1.9 billion of general obligation bonds to pay for the location, design, right of way, and construction of state and local highway improvements. No bonds could be offered for sale without additional legislative action. The measure provides that the bonds shall pledge the full faith and credit of the state for payment of the principal and interest when due. The proceeds from the sale of the bonds would be deposited in the motor vehicle fund, and the principal and interest on the bonds would be first payable from revenues from the motor vehicle fuel and special fuel excise taxes.

The measure would modify Initiative 601 (RCW 43.135.035) to provide that the transfer of moneys from the general fund to other funds or accounts as authorized in this measure would not reduce the state expenditure limit. The measure would also modify Initiative 601 (RCW 43.135.060) to allow the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new programs or increased service levels through increases in state distributions of revenue to local governments.

The measure would authorize certain cities owning and operating municipal public transportation systems to use local public transportation sales tax revenues to match their local motor vehicle excise tax revenues. This authorization would be implemented over a four year period beginning July 1, 1999. After July 1, 2002, 100% of the revenues generated from the local motor vehicle excise tax could be matched by local public transportation sales tax revenues.


Arguments For Referendum 49
Please join us in voting yes on Referendum 49 to reform our state's auto license tab system and to move ahead on critical transportation projects.

A yes vote is a vote for less congestion on our roads, less taxes on our cars and more dollars to fight crime in our communities.

VOTE YES TO REDUCE YOUR LICENSE TAB FEES AND TAXES BY $30 PER CAR.

Referendum 49 will reduce the license tab fee on each auto by $30. Your car will no longer be taxed at 100% of new value in your second year of ownership.

VOTE YES TO ALLOCATE MORE OF YOUR LICENSE TAB FEES TO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

Only about one-half of your license tab fees now support transportation projects. R-49 will dedicate most of your license tab fees to transportation - where they belong.

VOTE YES TO PROVIDE MOST OF THE FINANCING FOR A $2.4 BILLION PLAN TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, MAKE OUR HIGHWAYS SAFER AND MOVE WASHINGTON GOODS TO MARKET.

By dedicating more of our license tab revenues - part of the $800 million budget surplus - to transportation, $2.4 billion will be available for transportation improvements. No new taxes are needed to provide these funds.

VOTE YES TO HELP COMMUNITIES FIGHT CRIME AND CREATE JOBS.

Local governments face rapidly rising costs for courts and jails. R-49 provides substantial surplus funds to communities for criminal justice. It also provides new funds to counties with high unemployment to help them with transportation and other economic development needs.

Vote yes because we need transportation solutions now to get our state moving again. Our freeways are dangerously congested. Traffic congestion is so bad, we can't wait any longer. R-49 will get us moving again.

Rebuttal to Arguments Above
Referendum 49 is risky, irresponsible government at its worst!

* It demands a blank check without saying how it will be spent.
* It takes money that could be spent on schools.
* It will make congestion worse by cutting funds for transit.

Don't be fooled by a politically crafty plan filled with false promises to relieve traffic congestion, fund local criminal justice and provide a tax cut without harming other programs.

Vote no on Referendum 49!

Arguments In Favor Submitted By
KAREN SCHMIDT, State Representative, Chairman, Legislative Transportation Committee; JEANNETTE WOOD, State Senator, Chair, Senate Higher Education Committee; MICHAEL PATRICK, Executive Director, Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs.

Advisory Committee: ED HANSEN, Mayor, City of Everett; MIC DINSMORE, Executive Director, Port of Seattle; LOWELL LANCASTER, Chair, Washington State Horticulture Assn.; KEN SMITH, President, WaferTech; ROB HIGGINS, Executive Vice President, Spokane Association of Realtors.
Referendum 49 is credit card government at its worst. It doesn't solve our transportation crisis, doesn't list the road projects it might finance, and takes money that should go to schools.


*****************************************************************************
Arguments Against Referendum 49
VOTE NO ON 25 YEARS OF DEBT FOR 5 YEARS OF PROJECTS

Referendum 49 will plunge the state into the deepest debt in history - credit card debt that will take a generation to pay off. Taxpayers will pay billions of dollars in interest that should be spent on roads and transit! In fact, transit spending will be cut by millions. Burdening taxpayers with decades of interest payments for only five years of projects makes no sense.

VOTE NO ON MONEY WITHOUT A PLAN

Referendum 49 says nothing about the projects the money will be spent on. No one knows what projects future legislatures, governors, and the Transportation Commission will approve.

VOTE NO ON A PLAN THAT WON'T FIX YOUR STREET'S POTHOLES

Referendum 49 won't ease congestion. It provides only pennies to fix potholes on your city streets and county roads! It cuts transit funding now and in the future.

VOTE NO ON JEOPARDIZING OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE

This plan endangers our schools and colleges. If the economy slows, we'll need the state's budget surplus to pay for education. Referendum 49 means that surplus will pay the interest on our road debt instead.

Referendum 49 makes false promises to relieve traffic congestion, fund local criminal justice and provide a tax cut without harming other programs. Don't believe it! We cannot risk our future with a plan that is too expensive, hurts schools and doesn't fix the problem.

Vote no on Referendum 49.

Rebuttal to Arguments Above
Under R-49, Washington will have projected reserves more than $700 million above the voter-approved spending limit. Therefore, education cannot be affected. Not one bit. R-49 will improve transportation and provide healthy rainy-day reserves.

Like R-49, other options would use traditional, low-interest bonds to finance transportation projects. Instead of raising taxes, R-49 simply directs more license tab revenue toward transportation.

R-49 will fund a bipartisan plan to relieve congestion, increase safety, and get Washington moving again!

Arguments Against Submitted By
GARY LOCKE, Governor; MARY MARGARET HAUGEN, State Senator; RUTH FISHER, State Representative.

Advisory Committee: PAUL SCHELL, Mayor, Seattle; ELIZABETH PIERINI, President, League of Women Voters, Washington State Chapter; VALORIA LOVELAND, State Senator; DR. TERRY BERGESON, Superintendent of Public Instruction; DALE NUSSBAUM, President, Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council, Spokane.

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.