Washington Lower Property Taxes, Initiative 1033 (2009)

Voting on taxes Ballot measures By state By year Not on ballot Local City taxes County taxes School taxes Property taxes Sales taxes Income taxes Other taxes Ballot measures in Washington State Constitutional amendments Initiatives to the People Initiatives to the Legislature Statutes referred by Legislature Veto referendums Political topics on the ballot Laws • History • Constitution

The Washington Lower Property Taxes Initiative, also known as Initiative 1033, was on the November 3, 2009 ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, where it was defeated. The measure would have limited growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases, and any revenues collective above the limit would have been used to reduce property tax levies.^[1]

Election results[edit]

Washington Initiative 1033 (2009)
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		538,768	55.38%
Yes		434,051	44.62%

Election results via: Washington Secretary of State

Text of measure[edit]

The language appeared on the ballot as:^[1]

“

Initiative Measure No. 1033 concerns state, county and city revenue. This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No[2]

”

Fiscal note[edit]

A fiscal impact statement was included in the 2009 Voters' Guide. The fiscal impacts of Initiative 985 are described as follows:^[1]

“

Initiative 1033 limits annual growth of state, city and county general fund revenue to the rate of inflation and population growth. General fund revenues exceeding this limit must be used to reduce the following year’s state, city or county general fund property tax levy. The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education; social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015.[2]

”

Support[edit]

"Voters Want More Choices," an organization headed by Tim Eyman, Leo Fagan and M.J. Fagan, spearheaded the campaign in support of the initiative. Supporters of the initiative include the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Taxpayers Union.

Arguments[edit]

The following reasons were given in support of Initiative 1033 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:^[1]

“

I-1033 Closes Loopholes the Legislature Put in Taxpayer Protection Initiative 601, Voter-Approved in 1993 In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved I-601, putting reasonable limits on government’s fiscal policies, establishing a sustainable rate for government to grow. I-601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it, resulting in major deficits – $3.2 billion in 2003 – $9 billion in 2009. I-1033 reestablishes I-601’s same reasonable allowance for growth (inflation plus population growth) and includes a safety valve allowing higher increases with voter approval. I-1033 gets government off the “fiscal roller coaster,” allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn’t outpace taxpayers’ ability to afford it. What Happens to Excess Tax Revenues that Government Collects Above I-1033's Limit? After a Fixed... …percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state’s crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn’t be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I-1033 provides needed, long-overdue property tax relief. Opponents Want Higher Taxes and a State Income Tax - Opponents are Against Any Limits on... …government’s power to take as much as they want from taxpayers. Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I-1033 allows government to grow but at a rate citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I-1033 is needed now more than ever. Washington's the 8th Highest Taxed State in the Nation – I-1033 Keeps us from Hitting #1 I-1033 reminds politicians that taxpayers don’t have bottomless wallets. I-1033 puts a reasonable limit on the growth of government and provides plenty of flexibility (rainy day funds, federal funds, voter-approved revenues). Vote Yes.[2]

”

The arguments in favor of Initiative 1033 were prepared by:^[1]

• Erma Turner, beauty shop owner, gathered 3699 signatures, Cle Elum
• Steven Bencze, retired warehouseman, fisherman/hunter, gathered 2568 signatures, Othello
• Mike Dunmire, husband, community leader, retired businessman, initiative volunteer, Woodinville
• Jack Fagan, retired policeman, retired navy, grandfather, campaign organizer, Spokane
• Mike Fagan, small businessman, community leader, father, campaign organizer, Spokane
• Tim Eyman, $30 Car Tab Guy, Taxpayer Advocate, Yakima / Mukilteo

Contributions[edit]

Those supporting Initiative 1033 raised $727,049.^[3] The top five donors in support of the initiative were:^[4]

• Mike Dunmire: $300,000
• Kemper Holdings LLC: $25,000
• Duane Alton: $5,000
• Electric Contractors Association: $3,000
• Rolan Becker: $2,000

Opposition[edit]

"No on I-1033," the organization opposing the initiative, was managed by Aisling Kerins. Those opposing the initiative included AARP Washington, American Federation of Teachers Washington, the AFL-CIO, King County Democrats, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Microsoft Corporation, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, The Nature Conservancy Washington, SEIU Locals 775, 925 and 1199, the Washington Education Association, the Washington Public Employees Association, the Washington Federation of State Employees, Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation, and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Washington. State Treasurer Jim McIntyre said he would not be supporting the initiative, noting that it would do "financial damage" to the state.^[5]

Arguments[edit]

The following reasons were given in opposition to Initiative 1033 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:^[1]

“

Eyman’s latest initiative is already a proven failure. Tim Eyman’s latest initiative uses the same failed formula as the “TABOR” law passed in Colorado, which led to deep cuts to public schools, roads and highways, and children’s health care. It did so much damage to the state’s economy that in 2005, Coloradans voted to suspend the law. I-1033 will make it harder for us to dig out of the recession. The national recession has cost our state thousands of jobs and forced billions in cutbacks to important local services, like education and health care. I-1033 will force deeper cuts and lock them in for years – meaning more job losses, more hard times for Washington families, and a longer delay waiting for our economy to recover. More bad news for our communities and small businesses. I-1033 will make things harder than ever for local communities already struggling to maintain basic services such as road repair, libraries and public safety. Small businesses rely on those services, and oppose I-1033 because they will continue to suffer during a prolonged recession. More damage to our schools, and a deepening health care crisis. This year we’ve slashed school funding by $1.5 billion, and as many as 3,000 teachers and education employees are facing layoffs. The Eyman TABOR plan will take even more resources away from Washington’s classrooms – and Washington’s kids. Despite a growing senior population, funding for nursing homes, in-home care and adult day health services are being cut – and 40,000 Washington residents of all ages may lose their Basic Health Plan coverage. Eyman’s TABOR plan will make our health care crisis more severe. Times are tough enough already – let’s not make them worse. Vote NO on I-1033.[2]

”

The arguments against Initiative 1033 were prepared by:^[1]

• Doug Shadel, AARP Washington, State Director
• Kelly Fox, Washington State Council of Fire Fighters, President
• Laura Feshbach, Co-owner Harmatta Construction Inc, Seattle
• Teri Nicholson, Registered Nurse, Valley Hospital and Medical Center, Spokane
• Mary Lindquist, Washington Education Association, high school Social Studies teacher
• Kelley Collen, Assistant Economics Professor, Eastern Washington University, Cheney

Contributions[edit]

Those opposing Initiative 1033 raised $3,527,362.^[3] The top five donors opposing the initiative were:^[6]

• National Education Association: $328,600
• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: $325,000
• Service Employees International Union: $297,500
• Bill Gates: $100,000
• Washington State Council of County & City Employees: $87,500

Media editorial positions[edit]

Support[edit]

• The Chronicle said, "We maintain our state government spends too much of our money and without outside pressure and laws such as I-1033, those running our governments will continue to turn toward higher taxes to fund ever-expanding programs. Vote yes on I-1033."^[7]

Opposition[edit]

• The Seattle Times said, "If I-1033 passes, the state Office of Financial Management predicts a $5.9 billion budget hole over six years. There is no way that education, human services, criminal justice and natural resources will not suffer as a result."^[8]
• The Spokesman-Review said, "Most people in this region are willing to shoulder a reasonable tax burden to pay for fundamental government services, and they’re eager for the economic recovery that will make it possible. Initiative 1033 would only prolong the difficult times."^[9]
• Yakima Herald-Republic said, "What concerns us also are the cutbacks that will befall our cities and counties under Eyman's initiative. His main beef has always been with what he calls free-spending state lawmakers. So why drop a sledge-hammer on cash-strapped towns and counties? Due to plunging sales and property taxes, Central Washington municipalities and counties are facing extreme budget shortfalls despite being, as a group, fiscally prudent. But under Eyman's initiative, that doesn't matter."^[10]

Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2009 ballot measures

• A poll conducted October 14 – 26 by the Washington Poll revealed that 41% of voters planned to vote in favor of I-1033, while 46% were opposed and 13% were undecided. They polled 724 registered voters. The margin of error is reported to be +/- 3.6%.^[11][12]

• KING5/SurveyUSA conducted a survey of 1,050 adults between October 3-October 5. The poll showed I-1033 ahead by 13% points, with 22% of those surveyed undecided.^[13][14]

• On September 22, 2009 Rasmussen Reports presented poll results that revealed that 61% of voters planned to vote "yes" on I-1033, while 31% planned on voting "no" on the measure.^[15]

• According to a poll conducted by pollster Tom Kiley, sponsored by I-1033 opponents, 51% of surveyed voters supported the measure, while 31% opposed the measure.^[16]

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
September 2009	Tom Kiley	51%	31%	18%
Sept. 22, 2009	Rasmussen Reports	61%	31%	8%
Oct. 3 - 5	KING5/Survey USA	45%	32%	22%
Oct. 14 – 26	Washington Poll	41%	46%	13%

Path to the ballot[edit]

Initiative 1033 was filed on January 5, 2009 by Tim Eyman. 315,444 signatures were submitted to qualify it for the ballot. The measure was placed on the ballot as provided for by the state constitution.^[17]

Public records request[edit]

In August 2009, the National Education Association filed a request for copies of petitions that were submitted and verified for the initiative.^[18] Eyman questioned the association's reason for requesting the information, particularly with issues of signature privacy and the release of donor names concerning Referendum 71. Eyman worried that "the National Education Association's Charles Hasse... [would be] publishing names and addresses of Washington state's citizens who signed I-1033 petitions... What other reason would there be for these Washington DC 'big guns' to get the names and addresses of Washington state citizens who signed I-1033 petitions?"^[19]

Legal challenges[edit]

On September 8, 2009, Voters Want More Choices, Tim Eyman and Jack and Mike Fagan filed a lawsuit in Thurston County, Washington. They sought to halt the use of ballot language that they argued was "erroneous" and "misleading." They stated that the ballot language was intended only to provide examples of revenue sources rather than an exclusive list of revenue sources covered by the initiative. Additionally, they wanted to remove exclusions from the revenue limit of state and federal grants received by cities and counties.^[20] Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled that the ballot language would not be changed, stating that he could not find a clear error in the ballot's fiscal statement.^[21]

On October 13, 2009, Eyman filed a lawsuit to block the release of initiative petition signatures.^[22] He argued that the signers' identities are protected by the freedom of speech.^[23] Judge Richard Hicks of the Thurston County Superior Court granted a temporary restraining order on signature releases on October 15, 2009.^[24]

In September 2010, Judge Richard Hicks dissolved an injunction on the release of signatures.^[25] The Secretary of State stated that the requestor cannot use any of the signatures for commercial purposes.^[26]

Similar measures[edit]

aColorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act (1992)
dMaine Taxpayer Bill of Rights Initiative (2006)
dMaine Government Expenditure Limits and Voter Approval of Taxes Initiative, Question 4 (2009)

See also[edit]

• Washington 2009 ballot measures
• 2009 ballot measures
• List of Washington ballot measures

Articles[edit]

• Eyman signature privacy case dismissed, R-71 challenge returns to court in 2011
• Opponents raise millions against Washington's I-1033
• Eyman petitions to stay private for now
• Tim Eyman files lawsuit to block release of petition signatures
• Washington's I-1033 opposition receives funding boost
• New poll shows I-1033 with a lead, many undecided
• Washington's I-1033 likely to pass, according to polls
• Washington tax increases possible, voters to decide on spending limit
• Washington coalition aims to defeat I-1033
• Court lacks authority to change I-1033 language, says judge
• Washington I-1033 supporters file lawsuit regarding ballot language
• Washington property tax initiative likely to move to ballot

External links[edit]

• Washington 2009 election results
• State of Washington 2009 Voters Pamphlet
• Voters Want More Choices
• Taxpayers for 1033
• Vote No Initiative 1033
• Permanent Defense: NO on I-1033

Additional reading[edit]

Editorials[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2009 ballot measures States California • Maine • New Jersey • New York • Ohio • Texas • Washington Other Election results • Polls, 2009 ballot measures • Ballot measure petition deadlines and requirements, 2009 • 2009 ballot measure litigation • List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009 • 2009 ballot measure calendar • 2009 ballot measure endorsements

	v • e State of Washington Olympia (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy