Washington Oil Spill Prevention Taxes Advisory Vote No. 10 (2015)

Advisory Vote 10

Type| Advisory question
Topic| Taxes
Status| Maintained a
Washington
2015 ballot

Initiative 1366 \- Sales taxes
Initiative 1401 \- Animals
Advisory 10 \- Spill taxes
Advisory 11 \- Marijuana
Advisory 12 \- Gas taxes
Advisory 13 \- Business taxes
All 2015 U.S. measures

The Washington Oil Spill Prevention Taxes Advisory Vote was on the ballot in Washington on November 3, 2015, as an advisory question. A majority of voters voted in favor of maintaining the bill.[1]

| Voting "repealed" would have advised withdrawing the oil response and oil spill administration taxes.

|

| Voting "maintained" would have advised leaving current laws unchanged; in particular, retaining both the oil response and oil spill administration taxes.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Introduction
* 3 Background
* 3.1 Initiative 960
* 3.2 Oil boom
* 4 Text of measure
* 4.1 Ballot title
* 5 Fiscal Impact
* 6 Support
* 6.1 Sponsors
* 6.2 Arguments in favor
* 7 Opposition
* 7.1 Opponents
* 7.2 Arguments against
* 8 Path to the ballot
* 8.1 HB 1449
* 9 State profile
* 9.1 Presidential voting pattern
* 9.1.1 Pivot Counties (2016)
* 9.1.2 Pivot Counties (2020)
* 10 See also
* 11 External links
* 12 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Washington Advisory No. 10

Result| Votes| Percentage
d Repealed|  699,275|  48.68%
a Maintained|  737,273|  51.32%

Election results via: Washington Secretary of State

## Introduction[edit]

Advisory Vote No. 10 was created because the Washington Legislature passed House Bill 1449, which contains a tax increase. The bill aims to improve oil transportation safety and extends a barrel tax on oil transported to railroads via boats. Revenue will be used to pay for response and cleanup in the event of an oil spill.[2]

## Background[edit]

### Initiative 960[edit]

See also: Washington Initiative 960

A 2007 ballot measure, Initiative 960, requires an advisory vote on all tax increases passed in the state legislature. The votes hold no legally binding effects, but advises lawmakers on how the public feels about the tax increase.

Initiative 960 was sponsored by Tim Eyman and originally required a two-thirds supermajority vote in the legislature or a legally binding vote of the people to approve any tax increases or eliminations of tax credits. Though the supermajority requirement was struck down by the Washington Supreme Court in 2013, the advisory vote clause was left intact.[3][4]

### Oil boom[edit]

After a dramatic increase in oil moving through Washington railroads, Gov. Jay Inslee requested legislation to improve oil transportation safety. In 2011, oil trains rarely moved through the state and if so, by marine tanker or in pipelines. But after the shale-oil boom in North Dakota in 2013, nearly 700 million gallons of oil moved through the rail system in Washington because it is the fifth-largest refining state in the country. House Bill 1449 was created to ensure oil is transported safely through the state.[2]

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The official ballot title was:[5]

“  | The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, oil spill response and administration taxes to apply to crude oil or petroleum products transported by railroad, costing $17,000,000, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

( ) Repealed

( ) Maintained[6]

| ”

|
|

## Fiscal Impact[edit]

The Washington Office of Financial Management released a 10-year cost projection.[5]

Fiscal Year  | Oil Spill Administration Tax  | Oil Spill Response Tax  | Total

|
|
|

2016 | $642,000 | $675,000 | $1,317,000
2017 | $1,100,000 | $675,000 | $1,775,000
2018 | $1,300,000 |  | $1,300,000
2019 | $1,500,000 |  | $1,500,000
2020 | $1,780,000 |  | $1,780,000
2021 | $1,780,000 |  | $1,780,000
2022 | $1,780,000 |  | $1,780,000
2023 | $1,780,000 |  | $1,780,000
2024 | $1,780,000 |  | $1,780,000
2025 | $1,780,000 |  | $1,780,000
Total | $15,222,000 | $1,350,000 | $16,572,000

## Support[edit]

### Sponsors[edit]

The following legislators sponsored the measure:

* Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D-46b)
* Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36a)
* Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34b)
* Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self (D-21b)
* Rep. Strom Peterson (D-21a)
* Rep. Brady Walkinshaw (D-431)
* Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-33b)
* Rep. Tana Senn (D-41)
* Rep. Joan McBride (D-48b)
* Rep. June Robinson (D-38a)
* Rep. Gael Tarleton (D-36b)
* Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-46a)
* Rep. Eileen Cody (D-34a)
* Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3b)
* Rep. Marcus Riccelli (D-3a)
* Rep. Ruth Kagi (D-32b)
* Rep. Brian Blake (D-19b)
* Rep. Jake Fey (D-27b)
* Rep. Zack Hudgins (D-11a)
* Rep. Kristine Lytton (D-40a)
* Rep. Steve Bergquist (D-11b)
* Rep. Mike Sells (D-38b)
* Sen. Dean Takko (D-19)
* Rep. Steve Tharinger (D-24b)
* Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27a)
* Rep. Sharon Wylie (D-49a)
* Rep. Sam Hunt (D-22b)
* Rep. Derek Stanford (D-1a)
* Rep. Chris Reykdal (D-22a)
* Rep. David Sawyer (D-29a)
* Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-23a)
* Rep. Kevin Van De Wege (D-24a)
* Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41b)
* Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-32a)
* Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45a)
* Rep. Christine Kilduff (D-28b)

### Arguments in favor[edit]

Gov. Jay Inslee

Gov. Jay Inslee said:[7]

“  | The barrel tax is a modest increase – less than one-tenth of one percent of the current barrel prices – but ensures an exponentially larger degree of certainty that in the event of a spill or explosion we are ready to respond.[6] | ”

|
|

Progressive Voters' Guide argued:[8]

“  | Legislators voted nearly unanimously for new oil train safety regulations, including directing some oil taxes to help pay for oil-train spill response. Senate Bill 1449 passed the legislature 141 to 1 with 5 excused. Thanks to a Tim Eyman initiative, the state legislature is required to submit any bill it passes that closes tax loopholes or raises revenue to a non-binding advisory vote. Vote to "maintain" this measure.[6] | ”

|
|

The summary of public testimony before the House's committee on environment in favor of HB 1449 states:[9]

“  | Over the last several years, there have been rapid changes in how oil is transported through the state. Oil-carrying train traffic has increased dramatically. More action is needed to improve rail transportation safety than marine transportation safety, but improvements are needed in both arenas. This bill applies the same safety requirements to oil moving by train as it does to oil moving by ship. The bill fills in the gap where federal safety requirements are not sufficient, such as for oil spill contingency planning. Prevention, preparedness, and response capacity are all important facets of state agency oil spill programs' ability protect public safety and the environment. Prevention is particularly important, and the state must adopt a zero-spill goal. There are large gaps in the state's knowledge about the oil being transported through our state, and the advanced notice of oil transfer parts of the bill are critical for that reason. Federal oil movement disclosure provisions are not sufficient, and only apply to crude from the Baaken region being moved in 1 million gallon increments. Emergency responders need to have detailed information about when, where, and how oil is moving across the state. In addition to the lack of public information there are gaps in state and local capacity to respond to an accident.[6] | ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The following legislator voted against the measure:

* Rep. David Taylor (R-15b)

### Arguments against[edit]

The summary of public testimony before the House's committee on environment against HB 1449 states:[9]

“  | Major new federal actions to improve oil transportation safety have been put in place in the past year. Providing advanced notice of when and where oil will be delivered poses antitrust, competitive, and homeland security concerns. Parts of this bill are duplicative of federal requirements or international standards, or are preempted by federal laws. Safety is a concern for railroads, who already spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on safety improvements. Railroads take safety risks seriously, and work to prevent accidents. Railroads have invested in training local first responders for over a decade, and currently give information about hazardous materials moving through communities to first responders who are willing to sign a confidentiality agreement. Marine transport of oil is already the safest way to move oil in the state, and the industry's safety has continued to improve over the years. Many of the vessels used to move oil are state-of-the art, and contain many safety features.[6] | ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington

The measure was sent to the ballot via the aforementioned Initiative 960.

### HB 1449[edit]

The bill that Initiative 960 referred to the ballot as an advisory question is House Bill 1449. The Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives both passed the ball on April 24, 2015. All voting senators approved the bill and Rep. David Taylor (R-15) was the only representative to vote against it.[10]

Washington HB 1449 House Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  95|  99%
No| 1| 1%

Two legislators were excused: Rep. Richard DeBolt and Rep. Graham Hunt.

Washington HB 1449 Senate Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  46|  100%
No| 0| 0%

Three legislators were excused: Sen. Marko Liias, Sen. Mark Mullet and Sen. Kevin Ranker

Gov. Jay Inslee signed the bill into law on May 14, 2015. [11]

## State profile[edit]

Demographic data for Washington

| Washington| U.S.
Total population:| 7,160,290| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 66,456| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 77.8%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 3.6%| 12.6%
Asian:| 7.7%| 5.1%
Native American:| 1.3%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0.6%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 5.2%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 12%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 90.4%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 32.9%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $61,062| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 14.4%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Washington.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

### Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington

Washington voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

#### Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Washington, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.[12]

#### Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Washington had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia

* Elections in Washington
* United States congressional delegations from Washington
* Public policy in Washington
* Endorsers in Washington
* Washington fact checks
* More...

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Washington 2015 ballot measures
* 2015 ballot measures
* Washington ballot measures

## External links[edit]

Washington 2015 General Election Voters' Guide

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Non-binding tax advisory votes headed to WA ballot," July 23, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Q13 FOX, "Washington Legislature passes, sends governor oil train safety bill," April 24, 2015
3. ↑ Olympian, "UPDATE - AG: Five tax measures qualify for advisory votes on November ballots," July 16, 2013
4. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `wasos`
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Washington Secretary of State, "Voters' Guide," accessed September 24, 2015
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
7. ↑ Washington Governor Jay Inslee, "Inslee’s oil transportation safety bill passed with bipartisan support out of state House of Representatives," March 6, 2015
8. ↑ Progressive Voters Guide, "Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed October 29, 2015
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Washington State Legislature, "House Bill Report - HB 1449," accessed October 29, 2015
10. ↑ Washington Legislature, "HB 1449," accessed July 24, 2015
11. ↑ Bothell/Kenmore Reporter, "http://www.bothell-reporter.com/news/303815451.html#," May 14, 2015
12. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

v • e

2015 ballot measures

I&R States|

Colorado • Maine • Michigan • Mississippi • Ohio • Washington

Non I&R States|

Louisiana • Texas • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Athletics • Banking • Bonds • Business regulation • Direct democracy • Education • Elections and campaigns • Gambling • Housing • Hunting and fishing • Marijuana • Property • Redistricting • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislatures • Taxes • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures • Not on the ballot

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