Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 Affirmative Action Measure (2019)

Washington Referendum 88

Election date
November 5, 2019
Topic
Affirmative action
Status
d Defeated
Type
Referendum| Origin
Citizens

* * *

List of Washington measuresWashington Initiative 976Washington Washington Referendum 88Washington Senate Joint Resolution 8200Washington Advisory Vote 20Washington Advisory Vote 21Washington Advisory Vote 22Washington Advisory Vote 23Washington Advisory Vote 24Washington Advisory Vote 25Washington Advisory Vote 26Washington Advisory Vote 27Washington Advisory Vote 28Washington Advisory Vote 29Washington Advisory Vote 30Washington Advisory Vote 31Submit

* * *

Washington Referendum 88, the Vote on Initiative 1000 (I-1000) Affirmative Action measure, was on the ballot in Washington as a veto referendum on November 5, 2019. It was defeated.

|  An approve vote supported allowing Initiative 1000 to go into effect, thereby expressly allowing the state to implement affirmative action policies without the use of preferential treatment (as defined) or quotas (as defined) in public employment, education, and contracting.

|

|  A reject vote supported blocking I-1000 from going into effect, thereby continuing to restrict the state from implementing certain affirmative action policies in public employment, education, and contracting.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 2.1 What would Referendum 88 have changed?
* 2.2 What was Initiative 1000?
* 2.3 Campaign finance
* 2.4 Veto referendums targeting Initiatives to the Legislature
* 3 Measure design
* 3.1 Characteristics included in affirmative action and preferential treatment
* 3.2 Definitions
* 3.3 Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
* 4 Text of measure
* 4.1 Ballot title
* 4.2 Ballot summary
* 4.3 Explanatory statement
* 4.4 Full text
* 4.5 Readability score
* 4.6 Fiscal impact statement
* 5 Support for an approve vote
* 5.1 Supporters for an approve vote
* 5.1.1 Officials
* 5.1.2 Organizations and businesses
* 5.2 Arguments
* 5.2.1 Official arguments
* 6 Support for a reject vote
* 6.1 Supporters for a reject vote
* 6.1.1 Organizations
* 6.1.2 Individuals and officials
* 6.2 Arguments
* 6.2.1 Official arguments
* 7 Media editorials
* 7.1 Support for an approve vote
* 7.2 Support for a reject vote
* 8 Campaign finance
* 8.1 Support for an approve vote
* 8.1.1 Top donors
* 8.2 Support for a reject vote
* 8.2.1 Top donors
* 8.3 Methodology
* 9 Background
* 9.1 Affirmative action
* 9.2 Washington Initiative 200 (1998)
* 9.3 Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure
* 9.4 Affirmative action bans in other states
* 9.5 Veto referendums in Washington
* 9.6 Initiatives to the Legislature
* 9.7 Initiatives to the Legislature challenged by veto referendums
* 10 Path to the ballot
* 10.1 The state process
* 10.2 Details about this veto referendum
* 11 How to cast a vote
* 11.1 Poll times
* 11.2 Registration requirements
* 11.3 Automatic registration
* 11.4 Online registration
* 11.5 Same-day registration
* 11.6 Residency requirements
* 11.7 Verification of citizenship
* 11.8 Verifying your registration
* 11.9 Voter ID requirements
* 11.10 Background
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
* 13.1 Support for an approve vote
* 13.2 Support for a reject vote
* 14 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Washington Referendum 88

Result | Votes | Percentage
Yes | 952,053 | 49.44%

| 973,610 | 50.56%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Overview[edit]

### What would Referendum 88 have changed?[edit]

Referendum 88 was a veto referendum that was designed to require a statewide vote on Initiative 1000, an initiative that was approved by the legislature in April 2019.

Washington Initiative 1000 was designed to allow affirmative action policies by the state of Washington in the areas of public education, public employment, and public contracting as long as such policies do not constitute preferential treatment (as defined) and do not use quotas. I-1000 was an Initiative to the Legislature that the 2019 legislature approved. Since the legislature approved I-1000, it was not placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection.

Going into the election, any affirmative action policies determined to be preferential treatment (not defined) were banned in Washington under Initiative 200 of 1998. I-200 prohibited public institutions from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public education, public employment, and public contracting.

* Under I-1000, preferential treatment would have been prohibited. I-1000 would have defined preferential treatment as using certain characteristics (such as race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, color, or age) as the sole factor for selecting a lesser-qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate.[1]
* However, affirmative action would have been allowed under I-1000. I-1000 would have defined affirmative action as using certain characteristics (such as race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, color, or age) as factors when considering a person for education or employment opportunities.[2]

### What was Initiative 1000?[edit]

Initiative 1000 (I-1000) was an Initiative to the Legislature (ITL) that was sponsored by the One Washington Equality Campaign. The state legislature approved I-1000 on April 28, 2019, meaning the measure did not have to go to the ballot for voter approval.[3] I-1000 was passed along party lines in a vote of 56-42 in the House and 26-22 in the Senate, with all votes in favor coming from Democratic legislators. In the House, one Democrat, Brian Blake of District 19b, joined all House Republicans in voting no. Two Senate Democrats, Mark Mullet of District 5 and Tim Sheldon of District 35, joined the 20 Senate Republicans in voting no. Senator Guy Palumbo (D-1) was excused from voting.[4] Opponents of I-1000 filed Referendum 88 to require a statewide vote on I-1000.

### Campaign finance[edit]

How current is this information?

The campaign finance information on this page was last updated according to the most recent reports available on December 11, 2019.

Ballotpedia identified three committees registered in support of an approve vote: Approve I-1000, Washington Fairness Coalition, and One Washington Equality Campaign. The committees reported $1.89 million in contributions and $1.81 million in expenditures.[5]

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered in support of a reject vote: Let People Vote/ Reject R-88 and Grassroots Against I-1000. The committees reported $1.52 million in contributions and $1.49 million in expenditures.[5]

### Veto referendums targeting Initiatives to the Legislature[edit]

Since the first in 1914, Washington voters have decided 37 statewide veto referendum measures at the ballot. Since the first Initiative to the Legislature (ITL) in 1914, five have been approved by the legislature. Referendum efforts were subsequently filed against two of the ITLs and succeeded in overturning them. Thirty-three ITLs were placed on the ballot for voter approval after having been rejected by the legislature or receiving no action from the legislature.

## Measure design[edit]

Washington Initiative 200, approved by voters in 1998, banned discrimination preferential treatment based on certain characteristics, such as race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, thereby restricting the state's use of affirmative action based on those characteristics. Initiative 1000 was designed to explicitly allow the state of Washington to implement affirmative action laws and policies while continuing to ban discrimination and preferential treatment. It also defines preferential treatment and affirmative action so that banning one and allowing the other is compatible.[6] [7]

### Characteristics included in affirmative action and preferential treatment[edit]

I-200 banned discrimination and preferential treatment based on the following characteristics:

* Race
* Sex
* Color
* Ethnicity
* National origin

I-1000 was designed to add the following characteristics to the law:

* Sexual orientation
* Age
* The presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability
* Honorably discharged veteran or military status

I-1000 was designed to allow the state to "remedy discrimination against, or under-representation of, disadvantaged groups as documented in a valid disparity study or proven in a court of law."[6]

### Definitions[edit]

Under I-1000, preferential treatment would have been prohibited. I-1000 would have defined preferential treatment as using one of the characteristics listed above as the sole factor for selecting a lesser-qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate.

However, affirmative action would have been allowed under I-1000. I-1000 would have defined affirmative action as using one or more of the characteristics listed above (except sexual orientation) as factors when considering a person for education or employment opportunities.

I-1000 would have defined the terms as follows:

Affirmative action: "A policy in which an individual's race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status are factors considered in the selection of qualified women, honorably discharged military veterans, persons in protected age categories, persons with disabilities, and minorities for opportunities in public education, public employment, and public contracting. Affirmative action includes, but shall not be limited to, recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, outreach, setting and achieving goals and timetables, and other measures designed to increase Washington's diversity in public education, public employment, and public contracting."

Preferential treatment: "The act of using race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status as the sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity."

### Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion[edit]

I-1000 was designed to create the Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the measure and is required to issue an annual report on the progress of state agencies in achieving the goals of the measure.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title for Referendum 88 is below:[7]

“  |

The legislature passed Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerning affirmative action and remedying discrimination, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this act. Initiative 1000 would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting.

Should Initiative 1000 be Approved [ ] Rejected [ ] [8]

|  ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary for Referendum 88 is below:[7]

“  |  Initiative 1000 would allow the state to remedy documented or proven discrimination against, or underrepresentation of, certain disadvantaged groups. It would allow the state to implement affirmative action in public education, employment, and contracting if the action does not use quotas or preferential treatment. It would define affirmative action and preferential treatment. It would establish a Governor's commission on diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure state agency compliance, comment on legislation, and publish annual reports.

[8]

|  ”

|
|

### Explanatory statement[edit]

The explanatory statement for Referendum 88, provided in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2019 general election, is below:

|  “  | The Law as It Presently Exists:

Until 1998, Washington law allowed the use of affirmative action in public education, public contracting, and public employment, subject to constitutional limits on the use of affirmative action. In 1998, Washington voters approved Initiative 200 (I-200). I-200 prohibits state and local government from making decisions on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

I-200 provides several exceptions involving disparate treatment based on sex. It does not apply to lawful classifications that are based on sex and are necessary for sexual privacy; medical or psychological treatment; undercover law enforcement; or film, video, audio, or theatrical casting. I-200 also allows separate athletic teams for each sex.

I-200 permits state and local governments to participate in federal programs that require actions that I-200 would otherwise prohibit. This allows state and local agencies to receive federal funds when federal law requires certain measures based on race, sex, or other categories.

The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved:

The public vote on Referendum 88 will decide whether Initiative 1000 (I-1000) becomes law.

I-1000 would allow the state to remedy documented discrimination or underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups in public education, employment, and contracting. Whether a group is disadvantaged would be determined by a valid disparity study or proven in court.

I-1000 would also allow affirmative action to increase diversity in public education, public employment, and public contracting. I-1000 would define affirmative action as a policy that considers an individual’s race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, sensory, mental or physical disability, or veteran or military status, when selecting qualified persons for opportunities in public education, public employment, and public contracting. Affirmative action would include, for example, recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, outreach, setting and achieving goals and timetables, and other measures to increase diversity. Affirmative action could not be used to impose quotas. In addition, race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, sensory, mental or physical disability, and veteran or military status could not be used as the sole qualifying factor to select a less qualified person over a more qualified person.

I-1000 would not prohibit state and local government from taking actions needed to establish or maintain eligibility for federal programs. But before such actions could be taken, certain state government officials would have to determine that it was necessary to avoid a material loss of federal funds.

I-1000 would also establish a Governor’s commission on diversity, equity, and inclusion. The commission would monitor and enforce agency compliance with I-1000. The commission could propose or oppose legislation. It would publish annual reports on the progress of agencies in achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion in public education, public employment, and public contracting. Various elected and appointed officials would serve on the commission.[8]

|  ”

|
|

### Full text[edit]

The full text of I-1000 can be read below. ~~Struck-through~~ text would have been deleted and underlined text would have been added:[6]

A Chinese translation of the full text of Initiative 1000 was provided to Ballotpedia by Bruce Huang, an English/Mandarin/Cantonese/Sichuanese Linguist. Click here to read this translation.

### Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2019
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Washington Attorney General wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is 15. The word count for the ballot title is 60, and the estimated reading time is 16 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 17, and the FRE is 9. The word count for the ballot summary is 74, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds.

### Fiscal impact statement[edit]

The fiscal impact statement provided in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2019 general election estimates a total cost to the state of $1.5 million for fiscal years 2019-2021 and beyond. The full fiscal impact statement can be found here.[9]

## Support for an approve vote[edit]

The campaign supported Initiative 1000 and advocated for an approve vote on R-88.[10][11]

The following committees led the campaign for an approve vote:

* Approve I-1000
* Approve R-88- Opportunities for All
* One Washington Equality Campaign
* Washington Fairness: Approve I-1000/R-88

### Supporters for an approve vote[edit]

The following individuals, organizations, and businesses had endorsed an approve vote on Referendum 88.[12][13][14] WA Fairness provided a list of endorsements on the campaign’s website, which is available here.

#### Officials[edit]

* Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D)[12]
* Former Washington governors Christine Gregoire (D), Gary F. Locke (D), and Daniel Jackson Evans (R)[12]
* U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D)[15]

#### Organizations and businesses[edit]

* ACLU of Washington
* Washington State Labor Council (WSLC)
* Washington State Democratic Central Committee (WSDCC)
* Washington Education Association
* Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion (DDI)
* League of Women Voters of Washington
* El Centro De La Raza
* Tabor 100
* Greater Seattle Business Association (GSBA)
* NAACP
* Faith Action Network (FAN)
* Washington State Civil Rights Coalition
* Tacoma/Pierce County Collective
* National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC)
* Martin Luther King County Labor Council
* King County Democrats
* Fuse Washington
* Microsoft
* Vulcan, Inc.
* Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

### Arguments[edit]

* Washington Fairness: Approve I-1000/R-88 said, "The Approval of I-1000/ R-88 would begin the process of reversing the inequitable trends resulting from the passage I-200. More economic opportunities would be afforded to veterans, small business owners, women, and people of color through public employment and contracting. We can take tangible, collective action to level the playing field for working families with the most urgent unmet needs, and we should strive to make Washington a place where someone’s race, ethnicity, gender, or other status isn’t a generational determinant of their ability to thrive or share equitably in the prosperity afforded to our region."[16]

* Microsoft Government Affairs Director Irene Plenefisch said, "Our workplaces and our communities are strongest when they include the most diverse range of backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. We support I-1000 because it helps create an inclusive society, ensuring that everyone has full and fair access to opportunity."[13]

* Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) said, "We know systemic inequities remain that cause communities of color, veterans, people with disabilities and women to face persistent barriers to work and education opportunities. I-1000 is a well-considered approach to updating our state’s policies and ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion in government contracts, employment, and schools. This policy will help provide the pathways to opportunity that all our communities deserve. It embraces the parts of the 20-year-old I-200 initiative that work well while recognizing what we can do better to address the challenges facing businesses, workers and students today ... Once the Secretary of State validates the signatures, I will make it a priority to have it passed by the Legislature in the upcoming session."[12]

* Washington State Labor Council President Larry Brown and Secretary-Treasurer April Sims said in a joint statement, "We can’t have shared success without shared opportunity. When certain people in our community are denied chances to succeed in our schools and workplaces because of who they are, those lost opportunities and wages hold us all back. We need to say 'no' to discrimination and demand better wages and jobs for everyone. We need to support I-1000 by approving Ref. 88 so that everyone in our state has better wages, jobs, and affordable, quality higher education."[13]

* I-1000 backer Jesse Wineberry said, "Our goal is to enable the people to speak once again, 20 years later, now with greater knowledge of what affirmative action is, and that is isn't preferential treatment."[17]

|

#### Official arguments[edit]

Following are the official arguments in support of Referendum 88 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2019 general election. Click [show] to expand the arguments.

R-88 official supporting arguments

|  “  |

Last year, nearly 400,000 voters petitioned lawmakers to support Initiative 1000, restoring fairness and opportunity to Washington’s public employment, contracting, and education enrollment policies. Our State Legislature listened, and passed I-1000. With special interests paying to overturn this law, voters must approve I-1000.

I-1000 Ensures a Level Playing Field with No Quotas

I-1000 simply restores rights consistent with 42 other U.S. states, ensuring fairness and opportunity for all people and small businesses. It allows outreach and recruitment to veterans, women, minorities, and others too often left behind in government hiring, contracting, and education. Under I-1000, quotas and preferential treatment are prohibited, and no one who is unqualified will be selected due to preferential treatment.

Improved Opportunity for Veterans and People of All Abilities

I-1000 expands laws allowing consideration for Vietnam era and disabled veterans in government contracting and employment to include all honorably discharged veterans and military personnel, honoring the sacrifice of those delaying entry into the workforce—or returning injured or disabled.

Build a Healthy Economy, Expand Small Business Opportunities

I-1000 ensures fairness and opportunities for small businesses competing for public contracts—helping local businesses grow local jobs. And, large employers need a diverse, skilled workforce, which is why Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, Vulcan, Amazon, and many other businesses all support I-1000, joining Labor organizations and civil rights groups like the ACLU and Urban League.

We urge all Washingtonians to approve I-1000 for fairness and equal opportunity.

Rebuttal of argument against: Don’t be fooled! I-1000 unifies us and creates opportunity for all! I-1000 prohibits government discrimination because of your age, gender, disability, race or veteran status without using quotas or preferences. It guarantees fairness and accountability. That’s why nearly 400,000 Washington voters are standing against fear and division. We’re taking action to help veterans, women, seniors, small businesses, and the disabled. Join the broad coalition of business, labor and community by approving I-1000![8]

|  ”

|
|

These arguments were prepared by former Washington governors Christine Gregoire (D), Gary F. Locke (D), and Daniel Jackson Evans (R); April Sims of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Marilyn Strickland, CEO of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce; and Rogelio Riojas, CEO of Sea Mar Community Health Centers.[9]

## Support for a reject vote[edit]

Let People Vote- Reject Referendum 88 sponsored the referendum petition effort. Let People Vote and Grassroots Against I-1000 led the campaign in support of a reject vote. The campaigns opposed Initiative 1000.[18] Let People Vote provided a list of endorsements on the campaign’s website, which is available here.

### Supporters for a reject vote[edit]

#### Organizations[edit]

* Washington Asians for Equality[19]
* Let People Vote[20]
* Washington State Veterans Bar Association[21]
* Bellevue Chinese Chamber of Commerce[22]
* American Coalition for Equality[22]
* Washington State Republican Party[23]

#### Individuals and officials[edit]

* State Rep. Jim Walsh (R)[22]
* Tim Eyman, Ward Connerly, and John Carlson— sponsors of Initiative 200 of 1998[24][17]

### Arguments[edit]

* Reject I-1000 argued, "Supporters of I-1000 claim it will stop discrimination, but in fact this Initiative will lead to new discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. If Initiative 1000 is passed, education/employment/public contracting will be preferentially granted by race, sex, color, etc, not by merit or need. While claiming to oppose preferential treatment, I-1000 actually allows it by changing the definition of preferential treatment! Under I-1000 'preferential treatment' only happens when race or gender is the 'sole' factor in choosing someone – a nearly impossible standard to prove."[20]

* Reject I-1000 argued in favor of I-200, writing, "I-200 does not end all affirmative action programs. It does not end outreach programs, it does not end affirmative action based on helping people who are lower-income or economically disadvantaged. I-200 prohibits only those programs that use race or gender to select a less qualified applicant over a more deserving applicant for a public job, contract or admission to a state college or university."[20]

* Washington Asians for Equality argued, "I-1000’s ballot title also claims that it doesn’t allow 'preferential treatment', but only because the measure changes the definition of preferential treatment. In short, it exists only when one applicant is chosen over another 'solely' because of race. That means discrimination can take place if race is used in addition to one other quality. This is the very definition of discrimination. I-1000’s ballot title claims that it does not allow 'quotas'. The truth is that racial quotas would be implemented under I-1000 Sections 3(8), 3(9), and 3(11), with a 'disparity' study to count by race, goals to enroll and hire by race, and timetables enforced by bureaucrats."[25]

* The Washington State Veterans Bar Association said it opposes "any legislation that would remove veterans' preference or harm Washington's veteran community with regard to job placement or recognition of veteran status."[21]

|

#### Official arguments[edit]

Following are the official arguments in opposition to Referendum 88 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2019 general election. Click [show] to expand the arguments.

R-88 official opposing arguments

|  “  |

Referendum 88 Would Divide Us

Let’s start where we all agree: There’s too much division in our society today. We need solutions that bring us together. But Referendum 88 (also known as Initiative 1000) creates more division by allowing the government to inject race into college admissions and government employment. That’s wrong. And it drives us further apart.

R-88 Would Allow Government-Sponsored Discrimination

Referendum 88 allows the government to use different rules for different races in deciding who gets into state colleges and universities, who gets hired for jobs in state, county or city government, and who gets a government contract. By separating people this way, Referendum 88 drives a deeper wedge into our community and actually empowers those who would divide us.

As a community we must not let that happen.

R-88 Would Damage Progress Already Made on Diversity

Referendum 88 would overturn a voter-approved state law that forbids discrimination and preferences based on race and gender. And the law has worked well. Our college campuses are more diverse now than before the current law was enacted.

R-88 Lacks Accountability

Referendum 88 would create a massive government agency to enforce the use of race in government employment, college admissions and public contracting. Referendum 88 would be overseen by an unelected board that would not be accountable to voters. A board with sweeping authority to make decisions on preferences in academic admissions and government hiring. Send the Olympia politicians who support this a message: Reject Referendum 88!

Rebuttal of argument for: Referendum 88 (I-1000) uses quotas and harms Veterans. Since 1895, Washington has guaranteed honorably discharged and disabled veterans a preference in public employment. Referendum 88 eliminates that preference through a hidden loophole in Section 3. Racial quotas are implemented under Sections 8, 9, and 11, with a “disparity” study to count by race, goals to enroll and hire by race, and timetables enforced by bureaucrats. Quotas harm everyone, including our Veterans. Reject Referendum 88.[8]

|  ”

|
|

These arguments were prepared by Yvonne Kinoshita Ward, Democratic Party National Delegate; Thomas G. Jarrard, former chair of the Washington State Veterans Bar Association; Mary A. Radcliffe, former co-chair of the Diversity Committee of the Episcopal Diocese; Kan Qiu, a Tiananmen Square survivor and chair of the American Coalition for Equality; and John Carlson, morning radio broadcaster for 570 KVI.[9]

## Media editorials[edit]

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements

### Support for an approve vote[edit]

* The Columbian: "Historically, in Washington and elsewhere, it does not take much effort to find examples of exclusion based on race or gender — be it in housing, education, employment or simply the ability to procure a loan. Much progress has been made to abolish such discrimination, but it would be naive to suggest that no more is necessary. Initiative 1000 would allow Washington to continue its progress toward becoming a more inclusive state that truly provides equal opportunity for all."[26]

* The Seattle Times: "Diversity makes institutions stronger, but good intentions are not enough to lift the unfair burden of societal inequality. Our public institutions must actively work to reflect the communities they serve. A vote to approve Referendum 88 would allow public employers and colleges to do so, by taking diversity into account as one factor in public employment, government contracts, and public education. ... Referendum 88 gives voters the power to eliminate that competitive disadvantage, enabling our state’s public colleges and universities to recruit a diverse pool of excellent students and faculty, enriching the educational experience of all."[27]

* The Tacoma News Tribune: "The measure would give public employers and state universities more latitude when selecting candidates for jobs, government contracts, and academic admission. They’d be free to consider a person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability or military experience — as long as it’s not the deciding factor. ... Why would an Asian lobby want to derail I-1000? To defend the many Asian students who have top grades and test scores, which could be devalued under a more holistic approach to university admissions. What they want is pure meritocracy. But that’s not the world we know, nor the one we want to live in. Test scores and grades measure intelligence; they don’t always reflect the grit, curiosity, independent thinking or life experience that make public institutions richer. ... There’s a reason why 42 states have chosen not to ban affirmative action. It’s time for Washington to rejoin the ranks by approving R-88."[28]

* The Yakima Herald-Republic: "This state has made many strides forward in the past 20 years, but Latinos, Native Americans and African Americans still lag in educational and economic attainment. The state’s touted tech sector sees many gender inequalities. Supporters made a strong case that ethnic and gender diversity in the education and business fields inspires younger generations to believe that they can succeed, too. ... With no quotas or preferences resulting from this measure, Referendum 88 warrants a yes vote."[29]

* The Olympian: "Voting yes on the statewide Referendum 88 will help level the playing field for people it’s been tilted against. It’s a very limited affirmative action measure targeted on the goal of fairness in K-12 and higher education, government jobs, and government contracts."[30]

* The Union-Bulletin: "Approval of I-88, and thus I-1000, won’t create a massive shift in state hiring and college admissions. It will, however, offer reasonable steps to allow the state to seek out minority and female candidates, which should ultimately make Washington stronger."[31]

### Support for a reject vote[edit]

* Wall Street Journal: Those supporting Referendum 88 adopt the defense that Harvard’s admissions department has been giving: Yes, we want to discriminate, but it’s not 'preferential treatment' because race or gender or sexual orientation isn’t the 'sole qualifying factor.' ... We’d all be spared this back and forth on racial preferences if the Supreme Court would come down definitively against them instead of giving hazy guidelines. Meantime, the people of Washington have an opportunity to reinforce America’s constitutional guarantee against government prejudice based on skin color. Diversity and inclusion have been advancing in the state under current law."[32]

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page was last updated according to the most recent reports available on December 11, 2019.

Total campaign contributions:

Support for "yes" |  $1,885,431.50
Support for "no" |  $1,523,616.07

Ballotpedia identified three committees registered in support of an approve vote: Approve I-1000, Washington Fairness Coalition, and One Washington Equality Campaign. The committees reported $1.89 million in contributions and $1.81 million in expenditures.[5]

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered in support of a reject vote: Let People Vote/ Reject R-88 and Grassroots Against I-1000. The committees reported $1.52 million in contributions and $1.49 million in expenditures.[5]

### Support for an approve vote[edit]

| Committees in support of a "yes" vote on Washington Referendum 88

"Yes" vote committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Approve I-1000| $0.00| $0.00| $0.00
One Washington Equality Campaign| $229,388.62| $247,132.71| $504,613.14
Washington Fairness Coalition| $1,298,743.20| $110,166.97| $943,910.15
Total| $1,528,131.82| $357,299.68| $1,448,523.29
| "Yes" vote totals

Total raised:| $1,885,431.50
Total spent:| $1,805,822.97

#### Top donors[edit]

The top five donors were as follows:[5]

Donor  |  Cash  |  In-kind  |  Total

|
|
|

Group Health Community Foundation  |  $550,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $550,000.00
Foster Pepper  |  $0.00  |  $228,641.57  |  $228,641.57
Washington Federation of State Employees Council 28  |  $100,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $100,000.00
SEIU Initiative Fund  |  $115,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $115,000.00
ACLU of Washington  |  $0.00  |  $94,118.00  |  $94,118.00

### Support for a reject vote[edit]

| Committees in support of a "no" vote on Washington Referendum 88

"No" vote committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Let People Vote/ Reject R-88| $1,439,591.14| $5,210.00| $1,351,742.58
Grassroots Against I-1000| $76,123.98| $2,690.95| $78,764.33
Total| $1,515,715.12| $7,900.95| $1,430,506.91
| "No" vote totals

Total raised:| $1,523,616.07
Total spent:| $1,438,407.86

#### Top donors[edit]

The top five donors were as follows:[5]

Donor  |  Cash  |  In-kind  |  Total

|
|
|

F.K. Freeman  |  $50,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $50,000.00
George Rowley  |  $39,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $39,000.00
Bruce McCaw  |  $20,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $20,000.00
Sizzling Pot King  |  $17,780.00  |  $0.00  |  $17,780.00
George Osborne  |  $16,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $16,000.00

### Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

## Background[edit]

Washington I-200 of 1998 banned preferential treatment in Washington. I-1000, which was designed to allow affirmative action in Washington, was an Initiative to the Legislature that the 2019 legislature approved. Since the legislature approved I-1000, it was not placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. Since Referendum 88 was a veto referendum targeting I-1000, the certification of R-88 required a public vote on I-1000, meaning that R-88 appeared on the ballot with the options to approve or reject I-1000.

### Affirmative action[edit]

See also: Affirmative action, State affirmative action information, and Affirmative action in Washington

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies adopted by governments and institutions to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. These measures have taken many different forms, including quotas, extra outreach efforts, and student financial aid specifically for minorities. Affirmative action policies can most often be found in government employment and university admissions. Racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[33] To read more about affirmative action in Washington, click here.

### Washington Initiative 200 (1998)[edit]

See also: Washington Initiative 200, Affirmative Action Initiative (1998)

Washington I-200 appeared on the ballot as an Initiative to the Legislature for the election on November 3, 1998. I-200 was sponsored by Tim Eyman, a frequent sponsor of initiatives in Washington. Voters approved I-200 in a vote of 58.22% to 41.78%. I-200 prohibited public institutions from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the areas of public education, public employment, and public contracting.[34][35]

The Washington Supreme Court has interpreted I-200 as prohibiting "reverse discrimination where race or gender is used by [the] government to select a less qualified applicant over a more qualified applicant." The Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued an opinion in 2017 stating, "I-200 does not prohibit all race- and sex-conscious measures. Rather, it prohibits only measures that have the effect of elevating less qualified contractors over more qualified contractors."[36]

### Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure[edit]

See also: Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure (2019)

Initiative 1000 was designed to allow affirmative action (without the use of quotas and preferential treatment) by the state of Washington. This means that characteristics such as race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status can be used as factors when considering a person for public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunities. I-1000 bans preferential treatment, meaning those characteristics could not be the sole factor when considering a person for education or employment opportunities. The measure was designed to create the Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the measure, and is required to issue an annual report on the progress of state agencies in achieving the measure's goal of "guaranteeing every resident of Washington state equal opportunity and access to public education, public employment."

The state legislature approved I-1000 largely along party lines with all votes in favor coming from Democratic legislators. I-1000 was approved in a vote of 56-42 in the House and 26-22 in the Senate. In the House, one Democrat, Brian Blake of District 19b, joined all House Republicans in voting no. Two Senate Democrats, Mark Mullet of District 5 and Tim Sheldon of District 35, joined the 20 Senate Republicans in voting no. Senator Guy Palumbo (D-1) was excused from voting.

### Affirmative action bans in other states[edit]

As of 2019, seven other states banned affirmative action at public universities. In Arizona, California, Michigan, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, the bans were put on the statewide ballot and approved by voters. In New Hampshire, the ban was passed by the legislature. In Florida, Governor Jeb Bush created the ban through executive order.[37]

The following constitutional amendments prohibited discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting:

* California Proposition 209, Affirmative Action Initiative (1996)
* Michigan Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative (2006)
* Nebraska Measure 424, Affirmative Action Initiative (2008)
* Oklahoma State Question 759, Affirmative Action Amendment (2012)

The Oklahoma measure was referred to the ballot by the state legislature while the California, Michigan, and Nebraska measures were initiated by citizens.

The Arizona Proposition 107 of 2010, a legislatively referred amendment, banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, community colleges, and school districts.

### Veto referendums in Washington[edit]

See also: How many veto referendums have there been in Washington?

Since the first in 1914, Washington voters have decided 37 statewide veto referendum measures at the ballot.

A veto referendum is a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature. Opponents of the law collect signatures for the veto referendum petition hoping that voters will repeal it at the ballot. The most recent veto referendum was on the ballot in Washington in 2012. In 81% of cases (30 of 37), the veto referendum resulted in the targeted bill being repealed. Conversely, 19% (seven of 37) of veto referendum measures resulted in the targeted law being upheld. In Washington, successful veto referendum petitions suspend the targeted law until the veto referendum is placed on the ballot and voted on in an election.

The veto referendum ballot measure is also known as a popular referendum, people's veto, or citizen's veto. In Washington, these are called referendum measures. Washington uses the term referendum bills for proposed laws referred to voters by the legislature. There are 23 states that have a process for veto referendums.

### Initiatives to the Legislature[edit]

See also: Initiatives to the Legislature (Washington)

I-1000 was an Initiative to the Legislature (ITL). Initiative to the Legislature is the name of indirect initiated state statutes in the state of Washington. Upon signature verification, these initiatives go before the Washington Legislature at its next regular legislative session in January. The legislature must take one of three actions:

* The legislature can adopt the initiative as proposed, in which case it becomes law without a vote of the people.
* The legislature can reject or refuse to act on the proposed initiative, in which case the initiative must be placed on the ballot at the next state general election.
* The legislature can approve an alternative to the proposed initiative, in which case both the original proposal and the legislature's alternative must be placed on the ballot at the next state general election.

Besides Initiatives to the Legislature, Washington citizens may initiate Initiatives to the People (ITP). These initiatives are direct initiatives, meaning that groups collect signatures and once enough valid signatures are collected, election officials place the measure on the next general election ballot for a vote.

### Initiatives to the Legislature challenged by veto referendums[edit]

Of all ITLs that had been certified to the legislature prior to 2019, five have been approved by the legislature. Referendum efforts were subsequently filed against two of the ITLs and succeeded in overturning them. Thirty-three ITLs were placed on the ballot for voter approval after having been rejected by the legislature or receiving no action from the legislature.[38][39]

ITLs passed by the Legislature:

* ITL 2 of 1935
* ITL 12 of 1943 (invalidated by Referendum Measure 25)
* ITL 99 of 1989
* ITL 159 of 1995
* ITL 164 of 1995 (invalidated by Referendum Measure 48)

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

### The state process[edit]

In Washington, the number of signatures required to qualify a veto referendum for the ballot is equal to 4 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election. Signatures must be submitted 90 days following the adjournment of the legislative session during which the targeted bill was passed.

The requirements to get a veto referendum certified for the 2019 ballot:

* Signatures: 129,811 valid signatures

The secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method. If the sample indicates that the measure has sufficient signatures, the measure is certified for the ballot. However, if the sample indicates that the measure has insufficient signatures, every signature is checked. Under Washington law, a random sample result may not invalidate a petition.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Ballot Access to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $837,177.88 was spent to collect the 259,622 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.22.

### Details about this veto referendum[edit]

* The Washington Initiative 1000 petition was certified as sufficient on February 7, 2019, sending it to the legislature.
* The state legislature approved I-1000 on April 28, 2019.
* This referendum petition was submitted by Kan Qiu, president of the American Coalition for Equality, on April 29, 2019.[7]
* Proponents of the referendum petition effort submitted 213,268 signatures by the deadline on July 27, 2019. [40]
* The secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot on August 7, 2019. In a random sample check of 6,399 signatures, the secretary of state's office found that 5,528 were valid, suggesting a signature validity rate of 86.4%. This means that of 213,268 signatures submitted by proponents, 184,239 were deemed valid through the random sample verification. To qualify for the ballot, 129,811 valid signatures were required.[41]
* Supporters of I-1000 filed a legal challenge against Referendum 88's ballot language, but the challenge was dismissed by a Thurston County Superior Court judge on September 5, 2019.[42]

## How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in Washington

### Poll times[edit]

In Washington, individuals who prefer to vote in person rather than by mail may do so at voting centers, which are open during business hours for 18 days prior to the election. The voting period ends at 8:00 p.m. on the day of the election. Contact your county elections department for more information on voting center locations and times.[43]

### Registration requirements[edit]

To vote in Washington, one must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Washington, and at least 18 years of age.[44]

One may register to vote online, by mail, or in-person at a county elections department. Registration must be completed eight days in advance if done by mail or online. In-person registration is available through Election Day.[45]

In 2018, Washington lawmakers adopted legislation providing for same-day voter registration and automatic voter registration beginning in 2019.[46]

### Automatic registration[edit]

Washington automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, health benefit exchange, and other state agencies approved by the governor.

### Online registration[edit]

See also: Online voter registration

Washington has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

### Same-day registration[edit]

Washington allows same-day voter registration.

### Residency requirements[edit]

Washington law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

### Verification of citizenship[edit]

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Washington does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

### Verifying your registration[edit]

The site Vote WA, run by the Washington Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

### Voter ID requirements[edit]

Washington requires voters to present photo identification while voting in person. However, most voters in Washington vote by mail.[47]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of November 2019. Click here for the Washington State Legislature's voter ID regulations to ensure you have the most current information.

* Driver's license
* State identification card
* Student identification card
* Tribal identification card
* Employer identification card

### Background[edit]

As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.[48][49]

## See also[edit]

2019 measures

* 2019 ballot measures
* Affirmative action on the ballot
* 2019 petition deadlines

Washington

* Washington ballot measures
* Washington initiative laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls
* Ballot measure signature costs

|
|

## External links[edit]

* Proposed Referendum Measures
* Chinese translation of Initiative 1000
* Referendum 88/Initiative 1000 full text
* R-88 fiscal impact statement
* Washington 2019 General Election Voters' Guide
* Washington 2019 General Election Voters' Guide (PDF version)

### Support for an approve vote[edit]

* WA Fairness: Approve I-1000/ R-88 campaign website
* WA Fairness: Approve I-1000/ R-88 Facebook page
* WA Fairness: Approve I-1000/ R-88 Twitter page

### Support for a reject vote[edit]

* Let People Vote (Reject I-1000) campaign website
* Let People Vote Facebook page
* Let People Vote Twitter page
* Reject R-88 campaign website
* Reject R-88 Facebook page
* Reject R-88 Twitter page

|

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Characteristics included in the definition of preferential treatment in I-1000 include race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status
2. ↑ Characteristics included in the definition of affirmative action in I-1000 include race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status
3. ↑ Initiatives to the Legislature that are not approved by the legislature (or that do not receive action from the legislature) go before voters for their approval or rejection.
4. ↑ Washington Legislature, "Initiative 1000 legislative votes," accessed April 29, 2019
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Washington PDC, "Initiative Committees (Statewide)," accessed October 30, 2019
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Washington Secretary of State, "Initiative #1000 Full text," accessed September 19, 2018
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Washington Secretary of State, "Proposed Initiatives to the People - 2018," accessed September 19, 2018 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "SoS" defined multiple times with different content
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `guide`
10. ↑ Washington PDC, "Approve I-1000, 2019," accessed July 30, 2019
11. ↑ Washington PDC, "Approve R-88: Opportunities for All, 2019," accessed August 12, 2019
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `yes`
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 The Stand, "Approve R-88 coalition backs Initiative 1000," accessed August 12, 2019
14. ↑ WA Fairness, "Support for I-1000," accessed October 21, 2019
15. ↑ Twitter: Patty Murray, "5:50 PM · Nov 3, 2019 Tweet," accessed November 4, 2019
16. ↑ WA Fairness, "About," accessed September 23, 2019
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 King 5, "New campaign to repeal Washington's ban on affirmative action," accessed January 6, 2019
18. ↑ Reject I-1000, "Home," accessed July 30, 2019
19. ↑ Washington Asians for Equality, "Initiative 1000 Wants to Bring Back Preferential Treatment," November 12, 2018
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Let People Vote, "Home," accessed June 24, 2019
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Washington State Veterans Bar Association, "Statement of opposition to R-88," accessed September 24, 2019
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Reject 88, "Endorsement," accessed October 21, 2019
23. ↑ Washington State Republican Party, "Endorsements," accessed October 29, 2019
24. ↑ Voters Want More Choices, "LIBERAL INITIATIVE I-1000 WILL NOT QUALIFY — HERE’S WHY WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT," accessed November 27, 2018
25. ↑ Ballotpedia staff, email communication with Washington Asians for Equality, September 23, 2019
26. ↑ The Columbian, "In Our View: End affirmative action ban, vote yes on Ref. 88," accessed October 18, 2019
27. ↑ Seattle Times, "The Times recommends: Approve Referendum 88 for societal equality," accessed October 18, 2019
28. ↑ Bellingham Herald, "Endorsement: Restore affirmative action with a ‘yes’ on R-88. Because Washington’s not as inclusive as some think," accessed October 21, 2019
29. ↑ Yakima Herald, "Editorial: Vote yes on Referendum 88," accessed October 25, 2019
30. ↑ The Olympian, "The Olympian’s endorsements for Referendum 88 and Proposition 1," accessed October 25, 2019
31. ↑ Union-Bulletin, "Election 2019: Approval of R-88 would benefit Washington," accessed October 28, 2019
32. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Legalizing Discrimination," accessed October 25, 2019
33. ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
34. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action: State Action," accessed April 21, 2015
35. ↑ Washington State Legislature, "RCW 49.60.400," accessed May 6, 2015
36. ↑ Washington State Office of the Attorney General, "USE OF RACE- OR SEX-CONSCIOUS MEASURES OR PREFERENCES TO REMEDY DISCRIMINATION IN STATE CONTRACTING," accessed August 9, 2019
37. ↑ The Century Foundation, "What Can We Learn from States That Ban Affirmative Action?," accessed August 21, 2019
38. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Initiatives to the Legislature," accessed July 25, 2019
39. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Referendum measures," accessed July 25, 2019
40. ↑ Let People Vote, "Sign Referendum Measure 88, Let Washingtonians Vote On I-1000," accessed July 25, 2019
41. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Petition status of R-88," accessed August 7, 2019
42. ↑ Seattle Times, "Judge dismisses challenge to voter-pamphlet language describing new Washington affirmative-action law," accessed September 5, 2019
43. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, “Frequently Asked Questions on Voting by Mail,” accessed February 20, 2020
44. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Voter Eligibility," accessed October 8, 2019
45. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Voters," accessed October 8, 2019
46. ↑ The Hill, "Wash. gov signs universal voter registration law," March 20, 2018
47. ↑ Washington State Legislature, "RCW 29A.40.160 Voting centers." accessed October 6, 2019
48. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Identification Requirements|Voter ID Laws," June 5, 2017
49. ↑ The Washington Post, "Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states," October 27, 2014

v • e

2019 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Colorado • Maine • Washington

Non I&R States|

• Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • Pennsylvania • Texas

Political topics|

• Administration of government‎ • Affirmative action‎ • Bond issues‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Healthcare‎ • Law enforcement‎ • Property‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Taxes‎ • Treatment of animals‎ • Water‎

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2019 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

v • e

State of Washington
Olympia (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | 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