This election reporting is provided free to all readers as a public service by your locally owned Cascadia Daily News. Thanks for supporting truly local news by donating to CDN or subscribing here.
Initiative 2117, Washington Climate Act repeal
The slogan for the “no” campaign against Initiative 2117, which would repeal Washington’s Climate Commitment Act, is a rare case of political truth-in-advertising: “It’s a bad deal for Washington.”
Cascadia Daily News Editorial Board agrees with that assessment.
The initiative, actively opposed by a rare coalition of small-business, labor, tribal, firefighter, agricultural and environmental groups, would repeal the state’s cap-and-trade carbon program that went into effect in January 2023.
Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050, largely by taxing carbon producers and emitters. The program has already added more than $2.2 billion to state coffers via “pollution permits” purchased by industry at state auctions.
The idea is to reinject that money back into the state economy through green programs. Hundreds of millions of dollars in such funding already has landed in Northwest Washington, enhancing fish habitat, accelerating green energy conversion and providing cleaner transportation in Whatcom and Skagit counties.
Of particular interest to local voters is the CCA’s contribution of tens of millions of dollars in funding for community wildfire resilience across the state. This is a solid initial investment in protecting vulnerable rural communities along the heavily forested west slopes of the Cascade Mountains from wildfire risks accelerated by climate change.
The chief argument in favor of the repeal — speculation that it would reduce prices of gasoline in Washington state — is not sufficient reason to toss aside broader environmental benefits.
We agree with those who argue that economically strapped lower- to middle-income residents should not do the heaviest lifting when it comes to financing costly climate initiatives. But the state’s onerous gas tax, at 49 cents per gallon, is a larger driver than the CCA in keeping Washington’s gas prices among the highest in the nation. The gas tax is central to an overall tax structure that continues to rank among the most regressive in America.
The price of expensive infrastructure needs in a growing region clearly needs to be spread across a broader base of wealth in relatively income-rich Washington state.
But pulling the rug from beneath the state CCA isn’t a smart way to go about it. Even if one accepts the argument that the CCA since inception has added 40 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas — and further, that the price would magically drop with the act’s repeal — we believe upending the state’s signature climate legislation is an ill-advised remedy.
We strongly encourage a “no” vote, betting instead on a greener future.
Initiative 2109, Capital Gains Tax repeal
This ballot measure would repeal Washington’s capital gains tax, which was approved by the Legislature in 2021. The law imposes a 7% tax on the sale of long-term capital assets, such as stocks, bonds and businesses.
It applies only to gains over $262,000 and does not apply to real estate. As an example, if a taxpayer has capital gains of $300,000, they would pay the 7% tax on only $38,000 (the amount over $262,000).
Up to $500 million of the tax receipts are earmarked for schools, learning and child care programs. The tax brought in $786 million in 2023 and $433 million as of May 15 this year.
About 4,000 taxpayers in Washington are affected by the tax, including an estimated 55 in Whatcom County.
A “yes” vote is a vote to repeal the capital gains tax. A “no” vote is a vote to keep the tax.
CDN believes the capital gains tax is an important and needed source of revenue in a state that has one of the most regressive tax structures in the country. The Institute on Tax and Economic Policy says that only Florida is more regressive.
According to the ITEP, the poorest fifth of Washington taxpayers pay 13.8% of their family income in state and local taxes, while the richest 1% pay only 4.1%.
We strongly recommend a “no” vote on Initiative 2109.
Initiative 2124, Washington Long Term Care Act repeal
What’s wrong with “giving workers a choice” in funding a pooled long-term care program? It’s likely to kill the state’s only public option altogether, a number of health care analysts agree.
The eventual death of what’s now known as the “WA Cares” program is the likely effect of approving Initiative 2124, which would overturn a law requiring state workers to pay into an insurance fund to cover the impacts of a surgery, a debilitating condition, or age-related decline.
Most of the state’s 4.1 million workers currently contribute 58 cents for every $100 earned into a fund that could provide up to $36,000 per insured individual for expenses such as caretaking, equipment and meals. The tax was launched in 2023; its first payouts are expected in 2026.
CDN urges a “no” vote on this initiative, which many experts agree would kill the state’s fledgling long-term care insurance fund, leaving many workers with no such coverage at all.
Initiative supporters credibly argue that the state tax, which suffered long delays in rollouts, is off to a shaky start. But it is preferable to no publicly financed program at all to take on the skyrocketing cost of long-term care for individuals.
Initiative opponents are correct in calling the measure a penny-wise, pound-foolish diversion that would leave many or most state citizens with no long-term care insurance. The greatest impact, groups such as AARP and the Washington State Nurses Association argue, would be on working women, who are often forced to leave jobs to provide unpaid care for ill or aging family members.
CDN agrees, urging a no vote on Initiative 2124.
Initiative 2066, Natural gas access
This ballot measure would prohibit state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas and would bar state agencies and utilities from restricting or penalizing the use of natural gas.
Initiative 2066 contains a dizzying array of double negatives, but this is what it boils down to:
- A “yes” vote means you support prohibiting the state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas or penalizing its use.
- A “no” vote means you support keeping laws and policies designed to restrict natural gas usage and encourage conversion to electricity.
Proponents of Initiative 2066 say it will preserve consumers’ rights to choose the energy they use in their homes and protect them from having to make expensive conversions to electric power.
Opponents say the measure would take away communities’ rights to enact energy conservation policies, repeal measures intended to make Washington more energy-efficient and slow the state’s progress toward using cleaner energy.
Some endorsement decisions are easy, making a choice obvious. That’s not the case here. Both supporters and opponents of Initiative 2066 have made reasonable arguments.
State and local measures to require or encourage greater use of electricity have the laudable goal of moving our region toward a clean energy future. We believe in that future. But we are concerned that such measures may be too much too soon — and that the electric grid that supplies that power is not yet as green as it should be.
Puget Sound Energy says it is producing about 43% of its electricity from “clean” sources — hydro and wind. But 23% of PSE’s electricity is sourced from coal and 23% from natural gas. It makes little environmental sense to force a business to switch from natural gas to electricity if that electricity has natural gas and coal as a big part of its source.
We are also concerned that the immediate costs of conversion to electricity would be borne by those who can least afford it. And let’s face it: Many people find natural gas to be a superior energy source for cooking and heating.
Another factor — particularly in rural and exurban parts of Whatcom County — is the present reliability of electric power. As climate change has made winter storms more powerful, power outages — some hours long — have become more frequent, forcing consumers to endure dark, cold homes or fire up generators powered by gasoline or natural gas.
While we support a phased-in switching of energy consumption to electricity, we share concerns that the current pace of transition is too fast, and possibly even counter-productive.
CDN recommends a “yes” vote on Initiative 2066.
Supreme Court justices make life/death decisions, but could they carry your mail?