Which controversial Washington ballot measures will win in November?
Oct 16, 2018, 1:30 PM | Updated: 3:08 pm
(AP)
(AP)
A handful of controversial measures are on the ballot for Washington voters to decide on, making for what’s sure to be a contentious election cycle.
RELATED: Is I-1634 about groceries, soda taxes, or union jobs?
Highlights on the ballot include another attempt at a carbon fee, a potential ban on the much-maligned soda tax, comprehensive gun control measures, and changes to the standards for deadly force in relation to law enforcement.
But do any of these have a chance to pass?
I-1634
I-1634 stands as the legislation that would prohibit specific taxes on groceries, and more specifically, soda. The measure already has upwards of $13 million in contributions, a large majority of which has come straight from the soda industry, compared to just $8,000 in contributions for the “no on I-1634” campaign.
While I-1634 wouldn’t cancel out Seattle’s own controversial soda tax, it would still restrict any similar taxes from being enacted statewide.
Many voters remain undecided on the measure, but a small poll conducted by Crosscut/Elway suggested that it faces a tough uphill battle, citing 51 percent against, 31 percent for, and 18 percent undecided.
I-940
I-940 comes about in a time where use of deadly force by law enforcement is under the national spotlight. If passed, it would require a “good faith” test to determine whether the use of deadly force is justified in specific cases, police would be required to undergo “de-escalation” training, and officers would also have to provide first aid to boot.
The measure has law enforcement groups split. King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht and former King County Sheriff John Urquhart have both endorsed it, along with the Black Law Enforcement Association of Washington, and two retired Seattle Police chiefs.
Coming out against the legislation is the Council of Metropolitan Police and Sheriffs (COMPAS), an organization that includes police officer guilds for both King County and Seattle.
In February 2018, the measure showed that 45 percent of voters polled would “definitely vote in favor,” 24 percent would “probably vote in favor,” 14 percent would “definitely vote against,” and another 14 percent would “probably vote against.”
I-1639
If there’s one issue at the forefront of voter minds this November, it’s gun control. Multiple school shootings have had the country on edge, with some calling for tighter restrictions on gun ownership, and others still arguing that it’s more important now than ever that the 2nd Amendment be observed.
Enter I-1639, a measure that represents what would be the most sweeping, comprehensive gun control legislation in any state. If passed, it would enact waiting periods and background checks on the purchase of semiautomatic weapons, an increase to the minimum age for purchasing semiautomatic weapons from 18 to 21, storage requirements for firearms, and a class-C felony for any gun owner whose firearm is used by an unlicensed party.
Politico estimates that approximately 68 percent of registered voters in the United States support stricter gun legislation, while a recent Crosscut poll calculates that 59 percent of Washington’s voters approve of the legislation.
There’s been a good deal of money thrown around on both sides of the debate. The late Paul Allen contributed $1.2 million to the “yes on I-1639” side, while the “Save Our Security” campaign has raised over $13,000 in opposition (along with $100,000 from the Washington chapter of the NRA).
I-1631
Known commonly as a carbon fee, I-1631 has climate scientists divided on just how effectual it would be should it pass. University of Washington Atmospheric Sciences Professor Cliff Mass warns that “anybody who is concerned about climate change should vote against 1631.”
I-1631 would levy a $15 fee per metric ton of carbon, starting in 2020. That fee will increase by $2 every year after that. The revenue would benefit environmental programs related to climate change, overseen by an independent council. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a carbon tax of $27,000 per ton of carbon would be a necessity by 2100.
Mass’s main argument centers around the fact that “1631 is so partisan, it will never serve as a model for the rest of the country.” If voted in, through, the fee would be the first of its kind in the United States, hence the need to set a good example.
Washington voted down a carbon fee in 2016, while another proposed fee was struck down in the state Legislature earlier in 2018.
Washington voters have a good deal to decide this November. Whether any of these are approved or not, the way the state functions could very well be fundamentally changed once Election Day comes to a close.
